RE: I'm sad plea for help (disk problems)
FDISK will totally remove all the data from the drive if there is any left. I'm not sure if he is just trying to redo his drive here and make a better plan for the future, or if he is still trying to find a way to recover the data. Possibly a data recovery program could find it. However once we get past trying to restore data I would be worried that it's just going to happen again. What is known as a low level format of the drive may be in order to restore the integrity of the drive itself. Possibly a few bad sectors have shown their true selves, not uncommon, and a low level format will get rid of them, or at least make them so the computer doesn't attempt to use them. On a Maxtor it's also known as the write test on their utility. Most every manufacturer makes available a utility for this purpose. Scandisk etc on Windows programs may cure this as well, but are not near as reliable as the low level format. Once done with the low level format you need to do a standard format, set up partitions and go from there. I also wonder which OS your working with? If it's win 98 your stuck with fat 32, however if you have 2000, or xp you have the options of using NTFS file system, which although is said to be a slight bit slower is infinitely more reliable and not as prone to errors as fat 32 is. When I still ran win 98 I lived for Nortons Ghost. It's a wonderful program to restore and backup your drive(s). You can back them up to cd, another drive, or even a different partition on your drive. As I remember the identical size drive was not required to do this. -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 7:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I'm sad plea for help (disk problems) if it is just the partition table, the repartitioning the drive with FDISK will bring it back. always do this on a clone of the drive. make a clone using Norton Ghost or something equivalent that knows how to do sector copies. also, you have to be copying to an identical model of drive. Herb... - Original Message - From: Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 4:00 PM Subject: I'm sad plea for help (disk problems) Hi, during an upload of most recent pictures, my old system made a digital equivalent of a chuckle or hiccup and rebooted. Subsequently, partition table on my brand new 80GB drive which hosts my photographs (most backed up, but not the last few shootings which I had to yet backup from it, including the latest I have - fortunately - still on the CF) got erased. It was FAT32 system. I have tried few utilities to peek around, and it seems a copy of the information (BR) residues on the disk still. Could some of the more computer-savvy please recommend what to do? How I could restore the second copy? I do not want to mess around much with either the free or paid utilities to not break something up before I know more.
RE: Pentax Filters
Please let that be a bad joke! Feed the dog or else!!! Strange that I found no reference to any of the other filters listed in the two helpful replies to my initial post on this subject - my dog told that these were cruel jokes played on me by some bad apples on PDML, but I stood up for you guys and tonight my dog went to bed with no dinner. So there, that will teach him to mistrust PDML posts. Pat
RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
They would really be upset if after you wiped the card for them it wouldn't work in their camera! Deleting just the images is usually ok, but of course many digital cameras including mine will not work if you do not format the card in the camera itself. For some reason I also wind up with garbage files left on the CF card sometimes doing this as well. Possibly because they are hidden, or because I did it in ACDSEE and they were files this program didn't recognise. I have a few customers who are so technically inclined (NOT!!), that they hand their card to me, and have me make them a print of each file then wipe the card for them. This keeps it as easy as film for them, but puts a load on the lab. This is the customer type who should have stayed with film, but got pressured into digital by the continual marketing onslaught that says everything digital is better. Or by a family member. It doesn't matter. William Robb
RE: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new digicams...)
I ask you this, can you think of anything electronic made today, that comes even close to what one sees with the human eye? I know I sure can't! Until that happens I see little sense in chasing something that is a less then. I suspect a mirror or even a quality prism of some sort will continue to give better optical quality then anything digital can offer. Some of Fuji's digicams have digital viewfinder right now, and it was for that same reason I found them absolutely terrible, before I even get to what kind of image they can produce. I can see the sense of pursuing something that doesn't move and cause vibration etc, but I don't see anything less then a true optical view being acceptable. It's hard enough to manually focus in poor or dim optical viewfinders, doing this in a digital one is most likely going to be much worse. I'd much rather see the engineers spend their time making optical viewfinders, brighter, larger, and a greater percentage of the actual frame. Dave -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 10:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new digicams...) Ha ! Heat sink ! Look how fast technology went since then. IMHO in 2-3 years we'll have really good electronic viewfinders. Then bye bye mirror. Rob Studdert wrote: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10/E10A3.HTM
RE: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new digicams...)
Ok, you got me there. When they fit that into a camera at a price that is not insanemaybe..lol -Original Message- From: Peter Loveday [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 12:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new digicams...) I ask you this, can you think of anything electronic made today, that comes even close to what one sees with the human eye? I know I sure can't! I daresay electron microscopes would give it a run for its money :) Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday
RE: Pentax 1Q news FY-05
Ugh...and if I'm reading it right, their market share dropped 100 yen, which is their daily limit, or about 18 % just today. Do you suppose all the companies will experience similar problems due to the market becoming somewhat saturated already? They all must be having problems selling since it is slowly driving the prices down. You know it seems unlikely that even the pros demanding high end digital technology can provided enough business to justify manufacturer of this type of equipment. I would think they still depend on amateurs and enthusiasts to make their minimum sales quota. If these quotas cannot be met it could cause a lot of bad things. Future RD in digital higher end systems could see a huge slow down. Availability of same could be limited and continue to be extremely pricey for a long time. Whether or not this trend could prolong the life of film though is still iffy since film usage is still driven by PS type cameras which may still continue well with digicams. Although I would expect that higher end film is driven by SLR usage mainly which might get a bit of a reprieve over all of this. Let's just hope Pentax doesn't do a huge nose dive! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 11:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax 1Q news FY-05 Pentax's 1Q results for the new fiscal year are in and it's bad news almost all the way around. profits are way down because of steeper than expected declines in prices. the digital camera product division sold about 490,000 units but lost money. there is evidence to suggest that Pentax sold only 3,000 *istD cameras in the quarter, extremely disappointing results for the only high margin item in the division. the only division with profit growth is the OEM camera lens division with sales to Casio and HP. Herb...
RE: Pentax 1Q news FY-05
Canon and Nikon have the DSLR market wrapped up and are pulling away rapidly from all of the competition. they are meeting their marketing goals. Herb http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNewsstoryID=59 65070 According to this Canon is suffering some too, although not nearly as bad as Pentax. Note the 3rd paragraph from the bottom
RE: istD overexposure
From discussions with a 10D user I learned that this is a common digital problem. Part of the issue is that digital in some ways appears to not have the exposure range that film has. The digicams should be the same, but I haven't noted it very much in mine either. At any rate there is a hidden silver lining to this issue. Underexposing by several stops even is possible in digital due to the lack of grain. It may appear dark, but you should be able to bring it back in photoshop, and since there is little grain, you won't get the problems that you do with film that is underexposed. The troublesome part, is that it seems that others on this list have been having problems with the metering being inconsistent on the *istD. If it always does the same thing in given conditions, no problem, one can adjust, but if it's all over the scale...back to the drawing board. I'm sitting here wondering about the antialiasing filter over the sensor, and possible lens flare issues. Were you using the proper hood on your lenses? Could it be this glare that depending completely on the angle to the light you happened to be at, is causing this type of problem? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 8:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istD overexposure Jostein asked: What metering mode do you use, and what kind of lenses? Multipattern metering; F and FA lenses. ERN
Oh the gloom of it all
Yea, I know, this has been beat to death, but http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm Warning...*istD owners shouldn't look...lol. Dave
RE: Film vs. Digital(long)
Good grief, why did I ever bring up 3rd world! My apologies to the list. It doesn't matter where it is. If the family can't afford to buy a digital, but can afford to use a film camera occasionally it could be your neighbor I'm talking about. Dave -Original Message- From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital(long) Or Yorkshire or parts of the deep south USA? Looks like you've engineered a thread is going nowhere fast, as usual. Norm Antonio Aparicio wrote: See, not so straight forward is it. OK, take Cuba then. Pretty much as poor as they come given the US trade embargo. Are you saying that people dont own cameras annd take photos in Cuba? What about Mexico, or Peru, or Venezuela, or Bolivia even?
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
How many will get sick of the film game? Having to make sure there are enough rolls of film in your kit ahead of time Making sure batteries are charged on a digi-cam is analogous to ensuring that you have films with you a spare meter battery. I guess I would see film's comparison as memory for digital. You have to make sure you have enough. the main difference being your not using a consumable as it is reusable. But you still have to have it in your bag. The point I was driving at is that with film or film camera batteries, both are readily available at local stores, at least at this point and long term storage is available for both. NiMH on the other hand, don't store well. They drain at a set percentage every day when not being used. I can't just go buy a battery source that will work in my digital instantly. I have to charge it first and wait for that to happen. The *istD does have a battery that can be put in thankfully right out of the package. I don't remember the number though. However many if not most digicams that I have seen take AA batteries and are not usable with the one the *ist D takes. I have seen one that did use it as an alternative, but about 30 frames was it. Alkaline AA in my camera give me about 5 frames, that's it! This is all compared to about 80-100 frames of well charged fresh NiMH's in the same camera. The main digital market is digicams, not DSLR's and that is what I think is fair to compare here. Both types require long term planning, but digital is more critical with short term planning for this reason. I'm not very good at short term planning unfortunately. I see many of those around me that have the same problem as well. The booming success of C-Stores practically on every corner selling products at higher prices then larger discount or grocery stores are proof enough that many do not short term plan well or even long term for that matter. If I didn't have everything I needed for my trip the other day for film, it would have been no problem. I could have picked from 20 stores between home and where I was going to pick up supplies. However some film in the fridge about 6 months with a battery still in the camera also about 6 months old pumped along all day at full speed. Dave
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
at high cost, or low or unpredictable quality. Good grief, I can get 2 day service on anything from BH, who I would never worry about in this regard. That's why we all order our equipment on the internet because it's risky and costs more! lol 8) VBG
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Here on the Mass northern coast I find that sales of BW film are as good as ever and I can buy it locally at several retailers. The art community here of course is very strong and almost all major colleges, community colleges, and even high schools have a strong art program as well as photography courses. T-Max and Ilford films are very hot items actually and the retailers are hard put to keep enough on the shelves at times. In many cases for art degrees BW photography is required. Electronic cameras that have manual capability are more accepted then before, but still discouraged in favor of all manual models. Digital Photography classes on the other hand are very basic, rare, and are not usually given any credits. If for no other reason then BW film, film based equipment will still have good usage for years to come I suspect. The do-it-yourself trend in America is strongly imbedded in a good share of us. If we could make our own film, there would be those that would be extremely attracted to the idea of this. Shutting the doors of processing labs etc., could start a whole new trend and market here. The future of film doesn't have to be grim, but rather a sort of new beginning even especially as a regenerated art form. I recently ran across a traveling blacksmith at a local cafe. He was raking in the $$$ and had more work then he knew what to do with. The brand new 1-ton dually pickup and trailer outside sort of supported that claim. I find him a perfect example of if there is a market, someone will do it! Thanks to the efficiency of delivery services these days, we won't have to drive all over the place to find that distributor though. Thanks to the internet that distributor won't have to work that hard to make it known they have your product available whether it be in China or Brazil. If I have to buy an entire brick of film to justify the order rather then 2 rolls, that's not the end of the world. If Pentax goes under, most your major investment is in lenses anyways right? Never fear, someone, somewhere will make you an adaptor to put it on a different brand camera. That or better yet someone will make a camera that fully supports your lenses. I still think a full frame DSLR is in the future and might well become the norm at some point. Simple physics dictates that bigger is better. There are just too many k-mount lenses out there to ignore their complete compatibility. There is a market obviously, someone will do it at a reasonably affordable price. My point is hitting the panic button and bailing out of your current equipment isn't really very logical. The indicated rate of technological improvement only really dooms your current digital equipment to being worth nothing very soon. Film equipment is still likely to be a better investment and hold it's value long term as it has for many years. Sure we're going to see some ups and downs there, but not nearly as drastic as digital. How much would you give for a 1.3 Mp digital camera today. Hm...only a short while ago you paid out a bunch for it huh? Percentage wise how much did your film equipment change value in the same period? From what I'm reading not that many of those on this list really want to go digital just to have the digital advantages, but rather because they are afraid of getting stuck with a bunch of fancy paperweights. I don't blame you as we are all victims of the digital promoters scheme. However what will really happen is a big question and as long as I'm willing to process my own film my current equipment isn't doomed to collecting dust. Home based processing equipment manufacturers may likely be gearing up to meet the demand even. For those of you that have never seen or tried what even a 35mm negative can do in an enlarger I strongly encourage you to experience this as there is so much there that digital cannot begin to render correctly. Until you have experienced this you cannot compare film to digital either IMHO. An at home lab is not quite as fast as digital, but is 2 hours all that important? Dave -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 1:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? Bill, we understand your worry. Your job is on the line. I would suggest your local government agency that retrains folks for new jobs, except that from my experience they will only retrain you for another obsolete about to go down the drain of progress job. Something to think about though, there are still blacksmiths out there, still making a living.
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Just about 5 years Nope, I still like film better and the feel and performance of film equipment better. Here is a bit of a poll: How many of the folks on this list who have been into photography as a serious hobby for 5-10 or more years, and for whom it still is a serious hobby have 100% abandoned film?
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
You can choose to look at forced at home processing and optical printing as a blessing or curse. The reality is you'll get better images. If you like to machine gun through film using high speed film drives, well I doubt it's for you. If you really think about each shot before squeezing it off, you might be surprised. From the amount of images and size of the storage drives that the digital folks here seem to need to deal with, I'm thinking film would be too expensive and probably already is. Not an encouraging prospect for those who would like to continue working with film. . . Steve Desjardins wrote: I really don't think film will die anytime soon. I pretty much agree with Graywolf's predictions that the big players will leave and the smaller ones will see their business go up. All processing will become in your basement or by mail. As a smaller and more expensive market, however, film will probably last a very long time.
Fuji Finepix S5000 vs. PZ-1p (warning: film wins hands down)
Hi all Just finished an outing with a good friend of mine who recently purchased a Finepix S5000. It's his first digital experience and he thought he had the world by the tail with it, although he has considerable experience with film and a Super Program. We took a charter boat ride in hopes that it would offer some good photo opportunities. I had planned to take my s404 digital out to make it a digital day, but since I forgot to charge the NiMH batteries the night before that wasn't an option. Since he has an optical 10X zoom on that thing I decided to take my 28-200 Tamron lens on my PZ-1p with 100 ISO film. The lens is not exactly tack sharp for landscape images, but heck, I figured he needed the handicap and it really wasn't my intent to make his new camera look bad. When I first looked through the viewfinder, it was black and he had to push a couple of buttons to get that to work. To my surprise I wasn't looking through any optical lens of any sort, but rather at a smaller digital screen inside the viewfinder. The quality of what I was looking at was so bad I had to really force myself to not say nasty things or make horrible facial expressions. I think I managed an OH, and that was all I said. Focus and zoom were all push buttons and not on the lens, further yuck! I've heard lots of comments on how small and dark the ZX-M's viewfinder is, well this is about 300% worse! Our charter boats cruising speed was only 5-10 knots, thus it definitely was no speed boat. We had good afternoon shooting light although it was hazy some of the trip. For the equipment I was using I found the conditions favorable for landscape as well as some nice shots of passing pleasure craft as quite fast shutter speeds were available. We went through several drawbridges of which some had to open up for us affording an interesting view from our boat. Unfortunately my friend was consistently having problems due to our boats slow speed getting focused and getting the shot. Some low flying eagles presented themselves and he couldn't even get them in the viewfinder. I tried his camera, but I didn't have much better luck. The poor view, focus issues, and shutter lag were a terrible handicap. The end of this story was viewing the results afterwards, he's planning on returning the camera for a refund if he can and thankful he didn't sell me his Super Program yet. Of course this was no DSLR, but this is the kind of equipment that many people are replacing their 35mm PS camera with. I don't think there was anything wrong with his camera and it was just delivering what it had to offer. I find this totally astounding that the public is satisfied with this kind of product. A simple inexpensive $50 35mm PS would have jumped through hoops around this thing! Someone on the list said that people are not that interested in quality must be right if they can continue to actually sell this camera. Heck, Walmart could cut their photo image quality in half, save money, and people would still be happy! If it looks sort of like an SLR, has an attractive appearance, and says digital somewhere, it doesn't matter if it can actually take pictures right? I realize that there may be some decent PS digitals out there, but this was our experience today. End of rant! Dave
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Not so far fetched actually. I didn't really get interested in photography until the first digitals came out. I bought one and thought it was cool. Then I happened to try a friends 35mm and realized this was much better. I even bought another 4Mb digital after that, but 35mm was still better at that time. They are more advanced now though and if I had bought something like the *ist D I doubt I would have ever gained an interest in film. However with the lower end to even decent 35mm costing less then many digicams, it leaves the door open for interest in the better features of the 35mm SLR. Real autofocus or manual, total exposure control, more then 2 or 3 apertures to choose from, a real viewfinder, powerful add on flash, less battery issues, not to mention the improved picture quality even now as compared to a digicam were all reasons my digicam to this day mostly collects dust. The price tag of a 35mm basic kit even as compared to a digital rebel with accessories is still much lower. It's even lower in many cases then a decent quality digicam. I would take a Walmart 35mm SLR kit(which is what I basically used for 35mm SLR pricing here) for a important shot any day before I would dust off the digicam. I'm not putting down the quality of DSLR at all here. Just comparing available performance dollar for dollar as I know it. Although the very real risk of spending thousands of dollars on lenses could offset this, but they don't know that until they get the photo gear bug. Many might mention here that I did not consider the film and developing costs here. That's true, but I highly doubt most people will shoot as many photos as the folks shooting the *istD's on this list. -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) Also, an angle not mentioned is the renewed interest folks are having in photography generally as a result of digital- perhaps it will be the saviour of film and not the other way around... A.
RE: More *ist D Hot Pixel Oddness
if it's not very easy to pick out, well, then it must not be very easy to pick out, so why worry?? I got excited about the hot pixel issue when it first came up, but when I realized it was somewhat normal I settled down. If noticed it's really easy to fix. My main concern would be not about the hot pixels you have when the camera is new, but what about 6 months to a year from now? Will the sensor degrade and the hot pixel issue worsen with time and usage? I'm guessing it will worsen, but will it be at a rate that is even an issue? What's the oldest *ist D on this list right now? Since Canon Nikon have had DSLR's longer, some of their statistics might be relative as well. Dave
RE: More *ist D Hot Pixel Oddness
Ouch, I'll bet you don't really wanna know! -Original Message- From: El Gringo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 12:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: More *ist D Hot Pixel Oddness Any ideas on how much a sensor swap costs outside of the warranty period? -el gringo -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 9:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More *ist D Hot Pixel Oddness - Original Message - From: David Miers Subject: RE: More *ist D Hot Pixel Oddness I'm guessing it will worsen, but will it be at a rate that is even an issue? What's the oldest *ist D on this list right now? Since Canon Nikon have had DSLR's longer, some of their statistics might be relative as well. At late September last year, I probably have one of the older istD's on the list. I don't recall exactly how many hotties I had when i bought, but I am pretty sure I have more now. Not a big deal, as they show up longer than 1/10 second, which is fine for me. I do have a query ongoing at Pentax Canada regarding what they think is within spec. William Robb
RE: Film Is Dead / A Contrary View
-Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 3:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film Is Dead / A Contrary View How long does it take you to scan an entire roll of film on your duoscan? About 45 minutes probably for a 24 exposure roll assuming that the exposure is somewhat consistent averaging 30 Mb of data per image. Data transfer speeds are a major limiting factor. A 24 exposure roll of film creates nearly a 1 gig file. At the moment, this is the speed limit for producing enough work to pay for the machine. The Noritsu people that I have talked to all think that data tranfer rates need to increase by a factor of 10 or some such to get a decent speed increase out of the machines. Ok for a 4 x 6 image, yes a lower resolution file would be sufficient. I just did some calculations for 8 x 10 and that resolution would still give you a print factor of 300 dpi, so again sufficient. However beyond that it seems to be not enough. The majority of images are small prints so they can fly at high speeds. However the larger enlargement work is rare and they make the better dollar rate as well. Since only doing a few large images here and there, I don't see how doing a higher resolution scan would majorly interrupt their work flow. You indicated that they at least do a higher res scan for 8 x10 images. You would think such a machine would be capable of 6000 x 6000 resolution if they needed it for more professional custom work. I can well imagine that this kind of machine wouldn't be particularly attractive to places like Walmart, but many of the better labs wanting to offer the 1 hour service, may well want to cater to professionals or serious amateurs still using film. Dave
RE: Film Is Dead / A Contrary View
Mini labs are mass market machines. The pros who want the big files are doing their own scans. William Robb Are the pros with large size files from high res scans limited to printing from their own resources too? What are the minilabs limitations from customer generated files? In checking locally it costs only $.29/4 x 6 print. That file doesn't need to be that big really. I don't actually have that many images I need to print, since the computer serves as a good enough viewer most of the time. Will the images from my digital files be better or worse then the minilab directly processing the film. Commen sense would say that I would realize a loss scanning and then having them printed elsewhere. However I'm very dissatisfied with the operators interpretation of my images. If I edit them myself I am hopeful of getting what I want this way. Just print them at home you say, sure I can, but I'm cheap and at $.29 I can't print them for that much, nor am I too happy with the way BW looks coming out of my printer.
RE: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
I would use a tripod collar if you have one as it was designed for it. The bigger question in my mind is your reasoning about using it as a walking around lens. The shutter speeds required for this lens handheld for most people are going to be a minimum of 1/500 sec. That's really fast film and/or really good lighting available. IMHO any lens focal length longer then 200mm belongs on a tripod. Just my 2 cents Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 1:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D That was what I thought as well, until I did some test. I took a few sets of pictures (Z-1p, F*300/4.5, Arca Swiss B1 ballhead, Gitzo G1349 tripod) with and without the lens tripod collar at every aperture. To my surprise, both sets of slides with and without the 2s mirror-prefire turned out to be less sharp than without using the lens tripod collar (cable released was used). To confirm this finding, I then tried it on tripod again and looking though the viewfinder. When using the lens tripod collar, the lens/camera kept bouncing slightly for quite awhile and is visible though the viewfinder. Without the lens tripod collar, the vibration quickly settled. I have not used the lens tripod collar with my F*300/4.5 since. Perhaps I should purchase the FA* if I had this knowledge few years ago. But it is true that for a setup like this without the tripod collar, the choice of tripod head is vital. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Pentax may have thought is was fine, but many users find the lack of tripod collar a major oversight. I think structurally, the camera should be ok, but you will probably have some vibration issues to sort out. _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1 034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Bye ...
Shel I've always enjoyed your contributions on this list. I for one will be sorry to see you go. I truly hope after your vacation you reconsider and return. I can tell you that you had a great deal to do with inspiring me to do more black and white. You helped me see the potential that exists in that format. I skip and trash a lot of messages in this list, but have almost always read the ones from you with interest. You will never have everyone in a list this big agreeing with everything you say and do. It is unfortunate that some feel the need to express their critiques in a manner that tends to be hurtful. In a court of law a persons past is usually not allowed to be evidence presented in regard to the offense in question. The offense is judged on it's merits only. I would offer the idea that critiques of images be just that, judged on that images merits only. I would also further suggest that critiques be offered only when they are requested. Sometimes people just want to do show and tell, not be judged. Hope you have a happy safe vacation and return with the pictures to prove it! Dave -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bye ... Time for me to move on. Have a long vacation coming up in a few days and I probably won't return to the list for quite some time. Frankly, I don't feel much a part of things here ... so, thanks to all who've been helpful. I hope I've been able to help or influence one or two people in a positive way. Be good, boys and girls ... Ciao. Shel
RE: OT: Non-Microsoft browsers are most secure choice
That's Doug's right and choice not to say. Just as it is your choice whether or not to subscribe to this list. I also think what you might be missing here and what Doug was trying to tell you is, I can choose to send you a virus Antonio, and just make it look like it came from this list. The internet is a very complicated place with a lot of trickery possible by those much more savvy then I. Almost anything is possible. I can also confirm that Doug's statement about html coded and messages with attachments being refused by the list. I sometimes forget to send a new message in Plain text and it is returned to me. Likewise if I add a URL as an attachment. This lists setup is about as secure as it's going to get IMHO. If you think about it, how much sense does it make that only ONE person on this list gets the virus. If one goes out on the list server, we all get it. If one person gets a virus looking like it came from this list, it's a fake, and that person alone was targeted by some unscrupulous individual. Mandrake Linux offers the perfect solution for those of you that are worried. When you install this OS, it offers some different security settings from the beginning. This setting is called PARANOID. -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Non-Microsoft browsers are most secure choice Somone reported receiving a virus from the list last month. Given the recent security scares with microsoft server software distributing spyware and the like I think that it is in everybodys interest. Why hide it? Antonio On 7 Jul 2004, at 15:43, Bob Blakely wrote: You don't know what you're talking about. No one has ever received a virus from this list. The server software is not your business or mine. Regards, Bob... --- No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -- Mark Twain From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I would like to know also is what software is used on the server that maintains this list? Some have received viruses from the list, whilst others have not had their messages appear, whilst others have had their IDs faked
RE: wouldn't it be nice
It's expected that the new Minolta D7 will have this feature since the existing film 7 already does change the numbers and data on the back as well when you turn it to vertical. So they already have the technology in it that knows the cameras orientation. -Original Message- From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: wouldn't it be nice I think that backwater camera company called Canon has a DSLR that will rotate images taken vertically. Jim A. From: cbwaters [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:50:56 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: wouldn't it be nice Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:51:07 -0400 If the camera could know which way is up so I didn't have to rotate all my photos in PS...My family is sick of having to bob their heads side to side when looking at the windows slide show of each day's take. We must look ridiculous. Cory working on vacation photos this morning instead of painting the house...probably rain this afternoon! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/28/2004
RE: A photographic weekend - ahhhhhhhh!
Interesting2 of you that are digitally enabled choose to still use film for the important have to get it right images. There is no doubt that film still does have it's advantages. In our society where time is everything, letting the labs do it has it's own good points vs. the general advertised big plus of digital giving instant images. The fact that shooting digital is much like slide film in exposure sensitivity may backfire somewhat in promoters faces..maybe...the question is by the time the public figures out how great film really is, will it and services to handle it still be there? I was going to sell off a bunch of my film stuff, and had it on the stands taking pictures to promote said sale, but this created excessive fondling and...sigh...I couldn't do it! -Original Message- From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A photographic weekend - a! Cesar, Your wedding activities reminded me of some weddings I have done in the past. I did one wedding exclusively with digital. I decided I will not longer do a wedding with a digital slr, although I could take many more exposures than with film. My reasoning is that there is a lot of post-production labor involving digital that I never did with film. Exposure corrections, sharpening, maybe some gaussian blur effect. All takes time. When it comes to film, I may have some images printed to hot and I return to the lab for correction. I let them correct the error. Yes, it takes time as well to do this, but I enjoy being inside a camera store looking at all the toys. Jim A. From: Cesar Matamoros II [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:45:26 -0400 To: Pentax-Discuss (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: A photographic weekend - a! Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:44:46 -0400 I have not been keeping up with the list - I know, tell you something new - but I actually had a good excuse the last few days. Just bear with me :-) My next door neighbor's elder daughter got married on Saturday. She is like my little sister. My, how they all grow up... Anyway, I was the official photographer. All the festivities began on Thursday - now that is the way to celebrate. Thursday was a sunset cruise into the bay. I used the *ist D for about 200 shots on the boat. It was a nice way to meet some of the groom's family. It is good to know who these people are for when you are shooting at the reception. It was a wonderful time as I was getting some nice candids, especially as the sun was setting. I found I was rather stealthy as shots were taken and no one realized I was even around. I did have to prefocus some as I talked to people - who did not like their photo taken - and shot from the hip or the chest. Friday was the rehearsal. I shot a roll of 160 NC as a test with different settings to verify lighting and such. I was using the MZ-S. The rehearsal dinner was fantastic. Some more meeting of people and a plethora of candid shots. I was using the *ist D for these and ended up with another 200 shots. Saturday I took in the test roll to my developer. They came out great! Easily correctible with a negative, but I found MY setting as -1 with the flash. I believe in minimizing any corrections by the lab. It is not because I do not trust them, but rather I want it right straight from the camera. I should know what I am doing and not have to rely on others to correct my mistakes. The lab person told me I should have had them dressed up at the rehearsal as they were lovely exposures. She says it is a dream to work with my film. She was raving over the exposure, the sharpness, the color of the shots. Thank you Pentax :-) At 1:15 I made it to the church. The wedding was at 4. I shot mainly the film camera. I had the MZ-S as my main camera (film wind) with three LXen as backups. I did use an LX during the ceremony shooting Ilford Delta 3200 at ASA 1600. I was using the FA* 200/2.8 from the back of the church for these bw shots. I would have loved to have had the *ist D alongside to compare. The test shots with the *ist D at 1600 were very nice. I ended up shooting just over 13 rolls, that included a few at the reception. The fun part was switching the AF400T between the *ist D and MZ-S. I shot digitally for a few of the 'silly' 'fun' shots and did film for the formals. I will leave out a few of the personal things that went on - being that I am so close to the family it was the most enjoyable wedding I have done. They do have one more daughter, so I may get to experience it again. The reception was another blast. It was held at the elementary school where she taught. It made for some interesting logistics. And to top it all
RE: a 'family' photo
Ha...lots of luck..if your serious don't fondle them between now and the sale! Give each of them a goodbye kiss and put them in the box quick, or you might have to send the money back! -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: a 'family' photo Never fear, I'll be putting most of them on eBay in the next 3 or 5 months... keith g Cotty wrote: On 28/6/04, Keith Whaley, discombobulated, offered: I almost thudded too, until I counted them--and realized how many I have in my _own_ collection! Pentax bodies and lenses together surpass the total number in our photo, and when you add the non-Pentax items...well...it's almost decadent! A number of more Pentax lenses, but fewer bodies. Add to that my meager collection of Retina folders and non-folders, my 4x4 TLR, an AGFA 6x6 folder, a couple of 35mm unique and oddball rangefinders--well, it all sort of adds up, doesn't it!B¬P ~° keith whaley Cotty wrote: I had this idea of taking them all out on a bright day - for a family photo of Pentax gear. Here is the result: www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-kellersv2/19.JPG thud Cheers, Cotty HOARDER! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Slave flash using wireless question
I suspect the communication will set off any flash in slave mode prematurely. The 360FGZ also has a built in slave mode though. You could use the non wireless flash on camera or with a cord to trigger the 360, but it will be in manual mode only here. The 360 does have variable power settings in manual though. -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 12:54 PM To: pdml Subject: Slave flash using wireless question I'm using the AF360FGZ flash in wireless mode off to the side and I want to use another flash on the opposite side to balance the light. But I don't have another AF360FGZ. I have another non-wireless Pentax flash and can get a slave trigger for it. Is it possible to use one of these slave flash triggers that fire the flash when they detect the master flash going off, or is the communication between the master flash and the AF360FGZ going to set it off prematurely? If this doesn't work, how can this setup be achieved short of getting another AF360FGZ? If necessary, I could go wired, but have never done this with more than one flash. TIA, Gonz
RE:Color to BW conversion in Photoshop(Was Gaurav's PAW #7: Why me?)
I don't know what you mean when you say My question about your procedure here Shell is it really color or BW. Shel Old BW images had what was called sepia I believe and to imitate that of course we need to use color. If you convert to grayscale, RGB is now gone. If you desaturate and use a eyedropper point in Photoshop with the image still in RGB mode every point on the image will have equal RGB numbers indicating true shades of Black, grey, or white. An image with these numbers is what I referred to as true BW. It is also more useable with various filters in Photoshop then one in grayscale mode although it looks the same in appearance. I'm not saying one is wrong and the other is right, just wondering as I've not actually tried your procedure yet and tested this in Photoshop. The bottom line is of course if the results are pleasing, then however you arrived there it is right. Your procedures seemed to overcomplicate the process of conversion to BW and I'm simply wondering what if anything is to be gained doing this vs. simply desaturating, working the combined RGB graph only for levels, and adjusting contrast in curves. I've read other writings about conversion and they too seemed to feel that doing the simple conversion I described leaves something to be desired, but when I played with it I couldn't see the advantage. I need to take the time to play with your method to see again though. Dave
RE: Color to BW conversion in Photoshop(Was Gaurav's PAW #7: Why me?)
And why would an srgb image be more useful in photoshop if what you want as an end result is a BW image. I don't understand that comment at all. What filters would you be talking about? Shel This all needs some more experimentation on my part. I'm going to scan some color film and BW film and play a bit. I wish I had the same shot on both types of film, it would be an even better comparison. The filters I'm referring to that I use are Polaroid dust scratch filter, grain surgery 2, and alien skin doctor which are all set up on my system as Photoshop plugins. I noted that their performance is drastically reduced when working with grey scale images. Since I don't have ICE on my Scan Dual III significant clean up is usually necessary for dust and noise. The eyedropper/sampler tool is invaluable to me. I use it on almost every color image to eliminate color casts. Setting black to true black, grey to true grey, and white to true white usually will eliminate color casts and give you a pretty accurate rendition of how the scene actually looked. Even finding one of these in an image will help a lot. Dave
RE: Epson C80 Problems
Well getting the head out and cleaning it properly sounds like a great idea, except on my epson 785 I've not been able to figure out how to get the heads out yet for such an attempt. What I have done is use the highest grade of Isopropyl alcohol I can find to limit the amount of residue this leaves and remove the cartridges, put a drop in the top of each head where the cartridge goes in. Leave it soak for a minute, then take cue tips and clean up the excess. Then use the standard cleaning cycles on the printer. This always gets mine going, but it seems to clog up easier then it did when it was new. I suspect part of the problem is the foam or rubber that that the heads rest on when not in use has a bunch of ink on it that helps to clog the tips. Wish I could get at everything to clean it properly. It might be better to use a solution such as comes with analog tape head cleaners as it probably has less residue. -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Epson C80 Problems - Original Message - From: Steve Larson Subject: Epson C80 Problems Black will not print. Tried new cartridge, clean nozzles, no luck. Anyone got an idea? A friend of mine takes the head of his Epson out periodically and soaks it in Windex. It's a trick he read about on the leben list. William Robb
RE: Epson C80 Problems
Where and what is the exact name of this leben list William? -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Epson C80 Problems - Original Message - From: Steve Larson Subject: Epson C80 Problems Black will not print. Tried new cartridge, clean nozzles, no luck. Anyone got an idea? A friend of mine takes the head of his Epson out periodically and soaks it in Windex. It's a trick he read about on the leben list. William Robb
RE: OT: Windows 98 help
Actually I don't think getting the system to run on the 98 drive would be that hard, however it may well require a 98 disk. If you don't have that it might be questionable. The files would probably be downloadable somewhere, but you'd probably have to have a different computer available until you got this one back online again. Many people however copy the essential parts of the disk to the drive so they don't have to put it in ever time the OS asks for the disk though. It's been too long ago for me though to tell you the exact file names that you would look for. I think the folder would be named WIN98 and would have subfolders with compresed files with the names ending with a (_) mark after them. Before starting you would want to delete the contents of the INF folder. This will make the OS hunt for the drivers for your hardware and not have the wrong ones still in this folder. I remember when doing this I wound up with multiples of the same item in device manager. It would takes some fiddling, but it is doable, depending on how computer literate you are. You would of course make this the master drive and your win 95 drive the slave. Or you could run it on the secondary IDE and still have it on the master settings with your cd rom etc as slaves. Some burners don't operate well as slaves however. You could not run the programs on your 95 disk from 98 though since the programs are not in the 98 registry. You'd have to physically switch each time or get a boot selector tool as was previously mentioned. Um, honestly the more I think about this though, I have to say it sounds like a lot of messing around for 98. Depending on how fast your system is, I'd sure consider win 2000. I've seen 2000 run half way decent on a 400 processer with 128 MB of ram. -Original Message- From: Sarbu Alexandru [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 1:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Windows 98 help Hmmm... maybe you can just reinstall the OS? Boot from a win98 CD and choose to install in the same location - don't format the drive. Make that drive the primary master, to be sure it will be the C: drive on your system (you'll be able to use your old win95 drive as D:, but of course you can't boot from it) Good luck - you'll need it! grin Alex Sarbu --- Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! What I'd like to know is whether swapping between my old and this new Win98 drive somehow will give me trouble swapping back to my present Win95 C:drive. (Like, will it work at all to get the new Win98 running? Would this somehow change bios settings (or cause other modifications) which will give me problems when returning to my old (present) Win95 set up? My understanding, which is of course limited g, would be that what you describe is close to impossible. That is, if you take a Win98 bootable hard drive from random PC and put it into another PC it most probably won't boot. You might end up having to reinstall much of the components probably including the OS itself. Now, if you were to have bootable hard drive with Win98 that you had set up properly on your PC and along with it have another one with Win95 that was also properly set up, you could do what you describe. Furthermore, there are multi-boot managers so that in fact, you wouldn't even have to open the box and play with jumper switches... Hope I did not increase your confusion. Boris __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
RE: Nikon to abandon film...
Pentax is probably closer then Konica-Minolta, since they are actually in the D-SLR market. Minolta just has a prototype with a bunch of engineers with their fingers up their ***. -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Nikon to abandon film... And increase digital production. Who's next? http://www.dpreview.com/news/0406/04061601nikonexitfilm.asp Konica-Minolta, who else? g Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=htt p://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: A-lenses aperture indication
I know the ZX-M manual describes this. It says that the camera will know where the aerator ring is at in FA lens or newer. Older A lens that are not autofocus will not show the aperture reading in the digital display. I'm not sure that all Pentax autofocus cameras will not support this or what model it started with. I just tested this with my PZ-1 and it does recognize the aperture value on an FA lens off of the A position. Dave -Original Message- From: Nenad Djurdjevic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 1:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A-lenses aperture indication William Robb wrote: When the lens is off A, the electrical contacts are disabled, and the lens has no electrical communication at all with the camera. It's not just AF cameras. The Super Program is the same way. Having switched to digital and no longer having any film camera bodies I can't check this - but I could have sworn that F and FA lenses on an AF body gave an aperture readout on the camera at all times (but A lenses didn't).
test-ignore
my replies and new mail have not been coming through for 2 days at least
RE: enlarger for scanning?
Maybe, but the enlarger has a focusing ability. I'd lay a piece of paper on the scanner first and focus the same way I would for an easel. Thus the projected image would be perfectly focused on the scanner glass. I'm reasonable sure it can't be this easy though or somebody would be selling this long ago. But I keep thinking all the scanner is doing is passing the light through from the top through the negative to the scanner sensor. How the scanner would react to nothing solid there though I'm not sure. Possibly the enlarger would have to be focused on the scanner sensor itself rather then the glass? Most likely I'm just spinning my wheels. However I'm hoping someone that has an enlarger at home will actually try this and report back to tell me how crazy I am! hint hint 8). Dave -Original Message- From: Steve Jolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 7:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: enlarger for scanning? You'd have focussing problems I think... it's too late to work out exactly what they'd be though :-) S David Miers wrote: Has anyone ever tried using a flatbed designed for scanning negatives with a chemical darkroom enlarger? I've been tossing this idea around and think it might actually work. You would of course have to work in a dark room lighting type of situation here as well to avoid outside light affecting the scan. Instead of scanning a tiny negative, you would be scanning an image as large as a print. Any thoughts? I'm wondering if you would have to get a different light source then is normally used in an enlarger though? In the scanner bake off at James Photography a 1200 dpi scanner using a reflective device of some sort clearly had the best appearing image thus far, although the MTF numbers were the lowest. Anyone know what kind of setup that is? http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html Currently the very bottom one on the list. Dave
Pentax vs Minolta service
Hi I'm strongly still thinking about bailing out on one system or the other and the service record for Minolta from other lists I'm on really seems to be bad. I personally have only had one dealing with them and although expensive, the results were satisfactory. However many people especially with Maxxum 7 problems have been having to send the camera in repeatedly to finally get the problem fixed taking several months in the process. That is really unacceptable. My only experience with Pentax service in Colorado is with ordering parts directly from them. That worked out rather well I would say. Especially with the *istD how would the list members rate the service coming out of the Pentax Colorado shop for turn around time, expense, and satisfactory results? I would have to say that I have the feeling that while not quite as feature packed as a Minolta Maxxum 7, the Pentax bodies and equipment I have might be a bit more dependable and have a better build quality in some aspects. I currently have the PZ-1p, PZ-1, ZX-7, and ZX-M Pentax bodies. If I dumped the Minolta and the ZX models, the 2 remaining Pentax bodies would have a similar interface as the current *istD I believe. Am I correct on the interface similarities? I think about the dark side as well, but I don't think I'm rich enough to play with the dark side boys. Wanting digital enablement badly Dave
RE: Film and Development
I've only developed BW film myself, so I don't know how similar the rules are with C-41 process. But in black and white the agitation affects contrast. Possibly your sharpness issue is actually a contrast one. I also know that temperatures being off and over/under exposure to the chemicals can affect contrast. I had a big problem with blowing out the highlights that I first thought was over exposure in the camera, but turned out to be over exposure in the negative development tank. I learned to look at the shadow detail in the negatives to tell the difference. Not always but generally if you can see some slight shadow detail in the negative the camera exposed it correctly. If the shadows were ok and the highlights were totally black with no detail, it usually meant I goofed in the development. I've had fairly good luck with most minilabs for just developing the negatives only though as I too scan everything at this point. The only place I consistently have problems with negatives is at Walmart. I get a lot of spots on them as well as scratches. That was not a dig at a certain list member either, honest that's just my experience. It's only about $.75 more to get them done elsewhere though so I'm not too worried. Regarding a comment made about film scans not printing as well as original digital images, that problem ended for me with my grain surgery plug-in for Photoshop. I can now get the detail from the film with noiseless digital. I can only compare this with my 4MP digital presently though, so not necessarily a fair general statement I suppose. I had Walmart scan a couple of roles for me and got the cd, but was totally unhappy with that. It was way too low of resolution and the scans were very poor quality as compared to my Dual Scan III, which is not really a high res scanner and has a budget price to boot. One of these days I need to try taking my digital files in to be printed and see how that works out. Thus far I'm only printing at home in my inkjets. Dave -Original Message- From: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 7:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film and Development George wrote: I've received some pretty dirty stuff back from the local discount place, but never anything optically fuzzy. I've since moved my business to another place. Help me understand, since I've only developed black and white negs and color slides at home. What would cause the sharpness of color negatives to degrade during the developing process? My totally uniformed guess would be that the process would have to be off pretty far to have an effect on the emulsion. Baring chemistry completely out of wack you can't affect sharpness. What you can affect is contrast and acutance. A low contrast negative with low acutance will not look as sharp when printed as a normal contrast negative. I suppose that very dirty stabilizer could leave a film on the film that could affect the sharpness a bit. The in control range in C-41 is wide enough that you could see a difference between a negative processed in a machine running at minimum control, especially low LD and HD - LD (contrast), and a machine running with those plots near the high end of in control. I try to keep my machines (both film and paper processor) running between mid way and max control. The trade off is that film shot under very contrasty lighting can be a PITA to print. Hope that helps. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
RE: Scanning C41 BW Question
Hamrick software recommends scanning films that have an orange mask in color mode. All others in BW mode. The users manual for Vuescan gives a bit more detail as to why this is so. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 10:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Scanning C41 BW Question I don't know what's best. I've been scanning the chromogenic stuff as BW. Shel Belinkoff wrote: When scanning chromogenic BW film that has an orange mask, like Kodak's 400CN, does one scan the film as a BW neg or as a color neg? Shel Belinkoff
RE: *istD unsharpness
That's exactly what I've been thinking William, but I'm not quite up enough on the technical details of digital cameras to comment much. Wasn't it just discussed how Nikon lenses are sharper for the most part then Pentax? What about with the new photoshop CS or what ever it is that has the plugin for pentax raw files? Would that make it more fair? I'm getting the impression that with Pentax raw files he used the included software? Dave -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 6:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD unsharpness - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: *istD unsharpness Maybe Pentax simply doesn't like sharpness? Most of the really sharp lens designs have been replaced by less sharp ones. One of the things I have noticed is that My Pentax lenses don't seem to be quite as sharp (high resolution) as my Nikkors were, and what the Canon lenses seem to be as well. It makes the whole trying to compare the istD sharpenss with other camera kinda retarded, since the test would have to be conducted with identical lenses to be a real test of the sensor resolution. William Robb
RE: Camera backpack with drawers
Don't you know trolling ebay is dangerous!!! to your wallet that is! Your sure to see all kinds of things you just have to have...lol 8). Dave -Original Message- From: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Camera backpack with drawers Found it! I went through some old Outdoor Photographers that I was about to throw out and found it. It's the Domke Armadillo 30 and it's not made anymore, so I'm going to start trolling ebay for it. Amita
RE: Scanning Software: Nikonscan v Vuescan
I don't know how this works exactly, but according to what I've read scanners that have the hardware to support digital ICE have some other options for cleanup in Vuescan supposedly using the same type of technology. I've not been able to try this yet since none of my scanners have the hardware support for it. --- The lack of ICE in Vuescan is of little consequence if your films are kept free of dust and scratches due to bad handling.
RE: Paw:Look what we found
-- Rotties seem to have more pack drive than most of the other breeds, and don't really do well on their own. Thats why Rotties that spend too much time alone become so anti social. I agree they are known to get antisocial in an environment where they are chained up and get little attention. --- My Rottie bitch had a pet cat for many years. http://www.reginakennelclub.ca/image/Misc/pages/leica_tmax_jpg.htm - That's a really cute picture! 8) - Dogs don't have the mental capacity to think they are anything other than what they are. Dogs mental capacity differs greatly from breed to breed and from every individual dog. The owner has a lot to do with how well a dog try's to learn our language and ways though. Mine continually amazes me demonstrating much more intelligence then most people think dogs are supposed to have by knowing the meaning of many more words then average. If your Rottie has issues with other dogs, you might want to consider some socialization work. It is so much more pleasurable to own a dog that you don't have to worry about going goofy when an unexpected situation arises. Been there, tried that, didn't work out well. He will listen to me as long as I'm keeping an eye on him, but the first chance he gets to follow his own ideas, well he gets into trouble. As long as the other dog doesn't want to be boss life is good. However if the other dog has similar ideas, well maybe mumbles as first, but if you continue to try to socialize the 2 real serious blood shed will follow if the other dog doesn't back down. That can get expensive and cause misery for everyone. We even had him neutered, but it didn't help. As long as he loves people I can deal with the other issue. He's almost 9 years old now, and a wonderful friend. Umm... we might should drop this now as I really don't see how we could get any more off topic..lol. William Robb
RE: GFM coming together
Don't forget the Advil Mark! Your back is going to hurt after lugging all that equipment...lol.. 8). Dave -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 3:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GFM coming together Starting to get packed... http://www.robertstech.com/temp/packing.jpg -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Website v3.0
Win 2000 IE 6 and I'm having no problems with Shaun's site! Dave -Original Message- From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 3:36 PM To: Shaun Canning Subject: Re: Website v3.0 Hi! Shaun, your newest web page is quite heavy on scripting. Let's just say that my std IE 6.0 under Win2000 in my office went belly up. He thought your scripts had some bug and it wouldn't let go. Eventually it just closed... At home with IE 6.0 and Win98 and Proxymotron 4.5 it seems to work. It does look way cool though. And your photos are still your photos - quite good at that g... Still, I suppose other people would be responding. But you seem to be in need for feedback g... Boris SC Hi Gang, SC I found 2 very useful pieces of software in the last couple of weeks. SC The first one is called Media Recover, and as the name suggests, it SC assists in the recovery of lost files from flash memory cards. I bought SC a copy after accidentally deleting some files from both PC and CF card. SC Lo and behold, all were recoverable from the CF card. Excellent piece of SC software, and pretty cheap. http://www.mediarecover.com/ SC Second piece of software is free, and absolutely brilliant. I have just SC redone my entire website using this program, and it is just fantastic SC (the software...although I like too think the website is pretty good now SC LOL). The program is called JAlbum 4.4, and is available free from SC http://jalbum.net/ SC Download a copy of the latter program now...you wont regret it. SC Dr. Shaun Canning SC Cultural Heritage Services SC Lawrence Way, Karratha, SC Western Australia, SC 6714 SC 0414-967644 SC [EMAIL PROTECTED] SC http://www.heritageservices.com.au Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
RE: Paw:Look what we found
Just because dogs don't like cats...or in my Rotty's case even other dogs, has nothing to do with their disposition towards people. The only time my Rotty would ever try to hurt you, is if you tried to hurt the baby first! He just adores people in general, possibly because he truly has no idea that he's a dog. That part just could be my fault! Dave -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Paw:Look what we found If I had two pets, and one of them killed the other, I'd very soon have zero pets. Then I'd have to go out looking for one or more replacements with a better, more trustworthy disposition. A pet that kills is potentially dangerous. Who decides the next victim is just a worthless cat. The killer dog? What if it's a baby belonging to a friend, a neighbor, or ... But, that's just me. I wouldn't have a killing machine on the property... keith whaley William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley Subject: Re: Paw:Look what we found And is he still alive, himself? Of course. Cats are way more expendable than dogs. Zowie was not a very nice cat anyway. William Robb
RE: Fully manual SLR
I would agree 100% with the CLA ahead of time thought. Furthermore I note no one has mentioned the Ricoh cameras which for the most part are available quite reasonable, many are totally manual except for a light meter that serves no necessary function. The best part is they take Pentax lenses! 8) Dave -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 3:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fully manual SLR Any camera that is to be used in extreme cold should be CLAed and reassembled with cold weather lubricants. A good camera repair shop will know what to use and where to use it. Otherwise, you're libel to end up with slow moving shutter curtains at high speed. MX would be fine as would almost any other manual body. The lube is what makes a difference in the cold. Spoken by someone who once six rolls of film shooting football at Chicago's Soldier Field in -10 F weather. Paul On May 30, 2004, at 11:02 AM, frank theriault wrote: Brett, There is only one answer to your question. There is no argument. Anyone who gives you any other answer is wrong. Not only is this the best manual body that Pentax ever made, it may be the best body Pentax ever made, ~period~. No doubt this has already been mentioned in several answers, but it is: the MX genuflect at this juncture Read no more. Go acquire one, and fall in love. HTH, frank ps: have I seen you here before? Not that I recall. If you're new, welcome to the list, and hang on for a fun ride!! vbg -ft The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Brett Mckay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fully manual SLR Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 20:09:46 +1000 Which would be the best fully manual SLR be to buy as a backup for use in extremely cold temperatures. So I do not want any electronics or batteries. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/ premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/ encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
I found B W to be very frustrating in college too, as I too am very color oriented. But towards the end of the course it started to rub off on me or something, because I started looking at images differently, even choosing B W as the preferred medium for some images. You have got to admit the lack of worries in ambient lighting for color temp is great though! Dave -- Marnie aka Doe I did a semester of darkroom in college and didn't enjoy it that much. OTOH, I also shot in BW for that class too and didn't like that much either (being very color oriented). So it's not a love affair for everyone. ;-)
RE: Negative scan to photo?
The only stupid question is the one you don't ask they always say! First of all most scanning software that is designed to scan negatives automatically converts it to positive. The only exception is when you scan to a raw file in a program such as Vuescan or actually the Minolta software will do it as well. In this case you simply invert the image and waalaa you have a standard positive image. In the case of a raw file the color levels will need to be adjusted since no editing has been done by the scanner at all and all the original scanned information is retained in the raw file which is advantageous at times. Hope this helps Dave -Original Message- From: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Negative scan to photo? Hi Dave this may be a stupid question, but how do you convert a negative scan into a positive (photo) in photoshop or else? thanks Markus long time since I put a negative through the epson and now I remember why! It's very slow compared to the Minolta and the quality much rovement in the 2400dpi scan over the 1600 in the epson? Dave
RE: Mirror foam on MX
I ordered the bumpers from Pentax for my PZ-1 and used double sided 3M tape cut to a small sliver to install them. The idea of any liquid type glue in a camera is scary to me! That was almost 2 years ago and they are fine. In the case of my PZ-1 I ripped it trying to change the focus screen, but I would wonder about the rest of the seals if one is bad? The outside seals for the film door are no problem, but aren't there some other ones around the shutter or something? Walmart used to sell a felt that has an adhesive back to it in sheet for like $1. Those work great for film door seals. I think it was my K1000 and a Sears(Ricoh) that I redid both film doors in this manner. Dave -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mirror foam on MX Well with the foam bad you can chip the mirror if you keep using it. Note: Personal experience talking here. However it is a $5 do-it-yourself fix. Basically a 1.5mm wide by 3mm thick piece of foam the width of the mirror. Pentax USA still had the mirror bumper in stock a year ago. Your local Pentax distributor may still have them too. But you can cut a piece of foam to fit. The foam sold by places like http://www.micro-tools.com/docs.htm is softer then the Pentax stuff, mouse pad foam is harder. Contact cement works fine. -- Henri Toivonen wrote: So, I've been playing around with my new MX. Cleaned it and inspected every aspect of it.. And I found that the foam that softens the mirror blow has really gone old. It falls off when I touch it (Why did I have to go and touch it?!). Is this bad? Should I start to figure something out to replace that foam? It sure does give a pretty loud CLACK when the mirror flies up. /Henri -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: Will I ever use my MX again?
Minolta does a lot of yapping about their great autofocus, but I honestly can't tell much difference between it and my Pentax autofocus. In fact many times the Pentax performs better especially in dim light. -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Will I ever use my MX again? Maybe it's just Pentax autofocus, but I find when you begin to depend upon it, it lets you down. Amita Guha wrote: Lately I have even been able to do manual focusing in the viewfinder, which is no-where near as bright and clear as the MX, but with practice I can now focus manually which is still necessary to get the focus where _I_ want it sometimes. I'm finding that I still prefer to focus manually a lot with the istD, although it might be just a lack of experience with AF on my part. My favorite viewfinder is the one in the Super Program.
RE: Take a wild guess
I managed to do a quick sample of the Minolta and Epson scans. If it makes anyone feel better the film was exposed in a PZ-1p Pentax... :). Here is a link to the crops. Dreamweaver's photo album function has a bad tendency to sort the thumbnails how ever it wants to rather then leaving them in the right order unfortunately. http://www.davesfotooptions.com/crops/index.htm I tried to make them all as similar and sized the same, although they didn't come out exact. I need a better set of reference points when making the crops. The scans other then cropping and resizing to the same size are untouched and exactly as Vuescan put them out. I used Vuescan with both scanners with the film profile and color settings the same. It's been a long time since I put a negative through the epson and now I remember why! It's very slow compared to the Minolta and the quality much poorer. You'll note more dust on the Minolta scans as dedicated film scanners tend to do. You'll also see the noise generated by the Minolta scanner here, but it is easily removed in PS still leaving more detail then a lower res scan with less noise. Again this is Fugi 400 NPS film. I was surprised there was little improvement in the 2400dpi scan over the 1600 in the epson? Dave -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 2:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Take a wild guess Thanks for the input, Dave. I would be interested in your future tests.
RE: transporting my kit...
Mine also accepts a decent sturdy padlock, not one of those pissy little suitcase padlocks that a three year old could bite off. I heard something about you shouldn't lock your luggage any more since it may have to be opened for inspection??? Dave
RE: D76
I'm certainly not an expert in this field and offer this link only for your examination. Draw your own conclusions. That is the link to the main site. www.fineartphotosupply.com This is the link to the new developer I mentioned before. http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/FA1027%20Developer.htm This is a quote from their April news letter. D-76 is similar to D-23 and D-25, but with the addition of Hydroquinone. The Hydroquinone gives D-76 more energy, so there is less or no sulfite reduction of the silver halide. (This isnt secret information see Adams The Negative, pp 183-185). All of these developers, D-23, D-25, and D-76 are unrestrained. Perhaps this explains the high value compression in the D-76 developer action. Quite distressing. Shall I share something that is a bit of a secret? Kodak T-Max developer is the same formula as D-76, except its liquid. They are the same developer. I'd be happy to send a copy of the April news letter to anyone that wishes, but I think I might be pushing the envelope even reposting this piece on the group. If you subscribe to their news letter they do send you the current issue plus about 3 back issues of the free ezine type. There is a lot of tech-no-babble that quite frankly I don't completely understand yet in these letters and truly hope that some of the more skilled in this department might check this out and give us their opinions in layman's language. Dave -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 7:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: D76 - Original Message - From: David Miers Subject: RE: D76 According to a site that I recently subscribed to T-Max developer and D76 are actually chemically the same even though from what I understand one is a powder and the other is a liquid. Except that they give entirely different characteristic curves to identically exposed film. I expect they do share some common chemical compounds, but I have my doubts that they are the same, based on my limited experience with black and white processing. William Robb
RE: D76
According to a site that I recently subscribed to T-Max developer and D76 are actually chemically the same even though from what I understand one is a powder and the other is a liquid. I'm not at home on my home systems, so I can't access the info right now, but will post a link tomorrow night if I remember. They are also selling a new developer made by a recently laid off engineer from Kodak in New York that knocks the pants off of most of them. I can't vouch for this as I've not tried it yet. Does make interesting reading though. -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: D76 ditto. And I got my best results exposing tmax 400 @200 and developing it for 11 minutes at 68 degrees F. Got that recipe from a serious BW fine art photog. It works. On Mar 17, 2004, at 1:37 PM, Mark Cassino wrote: At 11:12 AM 3/17/2004 -0600, you wrote: From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only developer that I found worked well with T-Max film is T-Max developer. Unfortunately, yes. That's why I'm moving to Pan F. I'm no expert on BW chemistry, but I get fine results using D76 1:! and TMax. - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
RE: A lesson in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
Ok now I'm getting a bit confused. Could someone clarify a few points for me please. I currently use the AF360FGZ on the PZ-1p and PZ-1 as well as with some older cameras. I liked the fact that it is supposed to be completely backward compatible with all Pentax cameras. I am aware that this flash uses only standard TTL with these units and automatically switches to P-TTL with the newer ones. However I was under the impression that standard auto flash and manual were still available with all the cameras that were supposed to support this function including the *istD. Is this right? I bought the AF360FGZ with the idea that it would be more compatible with future Pentax cameras that might come my way plus it has slave, wireless, and high speed sync with the appropriate cameras. I realize that the AF360FGZ is not the most powerful flash on the market, but thought it should be sufficient for my needs going by the guide number. When using the auto and manual functions does the auto zoom head function properly on autofocus cameras? Also what types of camera metering function with which flash functions? I have normally shot multisegment metering with flash in the past and have had really good results thus far. However I haven't used my Pentax gear that much with flash. I have usually been using my Minolta gear for this need. I did have to use my PZ-1 as a backup camera one time at a wedding reception as my Minolta with the lens I was using was having some major focus problems with the lighting conditions. A bit of experimentation later proved it was a lens problem and not the body. However using the PZ-1 that night impressed me greatly on how well it was locking on focus quickly without a great deal of searching. I didn't even have a external flash with me and had to use the on camera popup unit. I still got some great shots that were properly exposed with this handicap. I wish I would have had an external flash with to compare the results. Since I have a much better lens line up in Pentax, I have been strongly considering dumping the Minolta equipment to buy a *istD. However this thread is making me really wonder about the wisdom of this decision. Minolta is supposed to also be releasing a DSLR based on their 7 model. One of it's strong points is image stabilization, but I'm not feeling I need that function all that badly. I strongly suspect this will be out of my price tag zone and hate to give up my Pentax equipment to finance such a move. The questions surrounding P-TTL flash and this coming camera are being highly debated in their camp as well. The general consensus is that no one wants to have to use it and give up standard TTL flash which is highly accurate in their cameras, but fear that P-TTL will be required for digital flash. Right now the P-TTL can be controlled with either not by not using the D series lenses. They are also afraid that the D series lens will be required for flash use. Some of the Minolta camp is jumping ship to Canon to avoid the P-TTL, but I thought Canon used it too? Anyone know what the status of Nikon is with P-TTL? I feel that using multi segment metering or at the very least center weighted metering is very important to me for candid type shots. When setting up a formal posed situation all the manual ideas are great and nice to be able to work towards whatever idea you have in mind. However when doing candid shots such at a wedding reception things are happening very fast. I just don't see myself having the time to consider all the valid points of lighting existing in the situation and making the corresponding manual adjustments. I really need the camera computers to figure this out for me so I can get the shot and not still be there trying to figure it all out after the moment has passed. Maybe this is a so called Point and Shooter viewpoint, but I would rather get the shot and debate the should haves afterwards. I am aware the *istD will default to P-TTL, but will auto flash be available with the AF360FGZ, or will I have to use an older fl ash to get this function? Confused again! Dave -- My Metz 60 CT-2 has measured to within ± 1/10 of a stop, at ranges from 6 feet or so right out to around 25 feet with it's built in sensor. This is an amply accurate range for wedding/ general photography. When running it in TTL with the LX, the exposures were within a stop most of the time, but sometimes about 15 stops under because of the ongoing meter fault that all three of my LX have. The istD has just about the worst TTL flash control I have seen, I doubt if it is within ± 1 stop. It is certainly not accurate enough for the recording medium. On the nice side, the istD has a PC socket, so auto flash is easily done. William Robb
RE: GFM photos
I see no good reason that the digital cameras can't enter the race if having prints is the only excuse. A DC converter to 110 does amazing things like enable your printers to work off of your laptops...or maybe there is 110..never been there. At any rate hauling along a printer isn't so hard to do. I finally read the entire thread about the contest and digital issues you're facing at GFM. It does get sticky when you're talking about judging images on a monitor instead of prints.
RE: Faster film drying?
At college we have a film dryer closet. Just looks like a tall narrow metal closet with timer and heat thermostat controls on top. Usually does it in about 20 minutes. It does a good job and doesn't seem to get the negatives dusty either. I imagine you could make one, but need to make sure the air is recirculated mostly, or I think you'd get all kinds of dust. If you get it too hot you'll adversely curl your film as well. -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:33 PM To: Spotmatic discuss; SLR Manual Mailing list; pentax discuss; Pentax67 discuss; Club M42 Subject: Faster film drying? Anybody know of some safe, time proven way to speed up the drying of film after it is taken out of final rinse? I am currently just hanging to dry in a air conditioned room but it's taking about an hour to fully dry which is sometimes undesireable. I'd be mostly interested in BW films both 35mm 120 rolls as well as 4x5 and 8x10 sheets. Thanks in advance, JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
RE: Computer Question
Tanya, do yourself a favor and rename your folder. Too many clean up programs might mistake this for a temp folder or file constituting a possible disaster of the worst kind. -Original Message- From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Computer Question lol! Sorry, Herb, my mistake there! My TMP folder isn't my Temp folder - it is my Tanya Mayer Photography (hence the TMP) folder. It contains everything pertaining to my business which is why I was worried about the mentions of loss in the error message. I do understand what you are saying about the TEMP folder though... Many thanks! tan. -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 28 March 2004 12:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Computer Question TMP means exactly what it sounds like, temporary. you should never care what is in it unless you put it there yourself. my startup script unconditionally deletes everything in it every time i boot my system. Herb - Original Message - From: Tanya Mayer Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 8:53 PM Subject: RE: Computer Question I just began to copy my TMP folder over to the D: and got the following error message: Confirm Stream Loss - The file Thumbs has extra information attached to it that might be lost if you continue copying. The contents of the file will not be affected. Information that might be lost includesL :encryptable:$DATA. Do you wish to proceed anyway? Yes, Yes To All, No, Cancel etc.
RE: Double Exposure:paw
You used [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the moon exposure. And with the converter attached what would the f stop equivalent be? Minus 2 stops right? We just had a conundrum of how to expose the moon properly in class, and to my surprise it was the sunny 16 rule which is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your exposure is one stop less with the converter 2 stop loss correct or were you calculating the aperture difference already when you quoted the f11? Either way I love the image and way to go! Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Double Exposure:paw Hi Boris. Thanks for the comments. Actually i did that placement on purpose,just to be a bit different. Yes the total with 2x converter would be 400mm.Not as large as i hoped but still pleasing. Dave Hi! Dave, what strikes me as particularly pleasing here is that you placed the moon in the mid bottom. The cliche/custom/majority has it either in top left or on top right corner occupying big portion of the shot. You did it rather unusually and it works just fine for me... So, total focal length was 400 mm, right? Fascinating... Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
RE: News story on eBay fraud
But if your talking about the sale I think you are, that sale was plainly marked. Some people just can't read. To the seller's credit he cancelled the sale to avoid hard feelings on any side. He could have legitimately held those people to their bids IMHO. -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 1:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: News story on eBay fraud Seems to me that applying the same rule you should in gambling would help. Bid (bet) no more than you can afford to lose. Do you suppose these guys were responsible for the $400 bids on a empty box awhile back? -- Mark Roberts wrote: On C|NET, from the New York Times: http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5176525.html?tag=st_pop -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
RE: WOW - 60th Anniversary Photo
I'm not entirely happy with this, but here is a quick effort at http://www.davesfotooptions.com/pdmlwow/ -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 11:25 PM To: PDML Subject: WOW - 60th Anniversary Photo This week is the 60th anniversary of this photo, my uncle getting ready for his first solo flight in a trainer plane. I'd like to see what others can do with it. I'll be putting my final work up soon, as well. http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/pilot.jpg
RE: Here is my WOW offering
Here's my attempt for this image. Dave http://www.davesfotooptions.com/pdmlwow/index.htm -Original Message- From: Dr E D F Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: F: Here is my WOW offering http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/edfw/orig1.jpg Am I supposed to post my processed version now -- or later? This was scanned several years ago when I was not too familiar with Photoshop. The original file was deleted after I'd finished. So I scanned it again. The scanner I have now is a whole lot better than the one I used at the time. The final image was printed (Epson 750 Photo) and framed. It was taken in Rawalpindi, India, just before the great War began. Captain Job Clarke (that was his name) was only 35 when he was posted to the Persian Gulf where bad things happened. He was brought back to die in a Bombay hospital early in 1915. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See Extra Pages 'The Cement Company from HELL!' Updated: August 15, 2003 Butters, you can't take Teddy's place.
RE: pz1p pricing
Possibly repair in Colorado is easier to obtain on the American version? -Original Message- From: Joe Wilensky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: pz1p pricing KEH is often a little high on the pricing, although it's usually worth it because of their conservative grading and excellent reputation. One curiosity regarding the PZ-1p is that the European/Asian version Z-1p, which is the exact same camera, is consistently cheaper in the KEH listings when compared to the PZ-1p's, for cameras in the same condition. The difference is often nearly $100. This is also true for the PZ-1 and Z-1 cameras, though the difference is less. I don't know why this pricing difference exists. I haven't noticed quite as marked a difference with the ZX/MZ series. The only constant in that pricing is that the all-black cameras are more expensive than chrome/black ones in the same condition. Joe From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] You might also consider the PZ-1p/Z-1p. US$300 will buy you a mint one. Not last I looked. KEH had bargains in the mid three hundreds, better condition ones over four hundred. I find their prices to be pretty competitive. I considered a PZ-1p, and If I really could have found a a bargain one for $250ish (if mint ones were $300) I might not have paid $225 for a KX. DJE
RE: Damaged Wedding Photo
Some of the results are awesome as I tried a bit the other day and got no where close to what some of the guys did. I'm getting the impression though that some of you had a better original file to work with then the original one posted. Did you send a bigger version to the participants Kevin? If so I still wouldn't mind having a go just for practice. I would make a suggestion that if it is doable rathen sending a bigger version of files to each one requesting it, rather post a bigger version for download on personal web space somewhere. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin Thornsberry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: WOW: Damaged Wedding Photo Sorry, I forgot to put WOW in the title. Kevin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Thornsberry Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:22 PM To: PDML Subject: WOW: Damaged Wedding Photo WOWers, Here's a bit of a challenge. I found a framed picture from when my parents got married. Somehow portions of the picture had stuck to the glass. Before trying to remove the picture I decided to scan it glass and all. Here's the result. http://thornsberry.smugmug.com/gallery/81452/1/2829205 In addition to the parts that are stuck, you can see the picture has faded due to the dark border where no light had hit the picture. I did my best with it a couple of years ago. With what some of you have accomplished with the WOW I thought I'd throw it out there for you to try. In a day or so I'll post the submissions as well as what I was able to do. Thanks. Kevin
RE: Damaged Wedding Photo
Ok, I figured it out finally, thanks! I was working with a much smaller version originally. I couldn't even make out the necklace on the version I had. -Original Message- From: Kevin Thornsberry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Damaged Wedding Photo Dave, The playing field was level. Everyone had the same quality available. Go back to the web site and click on the image which will open it in its own window. In the window you can select the size. For maximum enjoyment choose original. Small, medium and large are all smaller than original. Kevin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miers Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Damaged Wedding Photo Some of the results are awesome as I tried a bit the other day and got no where close to what some of the guys did. I'm getting the impression though that some of you had a better original file to work with then the original one posted. Did you send a bigger version to the participants Kevin? If so I still wouldn't mind having a go just for practice. I would make a suggestion that if it is doable rathen sending a bigger version of files to each one requesting it, rather post a bigger version for download on personal web space somewhere. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin Thornsberry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: WOW: Damaged Wedding Photo Sorry, I forgot to put WOW in the title. Kevin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Thornsberry Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:22 PM To: PDML Subject: WOW: Damaged Wedding Photo WOWers, Here's a bit of a challenge. I found a framed picture from when my parents got married. Somehow portions of the picture had stuck to the glass. Before trying to remove the picture I decided to scan it glass and all. Here's the result. http://thornsberry.smugmug.com/gallery/81452/1/2829205 In addition to the parts that are stuck, you can see the picture has faded due to the dark border where no light had hit the picture. I did my best with it a couple of years ago. With what some of you have accomplished with the WOW I thought I'd throw it out there for you to try. In a day or so I'll post the submissions as well as what I was able to do. Thanks. Kevin
RE: OT: BW or Colour - Maybe a WOW?
B W works much better here I think. The bus is less distracting in this mode. You guys were right before about it needing to be there to tell the story, but if it could be toned down some. Maybe lighten the picture a bit to get better shadow detail and burn the bus. My focus is on what I can't see, which is the little girls face. I didn't blow it up, but the image gives me a desire to see the emotion on the little girls face if that detail exists. Perhaps it has it's own value in my imagination being stirred to wonder. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 5:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: BW or Colour - Maybe a WOW? Hi Frank. The colour one looks plain to me,nothing really snaps out.However the BW one makes it look a little more like a picture(dont ask me to explain that last comment,i'm not sure what i mean.lol)Seeing as how the shadows are not really dark black,a little more detail in that area might help. Dave Hi, Some of you may recall that I posted this to mixed reviews (being charitable g) several weeks or a month ago: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2111661 Any thoughts on seeing it in bw? http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2129161 You like better? Worser? Both equally mediocre? g I'm still not sure about this image, but there's something about it that I feel I can say if it's reworked the right way. Maybe with a WOW? Thanks, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en- capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MS NIS_Tagline s
timer driven mirror lockup vs. full: Was RE: dorkily enabled
I have heard a lot of quibbling about mirror lockup being a timer element only on this list as well as others over time. I agree that the real thing would be better and I'm not exactly quite sure why they don't do that as I don't see why it's so hard to do. However in reality when I consider this, I don't feel that mirror lockup is of any use to begin with unless your on a tripod and using a release since hand holding or even touching the camera would probably cause more movement then the internal mirror function. After I go through all this I am most likely setting up for a still shot that isn't moving or moment critical to begin with. In a studio the shot is often shot with a soft lens to begin with and at close range so again the mirror lockup doesn't seem critical. The only situation that comes to mind is if you were set up for wildlife at long range and trying to catch a moment there. My point after beating around the bush all day is in reality, how many times does the absence of true mirror lockup vs. timed mirror lock really hinder your chances of getting the shot correctly. I don't mean hypothetically, but rather real time experiences that you have actually encountered and either regretted not having it or really did need the true mirror lock feature. Personally I love the 2 second timer feature as it means not having to dig out or carry the release and I'm probably more likely to actually use it because of the same reason. Not arguing that the true thing isn't better, just really curious. So educate me here ok... :). Dave mirror lock-up (of a sort) I was under the impression that the KX was one of the only two Pentax models to ever have true mirror lock-up (the other one is the LX). Nope, the K2 has manual mirror lock-up too. other Pentax models that have mirror lockup, have it only with the self-timer, which makes it hard to capture the moment if that's what you're trying to do.
RE: Pentax (film) vs. 5MP (SONY)
I kept getting the feeling that the focus was off on the film scans. Unfortunately the epson holder leaves something to be desired and the lack of focus control can be a problem if the 3200 is at all like my 2400. I read about some people testing the focus by shimming the holder as well as putting the negative directly on the glass. The results varied and some were able to achieve better results through testing. Since film does and will curl however a film scanner without variable focus is very limited IMHO. I think that's one of the reasons I started noticing so much more dust on my negatives since I went with the low priced Minolta DualScan III. I don't think using 6600 interpolated vs. the actual 3200 res of the scanner helps a lot of the time though either. Going higher then 2400dpi on my Epson 2400 actually created a visible distortion in some images. Unfortunately and unavoidable for the most part Jpeg images for the web also cause distortion. The proof truly is in the printing. Making yourself contact sheets comparing small crops and giving your opinion would probably be of more value. Whether it's graphics or photographed images I don't truly see small problems or defects properly until printed usually. I appreciate your efforts and view with interest, but it would be nice if you had some comments on each image from your hands on stand point. One final idea is when you get a film scanner to give film it's due, you really need to go with a better model with a minimum res of at least 4000 dpi and preferably use a fine grained slide film. -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) For those of you who didn't read the very long thread about *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution, I have posted shots made made with a Pentax MZ-S and different lenses compared to almost identical shots made with a Sony DSC F717 - a 5MP camera with a Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar lens and a 6x8mm chip. I believe practical tests are equally informative as the facts of the figures (according to which a 6x5mm chip should not be able to produce much resulution). The link is this: http://gallery50012.fotopic.net/c132825_1.html Nest time I'll use and a dedicated film scanner. J.C. O'Connell suggested I'd use 50 or 100 ISO, but I guess the SONY (as well as the 'ist D) does not feature less than 200 ASA. And f 1:8 is the upper limit of the Sonnar lens, but not of the *ist D. (I believe that most lenses have their best reslolution/performance at f. 1:8 - 1:11, though). This bring me to suggset - again - that somone on this list will do similar tests, using the *ist D All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
RE: clever virus attack (Att. Dalal)
There is no problem in viewing either jpeg or gif files on my system at this point in Outlook. Possibly in Microsoft's ongoing wisdom(meant to be sarcastic!)(to Microsoft, not you Herb) they changed this around at some point. -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 6:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: clever virus attack (Att. Dalal) the attachments in this case were JPG and GIF files. since MS normally configured these to open with IE, they were deemed unsafe and would not open and could not be detached either, so you could never access them, but they were still there. Herb - Original Message - From: David Miers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 1:19 AM Subject: RE: clever virus attack (Att. Dalal) I don't think you can configure the level one file extensions. What they have eliminated though I don't consider a bad thing. Anytime you need to send someone something though whether it be on a network or email a compressed zip or rar file is always a better choice. A lot less chance of a file being corrupted this way and if a virus was in a compressed file it would be isolated until opened. At least it cannot start a problem just because I opened an email with it attached.
RE: clever virus attack (Att. Dalal)
Whether or not it protects you or not I can't say for sure, but the documentation plainly states, with a Outlook 2000 updated to current security patches, that until you open the mail all the way scripts cannot run. It also tells you when a email contains scripts ahead of time. From what I can see Outlook is actually way more secure then Outlook express 6. It does not allow any files attached that match the definitions in what is termed level 1. The mail will come in with the attachment deleted. This does not 100% stop virus attachments from coming in, but it does kill most of them. If you run in restricted mode scripts are not supposed to run period if I understand correctly. I simply turn off preview when downloading emails so I can see who they are from etc and if attachments are present. This way I can delete the file without it having any opportunity to run. Then I turn on preview and read my mail as usual. I believe the updates and patches for Office 2000 make a big difference for security in the Outlook your referring to. I believe the only way your going to be completely secure is to run a email client that supports text only email and/ or Linux, which to be quite frank is quite bring!!! There is a lot of nice attributes to html and scripts that I truly enjoy. I have friends that send me very creative stationary that would be missed otherwise. I have to turn off the restricted zone security settings to view them after I verify who they are from. The main thing is just be careful. If you can't enjoy your computer what's the sense of it all in my opinion. A computer is a tool, but it also can deliver a lot of pleasure. Learn how to work the security features of the programs your running to their full advantage IMHO. Just my 2cents worth -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 6:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: clever virus attack (Att. Dalal) i refuse to install Outlook 2000 on my machines because it still remains vulnerable to scripting viruses in emails. they run whenever you have preview enabled. Herb... - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 3:44 AM Subject: Re: clever virus attack (Att. Dalal) It does not depend on an exchange server. Outlook can be configured to use perfectly ordinary SMTP servers, IMAP servers, POP3 servers, and the secure variants. During installation you get all the necessary questions to configure it properly, it's all about installing the right services to use. You can modify your installation later as well if you like.
RE: Viruses and WinZip
How about winrar? How does it rate security wise? -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Viruses and WinZip This just in, if you have an older version of WinZip you may be vulnerable to a buffer overflow trick: Because of issues involved with the decoding of MIME parameters within certain archive types (files with .mim, .uue, .uu, .b64, .bhx, .hqx and .xxe extensions), WinZip versions prior to the current, released Version 9.0 are vulnerable to a buffer overflow which can lead to the execution of arbitrary code simply by opening a specifically crafted archive. If you use WinZip, the ISC recommends that you either upgrade to version 9.0 or disable WinZip's association with .b64 .bhx .hqx .mim .uu .uue .xxe file extensions. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Windows eye candy was Re: *istD, Muvo-2 and Hitachi 4gb Microdrive
Went back to win 2000 and am a happy camper for the most part. Runs faster especially when editing images and scanning and is running flawlessly after getting the initial bugs out. -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 11:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Windows eye candy was Re: *istD, Muvo-2 and Hitachi 4gb Microdrive The problem I have with having to customize the OS is that when you have to reload it, it can take hours to get it back the way you like it. Wan't so bad when I kept an image on the server, but I don't have a server any more. But trying to use something designed by the advertising department in Redmond is a pain. -- Boros Attila wrote: Hello brooksdj, Wednesday, March 3, 2004, 8:17:55 AM, you wrote: bcin I have XP.Whats this eye candy i can turn bcin off.I'd like to see my machine run bcin fastergMy ME bcin machines are quicker than my XP one. bcin Dave Eye candy is something worth looking at. In XP it's not. Nick Clark wrote: You can easily turn off the 'eye candy' in XP. Makes it run faster too! Read The Elder Geek on Windows XP http://www.theeldergeek.com/ it is a great resource page for XP users, there are many good tips about services which can be disabled to free some resources and make your machine run faster. It's amazing how many useless sh*t is running on a default XP install. Rule of thumb: Make a partition just for the swap file, and set it to be fixed size, about 2x or 3x the size of your RAM. It is a shame that XP 'professional' doesn't have a geniune swap partition, but it can be tricked. If you have 2 or more hard drives, put the system and the swap on different drives. This can speed up those memory consuming apps. Attila -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
RE: clever virus attack (Att. Dalal)
I don't think you can configure the level one file extensions. What they have eliminated though I don't consider a bad thing. Anytime you need to send someone something though whether it be on a network or email a compressed zip or rar file is always a better choice. A lot less chance of a file being corrupted this way and if a virus was in a compressed file it would be isolated until opened. At least it cannot start a problem just because I opened an email with it attached. -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 8:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: clever virus attack (Att. Dalal) i don't remember MS allowing the end user to configure what constituted Level 1. a lot of angry users called up to ask what happened to their attachments for several months. Herb - Original Message - From: David Miers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:59 PM Subject: RE: clever virus attack (Att. Dalal) It does not allow any files attached that match the definitions in what is termed level 1. The mail will come in with the attachment deleted. This does not 100% stop virus attachments from coming in, but it does kill most of them. If you run in restricted mode scripts are not supposed to run period if I understand correctly.
Film Reciprocity failure and high/low shutter speeds
Hi All It has been recently discussed about film reciprocity failure in my photography class at college. I have personally never considered this into my calculations of exposure times and simply accepted the speeds suggested by my Pentax (PZ-1 PZ-1p) light meters and had good luck. The safe zone is only from about 1 second to 1/1000 second. As you all know our cameras exceed that greatly on both sides of the spectrum. My question in a nutshell is are the onboard computers in the Pentax cameras smart enough to be calculating for this failure ahead of time and is there any information in the DX coding that helps the computer make such a calculation? I've done exposures up to the 30 seconds suggested and supported by included shutter speeds and nailed the exposure. Some of the charts indicate I should be using up to 2 minutes here depending on the film. Dave
OT: Mac vs. Pc the differences as per graphics apps..long
at Freehand 9 and claims these issues were fixed with the Freehand 10 release anyways. Yes, I could google it and come up with the answers to many of my questions, and I have, however I find it educational and interesting to discuss these things in a group environment. If the majority of the group feels that this type of discussion is wrong let me know and I'll cease and desist from further posts about such matters. Possibly this is not the group for me. Regards David Miers
RE: FAJ 18-35 Flare control
It would be interesting to see the same lens on a film camera with the same shot. Hasn't it been discussed about the digital giving more trouble with flare due to reflections off of the sensor? Nice shot, I actually like most of the way the sun rays are working in this photo and lens, the main distraction is the blue spots on the roof. Those could be easily edited out though digitally. -Original Message- From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 8:30 AM To: PDML Subject: FAJ 18-35 Flare control Not bad for a very inexpensive lens. *ist D and f22. http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID= 67 Bill
RE: Too much mail
You missed a couple didn't you... :) there is always the digest version and reading the posts online sorted already by subject. This list is plain text only, thus it doesn't use much bandwidth. I'm on dialup and I don't have any problems. Lots of folks unsubscribe temporarily when their going to be gone for a bit. There's filters any which way you want it, 2 clicks and I can sort and delete a whole subject all at the same time. I really think all need to lighten up and go read the instructions on how to fully get the most out of their email browser. I for one enjoy the humor and comradery that exist on this list often in OT posts. This is a very active list and that's a good thing! I look forward to sitting down relaxing for bit checking out what's going on in PDML. Quiet boring lists don't get it either. Come on folks, lets fence this bad humored disgruntled attitude and be decent and considerate of everyone's opinions and ideas. If this isn't your thing, maybe you shouldn't be here. If you have forgotten how to unsubscribe or switch to digest the directions are on the web site. http://www.pdml.net/dbrewer/p2.html? I feel bad for Shel about the nasty emails he is now getting. If you feel you need to flame someone, you should be brave enough to do it in public. If you can't say it in public it probably shouldn't be said. If I were Shel, I would strongly be tempted to consider forwarding these nastys to the list so their true colors would be shown to all. Although this might be bad overall for the list and a kill file will take care of them permanently. Dave Two solutions; 1 - go modern, get rid of the list and use a www forum and you can have sections for whatever topic you choose and easy access from anywhere. 2 - mark email headings with OT, DIGITAL, PAW, GENERAL, LENS, BODY, FILM, etc, so that you can filter incoming email into appropriate folders. Then if you don't want to see OT or PAW you don't have to look just periodically delete the contents of the folder. HTH Ziggy
RE: Grain Surgery for PS
Herb Photoshop does not come stock with any decent noise tools. Grain Surgery is a plug-in that is used from within Photoshop to reduce grain. Used in combination with the Polaroid dust scratch removal plug-in you have a pretty good clean up package although I still have less clone work to do on dust spots with PSP used for dust and scratch removal. Paint Shop Pro 7 comes with salt and pepper filter, auto scratch removal, edge preserving smooth. There are several other filters including completely custom ones you can design yourself in PSP. The first 3 listed will remove most grain, dust, and scratches however and not destroy a lot of detail. No one has argued the point of color management in PSP being poor at all, but it is usually easier to get close to good skin tones or remove color casts in PSP to begin with. I normally had to reopen the file in Photoshop after I finished in PSP to fine tune color. PSP on it's own is probably not a good option. Photoshop on it's own isn't a great option either for dealing with grain. Together they complement each other nicely, separately they each have their strong and weak points. Photoshop has a higher learning curve though. I'm simply trying to describe my workflow and give some of the others out there some ideas to get by with software they may already have. I was given Grain Surgery as a gift and am simply relaying my results. This has all been repeated several times on this thread. Sorry, but if you don't get it by now, I'm done trying to explain. It's really very simple. Dave -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Grain Surgery for PS i still don't understand Dave's comments since neither PSP 7 nor Photoshop include any nosie reduction tools at all unless you call Gaussian Blur such a tool. as for display for reduced size images, i find PSP one of the worst programs out there. all of the Photoshop versions do it better on all of my systems. Photoshop Elements does full color management, even version 1.0, but it doesn't bother explaining how to do it much. first, you have to run Adobe Gamma from Control Panel to set up your monitor properly, but it's very hard to do unless you know your monitor phosphor, white point, and color temperature setup. assuming you can get past that, then you have to use a color management dialog that is barely explained. however, this is better than PSP since it doesn't even bother telling you that you need to do this before you can enable color management and assumes that the monitor is already calibrated anyway. Herb - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:41 AM Subject: RE: Grain Surgery for PS I find Photoshop really poor at displaying images on screen too. When not viewing at 1:1 magnification you get REALLY bad Jaggies all over the place whereas PSP is fantastic. I just this last weekend has another go with Elements 2.0 because I REALLY want to get somewhere with using colour profiles etc, but I just couldn't make head nor tail of how to do this in Elements - do you need full CS to do it properly? From what I can deduce, I think David's preference for PSP is that the tools for grain reduction are perhaps better than his version of Photoshop. Personally I only look at grain reduction when scanning and then use the ICE/ROC/GEM built into the Nikon Scanning interface because it is partly hardware based.
RE: Grain Surgery for PS
I used both for most images because I couldn't previously resolve my grain issues in PS. Grain Surgery being a Photoshop plug-in may let me eliminate PSP from my work flow. I'd start out in PSP7 elimating dust, scratches, and smoothing to eliminate grain. Sometimes I would do some color editing in PSP7, but almost always finished up in PS. Does that make more sense you Herb? -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Grain Surgery for PS then i don't get the point of the reference to or the use of PSP 7 and grain in your original msg. PSP 7 is a lot worse than Photoshop at color management and that means it's not very useful for photographic work. it only color manages to the monitor and not to the printer. Herb... - Original Message - From: David Miers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:22 PM Subject: RE: Grain Surgery for PS I'm not using Photoshop or grainsurgery for scanning itself. But actually the scanning program does make a difference IMHO. VueScan gets much better shadow detail then the Minolta software that comes with the scanner no matter how manually I've tried it. VueScan also focuses the scanner much faster then the Minolta software and I've yet to notice any loss of sharp focus there. To a point the scanning program can make a difference as well because of some compensation built into the manufacturers software for the hardware created noise. I think I do get a bit more noise out of VueScan, but usually better overall results in the end. But as for this post it only refers to after scanning processing, not scanning itself.
RE: Grain Surgery for PS
I'm surprised you find Photoshop slow? On my system Photoshop is much faster then PaintShop Pro. Once PS is loaded it handles large file sizes better then PSP as well. I haven't tried any 16 bit images with grain surgery yet though. I'm hoping it will handle them, as PSP will not. The right click to reverse zoom is really nice though and working with the clone tool to clean up any dust spots left is handy there. I'm running PSP7 and PS7. I've updated them both as much as I can. The thing I really like about Photoshop is when I go into history I can go back and forth to see what I've done in a second. PSP will do undo fast, but has to go through the entire process again for redo. PSP does not allow me to use the Adobe color profile though that I have my monitor and printer calibrated by, so printing and final viewing and printing are almost done from Photoshop. Working in layers is much more smooth and seamless for me as well in PhotoShop. That's where I need to work more is in using the layers for editing. I'm still learning there. I not sure of this yet but last nights session was indicating that the grain removal from Grain Surgery left a more pleasant and smooth background then PSP. However it requires more custom settings. It appears that you can save your settings for later usage for similar images. -Original Message- From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Grain Surgery for PS Yeah, colour management is an area where PSP is really letting itself down. However I still use it because although I have tried hard with several incarnations of Photoshop on several occasions, I just cant stop loathing it. It is slow, unfriendly and has some bad issues with non-dockable toolbars and control usage. PSP is an absolute joy, although I think it has lost some of its 'niceness' in the move up to version 8 and I prefer to stick with version 7 still. One of the best things in PSP is the magnifying glass tool (left click zooms in and right click zooms out, whereas PS needs a shift left click which is far less intuitive and is quite annoying if you like zooming in out quite a lot). I find Photoshop really poor at displaying images on screen too. When not viewing at 1:1 magnification you get REALLY bad Jaggies all over the place whereas PSP is fantastic. I just this last weekend has another go with Elements 2.0 because I REALLY want to get somewhere with using colour profiles etc, but I just couldn't make head nor tail of how to do this in Elements - do you need full CS to do it properly? From what I can deduce, I think David's preference for PSP is that the tools for grain reduction are perhaps better than his version of Photoshop. Personally I only look at grain reduction when scanning and then use the ICE/ROC/GEM built into the Nikon Scanning interface because it is partly hardware based. I am interested to hear more of David's (and anyone elses) thoughts and comments having used both pieces of software. -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 February 2004 11:22 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Grain Surgery for PS then i don't get the point of the reference to or the use of PSP 7 and grain in your original msg. PSP 7 is a lot worse than Photoshop at color management and that means it's not very useful for photographic work. it only color manages to the monitor and not to the printer. Herb... - Original Message - From: David Miers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:22 PM Subject: RE: Grain Surgery for PS I'm not using Photoshop or grainsurgery for scanning itself. But actually the scanning program does make a difference IMHO. VueScan gets much better shadow detail then the Minolta software that comes with the scanner no matter how manually I've tried it. VueScan also focuses the scanner much faster then the Minolta software and I've yet to notice any loss of sharp focus there. To a point the scanning program can make a difference as well because of some compensation built into the manufacturers software for the hardware created noise. I think I do get a bit more noise out of VueScan, but usually better overall results in the end. But as for this post it only refers to after scanning processing, not scanning itself.
RE: Split-image screens in AF cameras?
I thought the problem was by installing a split screen the autofocus no longer worked correctly? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Split-image screens in AF cameras? So what is the consensus on this -- does a split-image screen in an AF camera interfere with spotmetering and/or matrix metering or not? I've thought about it, although I have found I can focus quite well manually on the PZ-1p's standard screen. Joe It may be true that no AF cameras come with those focusing aids, but some of them allow the screens to be changed -- and the options can include screens with focusing aids. Such as the split-image I put into my PZ-1. My PZ-1 continues to meter jes' fine with the replacement screen in place. I've never noticed a difference, even with slide film. ERN
RE: San Francisco Pic
Not knowing who Juan is of course, but I wondered if that was him on the bench because of the backpack he is holding. It looks sort of like it might be a padded camera backpack type. I thought he looked really comfortable with the idea of being photographed, maybe too comfortable. He's doing a very good job of expressing a softer, more relaxed image rather then the hard, cold, and mean look on the poster guy. Very likely if he was your partner for the day it wasn't hard to get him to comply. Everyone's a wanna be detective here huh? LOL -Original Message- From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: San Francisco Pic A while back Juan Buhler and I went out shooting in San Francisco. Anyone heard from Juan in the last year or so? Anyway, this was one of the shots I grabbed that day. Comments welcome. http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/sfpic2.html Composition is great but I'm more concerned about the guy on the bench. Obviously he must know he's part of it although his expression is hard to decifer. Uninterested in what is going on or mildly annoyed, hard to tell as the photo is small. What was the deal with him? Andre I see, Juan is on the bench and trying to look like the poster guy... I should have tought about it! Andre
RE: Newbie (to list) says Hello, and needs selling advice
I think I would agree with keeping the LX and the other bodies, at least one. I would think if the need arose that you would want to use the LX, although I've never actually owned one, they must be awesome for people to put up with all the service they seem to require. That same need for service is the reason I would keep the other bodies. Just as soon as you pull it out of the closet to use it, problems from just sitting there unloved will have developed. Murphy's law applies here. I have found time and time again, if I take only one body and one flash, something will give me grief. If I haul around the extra weight of at least 2 bodies and flashes, I won't have a bit of problem with any of them. Doesn't totally make sense, but I'm getting almost superstitious about this. -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 12:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Newbie (to list) says Hello, and needs selling advice Just curious ... how do you know you will never shoot film again. Can you not imagine a circumstance when using film might be required or preferred? Not intending to start a film-digi debate, just aware that future situations are hard to predict. Christian wrote: Keep the LX and dump the other film bodies. I dumped my LX and my 3 MXen along with a Super Program and P3 because I KNEW I would never shoot film again. If I thought I might use film, I would have kept only the LX.
OT: Grain Surgery for PS
Possibly of interest to those scanning your film. I recently acquired a copy of Grain Surgery for Photoshop. I have been primarily using PSP 7 instead of Photoshop because of grain issues while scanning. Ive not perfected my use of this yet, but preliminary results seem quite good. Much better then anything included with PS 7. I've heard that PS CE I think it's called comes with better grain tools, but don't have the pocket change to update yet. Has anyone else used this plug-in, and if so what are your findings and or suggestions? Dave
Trivia
Spike TV has been running a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Special all afternoon here. I noted with interest the equipment being used, although for the most part they did not focus on that and you had to catch a glimpse here or there. I was surprised to here numerous mentions of the use of film, running out of film etc. You could also here the auto advances on the cameras running, assuming that the sound effect crew wasn't generating this. I could also hear the difference between the medium format cameras and the 35 mm ones though. One particular item of interest was about a photographer that did not use any fancy equipment at all, but rather a simple PS 35mm from what I could deduce. He claimed problems with eyesight and focusing, thus it was much easier for him to concentrate on good photography with a simple camera. Some of the models thought he was joking and wondered if he would be able to do the job properly with that equipment. Evidently he and it did since he was hired by Sports Illustrated. Spike TV is not the most reliable source of info in my opinion, but I found it interesting. No I didn't catch the name of the photog. But it does make ya wonder if maybe, just maybe a good percentage of those on this list are addicted photo equipment nuts. Ok, I confess, yup I am :). Ok now give me my new toy...NOW! Dave
RE: FS - Tamron 28-200
I received one of these lenses through Shel and thus far I'm fairly pleased with it. Obviously it cannot compare with a prime, but overall it does a nice job. It's very true that this focal length will just about meet all your needs except when you need a longer focal length, which is rare for me. I compared it directly with a Tokina AT-X SD 80-200 f:2.8 lens on a late afternoon sunset on the beach with tripod. The Tokina images were slightly, very slightly though sharper. However the tint of the images from the Tamron were more pleasing to my eye and a bit warmer. The Tamron had a UV filter and the Tokina was using a 1A filter. I need to redo this test without any filters to get a better comparison. The Tamron is very easily handholdable, where as the Tokina is heavy and long enough that I usually feel the need for a tripod. I thought the lens focused quite fast and did very little hunting except when it got fairly dark. It's a fairly compact lens and is very easy to take with you almost anywhere. I can't comment on the bokeh really since I'm not an expert in that area yet. Dave --- Hi, why are you selling it? I ask because I just bought one from e-bay and have not tested it yet. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 11:49 PM Subject: FS - Tamron 28-200 Tamron 28-200 LD AF Super - http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=48558item=2987506918 - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Somewhat OT: Question about Ricoh KR-5 Super II (was: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
Interesting that this topic should come up when it did. Last night I purchased a Ricoh KR-5 Super II via ebay for my photography class at college. For $60 including shipping, with a Pentax 50mm f:2 m type lens I didn't think I could go too far wrong. The instructor does not insist on an all manual camera, but strongly promotes them. If we use more modern equipment he request that it be set to all manual settings for the purpose of our class. I have found thus far that it is harder for me to use manual focus on camera's without the split prism screen. I find myself cheating way too much with the other cameras as well. I used to have a K1000 and a Sears KSX, which was made by Ricoh. I preferred the Ricoh over the Pentax since it fit my hands better, thus my decision to get another Ricoh. I think this was one of the most recently made all manual cameras as well if I have my information correct, thus hopefully giving me a newer, less problematic body. We also have a long section on night photography coming up, which would burn up batteries like crazy on my electronic shutter bodies. I have a question about FA and A lens used with this camera however. Will I do any damage to the lenses or extra electrical contacts and the autofocus drives on them by using them with this camera? Also I see in the charts that this camera is listed as not having mirror lockup, but in forums about astro photography they talk about it having this feature with the self timer. Does it have mirror lockup or not? Any opinions about this camera would be welcome. Sorry if this post is too far off topic. Dave -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 8:15 PM To: PDML Subject: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? http://www.cameraquest.com/photog.htm A not so tongue-in-cheek commentary by Stephen Gandy
RE: And then then came minolta
The Minolta Maxxum 7 isn't all that big of a camera actually. I assume the M7D is about the same size as it's based on the M7. But at least the film version was quite a bit heavier and larger then the *istD is. Bigger and heavier is better as far as I'm concerned though. It doesn't look that huge either (bigger than the *ist D though). alex
RE: photographer arrested
At what point is it defined commercial? Just because your equipment looks professional? You have to sell something or be proved to have intent to sell something for it to be commercial in my mind. Dave -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: photographer arrested The St. Louis arch, I believe, is part of a national park. Commercial photography on NPS land requires a permit. tv
RE: photographer arrested
Hey, who's side are you one here! LOL :) - Anyone loitering at the DZ is likely to be at least informed of this interesting if illegal activity, if not part of it, and if I were a cop, I'd nick 'em! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: photographer arrested
Backwards in time to the guilty until proven innocent! -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: photographer arrested the NPS service has, after many years, decided that it means you have intent to photograph for sale. they get to decide on intent and you have to prove you are not. Herb - Original Message - From: David Miers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 11:46 AM Subject: RE: photographer arrested At what point is it defined commercial? Just because your equipment looks professional? You have to sell something or be proved to have intent to sell something for it to be commercial in my mind.
RE: Bus Station, Kingston, Ontario
Creativity is a personal thing, and what is or isn't right will vary depending who you talked to. However if you look at my original post on this, I mention something about a clear shot, referring to the window in the way. However if Frank was on the ball, he would be prepared to take another quick photo of all the anger in his co-passenger's faces before he ran for the hills. Hmmmwondering if my flash can recover quickly enough to catch those angry moments. Dave ... not to mention the back-reflction off the window might blind everyone in the bus, forcing Frank back into lawyering to save his butt from a horde of personal injury vultures. !8^) Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
RE: photographer arrested
Get your children babysitted and taken to an educational museum at the same time, not to mention a lesson in observing photo technique.heh heh.only $2/hr. -- The only place I was told to give up my cameras was at the Corcoran (private) gallery. They wouldn't let me past the front desk with them. Most of the time I'm with my kids, so maybe the authorities think of me as just taking family snaps. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
photographer arrested
Just finished watching a bit on Real TV (Spike TV) about a guy who jumped off of the St Louis arch with a parachute and lived to run away from the police. His friend, the photographer was not so lucky and was arrested and convicted for not having a permit. Supposedly he received a nifty fine and probation. Wondering about the legalities of this issue and taking photos in public places, this sparked my interest and prompted an internet search. Unfortunately it yielded nothing. Maybe I'm just dense tonight and not looking in the right places, but one almost wonders if it was sort of hush, hush and somehow Real TV got hold of it. I have other suspicions, but not sure I should voice them and endanger myself of being sued by somebody! Dave
RE: FS Friday: Last call on this gear
I bought my PZ-1p for $325USD on Ebay in mint/mint condition with original box and manual over a year ago. It was a replacement Pentax had sent the seller to a warranty issue and he never used it except once to verify that it worked. From all appearances it seems to be as he said. This seller admittedly shot himself in the foot since he would only accept money orders in the mail for payment, which is why I'm guessing the price was this low. My point being it's really hard to say if digital is the real culprit here. I just did a bit of a look around at prices last night and prices don't really seem to have dropped that much except for that ME that Ann just spoke for :) Dave I remember the going prices for mint Z-1p were like CA$4xx recently on eBay. I thought they would worth a little more as well, but obviously the digital thing kills many film products.
RE: photographer arrested
Bizarre may a good term for the whole thing, if it even really happened. IMHO anyone with any common sense wouldn't have admitted to any alliance or relationship with the jumper, but rather just happened to be in the right place at the right time. I thought the situation might have been enhanced by the effects of 911 and new security measures. I assume Herb that by your comment about the permit you are referring to one to put on a public display, not for photography itself aren't you? My primary reason to posting this to the group is to be more aware of possible laws we may break simply walking about clicking away with our cameras. Dave -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 7:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: photographer arrested the usual legality is permit for a public display, suitably worded for the locale. Herb - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 8:03 PM Subject: Re: photographer arrested Not having a permit for what? Did they impute the whole offence to him because he was engaged in a common enterprise or something? it seems rather bizarre to me.
RE: the date on my 'puter....
Just for fun, check the date in bios if you know how to get safely in and out of it. Windows should be able to update it though. Bios is the motherboard settings menu. Your screen may well display how to get into it when you first boot, or it may be in owners manual, which may be downloadable for the original motherboard manufacturer if you don't have it. -Original Message- From: Juey Chong Ong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 12:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: the date on my 'puter On Monday, Feb 2, 2004, at 17:02 America/New_York, Brian Dipert wrote: you probably have it set up to auto-adjust the time and date periodically via 'ping' to a time server, and you've got the wrong time zone configured. Brian, it might be a bit more complicated. Tanya sent a message on Feb 1 but her computer dated the message Jan 1. It's one month off so it can't be the time zone setting. Maybe it's the time server. --jc
FW: Infrared remote release
I'm not sure if it was this group or a different one, but there was a post about using a PDA with a Infrared beam to remotely release some cameras that support this function. Normally you have to buy the control extra to do this. If anyone has any knowledge about this subject I'd appreciate some info. Dave
