Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
You are lucky. - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:46 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > On 23/5/05, David Zaninovic, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >When something becomes work it is not fun any more. > > Odd. I got paid today for doing my job and I had fun. So the above as a > blanket statement cannot be true as I have just disproved it. > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > _ > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
When something becomes work it is not fun any more. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:54 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > For some. For others it's a profession that perhaps affords some fun, but > making a living is the priority, and a strong knowledge of the craft and > the tools used in the craft are important. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Zaninovic > > > Photography is about having fun. > > > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Oh, no, you got me. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:38 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > Using flash, a diffuser, reflector, or other such items is not always an > option. > > It is clear that your knowledge of the practical aspects of photography is > limited. I now know that you have been serious in your assertions all > along. How sad, how truly sad. And what's sadder still, you keep > referencing only digital capture and the fix-it-in-Photoshop mentality. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Zaninovic > > > If the light is too contrasty for sensor to capture you can make it more > flat using flash, reflector, diffuser, etc... soft shadows > > are more pleasing anyway for my eye. > > If you want scene to be contrasty you can easily blow highlights or make > shadows black in post processing. > > If you can't make the light flat, then you have to think about exposure > and use spot metering and think what you will lose and what > > you will keep. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:58 PM > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > And what if the light is not flat? How about if you want to =interpret= > > > the scene? What if you're not shooting digital, or using matrix > metering > > > (assuming that matrix metering is the panacea you think it is?) > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > From: "David Zaninovic" > > > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who > cares > > > > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > > > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you > > > compensated > > > > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > > > > > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or > > > shadow > > > > > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > > > > > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate > for > > > > > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > > > > > think it would make so much difference as you think. > > > > > > > >
Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
> I spend more time trying to fix digital files than any other single task > that I do during my day. > Often, digital files don't fix very easily. > I had hoped digital was going to make my job easier, but it's just added > another bunch of ways for people to screw things up. Tell people to shoot raw and sell them more flash cards. More money for you and better pictures for them. > To answer your question directly, as long as your system calibration matches > the lab's calibration fairly precisely, then no input is needed from the > lab. > If you are not calibrated precisely to the lab, then all bets are off. That is what I said, you need icc profile provided by the lab for exact device that will be used for printing. So preferred situation is that printer should not do anything.
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Photography is about having fun. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:21 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > This discussion is very confusing to me. I don't know if David is serious, > seriously deranged, or just being sarcastic and funny. I don't know > whether I should laugh or cry - right now I'm laughing through my tears - > or just take all my photo gear and toss the items into the bay, and make > images using Crayolas and a coloring book. > > I'm going to watch how this unfolds and perhaps comment a little later, > when I can see and read these messages more clearly. Right now my eyes are > filled with tears. I am, however, reminded of the blind photographer in > the movie Pecker and am thinking about a one pixel sensor. > > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Zaninovic > > > They should just make the sensor smaller, the smaller the sensor the less > you have to worry about focusing. Just shoot in the > > general direction and don't worry about it. :) > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Great post. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > No, accurate expose is that which captures the scene in the manner that > photographer wishes to portray it. If one captures the entire range of a > scene (assuming that it can be done, as some scenes, as you noted, are of a > contrast range that is outside the range of the film or the sensor that's > being used), the use of creative exposure, which may better be able to > express the story of the image, may be negated. Maybe you want to lose > shadow detail, or reduce highlights from bright to mid grey, or let 'em > blow out for a particular look. Exposure isn't just using matrix metering > to get all the information in a scene. Exposure is about using the camera > settings to enable the photographer to better tell his or her story. It's > a creative technique, just as good printing can be done creatively, or > manipulation in Photoshop or camera raw. > > And let's not forget scenes that are flat, and may need some extra contrast > to give them life. Here again we want our exposure to be creative, not > just what the meter tells us it should be. In such a situation not only > must the exposure be chosen carefully, but the choice of film or the method > of post processing by digital or chemical means must be considered as well. > > What makes this discussion even more interesting is the number of > participants who see the situation only through digital eyes and camera raw > and Photoshop adjustments. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Date: 5/23/2005 8:47:53 AM > > Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > I don't think that's exactly what's being said -- "accurate" exposure > > /does/ matter, it's just that accurate exposure can be defined as > > "capturing the entire range of the scene". > > > > Suppose I've got a histogram with four segments and my exposure is > > entirely contained in the second segment (counting from the left). If > > I'd have kept all other things equal but increased my exposure time by a > > couple of stops or so and ended up with the scene entirely contained in > > the third segment, I'd have taken the same picture, only with a longer > > shutter speed -- either of those exposures could be "converted" to the > > other just by dragging the exposure slider in Photoshop on import of the > > pictures. One would likely be the "better" shot, though, due to having > > more or less motion blur, camera shake, whatever. Of course, this > > doesn't take into account non-linear response from the sensor, etc. or > > that many scenes have a range that exceeds the dynamic range of the > > sensor. > > > > That's my understanding, at least; someone please correct me if I'm > > wrong. > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
It is a good word, I like it. - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:12 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > On 23/5/05, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >quantisation > > That a word? You're just making it up! > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > _ > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
If the light is too contrasty for sensor to capture you can make it more flat using flash, reflector, diffuser, etc... soft shadows are more pleasing anyway for my eye. If you want scene to be contrasty you can easily blow highlights or make shadows black in post processing. If you can't make the light flat, then you have to think about exposure and use spot metering and think what you will lose and what you will keep. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > And what if the light is not flat? How about if you want to =interpret= > the scene? What if you're not shooting digital, or using matrix metering > (assuming that matrix metering is the panacea you think it is?) > > Shel > > > From: "David Zaninovic" > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you > compensated > > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > > > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or > shadow > > > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > > > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > > > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > > > think it would make so much difference as you think. > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
That is why I said flat light, so no shadows. If there are harsh shadows the whole deal is off. - Original Message - From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:50 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:24:59AM -0400, David Zaninovic wrote: > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. > > No it won't. > > In particular, you'll see addional quantisation in the shadows. >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
it is already working there will be plenty of cheap pentax lenses on ebay soon. - Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:35 PM Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > Shel, I just traded my K135/2.5 for an ENTIRE CASE of Fuji > single use cameras! You know, the ones with no pesky settings > to mess with. > I think I can get you folks the same deal if you're interested. > > Don > > > -Original Message- > > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 12:21 PM > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > This discussion is very confusing to me. I don't know if David > > is serious, > > seriously deranged, or just being sarcastic and funny. I don't know > > whether I should laugh or cry - right now I'm laughing through my tears - > > or just take all my photo gear and toss the items into the bay, and make > > images using Crayolas and a coloring book. > > > > I'm going to watch how this unfolds and perhaps comment a little later, > > when I can see and read these messages more clearly. Right now > > my eyes are > > filled with tears. I am, however, reminded of the blind photographer in > > the movie Pecker and am thinking about a one pixel sensor. >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
They should just make the sensor smaller, the smaller the sensor the less you have to worry about focusing. Just shoot in the general direction and don't worry about it. :) - Original Message - From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:31 AM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > >There you have it kids. > >Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. > >Just fix it in Photoshop > > Now if they would just develop a plug in for PS, so we wouldn't have to worry > about the pesky issue of focusing in-camera. We could just aim in the general direction of the scene we want to capture, fire away and let PS take care of the details. > > <> > > Kenneth Waller > > -Original Message- > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow > > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > > think it would make so much difference as you think. > > There you have it kids. > Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. > Just fix it in Photoshop. > > William Robb > > > > > > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
I am sure William is against autofocus too. :) Autofocus corrupted photography. - Original Message - From: "Graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:38 AM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > Oh, no, you have not been reading the list long enough. Autofocus is far more > accurate than manual focusing. > > HAR, HAR, HAR, ... > > My camera is smarter than your camera! > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > --- > > > David Zaninovic wrote: > > Forget manual focusing too, autofocus is "good enough". :) > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:55 AM > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > >>- Original Message - > >>From: "David Zaninovic" > >>Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > >> > >> > >> > >>>That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > >>>about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > >>>converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > >>>the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > >>>important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow > >>>go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > >>>take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > >>>black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > >>>think it would make so much difference as you think. > >> > >>There you have it kids. > >>Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. > >>Just fix it in Photoshop. > >> > >>William Robb > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 >
Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Yes, just sit there feed the printer and don't do anything. - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:09 AM Subject: Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > - Original Message - > From: "mike wilson" > Subject: Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > >> > > I don't know whether to laugh or cry. > > > > I'm still laughing. I've forwarded that one to the lab operators guild. > Share the humour and all that. > > William Robb > >
Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Why would I want somebody changing my pictures ? I just need icc profile so I can see how it will look when printed. I certainly don't want somebody changing the color balance or anything else about the picture. That is the reason #1 I don't shoot film any more. - Original Message - From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:01 AM Subject: Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2005/05/23 Mon PM 02:14:40 GMT > > To: > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > Too bad printers are not needed with digital, it can be all done > > automatically. The only thing required is for printer to create > > good icc profile. > > I don't know whether to laugh or cry. > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 6:27 PM > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "David Zaninovic" > > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry about correct exposure so much, what would printers do all > > > > day > > > > if everything was perfect. They would be out of work. :) > > > > > > We would be providing photographers with better pictures if they did their > > > end of the job correctly. > > > > > > William Robb > > > > > > > > > > > > - > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software > visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Forget manual focusing too, autofocus is "good enough". :) - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:55 AM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow > > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > > think it would make so much difference as you think. > > There you have it kids. > Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. > Just fix it in Photoshop. > > William Robb > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't think it would make so much difference as you think. - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > I believe I myst apologize to Bob for qouting him for something David > Zaninovic said - about using Photoshop instead of exposing right. Sorry Bob! > Regards > Jens > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Too bad printers are not needed with digital, it can be all done automatically. The only thing required is for printer to create good icc profile. - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > Don't worry about correct exposure so much, what would printers do all day > > if everything was perfect. They would be out of work. :) > > We would be providing photographers with better pictures if they did their > end of the job correctly. > > William Robb > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Don't worry about correct exposure so much, what would printers do all day if everything was perfect. They would be out of work. :) - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 3:52 PM Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > No more flame war for me. I'm off for a couple of days - a camera club > trip - and lots of nice EXPOSURES! > Cheers > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 20. maj 2005 21:47 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > Perhaps you are rigth, Bob. > I really have been talking to myself. You have certainly not been listening: > > I wrote: > The first lesson in exposure could very well be this: > Photograph a black door - use the built-in meter default settings. > Photograph a white door - use the built-in meter default settings. > You'll end up with two IDENTICAL images: Two grey doors! > When you figure out why, then you know the first and most important > thing about exposure! > > Bob answered: > > > So what, you captured all the details, just use Photoshop and make the > > door white or black. > > And Bob, you have at least twice stated that knowlede/skills as to how to > expose > properly only is important to people who want to be good printers: > > >"Yes - those things are important for people who want to go on to become > good > >printers. But you have to be able to walk before you can run." > I have several times stated, that proper exposure has nothing to do with > pinting. Exposure is exposure. > > In my point of view, Mikey asks about exposure. A lot of us come with > sincere and hopefully helpful anwsers. > And Bob demestrates his contempt for the subject by stating that either it's > not important (unless you want to be a good printer) - or - that you can > just fix it in Photoshop. > > I can understand why you are not listening. > Who wants to be confronted with having said things like this? > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
I think you mixed my replies with somebody else. :) - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 3:47 PM Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > Perhaps you are rigth, Bob. > I really have been talking to myself. You have certainly not been listening: > > I wrote: > The first lesson in exposure could very well be this: > Photograph a black door - use the built-in meter default settings. > Photograph a white door - use the built-in meter default settings. > You'll end up with two IDENTICAL images: Two grey doors! > When you figure out why, then you know the first and most important > thing about exposure! > > Bob answered: > > > So what, you captured all the details, just use Photoshop and make the > > door white or black. > > And Bob, you have at least twice stated that knowlede/skills as to how to > expose > properly only is important to people who want to be good printers: > > >"Yes - those things are important for people who want to go on to become > good > >printers. But you have to be able to walk before you can run." > I have several times stated, that proper exposure has nothing to do with > pinting. Exposure is exposure. > > In my point of view, Mikey asks about exposure. A lot of us come with > sincere and hopefully helpful anwsers. > And Bob demestrates his contempt for the subject by stating that either it's > not important (unless you want to be a good printer) - or - that you can > just fix it in Photoshop. > > I can understand why you are not listening. > Who wants to be confronted with having said things like this? > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
How can you go wrong if you did not lost any information ? I am talking here about evenly lit object. Ok, if that black door has small white dots that you don't want to be blown and they are too small for matrix metering to take them into account that is another thing as you are obviously loosing information about them. :) But plain black or white door should not have problems with that. :) > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > Well, you captured all the info that the door has to offer, maybe even > > more than if you compensated as you could blown highlights on > > white door or make the black door too dark. When you shoot raw it would > > not matter. > > If you trust your meter blindly, metering either a white or black object and > basing the exposure on that reading will result in an exposure error on the > order of 3-4 stops. > It doesn't matter what you shoot, you aren't going to fix that sort of > exposure error. > > William Robb > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Well, you captured all the info that the door has to offer, maybe even more than if you compensated as you could blown highlights on white door or make the black door too dark. When you shoot raw it would not matter. - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:29 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > No, it makes sense to learn about exposure, it just does not matter in > > that example. :) > > Why not? It speaks volumes about how the meter works. > > William Robb > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Thanks for the lesson but I don't need it, that was one of the first things I learned. After that lesson I was running around with grey card for months in hope I would get better exposures. Now I know better. :) I am now concentrated on reducing the contrast of the scene I am photographing and I don't worry if I get exact exposure. I worry if contrast of the scene matches the contrast that the sensor is able to capture, it is easy to shift exposure up or down if you captured all the information there is, who cares if it is a little brighter or darker. Matrix metering is very good if contrast of the scene can fit on sensor, if it can't fit the picture will not be good anyway. Except if you want to have blown highlights or shadow without detail because you want to be artistic. :) I think that shooting in RAW format and looking at histograms corrupted me. - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:11 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > Oh, but it does. I know photography teachers who use this exercise as the > first on in practical photography. > > Listen up, Mikey - this is your first lesson. > > Both images will be exposed wrong: > The black door will be overexposed. The meter just "believes" there's no > light. > The white one underexposed. The meter will believe ther's a lot of light. > Even though both doors are photographed in the same light!!! > > They should of cource be exposed using the same EV. This is the reason that > it's very educating to learn how to use an incident light meter, which > meters the light falling onto the subject - not just the reflected light. > > All biult-in camera meters meter only the reflected light. This means the > photographer has to add his/her own evaluation before pressing the shutter > release: Plus (+) correction for backlit scenery or a very bright sky, > window etc.. Like landscape photography. > Minus (-) correction for a dark background - like concert shots. > > The lesson to be learned is also that correct exposure (in fact doesn't > exist) is the photographers choise. How does the subject differ from the > normal "18%-Grey", that all meters are calibrated to (re)produce? The > purpose is to make the best technical use of the film or the sensor as > possible in order to reproduce as many shades of the subject as possible. If > yopu don't wnat that in the final picture - use your darkroom or the > computer to reach what you want. > > It's a good idea to shot and develop black and white film if yuou wnat to > get the grip of exposure. > > Nest lesson will be about the Zone system! Take a peak: > http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html > > > This was the firs lesson, Mikey. > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: David Zaninovic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 19. maj 2005 21:50 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > No, it makes sense to learn about exposure, it just does not matter in that > example. :) > > - Original Message - > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 3:15 PM > Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > So, you don't think it makes sence to learn about exposure? > > > > Jens Bladt > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > Fra: David Zaninovic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 19. maj 2005 20:41 > > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Emne: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > So what, you captured all the details, just use Photoshop and make the > door > > white or black. :) > > > > > The first lesson in exposure could very well be this: > > > Photograph a black door - use the built-in meter default settings. > > > Photograph a white door - use the built-in meter default settings. > > > > > > You'll end up with two IDENTICAL images: Two grey doors! > > > When you figure out why, then you know the first and most important > thing > > > about exposure! > > > > > > Jens Bladt > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > > >
Re: A digital photographer's maxim
Sorry, I already sold it on eBay. :) - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 8:40 AM Subject: Re: A digital photographer's maxim > On 5/19/05, David Zaninovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would not go back to film if it was free. :) > > Excellent! > > You can ship all your free film to me then . > > cheers, > frank > > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
No, it makes sense to learn about exposure, it just does not matter in that example. :) - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 3:15 PM Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > So, you don't think it makes sence to learn about exposure? > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: David Zaninovic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 19. maj 2005 20:41 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > So what, you captured all the details, just use Photoshop and make the door > white or black. :) > > > The first lesson in exposure could very well be this: > > Photograph a black door - use the built-in meter default settings. > > Photograph a white door - use the built-in meter default settings. > > > > You'll end up with two IDENTICAL images: Two grey doors! > > When you figure out why, then you know the first and most important thing > > about exposure! > > > > Jens Bladt > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Here is my philosophy. If the light is even it will be hard to do something wrong, matrix metering should take care of exposure well and will capture all the detail as that is what matrix metering does best, it is easy to make corrections in Photoshop using levels. If the light is not even, make it even using flash, graduated filter or collapsible reflector/diffuser. If you don't have any control over the light then you worry about exposure and what part of the picture you will lose but there is a good chance that the picture will not be so good because of too high contrast of the scene you are trying to capture. There are some exclusions to this but in 99% of cases it works fine for me, especially because I shoot in raw format and know how to use shadow/highlight detail tool in Photoshop. :) - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:47 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > Hi! > > > So what, you captured all the details, just use Photoshop and make the door > > white or black. :) > > May I interject... Thank you. > > Correct exposure is about saving information, the information provided > by the light. If you misexposed, you lost some information forever. No > PhotoShop can get it to you if it hasn't been recorded... > > Hence correct exposure does matter. May be not in the case of a door though > :). > > -- > Boris >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
So what, you captured all the details, just use Photoshop and make the door white or black. :) > The first lesson in exposure could very well be this: > Photograph a black door - use the built-in meter default settings. > Photograph a white door - use the built-in meter default settings. > > You'll end up with two IDENTICAL images: Two grey doors! > When you figure out why, then you know the first and most important thing > about exposure! > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Re: A digital photographer's maxim
I would not go back to film if it was free. :) - Original Message - From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:36 AM Subject: A digital photographer's maxim > Film is cheap. > Especially when you don't need it any longer. > > Sincerely, > > Collin > > > > > > Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net > > > > >
Re: DA-40 on 35mm? was Re: LittleTest:
I have a rule, if it is not in the bag and with me at all times sell it. (except tripod) Another rule is, don't buy bigger bag. These rules keep me from buying stuff I don't need. I always ask myself do I want to carry it the whole day on my back. :) - Original Message - From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:40 AM Subject: Re: DA-40 on 35mm? was Re: LittleTest: > Hire a Sherpa? > > I'm just funnin' with ya :-) > > Sounds like you do a bit of hiking. I can fully understand you wanting > to keep your load as light as possible. > > My main bag (Lowepro Nova 5) contains: > > *ist D > LX > Sigma 18-55 DC f3.5-5.6 > FA 28-105 f4-5.6 PZ > FA 80-320 f4.5-5.6 > FA 100 2.8 Macro > FA 77 f1.8 > FA 31 F1.8 > FA 50 f1.4 > A 50 f1.7 > M 50 f2 > AF 500 FTZ flash > 3 spare sets of batteries > 2-3 rolls of film > + various sundry items > > I never have the need, nor the desire, to carry it all with me. (My > chiropractor would kill me if I did) > > My everyday kit is a snoot bag, *ist D & 1 lens. If I think I'll need > / want a variety of lenses I have another bag that will take any 3 of > the above mentioned lenses plus the flash. > > I'm also thinking about getting a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. If I get one > I'll need a bigger bag though :-) > > Dave S > > On 5/16/05, David Zaninovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Who is going to carry all this stuff ? I don't want to have heavy load on > > my back the whole day. It is too heavy as it is. > > > > What I have in the bag right now: > > > > *ist D > > Pentax 16-45/4 - my "normal" lens > > Pentax 70-210/4-5.6 - squirrels and chipmunks > > Tamron SP90/2.8 - macro and portraits > > Pentax F50/1.7, for bugs, using stacked with Tamron > > Set of extension tubes - using with Tamron and F50/1.7 for bugs > > AF360FGZ flash - for bugs and to get rid of shadows in daylight > > 3 sets of batteries just in case. > > the rest of the stuff is light. > > > > I will probably replace 70-210 with DA50-200 when it comes out but only if > > it is better optically. I am trying to have light and > > optically great at the same time, I can live with f5.6 in exchange for less > > weight, D has ISO200 minimum so that is much better than > > the film I was using before Velvia 50 at 40 and Astia 100 at 80. > > > > I would like to have 400/5.6 in my bag for birds but I think that would be > > too heavy to carry all the time. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > Wrom: KBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARH > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:32 AM > > Subject: Re: DA-40 on 35mm? was Re: LittleTest: > > > > > G'day David, > > > > > > That just goes against the philosophy of enablement :-) > > > > > > If it doesn't fit in the bag, get a bigger bag. If the bigger bag has > > > to much empty space, get more stuff to fill it with. > > > > > > It's a vicious cycle . > > > > > > Dave S > > > > > > On 5/16/05, David Zaninovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I have Tamrac expedition 5 and everything has to fit inside. If it > > > > does not fit it is time to get rid of something. :) > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > Wrom: DMNNSKVFVWRKJVZCMHVIBGDADRZFSQHYUCD > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:26 AM > > > > Subject: Re: DA-40 on 35mm? was Re: LittleTest: > > > > > > > > > You could always get a slightly bigger bag > > > > > > > > > > Dave S > > > > > > > > > > On 5/13/05, UncaMikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am as susceptible to gear lust as anyone, I suppose, but I can't > > > > > > get > > > > > > anything else because there is no more room in the bag! Larf! > > > > > > > > > > > > *>UncaMikey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DA-40 on 35mm? was Re: LittleTest:
Who is going to carry all this stuff ? I don't want to have heavy load on my back the whole day. It is too heavy as it is. What I have in the bag right now: *ist D Pentax 16-45/4 - my "normal" lens Pentax 70-210/4-5.6 - squirrels and chipmunks Tamron SP90/2.8 - macro and portraits Pentax F50/1.7, for bugs, using stacked with Tamron Set of extension tubes - using with Tamron and F50/1.7 for bugs AF360FGZ flash - for bugs and to get rid of shadows in daylight 3 sets of batteries just in case. the rest of the stuff is light. I will probably replace 70-210 with DA50-200 when it comes out but only if it is better optically. I am trying to have light and optically great at the same time, I can live with f5.6 in exchange for less weight, D has ISO200 minimum so that is much better than the film I was using before Velvia 50 at 40 and Astia 100 at 80. I would like to have 400/5.6 in my bag for birds but I think that would be too heavy to carry all the time. - Original Message - From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:32 AM Subject: Re: DA-40 on 35mm? was Re: LittleTest: > G'day David, > > That just goes against the philosophy of enablement :-) > > If it doesn't fit in the bag, get a bigger bag. If the bigger bag has > to much empty space, get more stuff to fill it with. > > It's a vicious cycle . > > Dave S > > On 5/16/05, David Zaninovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have Tamrac expedition 5 and everything has to fit inside. If it does > > not fit it is time to get rid of something. :) > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:26 AM > > Subject: Re: DA-40 on 35mm? was Re: LittleTest: > > > > > You could always get a slightly bigger bag > > > > > > Dave S > > > > > > On 5/13/05, UncaMikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am as susceptible to gear lust as anyone, I suppose, but I can't get > > > > anything else because there is no more room in the bag! Larf! > > > > > > > > *>UncaMikey > > > > > > > >
Re: DA-40 on 35mm? was Re: LittleTest:
I have Tamrac expedition 5 and everything has to fit inside. If it does not fit it is time to get rid of something. :) - Original Message - From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:26 AM Subject: Re: DA-40 on 35mm? was Re: LittleTest: > You could always get a slightly bigger bag > > Dave S > > On 5/13/05, UncaMikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I am as susceptible to gear lust as anyone, I suppose, but I can't get > > anything else because there is no more room in the bag! Larf! > > > > *>UncaMikey >
Re: reverse mounting lenses
I don't think I would be able to shoot 3x macro of anything that flies. :) It is hard to find where the bug is as it is. I ordered Vivitar tubes from B&H, passing electrical contacts can only be a good thing and I did not notice any problem with P-TTL at 1/4000 so that is fine with me. If I move significantly inside 1/4000 the whole image will be blurry anyway. I can easily set my D to use TTL if I want by setting aperture away from A position on the lens. I also ordered some male to male rings so I don't have to use duct tape. I just hope this will be enough extension to get rid of the vignetting. Irony is, I sold my Pentax auto tubes after I got Tamron SP90 1:1 macro. I did not think I would need anything better than that until I tried to shoot an ant which was 2mm in size and I wanted to see how his eyes look magnified. I was able to get the picture of the eye but everything else was out of focus because of f2.8 as that was the only aperture that did not have vignetting. :) I also thought that Tamron SP90 has enough built-in tubes as it is so why add more and move the focus inside the lens. But it looks like there is another purpose to tubes except moving the focal point closer to the lens. - Original Message - From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:37 PM Subject: Re: reverse mounting lenses > You're right, Leon. > I forgot to think about flying insects. :-) > Jostein > > - Original Message - > From: "Leon Mlakar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:14 PM > Subject: RE: reverse mounting lenses > > > > Wireless flash and P-TTL are both useful but not essential. HSS, > > contrary to > > what you implied, is not a good idea for stopping a motion. > > > > At the speeds beyond the flash sync speed the shutter is never > > completely > > open, hence a single flash pulse cannot expose entire frame. HSS > > works by > > delivering a series of light pulses that are sync'ed with movement > > of the > > gap in the shutter that let's the light to the film/CCD. This means > > that > > the fast moving subject is "frozen" several times with several light > > pulses. > > HSS is only good for fill flash on a sunny day if you want to shoot > > open to > > reduce DOF. > > > > To freeze the motion you're much better off using shutter speeds > > lower than > > the sync speed. Remember, the duration of a single flash pulse is > > 1/2000th > > of a second or less, depending on how much light is necessary. If > > you stop > > down enough, the fast moving parts (wings?) of the subject will not > > get > > recorded on the film/CCD so you'll see no blur. > > > > See http://webs.lanset.com/rcochran/flash/hss.html for some examples > > and > > more technical details. > > > > Leon > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: David Zaninovic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:38 PM > >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >>Subject: Re: reverse mounting lenses > >> > >>> Pentax flashes can deliver TTL even with screw-mount lenses, > >>but don't > >>> have any hopes for P-TTL. > >> > >>I would like to have P-TTL because of the wireless high speed > >>flash option on my D. I will try to find some tubes that will > >>transfer electrical contacts. > >>It is much easier to shoot bugs handheld with flash set to > >>1/4000 speed and have a few tries to get the focus right. > >> > >> > > >
Re: reverse mounting lenses
It is interesting that Vivitar tubes are more compatible with Pentax cameras than Pentax tubes. :) > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 11:41 AM > Subject: Re: reverse mounting lenses > > > > This is what I need to make it work. Thanks Christian and Jostein for > very extensive answers. > > > > > I used the Vivitar auto extension tube set that have full meter and > aperture > > > coupling. They don't make them anymore but i believe the Kenko tubes > are > > > the same (they LOOK identical). > > Turns out the vivitar tubes are still available from B&H anyway: > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=61535&is=REG > > Notice all the contacts. > > Not a bad price either. > > Christian >
Re: reverse mounting lenses
This is what I need to make it work. Thanks Christian and Jostein for very extensive answers. > I used the Vivitar auto extension tube set that have full meter and aperture > coupling. They don't make them anymore but i believe the Kenko tubes are > the same (they LOOK identical). > > Christian >
Re: reverse mounting lenses
> Pentax flashes can deliver TTL even with screw-mount lenses, but don't > have any hopes for P-TTL. I would like to have P-TTL because of the wireless high speed flash option on my D. I will try to find some tubes that will transfer electrical contacts. It is much easier to shoot bugs handheld with flash set to 1/4000 speed and have a few tries to get the focus right.
Re: reverse mounting lenses
How much extension did you had to add to that macro lens ? You also focused the macro as close as possible, right ? Were you able to shoot at f11-f22 without vignetting ? Does the extension that you add have more effect than the built-in extension or it is the same thing ? Is the rear element on the FA 100/2.8 fixed or it moves depending on the focus ? I see that the built-in extension on my lens has very little difference in regard to vignetting so I am afraid that I would have to add to much extension tubes which would be unmanageable. Is there any automatic extension tubes that would pass the electrical contacts as well as aperture control so I can keep P-TTL. > The recessed front element is no problem. I have used the FA 100/2.8 > macro, which also has a recessed front element. No problems at all. > Don't know if it gives any benefits, though. > > The only good way to deal with vignetting is by extension tubes or > bellows. You will always get vignetting with wide-angle lenses. I > paired the 100mm with an FA*24/2 which has a larger front element than > the 100mm, but still got vignetting.
Re: reverse mounting lenses
> > Is F50/1.7 front element large enough to be reverse mounted on top of > Tamron SP90/2.8 ? SMC-M 28/2.8 works only when Tamron is set > > to f2.8, beyond that I get vignetting. Which lens is recommended for > reverse mounting ? > > It all depends on thread size. Just use step-up/step-down rings to make > them mate. > mating is not a problem I have plenty of duct tape. > if you get vignetting, you need to add extension tubes between the camera > body and the prime lens. this will eliminate it. > > > > I see that it helps if I focus the Tamron as close as possible but not by > much. Is it good or bad the fact that Tamron has deeply > > recessed front element ? > > You should always focus as close as possible. yes, that seems to help but not as much as I would like. I think that front element on the 28/2.8 is just to small. I will get F50/1.7 in a few days and will try with that lens. > Again, extension tubes are a > big help. Tamron is already a 1:1 macro lens so it has its own extension tube which is very long. I noticed that there is not so much difference if I focus at infinity or as close as possible, there is a difference but not more that few f-stops before it starts to vignette. So If I add even more extension I don't think it will help much as I could end up with ridiculously long tube. Or adding extension is something different from what the Tamron is already doing, it is possible as rear element on Tamron is fixed and it is right at the end of the lens. > It shouldn't matter that the tamron has a recessed front element. > Strange that it does not make any difference. > Check out John Shaw's "Closeups in Nature" A great book with all kinds of > techniques for macro. That is the only photography book I have. :) I guess I should take a look if there is anything that could help me, I did not think of that. :)
reverse mounting lenses
Is F50/1.7 front element large enough to be reverse mounted on top of Tamron SP90/2.8 ? SMC-M 28/2.8 works only when Tamron is set to f2.8, beyond that I get vignetting. Which lens is recommended for reverse mounting ? I see that it helps if I focus the Tamron as close as possible but not by much. Is it good or bad the fact that Tamron has deeply recessed front element ? Thank you !
Re: film at 50C
Small beer fridge would increase the chances of surviving, it would prolong the time needed to heat the camera. I can test with thermometer first to see how high the temperature will go inside the fridge. I live near NYC and humidity feels like rain forest in the summer. > A car in full sunlight can hit 160ºF during the hottest part of the day. > Thats more like 70ºC. 50C is pretty optimistic, or else the original poster > lives near a rain forest. > > William Robb
Re: Digital profligacy
I feel that opposite is true, there are more people taking high quality pictures now than ever. Learning curve with digital is much faster because there is no penalty for taking more pictures. I am talking about people who actually want to learn photography. People who take snapshots are at the mercy of auto everything in camera as they were before with film when processing in Wal-Mart or similar store which does not even look at the pictures. If they are used to processing in pro lab and want better pictures I am sure these same labs would be happy to take care of their jpg-s and make them look right, it would be best if these people would shoot raw and let pro labs do the processing like they did with film. Maybe that is what you are talking about ? - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 1:01 PM Subject: Re: Digital profligacy > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" > Subject: Re: Digital profligacy > > > > Or maybe your business is not going the way you would like. > > It hasn't been since long before digital came along. Automatic exposure was > the start of the long slow inevitable slide into the crapper for > photography. Digital is just another bump in the road. > > William Robb > >
Re: Digital profligacy
Or maybe your business is not going the way you would like. - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 11:15 AM Subject: Re: Digital profligacy > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" > Subject: Re: Digital profligacy > > > > Yes, but DSLR will pay of its price many times over 10 years of service > > because you don't have to buy film and pay for processing. > > Straw man arguement. > > William Robb > >
Re: Digital profligacy
Maybe you can find a lab that will accept your raw images from camera and do the work for you like with film. You will still save a lot of money because you don't need to buy film. I use camera for my own fun so doing my own processing in Photoshop is a joy and actually improves the experience, I don't want somebody else doing it for me. - Original Message - From: "Frantisek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David Zaninovic" Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Digital profligacy > > Friday, May 6, 2005, 3:31:31 PM, David wrote: > DZ> Yes, but DSLR will pay of its price many times over 10 years > DZ> of service because you don't have to buy film and pay for > DZ> processing. > > If you consider your free time you have to spend adjusting the > photographs, developing them, et cetera... to be of no cost, than yes. > If you can bill it to the client, than yes (but unless you are a big > studio, don't count on it). Otherwise, you now have to spend a lot > more time in front of the computer, and even more time on lists like > these learning the latest methods of using ACR/PS/whatever instead of > paying a flat fee for better quality prints. Not mentioning updating > your computer because the last one was just way too slow. Just many > people forget this, some even enjoy it (myself, occassionaly, with > just few images but not so much with a bigger shoot). I guess in the > end it might break even. Or perhaps not. The point is that there are > more hidden costs to it. > > Good light! >fra >
Re: Digital profligacy
Yes, but DSLR will pay of its price many times over 10 years of service because you don't have to buy film and pay for processing. > I do think it's interesting (but maybe totally meaningless in the > overall scheme of things) that 70 year old Leicas are still ticking > and taking great photos. My guess is that the current crop of DSLR's > will all be out of service in 10 years (if not sooner). Indeed, the > current digital photo capture/storage system may be completely out of > date and unusable by then.
film at 50C
Which film can resist heat the best ? How long could you leave it in the car at 50C before it is not usable any more ? I don't see anything in the spec for Fuji Reala about this. I am thinking about leaving one camera permanently in the car, you never know when you will need one to record something interesting. :)
Re: Moral Dilemma
I usually solve this problem by giving my wife the camera and letting her take pictures. I take over only when there is really something interesting to shoot. That way you don't even need to carry the camera, she will carry it for you. You just need 2GB memory card minimum for this. > Shaun Canning wrote: > > We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland > > with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to > > take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I: > > > > 1. Leave camera at home, > > 2. Leave wife and son at home, > > 3. Take son and leave wife, > > 4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to > > replicating the results of the *istD, or > > 5. Throw a tantrum. > > > > I am really confused > > > > :-) > > > > Shaun > > > > > > Dr. Shaun Canning > > Cultural Heritage Services > > 11 Lawrence Way > > Karratha, Western Australia, > > 6714 > > > > 0414-967644 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://www.heritageservices.com.au
Re: Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter
This is the extreme case but yes, 3 dollars is a reasonable price if you manage to sell million copies and not have to provide any support after the sale and if your profit on each copy is 50%. - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 11:21 PM Subject: Re: Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter > > > > You are talking about cost to develop the software and I am talking about > > cost per user of that software, these are very different > > Sure, lets say it costs 50 grand to develop a piece of software, but you can > burn it to CD and make a nice jewel case layout for a couple of dollars. > So, is a reasonable price 3 dollars? > Thats a 50% markup, but you will never pay for the cost of developing the > software. > > William Robb > > > >
Re: Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter
You are talking about cost to develop the software and I am talking about cost per user of that software, these are very different things. Cost per customer increases only if they offer free support. Instead of materials I wanted to say resources. - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter > > > > Maybe his cost of materials and effort for each copy is greater than with > > software. With software people already have the trial > > installed they just need the key to activate it so materials for each copy > > are much cheaper for them. They could charge $500 for > > version where you can call customer support for free and $100 for a > > version where you can't. The manufacturing cost is not lower > > for them if they sell crippled version of the software. > > Material cost has little or nothing to do with final price. > Time is the expensive component. > It takes time to write software, more time to write good software. > That trial version you seem to think is free isn't. > It cost a software developer time to write it, more time to work the bugs > out of it, and still more time to write the support code for various RAW > formats. > > William Robb > >
Re: Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter
Maybe his cost of materials and effort for each copy is greater than with software. With software people already have the trial installed they just need the key to activate it so materials for each copy are much cheaper for them. They could charge $500 for version where you can call customer support for free and $100 for a version where you can't. The manufacturing cost is not lower for them if they sell crippled version of the software. - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:40 PM Subject: Re: Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter > > > > Maybe they would sell more of these if they set more realistic price and > > get paid even more. > > I was at a seminar a few years back given by a successful and talented > professional photographer. > He said that for every 10% you drop your price, you need to increase sales > by 40% to make the same actual profit. > I don't know how many copies of Capture One will sell, but I expect > Photoshop will sell several times that number. > Anyway, it is just another consumer commodity with a price on it. > If you think the price is fair, buy it, if you don't, then leave it alone. > > William Robb > >
Re: Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter
Maybe they would sell more of these if they set more realistic price and get paid even more. > > So why does the Capture One Pro costs almost as much as the whole > > Photoshop ? :) > > Someone wants to get paid for their time? > > William Robb > >
Re: Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter
So why does the Capture One Pro costs almost as much as the whole Photoshop ? :) - Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter > On Apr 15, 2005, at 8:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > From: David Zaninovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Do you get more accurate colors, better sharpness and shadow/highlight > >> detail with Capture One than with Adobe RAW converter ? Or > >> the difference is only in speed, ease of use, etc.. > >> > >> What justifies the price of Capture One Pro ? > > > > Capture One Pro has the edge with batch processing. That's something > > that > > you can't do with Adobe RAW. > > > > So, if the shots are under similar conditions and you have a lot of > > them, > > you can basically set your parameters up on the first image in Capture > > One > > and transfer those parameters across to the other images as you're post > > processing them - this is handy if you're shooting events/weddings etc. > > You do the same thing with Photoshop CS and Camera Raw using the File > Browser, actions, automate and batch features. I prefer the control and > rendering provided by Photoshop and Camera Raw. > > Godfrey > >
Capture One Pro vs Adobe RAW converter
Do you get more accurate colors, better sharpness and shadow/highlight detail with Capture One than with Adobe RAW converter ? Or the difference is only in speed, ease of use, etc.. What justifies the price of Capture One Pro ?
Re: Hot pixels
Now we just have to find out how to modify this list of bad pixels. :) - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:56 PM Subject: Re: Hot pixels > "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I think that this program just marks bad pixels so that they are > >interpolated from neighboring pixels when picture is saved to > >memory card. > > I don't see how *else* they could do anything via software. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com >
Re: Hot pixels
I think that this program just marks bad pixels so that they are interpolated from neighboring pixels when picture is saved to memory card. - Original Message - From: "David Oswald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:53 PM Subject: Re: Hot pixels > My suspicion is that it is probably not real good for the CCD chip to > run this "program" too often. Don't think of it as wiping the > black-board. Think of it as sanding and retexturing the surface of the > blackboard. You only have so many times you can do that sort of thing > before the surface wears thin. :) At best, this is a rough comparison. > But it is entirely possible that the energy used to wake up bad CCD > pixels is enough to do some degree of wear on all pixels. > > If that is the case, Pentax may have not made it a built-in feature out > of fear that people might go nuts and do it every few days until the CCD > chip is toast. > > This is all speculation. Maybe an engineer could chime in. ;) > > > > > Frits Wüthrich wrote: > > on my Olympus digital P&S this is build in. Olympus advises to run this > > once a year. > > pity Pentax didn't do this > > > > > > On Wednesday 13 April 2005 17:11, David Zaninovic wrote: > > FJW> They should give us the program so we don't have to wait 4 weeks for > > this. > > FJW> > > FJW> - Original Message - > > FJW> From: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > FJW> To: > > FJW> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:59 AM > > FJW> Subject: Re: Hot pixels > > FJW> > > FJW> > > FJW> > Interesting. So they just "eliminate" the hot pixels with a program. > > Do you > > FJW> > think they could do the same with stuck pixels? > > FJW> > Peter >
Re: Hot pixels
They should give us the program so we don't have to wait 4 weeks for this. - Original Message - From: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:59 AM Subject: Re: Hot pixels > Interesting. So they just "eliminate" the hot pixels with a program. Do you > think they could do the same with stuck pixels? > Peter > > >I sent my Pentax *ist D just before the end of the one > >year warranty to Colorado because of what I thought > >were a high number of hot pixels: > > > >6 hot pixels at 1/60 sec > >7 at 1/15 sec > >13 at 1/4 sec > >37 at 1 sec > > > >It came back after 4 weeks with a note stating that: > > > >"We completed an evaluation of your product and have > >run a program designed to eliminate "hot" pixels. It > >is not common for a sensor with millions of light > >sensitive areas to have this phenomenon." > > > >I did a quick test last night, and now there are 4 hot > >pixels at 1 sec and none at 1/4, 1/15, and 1/60 sec. > >For your information, I used the "deadpixeltest" > >program. > > > >http://www.starzen.com/imaging/deadpixeltest.htm > > > > > > > >__ > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! > >http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ > > >
lens hood size calculation
Anybody knows how to calculate lens hood exit diameter if hood length and lens angle of view are known ?
Re: Hood for SMC Pentax-F 70-210
Do you know what are the dimensions of RH-RB49 ? - Original Message - From: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 6:28 PM Subject: Re: Hood for SMC Pentax-F 70-210 > >What is the best hood for this lens ? RH-RB49 ? I don't want it to > >look like a plunger if possible. :) > > On a film camera, this hood is indeed good. On an ist D a longer > hood would be better. The uncommon hood that was made specifically > for the old Takumar 200/5.6 is very deep and could be interesting for > extreme applications, but it may be a bit too long at 70mm and... too > heavy for the AF mechanism??? I don't know if it is a concern here > as it would be with the 77mm lens. > > Andre >
Hood for SMC Pentax-F 70-210
What is the best hood for this lens ? RH-RB49 ? I don't want it to look like a plunger if possible. :)
ebay prices
Just missed it :) It lived only 45 minutes. :) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7503381250
Re: big slides with lightbox
Looks like exactly what I am looking for. Thanks ! Any competition to that product or this is the only one to do this ? - Original Message - From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 12:28 PM Subject: Re: big slides with lightbox > Try http://www.photoglow.com/ > > Something I've been considering > > Kenneth Waller > > -Original Message- > From: David Zaninovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Mar 21, 2005 12:02 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: big slides with lightbox > > Is there a solution for printing pictures to large 8x10+ slides and then > mounting them on some kind of lightbox for display on > the wall so it looks presentable, is somebody selling something like that ? > I would also like the possibility of changing the > slides every now and then. I would love to buy large LCD display that would > do the same thing but that would be too expensive. I > remember that I saw something like that with a moving waterfall on the > picture, I want the same thing but without movement. :) It > should not cost more than $50-$100. > > > > > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com >
big slides with lightbox
Is there a solution for printing pictures to large 8x10+ slides and then mounting them on some kind of lightbox for display on the wall so it looks presentable, is somebody selling something like that ? I would also like the possibility of changing the slides every now and then. I would love to buy large LCD display that would do the same thing but that would be too expensive. I remember that I saw something like that with a moving waterfall on the picture, I want the same thing but without movement. :) It should not cost more than $50-$100.
Re: SMC Pentax-F 70-210mm F4-5.6 - what's a reasonable price ??
It is more like $200 lately... I remember when I thought that KEH price of $140 was too high and that it should be around $100. :) I think I would rather wait for the new 50-200 at it could be at the same price and maybe even better optical quality. - Original Message - From: "Fred Widall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:41 AM Subject: SMC Pentax-F 70-210mm F4-5.6 - what's a reasonable price ?? > Could someone please tell me what a reasonable price for this > lens would be (in VG condition) into today's 'hot' market. > > Looking at Jim's Colwell's excellent spreadsheet it shows an Ebay > range of US$75-115. Is that still reasonable ? They don't > seem to show up very often. > > I understand this is one of the best Pentax zooms in this range. > > Thanks. > -- > Fred Widall, > Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall > -- >
Re: LIfe Span of a D (was Re: Pulled the trigger)
It is not like you will wake up one day and everything will be obsolete you will have enough time to prepare for a change and adapt. If they stop making compactflash cards you can use SD to compactflash adapter. If they stop making SD cards there will be some new adapter, etc. If they stop supporting D in raw converters you will know that as soon as you pick up a new converter and see that D support has been dropped, you can then convert all your RAW files to something like DNG and continue. If they stop making CD and DVD readers you will know that and you can copy all the data to brand new 5TB hard drive which you got for $50 after rebate. I am more afraid that my D will stop working after the warranty expires because of all the electronics inside and that it will be too expensive to repair it. - Original Message - From: "DagT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 11:44 AM Subject: Re: LIfe Span of a D (was Re: Pulled the trigger) > I´m not very worried about my D. What worries me is the changing > standards, like CF card and data formats. I think the camera may > easily outlast the different Mac or MS operating systems, file formats > and RAW converter compatibility of Photoshop.. > > DagT > > På 18. mar. 2005 kl. 16.30 skrev Shel Belinkoff: > > > Bill, Your comment worries me since I'm considering a D. The > > implication > > of your statement seems to be that the D has been around long enough to > > have some samples that are worn out. Is that really what you meant, > > that > > the D, and, I suppose, other cameras of its type, may have a short life > > span. How long has the D been out - a couple of years? And, even if > > it's > > too soon for these cameras to be worn out (maybe that term needs > > clarification), how long can they be expected to last under average > > circumstances? What about when used a lot - say 100 exposures a day? > > Is > > that a lot with these puppies? > > > > I'd really like to get some idea of how long these things can be > > expected > > to last.. > > > > Shel > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: William Robb > > > >> Thr Ds hasn't been around long enough to have been worn out. > >> Check to make sure there are no signs of it having been dropped. > > > > > >
DNG vs PEF
So what is the final verdict on DNG vs PEF ? What do I lose by converting PEF to DNG ? Do I lose any picture information or just metadata, like which lens was used and other things I don't really need. I need size reduction from 13MB to 5MB, that is a huge difference. If I have to keep PEF-s then there is no reason to use DNG.
Re: Tamron AF 75-300 F/4-5.6 LD MACRO - Model 672D
Is that the same as Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED, it is also 13 elements in 9 groups. - Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 11:23 AM Subject: Tamron AF 75-300 F/4-5.6 LD MACRO - Model 672D > Did anybody try this lens ? How good is it, flare, sharpness, bokeh ? >
Tamron AF 75-300 F/4-5.6 LD MACRO - Model 672D
Did anybody try this lens ? How good is it, flare, sharpness, bokeh ?
Re: CCD cleaning
I will run a test. I believe my eyes more than physics. :) It is my impression that I started seeing dust when I started taking macro pictures. > > DISCLAIMER: Of course I could be completely wrong ... > > You are completely wrong ... ;-) > > "Effective aperture" is a misnomer. The aperture in use does not > change, as I said above. The illumination has been reduced by distance, > so the "effective aperture" is simply referring to the amount of light > that results from the falloff together with the set aperture. > > DoF has nothing to do with the imaging of dust on a sensor (or film), > nor does this "effective aperture" reduction in illumination ... it's > purely a shadow game. See the post I just sent a moment ago with an > illustrating picture. > > Godfrey > >
Re: polarizer
> I use one occasionally, and most particularly when copying flat art to > minimize reflections. Do you use polarizer over the flash for that ?
Re: CCD cleaning
I know that the effective aperture reduces with the amount of the extension. This smaller effective aperture increases DOF and reduces the light, so why wouldn't it also increase the visibility of dust like real aperture decrease would as it is effectively the same thing. DISCLAIMER: Of course I could be completely wrong as I am playing with this photography stuff for only a year and few months. > Darned if I understand what relevance that has to anything in this > question thread, David. > > When you're focusing, you're moving the lens body further away from the > sensor/film plane. The nodal point is essentially an illuminating body > from this point of view, and light falls off at a rate equal to the > square of the distance (Inverse Square Law). The closer you focus, the > further away from the sensor/film plane that illuminating body is. At > some point with a macro lens, the light falloff due to extension > becomes significant and you have to account for it in your exposure. > Nothing about the aperture changes, unless the macro lens has some sort > of auto-compensating diaphragm mechanism: the light is simply becoming > less bright through distance. > > What this has to do with the imaging of dust at small and wide lens > openings is a mystery.
polarizer
I just got a polarizer and I am trying to figure out what can I use it for. I noticed that it darkens the sky, steals a lot of light, removes reflections from glass, water and some shiny objects like cars, from some objects even indoors under neon light, darkens the LCD to black. :)Can I use it with flash in some usable way ? What If I put a second polarizer over the flash ? Does it affect contrast ? How about snow ? I did not try to shoot any pictures yet, I am just trying it first without the camera to see what it can do.
Re: CCD cleaning
Focusing distance changes the aperture on macro lens as you add more extension you are effectively making the aperture smaller. That is how I understand it. - Original Message - From: "Juan Buhler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 6:22 PM Subject: Re: CCD cleaning > Bingo. That did it, thanks Godfrey, it makes sense to me now. So the > aperture matters, but the focusing distance shouldn't. > > Thanks! > > j
Re: CCD cleaning
Do you shoot macro ? That is where I noticed a lot of very small dust particles that could not be removed with compressed air. - Original Message - From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:48 PM Subject: Re: CCD cleaning > FWIW, I don't think that blowing with a high speed stream of air just blows > it around inside the camera. The camera body is quite a shallow 'well'. I > suspect, and practice seems to back up, that dust (at least the vast > majority) is blasted out the front, since the air stream is reflected and > directed back, that's the only place it has to go. Not trying to > forcefully argue the point. > > It just seems to me that there's so much excess angst regarding sensor > cleaning and the infinite splitting of hairs over *the* method. > > Manufacturers of cleaning systems and supplies have much to gain by making > this a critical issue. > > In my particular circumstances and usage I don't find sensor dust to be a > major issue. I've never had anything actually stuck on the sensor. Just > small pieces of dust laying on it. I clean the sensor, it takes less than 30 > seconds, and I'm back shooting again. > > Tom C. > > > > >From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >To: > >Subject: Re: CCD cleaning > >Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:07:54 -0500 > > > >I don't know, maybe it is not possible to get stuck dust from compressed > >air but I don't need to use it any more since pec pads work > >fine and actually remove the dust, not just move it around in the camera. > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: > >Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:54 AM > >Subject: RE: CCD cleaning > > > > > > > I find it hard to understand how using compressed air would *make* dust > > > stick to a CCD, unless fluid was deposited with the air. That's easily > > > avoidable. > > > > > > With so much talk about cleaning swabs and fluids, I have to point out > >one > > > obvious thing. Air is far less likely to do damage to the CCD than > >actually > > > physically touching and 'scrubbing' it . > > > > > > My method is to use the compressed air can with the straw. Hold upright > >and > > > spray a two second burst away from the camera to eliminate any > >propellant or > > > fluid. Then spray into the camera for 5 seconds or so. > > > > > > I've had the *ist D for 13 months. I've cleaned the sensor 5 times. > > > Anyway, that's my experience. > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > > >To: > > > >Subject: CCD cleaning > > > >Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:41:25 -0500 > > > > > > > >I was cleaning my CCD yesterday with copperhill method. I did not > >destroy > > > >my CCD. :) > > > >It was quite easy, I needed 4 pec-pads to remove 99% of the dust. I > >still > > > >have some left, I think it is stuck so it will need more > > > >cleanings to go away. It is probably stuck because of me using the > > > >compressed air. I will not use compressed air or bulb blower > > > >any more. > > > >I did not find it hard to wrap pec pads around spatula as I thought by > > > >reading all the instructions and peoples opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: CCD cleaning
Just what I was looking for. :) - Original Message - From: "Powell Hargrave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:39 PM Subject: Re: CCD cleaning > A good method but the Visible Dust brush is much too expensive. > > Read this. > > http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/a_Brush_Your_Sensor/a_Brush_Your_S > ensor.html > > Powell > > > At 09:07 AM 09/03/2005 , Godfrey wrote: > > > >I've said it before and I stand by it: the Sensor Brush available from > >http://www.visibledust.com/ isn't "cheap cheap cheap" but does an > >excellent job, is extremely easy to use. Much easier than swabs and > >Eclipse, etc. and about as effective. I have done both. > > > > > > >
Re: CCD cleaning
I don't know, maybe it is not possible to get stuck dust from compressed air but I don't need to use it any more since pec pads work fine and actually remove the dust, not just move it around in the camera. - Original Message - From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:54 AM Subject: RE: CCD cleaning > I find it hard to understand how using compressed air would *make* dust > stick to a CCD, unless fluid was deposited with the air. That's easily > avoidable. > > With so much talk about cleaning swabs and fluids, I have to point out one > obvious thing. Air is far less likely to do damage to the CCD than actually > physically touching and 'scrubbing' it . > > My method is to use the compressed air can with the straw. Hold upright and > spray a two second burst away from the camera to eliminate any propellant or > fluid. Then spray into the camera for 5 seconds or so. > > I've had the *ist D for 13 months. I've cleaned the sensor 5 times. > Anyway, that's my experience. > > Tom C. > > > > >From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >To: > >Subject: CCD cleaning > >Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:41:25 -0500 > > > >I was cleaning my CCD yesterday with copperhill method. I did not destroy > >my CCD. :) > >It was quite easy, I needed 4 pec-pads to remove 99% of the dust. I still > >have some left, I think it is stuck so it will need more > >cleanings to go away. It is probably stuck because of me using the > >compressed air. I will not use compressed air or bulb blower > >any more. > >I did not find it hard to wrap pec pads around spatula as I thought by > >reading all the instructions and peoples opinions. > > > >
Re: CCD cleaning
I am not giving $100 for a brush, I don't care how technologically advanced it is, it is still a brush. :) - Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:07 PM Subject: Re: CCD cleaning > I've said it before and I stand by it: the Sensor Brush available from > http://www.visibledust.com/ isn't "cheap cheap cheap" but does an > excellent job, is extremely easy to use. Much easier than swabs and > Eclipse, etc. and about as effective. I have done both. > > Godfrey >
Re: Movin' Up from the istD
I want to add antishake in the body and faster autofocus in low light. That would be about it.. :) I don't think any of this will be in new D so I will probably not buy it. They will probably just make a 8MP model and everything else will be just a little bit improved, not enough to make any difference. - Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:47 AM Subject: Re: Movin' Up from the istD > At least 10MP, better dynamic range, better hand grip like on DS. I don't > care about write speed or frames per second. > Full frame sensor. :) > Better sensor dust control. > Lower noise at ISO3200. > > All that for under $1000. :) > > Otherwise I am happy with the D right now, no reason to change it. > > - Original Message - > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:35 AM > Subject: Movin' Up from the istD > > > > It seems that Pentax may soon be coming out with a replacement for the > > istD. How many istD owners would be interested in trading in the D for the > > newer camera, and what features or improvements would be needed in order to > > make that choice? > > > > Shel > > > >
Re: Movin' Up from the istD
You can buy the SD to CF adapter right now, right ? You can always use that if you want SD. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:35 AM Subject: Re: Movin' Up from the istD > Why do you think that will happen? Seems that CF is where the high end > cameras are, and, at least according to most list members here, CF appears > to be what they want. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > > > I'll need another body soon: it will be either another DS or a uprated > > D with an SD card rather than CF. > >
Re: Movin' Up from the istD
At least 10MP, better dynamic range, better hand grip like on DS. I don't care about write speed or frames per second. Full frame sensor. :) Better sensor dust control. Lower noise at ISO3200. All that for under $1000. :) Otherwise I am happy with the D right now, no reason to change it. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:35 AM Subject: Movin' Up from the istD > It seems that Pentax may soon be coming out with a replacement for the > istD. How many istD owners would be interested in trading in the D for the > newer camera, and what features or improvements would be needed in order to > make that choice? > > Shel > >
Re: CCD cleaning
Just use froogle to find best price. Be sure to check the shipping charge. http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=pec+pads&hl=en&lr=&tab=wf&scoring=p - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 6:10 AM Subject: RE: CCD cleaning > David were are you getting the pads and fluid.?? > > As for cleaning my CCD's, the D1 only once since 2001,the D2h not yet since > Feb 2004, the > istD about > 2-3 times a week with a blower.Man it atracts dust. > Keep in mind the Nikons are in very dirty areas and the istD is not.Go fiqure. > > Dave > > > That method is the BEST method to use. > > > > It is ridiculously inexpensive (if you take care with your equipment) and > > it is ridiculously effective. > > > > I've been using it since last year February :) > > > > Cheers > > Dave > > >
Re: CCD cleaning
I got it from www.calumetphoto.com, they had the best price. Rubber spatula was from copperhill. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 6:10 AM Subject: RE: CCD cleaning > David were are you getting the pads and fluid.?? > > As for cleaning my CCD's, the D1 only once since 2001,the D2h not yet since > Feb 2004, the > istD about > 2-3 times a week with a blower.Man it atracts dust. > Keep in mind the Nikons are in very dirty areas and the istD is not.Go fiqure. > > Dave > > > That method is the BEST method to use. > > > > It is ridiculously inexpensive (if you take care with your equipment) and > > it is ridiculously effective. > > > > I've been using it since last year February :) > > > > Cheers > > Dave > > >
Re: CCD cleaning
Yep, I could clearly see the dust with my Tamron SP 90 at 1:1 magnification at f11. I intend to use my expensive macro lens at that setting so dust is really bothering me. - Original Message - From: "Juan Buhler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:48 AM Subject: Re: CCD cleaning > I'm curious as to why exactly people seem so eager to clean their > CCDs. Did you see the dust in your images? I've had my istD since > September, and haven't noticed anything bad in my pictures. I haven't > looked at the CCD either, as I don't care to maximize the chances of > dust getting in there. > > How often to you guys clean it? > > j > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:41:25 -0500, David Zaninovic > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was cleaning my CCD yesterday with copperhill method. I did not destroy > > my CCD. :) > > It was quite easy, I needed 4 pec-pads to remove 99% of the dust. I still > > have some left, I think it is stuck so it will need more > > cleanings to go away. It is probably stuck because of me using the > > compressed air. I will not use compressed air or bulb blower > > any more. > > I did not find it hard to wrap pec pads around spatula as I thought by > > reading all the instructions and peoples opinions. > > > > > > > -- > Juan Buhler > http://www.jbuhler.com > blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog >
CCD cleaning
I was cleaning my CCD yesterday with copperhill method. I did not destroy my CCD. :) It was quite easy, I needed 4 pec-pads to remove 99% of the dust. I still have some left, I think it is stuck so it will need more cleanings to go away. It is probably stuck because of me using the compressed air. I will not use compressed air or bulb blower any more. I did not find it hard to wrap pec pads around spatula as I thought by reading all the instructions and peoples opinions.
Re: :(
I think that they all charge lenses by weight, sharpness does not have anything to do with it. :) - Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:41 PM Subject: Re: :( > Is it really necessary that Pentax *has* to charge a lot of > money to provide a good lens? > > I hope the DA50-200 performs well. It's a nice size and a useful > range. > > Godfrey > > > > > > __ > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ >
Re: :(
If this one was f4 constant aperture I am sure it would also be $500. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:32 PM Subject: Re: :( > The DA 16-45/4 isn't exactly fast, and it's close to $500 street price. > However, I'm hoping that the 50-200 is both a terrific lens, like the aforementioned, and a terrific bargain. We deserve it. > > > > That lens is too slow to cost more than that. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "jtainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:13 PM > > Subject: :( > > > > > > > According to Pentax USA's web site, the DA 50-200 will cost "under $300." > > > I > > take that to mean a MSRP of $299.95. Street price at > > B&H or Adorama would then be about $220 to $240 or so. > > > > > > This is disappointing. It suggests that Pentax considers the DA 50-200 a > > mediocre optic. > > > > > > Optimistically, perhaps Pentax USA got it wrong. The same site also lists > > > the > > DA 16-45 as a DA J lens. > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > >
Re: :(
That lens is too slow to cost more than that. - Original Message - From: "jtainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:13 PM Subject: :( > According to Pentax USA's web site, the DA 50-200 will cost "under $300." I > take that to mean a MSRP of $299.95. Street price at B&H or Adorama would then be about $220 to $240 or so. > > This is disappointing. It suggests that Pentax considers the DA 50-200 a > mediocre optic. > > Optimistically, perhaps Pentax USA got it wrong. The same site also lists the > DA 16-45 as a DA J lens. > > Joe > >
Re: Re: eclipse + pec pads for CCD cleaning
I don't think that fumes from 2 drops of methanol can do anything. People usually die from methanol because of home made alcoholic drinks. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Re: eclipse + pec pads for CCD cleaning > > > > > From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2005/03/04 Fri PM 01:39:55 GMT > > To: > > Subject: Re: eclipse + pec pads for CCD cleaning > > > > You need the Eclipse Fluid (which is extremely pure methanol) > > I hope it's not - because, used in the unventilated room you're going to want > to clean your camera in, it will make you blind and then dead in quite a short time. > > mike > > - > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software > visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information > >
Re: eclipse + pec pads for CCD cleaning
8mm brush could be a compromise for me, it is in my price range and I think it would supplement eclipse + pec pads nicely. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 4:46 PM Subject: Re: eclipse + pec pads for CCD cleaning > In a message dated 3/3/2005 11:55:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I have also spent the money on Visible Dust brush to use for not so > stuck on dust - it should be quicker and easier. It arrived yesterday > so I have yet to try it out. > > > Leon > > I am going to sound like a bore repeatedly mentioning the John Shaw Weekend I > just went to. That is what he recommended. Be interested in hearing what you > think. > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) >
Re: eclipse + pec pads for CCD cleaning
> I use Pec pads and Eclipse and a Sensor swipe wand. It works well > though it may take a few attempts to get all the dust off. I also find > it's a pain to wrap the pad around the wand. > > I have also spent the money on Visible Dust brush to use for not so > stuck on dust - it should be quicker and easier. It arrived yesterday > so I have yet to try it out. Please report the results.
eclipse + pec pads for CCD cleaning
I noticed that my macro shots have many dust particles visible in pictures. That is not a big problem right now as there are no insects anyway but I have to prepare for the spring. Canned air do not work for extra small dust and I have hundreds of those. I ordered some eclipse, pec pads and some kind of rubber wand and I hope I will not destroy my CCD. :) I don't like the idea of a static brush, too expensive and I don't think it will work for stuck dust so I will have to use eclipse anyway. Better to learn how to use it from the start then. Maybe if the static brush were around $30 I would buy it as an addition to my cleaning kit but at more than $100 I don't think it is the right price.
Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition?
Thank you ! I will try these tips and will do some more investigation on raw vs jpg highlight/shadow detail, there might be hope afterall. :) - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition? > Thanks David. This was shot at about one in the afternoon under hazy sun. > However, the snow was quite bright, brighter in fact, than it appears in the photo. I think a jpeg would have blown out highlights and lost shadow detail if it was exposed the same as this shot. The key to RAW is in how you convert it. I have a book devoted to the RAW converter. I don't have it here with me at work, but I can supply the name of it later if anyone is interested. The author goes to great lengths in explaining how a shot can be dialed in using exposure, shadow, brightness and contrast. What it amounts to is that you expose to preserve any highlights that are critical. Then when processing the RAW image, you adjust the exposure slider so that all your critical highlights are in range. If you hold down the alt/option key while moving the slider, the highlights that are out of range will be revealed as bright areas against black. Then you adjust for shadow. Again, if you hold down the alt/o! > ption key while moving the shadow slider all the shadow areas that are out > of range will be revealed as bright against black. After that, you adjust your midtone levels with the brightness control. Adding brightness in the raw converter won't affect the highlights. It's not the same as brightness in PhotoShop. Finally, you adjust contrast. This will pull the histogram toward the ends of the scale of push them toward the middle. Again, it's different than the contrast control in PhotoShop. It's more like tweaking the rgb curve. Of course there are other factors to consider such as color temperture, hue, sharpness, etc. But these don't affect shadow or highlight rendition. Best of all, the RAW converter is a lot of fun. It's a great tool for the digital photographer. > Paul > > > > Good highlight and shadow detail, I would be happy with those results. > > But > > this was not done at most contrasty time of the > > day, right ? Do you think that jpg would remove some of the hightlight > > detail > > or it makes a difference only in shadows ? You have > > some realy nice pictures on photo.net by the way. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:58 AM > > Subject: Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition? > > > > > > > The big limitation in shooting jpegs is that you don't have the exposure > > control that you get when converting RAW in PSCS. There > > is no comparison between jpeg and RAW. It's like night and day. Here's a > > shot I > > did yesterday to test the 28/3.5 for another member. > > It includes snow in bright sun and heavy shadow under a bench. You'll find > > detail in the snow and plenty of information in the > > sahdow. It was shot in RAW, and processed in PSCS. A bit of additional > > adjustment was done with the Shadow/Highlight tool in PS > > after conversion. There isn't a slide film in the world that can give you > > that > > much latitude, and I would guess that you'd have to > > scan a negative film and post-process to get a comparable result. But > > that's my > > opinion. Others may differ. Here's the shot, which > > is quite ugly by the way :-). > > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3155206 > > > > > > > > > > > If you are shooting jpegs, you are limiting things somewhat. > > > > > I also don't think digital has the latitude that film does, but I bow > > > > > to the knowledge of those who disagree with me on it. > > > > > > > > Shooting jpegs limits some shadow detail but that "detail" is mostly > > > > noise > > in my > > > > opinion. > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition?
Good highlight and shadow detail, I would be happy with those results. But this was not done at most contrasty time of the day, right ? Do you think that jpg would remove some of the hightlight detail or it makes a difference only in shadows ? You have some realy nice pictures on photo.net by the way. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:58 AM Subject: Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition? > The big limitation in shooting jpegs is that you don't have the exposure > control that you get when converting RAW in PSCS. There is no comparison between jpeg and RAW. It's like night and day. Here's a shot I did yesterday to test the 28/3.5 for another member. It includes snow in bright sun and heavy shadow under a bench. You'll find detail in the snow and plenty of information in the sahdow. It was shot in RAW, and processed in PSCS. A bit of additional adjustment was done with the Shadow/Highlight tool in PS after conversion. There isn't a slide film in the world that can give you that much latitude, and I would guess that you'd have to scan a negative film and post-process to get a comparable result. But that's my opinion. Others may differ. Here's the shot, which is quite ugly by the way :-). > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3155206 > > > > > If you are shooting jpegs, you are limiting things somewhat. > > > I also don't think digital has the latitude that film does, but I bow > > > to the knowledge of those who disagree with me on it. > > > > Shooting jpegs limits some shadow detail but that "detail" is mostly noise > > in my > > opinion. > > >
Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition?
> If you are shooting jpegs, you are limiting things somewhat. > I also don't think digital has the latitude that film does, but I bow > to the knowledge of those who disagree with me on it. Shooting jpegs limits some shadow detail but that "detail" is mostly noise in my opinion.
Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition?
This digital exposure latitude looks more like Velvia 50 to me. That is fine for controlled shooting but for noon snapshots it is terrible, I hope that AF360 can control this contrast at least for people snapshots. - Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition? > Being happy shooting Astia at noon with great shadow and highlight detail and > bitching about scanning and waiting for slides to come > back from developing. > > > Where were you when some list members were insisting that digital had > > 15 stops of latitude.? >
Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition?
Being happy shooting Astia at noon with great shadow and highlight detail and bitching about scanning and waiting for slides to come back from developing. > Where were you when some list members were insisting that digital had > 15 stops of latitude.?
Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition?
That is fine for photographs but for snapshots it does not work. For example when I give the camera to my wife. :) I want the camera to think for her as much as possible. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 10:49 AM Subject: Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition? > If you shoot RAW and convert in PSCS, you should have plenty of exposure > latitude, at least as much as color negative film. It's a matter of exposing correctly and using the four key controls: exposure, shadow, brightness, and contrast. > Paul > > > > I would be more happy if they worked on more exposure latitude than more > > megapixels. D has much less exposure latitude than Astia > > 100F. I can't take any pictures at noon like I could with Astia. :) Astia > > was > > great, but digital wins in every other aspect except > > exposure latitude for me. Maybe I should try using my AF360 set on contrast > > control, does that help ? > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 11:19 AM > > Subject: Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition? > > > > > > > Of course I wasn't suggesting it was the camera to switch systems for. > > > Like > > > I'd be that bold! I'm suggesting that DSLR manufacturers need to stay > > > somewhat competitive in emerging markets as well. > > > > > > This newcomer is pretty much the same size (and lighter) as the ist DS, > > > and > > > at 8mp, and cheaper than most of the 6.3mp's around now (the ist DS is > > > slightly cheaper, but people often go "it's a hundred dollars more, but > > > it's > > > 2 megapixels more!"), it's definitely going to be very tempting to an SLR > > > virgin. Not to mention the price is list price, it often comes out cheaper > > > doesn't it? > > > > > > I think it's exciting news because unlike with the 20D, it looks like this > > > is a direct assault on the competition's strong markets (ist D, ist DS, > > > D70). > > > > > > I also think it's pretty astute of Canon not to shoot themselves in the > > > foot > > > like Nikon did with the D70 making the D100 more or less obsolete (the > > > 350D > > > has an 8.0mp sensor, while the 20D still hangs on to its 8.3mp). > > > > > > Bottom line, I want to know which battle Pentax (actually Nikon too for > > > that > > > matter) will choose to fight. Can they take on the 20D? I'm not even sure > > > they've got the scale to take on the 350D in terms of price! I'd much > > > rather > > > see a 10mp "ist Dx" than them cut the ist ds price in half.. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Ryan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Ryan Lee" > > > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:07 AM > > > Subject: Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The too small viewfinder denies the other main reason for operating > > > > a DSLR. No true spot meter either. Certainly not the camera to > > > > switch systems for. > > > > > > > > Servus, Alin > > > > > > > > Ryan wrote: > > > > RL> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos350d/ > > > > RL> Canon 350D: About the same dimensions as the ist DS, 60g lighter, > > > > and > > > 8 > > > > RL> megapixels. Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition?
I would be more happy if they worked on more exposure latitude than more megapixels. D has much less exposure latitude than Astia 100F. I can't take any pictures at noon like I could with Astia. :) Astia was great, but digital wins in every other aspect except exposure latitude for me. Maybe I should try using my AF360 set on contrast control, does that help ? - Original Message - From: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 11:19 AM Subject: Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition? > Of course I wasn't suggesting it was the camera to switch systems for. Like > I'd be that bold! I'm suggesting that DSLR manufacturers need to stay > somewhat competitive in emerging markets as well. > > This newcomer is pretty much the same size (and lighter) as the ist DS, and > at 8mp, and cheaper than most of the 6.3mp's around now (the ist DS is > slightly cheaper, but people often go "it's a hundred dollars more, but it's > 2 megapixels more!"), it's definitely going to be very tempting to an SLR > virgin. Not to mention the price is list price, it often comes out cheaper > doesn't it? > > I think it's exciting news because unlike with the 20D, it looks like this > is a direct assault on the competition's strong markets (ist D, ist DS, > D70). > > I also think it's pretty astute of Canon not to shoot themselves in the foot > like Nikon did with the D70 making the D100 more or less obsolete (the 350D > has an 8.0mp sensor, while the 20D still hangs on to its 8.3mp). > > Bottom line, I want to know which battle Pentax (actually Nikon too for that > matter) will choose to fight. Can they take on the 20D? I'm not even sure > they've got the scale to take on the 350D in terms of price! I'd much rather > see a 10mp "ist Dx" than them cut the ist ds price in half.. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Ryan > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Ryan Lee" > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:07 AM > Subject: Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition? > > > > > > The too small viewfinder denies the other main reason for operating > > a DSLR. No true spot meter either. Certainly not the camera to > > switch systems for. > > > > Servus, Alin > > > > Ryan wrote: > > RL> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos350d/ > > RL> Canon 350D: About the same dimensions as the ist DS, 60g lighter, and > 8 > > RL> megapixels. Thoughts? > > > > > > > >
Re: 4GB Microdrive Hitachi 3K4
I ordered Kingston standard 1GB for $50, I figured out that I don't want to have more than 1GB in one card as that is around 78 raw exposures. I don't want to lose more than that if it dies. I also checked the read speed of that card and it is not that bad, better than sandisk standard ones. I am shooting jpg now as I don't have the space but I want to move to raw, it must be better, at least it is not losing any data. :) - Original Message - From: "David Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 3:10 AM Subject: Re: 4GB Microdrive Hitachi 3K4 > On Feb 18, 2005, at 7:25 AM, David Zaninovic wrote: > > > Does anybody have any experience with this Microdrive ? Will it work > > in D ? > > How do you transfer files to PC ? Can you connect it somehow to a PC > > as normal ATA disk ? > > AFAIK you can get Compact Flash to IDE adaptors. But it's probably > easier to use a USB2 or FireWire memory card reader. > > Cheers, > > - Dave > > http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ >
Re: CCD cleaning
I used staples canned air yesterday from a nice distance to clean my CCD... It removed big dust particles that can easily be seen on f32 in 1:1 macro... It could not remove really small ones, but it is much better now. - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 3:11 PM Subject: RE: CCD cleaning > I use a rubber blower - pear size. No brush. > The kind I can buy in any pharmacy for 6 USD. > I have cleaned the CCD once a week or twice in a month. > All the best. > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Frantisek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 16. februar 2005 15:12 > Til: Herb Chong > Emne: Re: CCD cleaning > > > > Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 1:00:47 AM, Herb wrote: > HC> all the photographic blowers i have bought recently spew debris. > > I must try it with syringe. My blower is so dirty from living in the > camera bag that I was so surprised at looking inside it, it was full > of fluff!!! I almost had a stroke ;-) Fortunately all that fluff never > made it onto my sensor, and it still works quite well. Perhaps I am > just lucky . > > Good light! >fra > >
4GB Microdrive Hitachi 3K4
Does anybody have any experience with this Microdrive ? Will it work in D ? How do you transfer files to PC ? Can you connect it somehow to a PC as normal ATA disk ?
Re: Multiple wireless 360FGZ flash
Can't you just dial in exposure compensation on the flash itself ? - Original Message - From: "arnie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 12:11 AM Subject: Re: Multiple wireless 360FGZ flash > Jack, it works great when I do that. Just I would like to be able to control > them a bit. > > arnie > > - Original Message - > From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 7:09 PM > Subject: Re: Multiple wireless 360FGZ flash > > > > Arnie, > > I think I'd allow the two 360's to do their own > > exposure balancing by setting both on TTL. > > > > Jack > > --- arnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I use two 360, both triggered wirelessly from the > >> built in flash. I still > >> cant figure out how to manually control the exposure > >> of each, but it works > >> quite well automatically. > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Lindamood, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 2:25 PM > >> Subject: Multiple wireless 360FGZ flash > >> > >> > >> > Is it possible to work two (or more) 360's > >> wireless triggered by the > >> > built-in flash? Has anyone tried this? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > > > > >
Re: Multiple wireless 360FGZ flash
That would be nice... :) I doubt that it works. - Original Message - From: "Lindamood, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 2:25 PM Subject: Multiple wireless 360FGZ flash > Is it possible to work two (or more) 360's wireless triggered by the built-in > flash? Has anyone tried this? > >
Re: New From Pentax...
If you buy it on ebay it will be $50-80 for a used one without the lens, depends on your luck. I consider it a disposable SLR. - Original Message - From: "Thibouille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:29 AM Subject: Re: New From Pentax... > $50 ? I wish ... My local store lists the MZ-M with 35-80mm (which is > not AF) at 220 euros or somethin' alike. > > > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:11:59 -0500, David Zaninovic > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree, it looks like my $50 ZX-M. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:33 PM > > Subject: Re: New From Pentax... > > > > > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:00:26 -0500, Peter J. Alling > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I make no comment... > > > > > > > > http://www.pma-show.com/pentax/003_istDS.html > > > > > > > > > > Looks like a DigiRebel - ie. cheap 'n nasty > > > > > > cheers, > > > Mr. Deja Vu > > > > > > -- > > > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thibouille >
