Re: Using GPS to location-tag images
Stan Halpin wrote: Thanks Mark. Given that Derby and you had produced two possible solutions, I just did a Google to see if there might be others out there. ... 2. http://www.prairie.mb.ca/product/pg-photolink.php ... 3. http://oregonstate.edu/~earlyj/gpsphotolinker/ ... Now I just need a good cheap GPS... stan I've just started playing with this sort of thing, so hopefully my suggestions will be of some help. Another geotagging alternative is GPicSync (http://code.google.com/p/gpicsync/) - free, for Windows Linux. This will take a track log from a GPSr, and use this to geo-code PEF DNG files, as well as JPG - make sure you accurately set the time on your camera, or know how much it is out by! It will also create a kml file for Google Earth showing both your route and your photo locations, eg: http://www.ddixon.force9.co.uk/misc/doc.kml - note that this part of GE's data is a few metres adrift! As an added bonus, Lightroom is GPS-tag aware, and will link a tagged raw file to its location in Google Maps. David -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: Well.. I did my best (comet photo)
Charles Robinson wrote: http://charles.robinsontwins.org/images/imgp5058b.jpg Did anyone else manage to finally see this elusive thing? Good effort Charles! Much better than my attempt - got a brief look at the comet on the 11th, but the weather here in NE England was not too clement. http://www.ddixon.force9.co.uk/McNaught1.jpg (cropped from original) http://www.ddixon.force9.co.uk/McNaught2.jpg (Comet detail; EXIF data retained). David -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D with AF540FGZ
J and K Messervy wrote: I received my flash the other day and have been playing with it a bit indoors and out. First impressions are good, however the exposure results in P-TTL are a little disappointing. I'm finding that for a shot indoors of my kids or similar at quite close range, bouncing off the white ceiling, I get spot on results...but only when I've set the flash exposure compensation to +1. Anyone have any suggestions? Cheers James OK, here's my suggestions: 1. Perhaps the camera deliberately underexposes slightly with flash - keep it with +1 comp. and forget about it? 2. A lens-specific problem. With P-TTL, the pre-flash is at full aperture, and the strength of the main flash is calculated from this. If the lens stops down to say f/11 when it should be f/8, you'll get underexposure. I've run into exactly this problem recently. Test by comparing images in manual mode (no flash) with the same settings, but do 1 shot with the aperture set in-camera (i.e. lens on A), and another with the aperture set to the same nominal value using the lens aperture ring. Exposures should be identical, so any difference means the aperture actuator (either on lens or body) is miscalibrated. 3. P-TTL seems to use focus distance in its calculations, so perhaps close-up pictures using bounce flash cause the camera to throttle the flash output too much? Again, mis-information from the lens re distance (is it a Pentax lens?) may be a cause. David -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A problem of reassembly
Ann Sanfedele wrote: William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: David Dixon Subject: Re: A problem of reassembly Place the filter up to your eye, and look at yourself in a mirror. If the camera-side is nearest you, you will be able to see the reflection of your eye. If the camera-side is away from you, your eye will appear black. Hope this helps! Good tip, David It's the little nuggets of information like this that really make this list worthwhile. William Robb Except that it isn't true... if you rotate the polarizer with it facing in eitehr direction you can give yourself a black eye at least with my tiffin polartizer ann Ann, Rotating the filter shouldn't make any difference - if it does, it suggests there is another polarising layer present. Tinted glasses or a fancy mirror perhaps? If not, you must have a peculiar polarising filter as both theory practice say that my method should work for circular polarisers, and this is the basis for some of the more expensive anti-glare filters for monitors, etc. John - did this work for your filter? David
Re: A problem of reassembly
John Francis wrote: I was out shooting yesterday, and my polarizing filter fell off the front of the lens and onto the path. Fortunately the glass didn't break, but it did pop out of the filter holder, leaving me with three pieces to reassemble - holder, glass and retaining clip. My problem is - which side of the filter should be to the front? There are no distinguishing marks, but I believe that (as it's a circular polarizer) the way it goes in is important. So - how do I find out which is the right way round? John, Place the filter up to your eye, and look at yourself in a mirror. If the camera-side is nearest you, you will be able to see the reflection of your eye. If the camera-side is away from you, your eye will appear black. Hope this helps! David
*istD built-in flash - update
A few weeks ago I mentioned that my the built-in flash on my *istD had failed 18 months after purchase (and outside the 1 year guarantee). Well, I wrote a polite letter to the retailer's head office (Jacobs - a smallish chain of UK photo shops) asking them to repair it since the problem was most likely due to a latent fault at the time of sale. They agreed to take the camera back, forwarded it to Pentax UK, who forwarded it to Pentax Europe, who have replaced the flash PCB at no cost to me. The camera returned today and works fine. Although UK consumer law was on my side, I was expecting to have a bit of a fight to persuade the shop to honour their obligations, so I've been pleasantly surprised by the excellent service from Jacobs. I'm now very glad I bought my camera from a real shop rather than an internet site; I can't imagine many of them would have been as helpful. David
Re: *istD and built-in flash
Thank you Leon, Max, Dave William. It looks as if this *is* a weakness with the *istD, but fortunately doesn't affect too many owners. Based on this, its probably worth trying to get Pentax UK to foot the repair bill. David Leon Altoff wrote: David, My first *istD developed this fault. When it was repaired they used an upgraded circuit board. This may mean that they knew it was a weak spot and have fixed it but didn't think it was worth a recall. I don't know when they changed the board but it was in the first year as I got one of the first D's in Australia (first shipment released for sale) and had it repaired under warranty. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon David Dixon wrote: Reading about Don's problems with his *istD and built-in flash has prompted me to write. My *istD developed a similar problem while using the built-in flash - no charging, coupled with apparent draining of the batteries and refusal to trip the shutter. The flash charging circuitry is obviously damaged and it needs a repair. If this is an unfortunate one-off then so be it, but if this is a common fault I'll try to persuade the retailer to fix it for free (of course, warranty has expired ...). So - how many other *istD owners have had this problem? David
*istD and built-in flash
Reading about Don's problems with his *istD and built-in flash has prompted me to write. My *istD developed a similar problem while using the built-in flash - no charging, coupled with apparent draining of the batteries and refusal to trip the shutter. The flash charging circuitry is obviously damaged and it needs a repair. If this is an unfortunate one-off then so be it, but if this is a common fault I'll try to persuade the retailer to fix it for free (of course, warranty has expired ...). So - how many other *istD owners have had this problem? David
Re: trap focus with AF lenses
Doug Franklin wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:10:36 +0100, David Dixon wrote: can't check if this actually works at the moment, but I think you can do this on certain AF bodies [...] I don't know about any others, but it works just fine on my ZX-5 and MZ-S. You need a custom electronic cable release - You don't need one if you're willing to stand there and hold the shutter release down. I've done it while hand holding. ...] you'll only take a photo if the subject comes into focus. Well, you'll get a photo one lock time after the subject comes into focus. It does take some (small) amount of time for the logic to recognize the in focus condition, and for the mirror to move out of the way. If your subject is moving quickly, and the DOF is shallow, the part of the photo you expected to be in focus might not be the part that's in focus when the shutter slit finally starts moving. or this to work, you'll need an AF lens mounted normally, and focus mode set to AF-S. Nope, you need an MF lens mounted normally. I don't recall whether it requires AF-S or works in both AF-S and AF-C modes. It's been a while since I did it. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ Doug, you misunderstand me - Collin specifically asked about trap focus with AF lenses. As you describe, trap focus with MF lenses is straightforward, but for AF lenses my technique stands. David
Re: trap focus with AF lenses
Collin Brendemuehl wrote: I know it works with manual-focus lenses just fine. But to use the feature with AF lenses, what's needed? Cover the AF data pin on the mount? Disallow engaging the AF mechanical connection? Anything else? Collin, I can't check if this actually works at the moment, but I think you can do this on certain AF bodies - works on (P)Z-1, doesn't work on MZ-7 (ZX-7). Possibly works on all AF bodies with an AF (continuous) and AF (single) selector: You need a custom electronic cable release - either make your own or modify an existing one. The normal release triggers focusing/metering with a light press, then takes a photo with a firmer press. If you wire a release so that the focus never gets activated (ie connect only 2 of the 3 wires) and then lock it pressed down, you'll only take a photo if the subject comes into focus. For this to work, you'll need an AF lens mounted normally, and focus mode set to AF-S. Actually, I'd be interested to know if my recollection is correct, and also which cameras this really does work on. David
Re: Photo micrography
Don Williams wrote: I had hoped to hear from anyone in the group who has an *ist D attached to a compound microscope. I'd like to know if the shutter vibration is a serious drawback. I know the mirror can be fired in advance to help reduce this problem. But with a selection of other Pentax SLRs I found the shutter to be a real nuisance. I now use (for film) a dedicated Wild/Leica MPS 51 camera and MPS 48 electronic controller with a shutter that does not vibrate at all. But I'd like to move over to digital for routine work. I have all the attachments to fit Pentax bayonet bodies to my instruments. Don, I've used an *istD on a fairly sturdy microscope (binocular, so not ideal), with a standard Pentax adapter and using the 2 second mirror pre-fire to minimise vibrations. I haven't yet had a chance to exhaustively test out this arrangement, and I'm a long way from optimising everything but there's no reason why it shouldn't work well. Here's one example: a closeup of some arthropod (can't remember which) leg - possibly taken with x40 objective, x10 eyepiece, 0.7s exposure. Whole image: http://www.ddixon.force9.co.uk/micro1.jpg 1:1 detail: http://www.ddixon.force9.co.uk/micro2.jpg As you can see, the image isn't particularly sharp but it's not bad, and I believe that it is the optics rather than vibration that's causing this lack of sharpness. Looking at another 1/125 s exposure (which is probably about the speed at which vibration is likely to have greatest effect), I get similar results. Of course, using a flash as the light source would help solve vibration problems, and I've had some success introducing an unmounted flash tube into the pre-condenser optics. Again, I need some time to get this optimised though! I hope this helps, David
Re: Pixmantec Rawshooter 2005 - my review
Frantisek wrote: DD of priority or for deletion during a slideshow. My only niggles at the DD moment are that there's no direct access to curves (although the DD highlight/shadow contrast sliders and appearance selector appear to DD apply pre-set curves), and that the converted images look slightly DD different in other applications when compared with the Rawshooter preview. DD I now use Rawshooter instead of the Pentax software, and considering DD that it is free, it is excellent software that's rapidly improving. WRT the converted looking different - are you viewing the result in a CMS aware application? RSE will output files that are in the working colour space (it can't convert them to sRGB if you want to work on them in AdobeRGB for example). If the other application doesn't colour manage them, they might indeed look wrong (either higher contrast and more garish colours in case of viewing sRGB file in e.g. AdobeRGB space, or slightly greeny and low contrast in case of viewing AdobeRGB file, without colour management on). Thanks for the pointer, Frantisek. I'm now getting a much closer match between Rawshooter preview and colour management-enabled software. I've not really bothered too much with colour management in the past as my final printed images have been close enough to my intended look, but I really should make the effort and do it properly. Dario - I'm glad the latest version fixes your 'too dark' problem. David
Re: Pixmantec Rawshooter 2005 - my review
Dario Bonazza wrote: I wrote: Except that even with shadow contrast at it lowest, the shadows can still be pure black! And I even tried setting exposure compensation (up to +3!), but black areas still remain deep blacks, while both the straight in-camera jpeg and the file converted using PentaxPhotoLab show nice detail. Are you using version 1.1.1 or earlier? These versions had a bug with setting the black point on some istD files, that has been fixed with v. 1.1.2. I noticed this problem with shadow detail, that's now gone in the latest version. I'm still getting used to Rawshooter, but I'm liking it more more. It's much more streamlined than the Pentax software (which is my only alternative), and I particularly like the ability to tag files in order of priority or for deletion during a slideshow. My only niggles at the moment are that there's no direct access to curves (although the highlight/shadow contrast sliders and appearance selector appear to apply pre-set curves), and that the converted images look slightly different in other applications when compared with the Rawshooter preview. I now use Rawshooter instead of the Pentax software, and considering that it is free, it is excellent software that's rapidly improving. David
Re: Need Flexible Flash Bracket
Joseph Tainter wrote: Can anyone recommend an affordable flexible flash bracket that will flex forward for macro shots? I don't want to spend $160 for the one that Wimberly offers. Any advice on this, or other solutions, appreciated. Joe My solution was a cheap medium-format flash grip from eBay - tilt swivel at the base, with a ball socket cold-shoe mount. Coupled with a Pentax AF240FT flash, this setup isn't too heavy, and the grip makes it very comfortable to hold. As you can see from the links below, there are enough degrees of freedom to position the flash pretty much anywhere you need. http://www.ddixon.force9.co.uk/misc/flashgrip1.jpg http://www.ddixon.force9.co.uk/misc/flashgrip2.jpg An example of the results of this setup: http://www.ddixon.force9.co.uk/gc_david/France2004/Dragonflies%20%20Damselflies/imgp1645.html Incidentally, I've broken the knob on mine, so if anyone comes across one of these and doesn't want it, I'd like to know! Mine is German-made, possibly by Rowi, if that helps, David
Re: Anybody shooting auroras?
mike wilson wrote: It's been cloud as anything here (NE England) for the last three days, so no joy. Looking good for tonight, so, for sure, there will be nothing. mike I hate to say this Mike, but in Durham (about 15 miles away from you?) we've had two fantastic nights of aurora - Wednesday night from 7pm to 8pm had aurora over the whole Northern half of the sky, while last night, despite the forecasts, the cloud suddenly cleared at 10pm to give an utterly amazing display for over an hour, and all in the Southern half of the sky! Many photos taken, but on the downside my Z-1 fatally malfunctioned while shooting. I'll get the films developed tomorrow. As you say, tonight has been relatively clear, but no signs of a repeat performance (check out http://www.dcs.lancs.ac.uk/iono/aurorawatch/ for a good predictor for current likelihood of aurora). David
Re: Who else has admired the eclipse?
I too made the effort - here in Durham (N.E. England), we got a theoretical maximum of about 92% eclipsed at sun-rise. For once, it was beautifully cloud free, but heavy haze meant that the sun slowly appeared a few minutes after sunrise, as a deep red, thin crescent. My site was a few minutes walk from home, with the sun rising between the towers of Durham Cathedral - the same viewpoint as one of my PUG submissions: http://pug.komkon.org/01jun/durcath1.html Took photos with a Z1 and 300mm with and without one or two 2x teleconverters - no ND filters required due to the thick haze! Hopefully they'll come out better than my '99 attempts, when all my pics of totality were hugely underexposed ... David Dixon Alin Flaider wrote: This is particularly addressed to our friends in the northern Europe who were in the position to see and photograph this annular sun eclipse in all its beauty. So, any other reports? Did anyone succeed the ring-like sun shot?
Re: functional difference pz-1p/pz-1?
I'm a different David, but I'll stick my oar in. I've tried your expt below, with a Z-1, and a SMC-M 200/4. I can definitely get spot metering - a four-fold difference in exposure changing between centre-weighted and spot. However, if I change Pentax function 1, so that activating the spot option instead uses centre-weighted metering, I get the same reading with/without spot option - as expected as both modes are using centre-weighted. Hve you checked your PZ-1 to see what setting PF1 is using? My results agree with my interpretation of the manual: K, M lenses A, F, AF lenses Normal metering Centre-weighted Matrix Spot metering (PF1=SP)Spot Spot Spot metering (PF1=CE)Centre-weighted Centre-weighted So, all our (P)Z-1s work the same, but are probably set up differently? David Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, To clarify, you tried the experiment below. You mounted a K or M lens and checked metering without and with Spot? You got significantly different reading using Spot? Can you tell us what lens you used? My PZ-1 has never worked this way since purchased new. I was an early purchaser, but many others have noted this discrepancy before. Mark Roberts and others have web pages devoted to modifying M K lenses to allow spot and matrix metering. Regards, Bob S. Try it in a dim room with a table lamp and a wide angle K or M lens. The SPOT metering area is about the same size as the [ focus ] area of the PZ-1. Put the lamp in the focus area and meter - center weighted. Turn on spot metering and do the same. You will find identical readings. Now try it with an A, F, or FA lens. You will get different readings.
Re: Pinhole Question
A normal SLR's TTL metering won't be any good for pinhole photography sincethere's no aperture size feedback to the camera's exposure circuit. A normal lens' aperture ring operates the camera's diaphragm resistor to tell the meter what aperture you've selected. With pinhole photography, there will be no such connection. Metering will be via hand held meter or Sunny 16 (Moony 11) and aperture will be calculated. Scott Nelson wrote: Actually not true. On M and K series lenses, the lens tells the body how many stops down from wide open the aperture is set using the mechanical aperture coupler. These lenses do not communicate the absolute aperture. If there is not such coupler on the lens, the body just reads it as wide open (which is the correct exposure, because there is no auto aperture on a pinhole). After all, most Pentax bodies still work with screwmount lenses (no aperture info) and mirror lenses (also no aperture info, because it is fixed). The more important issue is whether the TTL meter is sensitive enough to give an accurate exposure with so little light. Try this: Take a Pentax K body set on auto exposure, and a lens set at full aperture. Slowly twist the lens off the camera while looking through the viewfinder. You should find that although the image brightness stays the same, the calculated exposure will increase as you twist. In other words, without a lens or other object to turn the aperture coupling lever fully clockwise, the camera will calculate the exposure assuming the lens will stop down when the shutter is pressed, when for a pinhole, etc. this won't be the case. Therefore (if not using an LX), for getting correctly exposed photos for pinholes, microscopes, etc., you need to make sure the aperture lever is locked at maximum - a T2 mount or M42-to-PK mount both move the aperture coupler and ensure this is the case. David Dixon - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax K 300mm f/4
William Robb wrote: Hi; I have the opportunity to purchase the above named lens. One thing that bothers me is the lack of a tripod mount. If any owners of the lens would care to comment on the qualities of it, and whether the lack of a tripod socket is a fatal flaw, I would be interested in your responses. Thanks William Robb I had one of these until recently, but sold it and bought a Sigma 300/4 apo macro instead, partly to get a tripod mount. I used the lens with a monopod on a number of occasions, and using the camera tripod mount makes the camera lens very front-heavy and difficult to use, especially with a ball socket head, and even more so if using a teleconverter or extension tube. I eventually resorted to cobbling together a make-shift tripod mount for the lens, which while not particularly sturdy, did allow for easier use on a monopod. The optics were fine, except that very high contrast subjects would show the effects of slight chromatic aberration, giving magenta fringes around very bright objects (not usually a problem though). The Sigma lens appears to be much better corrected (but with significantly poorer lens coatings). The focusing on the Pentax is beautifully smooth and well damped, but quite slow due to the long travel; the Sigma is loose with a very short travel, but suprisingly easy to focus manually, with the added advantage of a much closer focus, although the internal focus effectively shortens the focal length even at quite modest distances - at 4m, the view is ~20% wider than the Pentax. Hope this helps, David Dixon - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Moon Jupiter - photo
Well, I got a reasonable photo of the lunar occultation of Jupiter I mentioned a couple of weeks ago - see http://www.the-dixons.fsnet.co.uk/moon_jupiter.jpg This picture was taken ~ 10 mins before Jupiter dissapeared behind the moon. I was using a terrestrial 'scope which shows considerable chromatic aberration, so the picture is a greyscale version of just the green channel. For those in the East US, you've got a great chance to see a lunar occultation of Saturn on 20th Feb - see below for more details: http://skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/occultations/article_297_1.asp David Dixon - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: a shot in the dark - OT re: the bodies in the night sky
Not Saturn, but Jupiter, with at least 3 of its 4 bright moons visible, in a line to the lower left (towards the moon when you saw it). A few hours earlier (6pm UK time) the moon actually passed in front of Jupiter (for those in the N of UK) - an amazing site, and for once it wasn't cloudy here! Tried to get a few photos, (MZ7 attached to small 'scope via a set of bellows) but the wind was battering camera, scope tripod so I'm expecting some rather blurry pictures... David Hi, if I were to take a stab at it, I`d say you`re looking at Saturn and its brightest moon Titan. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Not that I'm that much into astro-photography, but walking out tonight in the est village of NYC I look up and see an almost full moon (This is at about 6 pm EST and I am looking east) and see above and to the right a planet that LOOKS like it has a tinier celestial object right next to it. A moon? a satellite? a start that just looks like it is close? Was I lucky enough to be looking at Jupiter and one of its moons? It is now about 8pm and I can still see the moon and the same juxtaposition of planet and whatever near it - well, nearly the same. Any star people among us? Seems to me there have been. annsan - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: more scanner problems...
I've had this problem with an Epson 1200 photo when scanning negatives. The transparency unit has a narrow window above the main scanning area which is kept clear and used to calibrate the CCD before scanning to minimise any banding. If a piece of dust or hair got in here, I ended up with a vertical line through my scans - cleaning this window meticulously solved the problem. I assume the 1640 uses a similar system, and hopefully it's just a case of giving that window and the light source a good clean! If however you get the same banding when scanning without the transparency lid, (i.e. prints), it sounds more serious. David Ann Sanfedele wrote: Ok, so I got the Epson 1640su photo in August - this is only January. And I was gone for 2 months and didn't use it. alas! suddenly I have GREEN LINE :( one narrow green line right down the middle. Suggestions??? Is this terminal? Help! annsan - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: My PUG comments: David Dixon RK
Gianfranco, Many thanks for your comments: Durham Cathedral by David Dixon, UK As you state, this shot may be better classified as a landscape, or, maybe, as 'architecture in landscape'. The strenght of the shot is in its colors: I think the autumn trees become very well the buildings. The light itself looks wonderful. The only flaw I can find is that the shot appears a little static. I'd like to see the uncropped version. I am glad you liked the light; I was determined to get a photo of the cathedral on a frosty morning, and this was one of the few opportunities I've had. I've uploaded a much less cropped version for you, and if anyone else is interested: http://www.the-dixons.fsnet.co.uk/durcath3.jpg David - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: May PUG comment: Frog by David Dixon
Many thanks Jostein for commenting on my submission, and thank you also to those who have taken the time to pass comment. Had this been mine, I would have cropped away the foreground that is visibly out of focus. Probably up to the small area on the left edge with no duckweed. I've tried out your suggested crop, and while it does make quite a difference to the picture, I can't decide whether I like it better or not. Nevertheless, it's always good to hear other people's opinions! One little question: is the frog's presence arranged? -Not that it matters, really, it's just a technical question... I usually try to take my nature shots more or less as I find them, and this holds true for this picture. I wasn't out to take photos, but had to move the pond to do some work, and noticed that the frog (who's often there) was either not to bothered, or too lazy to swim off, so I grabbed my camera. Having the pond out of its hole allowed me to get down to near water level to take the pic. In fact, the frog even allowed me to wipe the duckweed from its head, but dived before I could get some more photos. David - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
