Re: PDML Digest, Vol 70, Issue 231
need a good free preteen site -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PDML Digest, Vol 13, Issue 206
Hmm, I wonder if the vast majority of mid to low tier camera Pentax K100\K110, Cannon 30D\Rebel, Nikon D200\D50) users ever move the selector dial off automatic. Don't get me wrong, I shoot RAW images with my wife's digital SLR, but it is on rare occasion she ever moves the selector to manual or any setting without a little picture (and if she does then she shoots with whatever settings I last shot with.) I seem to remember with film SLR cameras the general feeling was people used them as glorified point and shoot cameras. I doubt this has changed with the move to digital. So, while testing a jpeg may not reflect real-world SLR performance, I believe it does reflect how a majority of DSLR mid to low tier digital camera owners shoot. Don't read to much into the above. It is based on my belief, not any hard facts. Jeff From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Amazon buys dpreview.com >Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:58:26 -0400 > >The major issue I have with Phil is his insistence on testing primarily >in JPEG mode. His tests are designed for, and quite good for, P&S >cameras. They do not adequately reflect real-world SLR performance. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: MZ-S/MR-52 Reserected as K1!
This site, http://www.estiasis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=630 has the same pictures with the English text explaining this was the unreleased full frame DSLR of yesteryear. So basically what everyone else has said. This is the old DSLR that Pentax canned. Jeff -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax TC Question
I thought the rule of thumb was the x-L teleconverter was recommended for any long lens that could fit the added depth. I use the 1.4x-L. I have never used (and do not own) a x-s series teleconverter so I can't give you a first hand comparison. Jeff -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re:Photoshop Lightroom 1.0 sale and shipping date
Support and Product of Adobe CS2 is the same in the retail and academic versions. The only difference is the box, and even then I seem to recall it is just a sticker that says Academic. I would bet the serial numbers are on a list that let's Adobe know it is an academic version. Jeff -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
PESO- merge to HDR (OT-Surreal phot)
I actually like it. Printed out on watercolor paper I bet it would look spectacular, but not as a photograph per say. It makes the photo look more like a painting and less like a photo. Jeff > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:20:09 +0200 > From: Don Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: PESO- merge to HDR (OT-Surreal phot) > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Then my taste has to be in my mouth. I think the colours are incredible > and the lighting amazing. Of course it isn't "real" but that's what > makes it so interesting -- to me. There are paintings on some Vatican > walls that have a similar range of colour and intensity. I'll try to > find one or two and post them to illustrate what I mean. I think the > picture is great. > > D > > Tim ?sleby wrote: > >> How about "Photography Of Offensive Purpose"? >> We should both wash our mouth now, shame on us. >> >> I was holding back because I didn't want to disrespect the photographer. He >> is an *ist user, and a nice guy ;-) >> >> What struck me, is that there is a thin line between HDR used for a >> photographic purpose, and where it is just a bad taste effect. >> >> >> Tim >> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> William Robb >> Sent: 15. november 2006 14:56 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: PESO- merge to HDR (OT-Surreal phot) >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Tim ?sleby" >> Subject: RE: PESO- merge to HDR (OT-Surreal phot) >> >> >> >> >>> BTW. I just saw an interesting, but terrible IMO, semi HDR picture. >>> http://www.photosight.org/photo.php?photoid=44863&ref=author >>> The light looks surreal. Kind of funny effect, but tiresome to the >>> eye. >>> >>> There is a thumb below to the original. I'd like to hear some opinions >>> on >>> this. >>> >>> >> Fred Picker would have called it a >> "Computer ReAdjusted Picture". >> >> William Robb >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
GESO = $water_abstracts['Reflections_reloaded'];
Adam Maas said: > I'd tend to disagree. Until Linux has decent colour management > capabilities, it's not really a good platform for photo editing since > you will not be able to adequately profile your display. That's the difference between "Linux is becoming a decent platform for photo editing" and "Linux is a professional-quality photo editing platform". I tried to choose my words carefully... Color management in Linux is a weak spot for photo work, though, I'll agree. Projects like Little CMS and Argyll CMS are very promising, but more applications need to support them and better overall integration/configuration is needed. Linux color management is kind of where font support was a couple years ago - it's there, but not for the faint of heart, and somewhat limited in scope. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
GESO = $water_abstracts['Reflections_reloaded'];
Yes, it's generally faster to run Photoshop natively in Windows. But the original poster said he was considering trying Linux after having dealt with a bad virus problem, and was just wondering if it worked. It does work (I don't use it much; I never really cared for Photoshop, and only use it for specialized tasks I can't do with other software), and the small performance hit might be worth it for some of the other advantages Linux offers over Windows. Note I'm not saying Linux is better than Windows, or vice versa. Everybody's got different needs and priorities. > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > Isn't this basically running a shell program of Windows, which allows > one to run PhotoShop? That seems like a stretch to me. Wouldn't it be > faster to just run windows on the same machine? If you have to run a > shell to use the software you want, you're probably using the wrong > operating system. > Paul > > > On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Jeff Monks wrote: > >> >> Quoth Francis: >> >>> I just got a new 100gig hard drive for my (old) laptop and (having >>> just >>> had a rather unpleasant virus fiasco) I'd like to switch to >> Ubuntu, but >> not unless I can run Photoshop and or rawshooter/lightroom. Is that >> possible? >> >> Photoshop runs pretty well under Linux using Crossover Office >> (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/). Linux is actually >> becoming a decent platform for photo editing - with Crossover, you >> can use >> Photoshop; there's a native Linux version of Bibble; and while GIMP >> isn't >> Photoshop, it is quite powerful. >> >> You can always download a trial version of Crossover to see if >> RawShooter >> works, too. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML at pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
GESO = $water_abstracts['Reflections_reloaded'];
Quoth Francis: > I just got a new 100gig hard drive for my (old) laptop and (having just > had a rather unpleasant virus fiasco) I'd like to switch to Ubuntu, but > not unless I can run Photoshop and or rawshooter/lightroom. Is that > possible? Photoshop runs pretty well under Linux using Crossover Office (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/). Linux is actually becoming a decent platform for photo editing - with Crossover, you can use Photoshop; there's a native Linux version of Bibble; and while GIMP isn't Photoshop, it is quite powerful. You can always download a trial version of Crossover to see if RawShooter works, too. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PDML Digest, Vol 5, Issue 156
We have the Optio 550. We were happy with it, but when our son entered the picture it was just too long a lag between pushing the shutter release and taking the picture. My wife picked up a Canon 30D this summer and absolutely loves it. Her old SLR is a Canon A2 so it was a no brainer for her. I have to admit, the 30D is a very nice camera. That said, she was impressed with the stats in the Pentax K10D. The internal shake reduction and sensor dust cleaning impressed her, especially in a sub $1000 camera body. Just like you I am glad I have waited for a Prosumer body from Pentax. I look forward to hearing from those early adopters on the list about how the camera performs. Jeff Message: 7 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:51:14 +0300 From: "Antti-Pekka Virjonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The K10D Has Arrived! To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Really nice! I will definitely get one. It has everything I have been looking for (well, except full frame, but that's another story) and all my fantastic A* lenses will work nicely. I've been very close to jumping the ship many times but I am glad I waited (all these years, heh). Why I did I stay so long? I have been shooting pictures, film or digital, well, they are just different kind of tools for the job. Lately I have been just waiting in silence :-) . The Optio 555 we have has been fun though! Looking forward for the ultrasonic motor lenses as well (I have only one AF lens right now, the FA 100/2.8 macro) so I can finally go AF. The weather sealing of the body sounds great too. The LX has it (I have two of those) and while none of the current Pentax lenses have sealing, there has never been a problem with my lenses. The body (especially DSLR) has a lot more sensitive components than any (mechanical) lens so... I see no problem. If the new lenses have sealing and USM, well, just great! My daughter is close to 1 and 1/2 years and the 555 is getting way too slow to get any good images of her... The 10D fits in just nicely. Antti-Pekka ___ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
While not an "official" release K10D info
Google searching for the Pentax K10D brought me to this site. http://stock-photo.blogspot.com/2006/09/news-pentax-k10d-has-arrived.html While I won't be buying one of the first ones off the line, I should have one by next summer (if not sooner. December is starting to sound like a good month.) Jeff -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Sacramento area PDML members?
On Sep 29, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Mark Erickson wrote: Can I get a roll call of Sacramento area (e.g., Sacto, Folsom, Davis, Roseville, etc...) list members? Just curious hey there Mark. I live in Elk Grove. :-) Jeff
Re: Photo Presentation on DVD w/Music
On Aug 26, 2005, at 5:31 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I'll send a note off to some folks I know, but I can't promise that I'll find anything. Hehe I pushed it about as far as they would go. It took them a week just to look up the code and reference just to tell me the generic definition. My next step was to divide the project into stages and add one stage at a time until it fails. It could be a limit on the photos I'm using. We'll see. Since you are a Mac user, I'll drop you a note if I isolate anything. I'm about ready to take the bump up and try Final Cut and see what happens. Not sure if I can afford that though. :-/ Anything you could find would be great. I have no expectations though, I just appreciate your time here. Cheers! Jeff "An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded." Pope John Paul II
Re: Photo Presentation on DVD w/Music
On Aug 26, 2005, at 11:44 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I haven't done this with the latest versions of iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD yet (the iLife package), but I've seen some fairly complex DVD photo presentation work done with that set of four applications. The next step up from there is a big one, to the Final Cut Studio application suite. What are you trying to do that is blocked? I might be able to help. Godfrey Godfrey, Thank you so much for hearing me out. :-) I've put together a pretty nice presentation of photos with a soundtrack. When attempting to burn the DVD I receive an error 34506 which has no associated explanation. Just the number. Apple support is useless since when they throw three photos in iMovie and iDVD it works fine and they won't troubleshoot enduser content. I have a feeling it's the size and complexity influencing this. When researching the error online, everyone encountering it come up against the same wall except one I've seen so far. The only workaround has been someone using Toast to burn the DVD once the image is created in iDVD. I was in the process of trying that until I ran into the same error when trying to create the disk image. So, what do you think? Any ideas? Jeff "An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded." Pope John Paul II
Photo Presentation on DVD w/Music
Any Apple users out there have any recommendations for creating photo presentations on DVD with music. the iDVD product which came with my Powerbook can't handle what I'm trying to do. Thoughts? Jeff "An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded." Pope John Paul II
Re: iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!
That's some good info Kevin. Thank you for the heads up!! I have Tiger arriving this week. j "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein On May 1, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ACDSee for Mac OS X v1.6.9 is the current version. It's got some decent features but is not near as competent or capable as iView Media Pro 2 on the Mac OS X platform. It also doesn't know about .PEF files or other RAW formats, far as I can tell. I have installed OSX 10.4 and all I can say is that I am dissapointed in so many ways. many of the basic features require you to purchase upgrades which run into more than I wanted to spend after laying out $199.00 for the Tiger release. oh, and iPhoto, forget it, applications on 10.4 require you to have version 4.0 or later (now 5.02) to work, this is now part of iLife and will set you back $119.00 dollars. This makes Microsoft look much better value for money. Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!
I don' t work with ANY mail archives in my daily activities. Sorry, I'm not that Jeff. :-) j On Apr 30, 2005, at 12:31 PM, mike wilson wrote: Are you the Jeff who runs the Mail Archive?
Re: iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!
This is some excellent stuff yall! I'll check out the software references and JPG file questions and respond off-line to avoid dragging everyone else thru this. All this happend at a bad time that I'm going to be away from the computer for a few days.I will be responding with follow up questions directly. You guys are great! Thank you for keeping this list so useful and informative to the neophytes like myself who can only strain their brain just to keep up with all the information being shared here. :-) You guys ROCK!!! Thank j "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein On Apr 30, 2005, at 7:43 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Re: iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!
Thank you for responding! :-) I JUST purchased a new Apple system (G4 17" Powerbook) and have iPhoto v5.0.2, still waiting on Tiger arrival. I also use Photoshop as my photo finishing work. I just want to have a simple interface to store the photos for reference, organization and quick scan. When I get picky I pull out Adobe and go to town. Here's the deal, I've migrated all my photofiles and data I had on the Dell. I attempted to pop in a JPG just to see how iPhoto would import. It identified it as an unrecognizable file. All other apps can read the file, but iPhoto cannot read it unless I open it in a separate app, like GraphicConverter and REsave it as a JPG. Then it'll work. Considering the thousands of photos I have to work with, that solution is silly. I'm going to test every file format option and see what I come up with. Thoughts? j "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein On Apr 29, 2005, at 12:29 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I use iPhoto occasionally but only with finished JPEG images that I've edited in Photoshop ... I use it to set up making inexpensive bound books of photos. I might be able to assist. What are you trying to accomplish with it, what version are you using? Godfrey
iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!
Does anyone here use iPhoto with the istD*? If so, how do you it? If not, can anyone recommend some Photo management software I can use? In the past I've been just dealing with managing it in the folders and directories manually. I would really like to take advantage of the additional features the software provides. I just got off the phone from Apple support and am still cooling my temper based on the way they approached this problem. Any words of wisdom here would be greatly appreciated. :-) Jeff
Re: Cool Macro Photograph
Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/peso/Amarylis.html That's got to be the best "ultra-closeup-of-a-flower'" shot I've ever seen. Well done, Bill. Christian Megapixel.net had this image as their photo of the month http://www.megapixel.net/html/galleries/covers/images/ann-decamp.jpg Jeff.
Re: Fighting Spyware
Peter J. Alling wrote: Sadly Spyware is made possible by design, which is a bit different from Computer Viruses which are made possible by accident. The end result is the same. You're forced to purchase (specialized) software to remove either. And the aggravations caused by both. Jeff.
Re: Fighting Spyware
Keith Whaley wrote: Jeff Tokayer wrote: Shel Belinkoff wrote: Over on the Adobe forum a few people had some good things to say about the new Microsoft anti-spyware program now in Beta release. I have not played with the program yet and can't make any recommendations. I was thinking the gang here should be aware of it and everyone should make their own decisions. If anyone's had experience with the program, this might be the time to voice your comments. Here's the site where you can DL the program for free: http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/default.mspx Shel I decided to fight spyware, trojans and viruses from another angle. Bought a Mac. Jeff. Good man! Get a Mac, and you don't have to ever buy any Microsoft ANYthing! keith whaley At least I don't have to disinfect :-P my daughter's PC on a weekly basis any longer. Lonk live M$. Jeff.
Re: Fighting Spyware
Bob W wrote: I've just given it a spin. It detected and removed 3 infections, one of which - Netslayer RAT - AdAware and SpyBot don't seem to have detected. http://research.pestpatrol.com/WhitePapers/About_Rats.asp Shows to go you that the whole M$ thing is a cash cow. I wonder how pleased is Symantec with Micro$oft's action. Jeff.
Re: Fighting Spyware
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Over on the Adobe forum a few people had some good things to say about the new Microsoft anti-spyware program now in Beta release. I have not played with the program yet and can't make any recommendations. I was thinking the gang here should be aware of it and everyone should make their own decisions. If anyone's had experience with the program, this might be the time to voice your comments. Here's the site where you can DL the program for free: http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/default.mspx Shel I decided to fight spyware, trojans and viruses from another angle. Bought a Mac. Jeff.
Re: *ist D problem at ISO 1600?
frank theriault wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:44:08 -0500, Jeff Tokayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now I'm really "discombobulated". According to Cotty, we're all discombobulated. BTW, if discombobulated means confused, does combobulated (if there's such a word) mean the opposite? Like, I'm totally combobulated means that I've got my head on straight, and I know what's going on and all like that, right? Just curious... cheers, frank I think you are more discombobulated than I am. Get off the brewsky. Jeff.
Re: *ist D problem at ISO 1600?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 8/1/05, Jeff Tokayer, discombobulated, unleashed: I'm telling you Dave, the E-1 is the one you need to replace both the D2H & *istD. A genuine comedian! Cheers, Cotty I have not mentioned to Jeff or Frank that we have been talking.LOL Dave Now I'm really "discombobulated". Cheers, Jeff.
Re: PAW: A Payphone in Parkdale
frank theriault wrote: An alternate title I was thinking of was, "Please Completely Insert Your Quarter..." Foul language warning: If swear-words offend you, don't open this url: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/3124455/ Comments are always welcome! thanks, frank Good shot Frank. I like it. Jeff.
Re: First istD Paw's with good links
Hey Dave, I love this shot http://photobucket.com/albums/v408/divad_b/?action=view¤t=opps_3209.jpg Which camera did you use? Cheers, Jeff. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arggg. I apologize for the bum Flickr link. I swear I’m getting techno dumber as the decade goes on.I seem to have a problem with this photo storage place. Anyway, here is a few links to photobucket, tested for link ability. This one was from this morning just after some wet snow. IstD with the Sigma 100-300 DL, shooting Raw and fiddling in Photo Lab and PS6. I think Wendy said this was not a good lens on the D and I printed out a copy. Its ok, but not great. If the Pentax 80-320 is any better I might get that as a replacement until I can afford the FA 300 and or the 400. http://photobucket.com/albums/v408/divad_b/?action=view¤t=Jan8-05_0199.jpg This one was taken Dec 27 after a bit of freezing rain. I was on my way to the Kinmount sawmill but the roads were to bad and this is as far as I got. Lindsay Ontario. Using the istD and A50 f1.7 in Manual mode +1.0ev in Jpg mode. http://photobucket.com/albums/v408/divad_b/?action=view¤t=_IGP0076.jpg
Re: *ist D problem at ISO 1600?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good question Shel. There is an indicator,but how secure it is im beginning to have doubts. The reason. I have a very fresh set of lith's in there now,about 50 shots on the set. I was at the farm this morning in the snow and i wanted to get a few horses outside all covered in it. I turned on the camera,wound up talking to someone for 2-3 minutes,then went to shoot and nothing. Battery indicator showed exhausted. I turn off the camer,then right back on,and it read full and i went ahead and shot 7 raws (only had a 128meg card) Temp was about -1 C. Dave I'm telling you Dave, the E-1 is the one you need to replace both the D2H & *istD. Jeff.
Re: More Enablement was[Re: Enablement A Go-Go!!]
Shel Belinkoff wrote: If Christ could be resurrected, film can be as well. Long live Our Lady of Perpetual Tri-X Shel If I ever go back to film, it would have to be E100VS and either an RF645 or a GSW690. I miss them. :'( Jeff.
Re: More Enablement was[Re: Enablement A Go-Go!!]
frank theriault wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:50:50 -0500, Jeff Tokayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We're talking about the Digital religion. ;-) That explains it. The notion that digital capture and reproduction of images is superior to film is nothing more than a belief system unsupported by empirical evidence. That fits most definitions of religion that I know of. All you need is a diety (although I've heard of some silly people calling atheism a religion - which it clearly isn't - and they don't have a diety, do they?). cheers, frank ps: I'm joking, so please, no frantic posts telling me how inferior film is to digital and how digital is killing film and how film is dying. I know all that stuff. I was merely making a funny.. Our TOPDML's are proof that we can survive inter-faith discussions. Who should be our Priest/Rabbi? ;-) Jeff.
Re: HTML
Doug Franklin wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:54:57 -0500, Jeff Tokayer wrote: My mail program just prompted me to send emails to the group in plain text, because some members are unable to handle HTML. I've been off the group for over a year, but didn't realize that this was still an issue with some members. Please advise. I can't speak for anyone else, but it is an issue for me, Jeff. HTML email is enough of a security risk that any arriving in any of the mailboxes that I maintain gets unceremoniously shuffled off to the bit bucket, unread, unseen, unacknowledged. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ I didn't realize that HTML was a security risk. I was under the impression that people avoided HTML because of the file size. I've changed to a Mac and find that my mail reader Thunderbird gives me a secure enviroment. Jeff.
HTML
My mail program just prompted me to send emails to the group in plain text, because some members are unable to handle HTML. I've been off the group for over a year, but didn't realize that this was still an issue with some members. Please advise. Cheers, Jeff.
Re: More Enablement was[Re: Enablement A Go-Go!!]
frank theriault wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:30:30 -0500, Jeff Tokayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe I'll convert you, Frank. There's a Jews and Christians joke in there, but we're not supposed to discuss religion on this list . Soooooo, Jeff!! Two prodigal Toronto-area sons in the same week!! Whatcha doing here, Mr. Oly E1? We're talking about the Digital religion. ;-) BTW, Dave Brooks wants to see my new Zenitar Fisheye, and Chang Sang wants to borrow my new K 1.2 50mm. Seems like we may need to have a TOPDML meeting again real soon! Just name the time and place. BTW, Dave Brooks flash shot with the *istD was right on the money. Jeff.
Re: More Enablement was[Re: Enablement A Go-Go!!]
frank theriault wrote: There are fewer and fewer of us diehards left... cheers, frank Maybe I'll convert you, Frank. Jeff.
Re:Selling Pentax 35mm gear (WAS RE: Beautiful SF1n kit, Voigtlander
Hi Jens,
I have only one lens worth much. I have four Pentax lenses, but
the sale of my 300 might fund a jump to another camera format. I mainly
shoot nature and landscapes. I do zero people photography. My brother in
law tried to convince me that people add scale to the shot. I think they
ruin my landscape shots. I printed a 35mm slide out to 16x24, but I would
think a bigger negative would make a better print.
I have my sensors confused. I knew Sony made a 8 meg sensor, but
I was thinking of the canon sensor. Yes, I know it is an evil word, but in
a year I would be surprised if that canon 8 meg sensor isn't in a camera at
the 10D price point. This is what makes Canon so tempting. I can replace
my wife's 35mm canon A2 with the 10D and start to get a few high quality
lenses. When the 8 meg sensor comes into a camera I can afford, then I
could buy it, having already procured the lenses for my wife. This is what
is so frustrating about Pentax. There is no pentax path of this kind. Ah,
and before you say why not just buy the *istD for the wife, she would look
at me like I had three heads if I tried to get her to shoot with it. Even
though she loves the output of my LX, she knows. and loves, the EOS system
(you know, turn the dial to the running guy so she can shoot a tennis match.)
This is where Pentax has, and is continuing, to miss the boat. How many of
us who love to shoot with Pentax gear jump ship because either the product
we want isn't available or we don't have faith that they will ever produce
the product we need until 1 to 2 years after it has been produced by other
manufacturers? I know an avid Pentax fan who sold all his Pentax 35mm gear
a couple of years ago and bought a D30. He couldn't wait anymore. His
next digital camera purchase will most likely be Canon's 1Ds. Pentax lost
a dedicated user because they didn't make the product he needed.
Okay, my ranting is finished for tonight. Hopefully Pentax will surprise
me and prove me wrong.
Jeff
At 05:54 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
Jeff
If you have one lens and the LX - keep it it you want to use it (film)
occationally.
Don't buy MF unless you shoot HUGE prints of landscapes and Portraits. Buy a
digtal. I haven't used my 6x6 outfit (camera and 5 lenses, 3 viewfinders
etc.) since I got my 5 MP SONY. It's very convenient, and in some ways
better than 35mm.
Very clear photographs with no grain and no hazzle and better DOF.
This (not mine) was done at open aperture 2.0 and 1/40 sec (!) with a Canon
G5 (5MP):
http://www.fotokritik.dk/visstort.html?pic=81895
What more do you want, really?
The Canon 10D is remakabley good (judging from photgraphs posted on many
websites). So is the *ist D, really! I have app. 20 lenses for 35mm Pentax,
Bellows A, winders, refconverter, tele concerters etc. as well as 6 bodies.
If I didn't, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Canon 10D or a similar (Pentax)
camera. But I love my Pentax gear - and all I really need is a digital
Petnax body. You are "free" to do what ever you want.
If we wait for det Baby D, the film gears may have lost even more market
value...perhaps...
All the best
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Jeff Post [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 29. juni 2004 20:07
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Selling Pentax 35mm gear (WAS RE: Beautiful SF1n kit, Voigtlander
Perkeo 120 folder)
Jens,
I am wrestling with that same question, although it sounds as if
you have far more gear then me. My largest investment is in a single
lens. Since the *istD works with A* lenses, I do not expect them to
depreciate considerably. The value of my LX I expect to drop like a rock,
if it hasn't already.
The questions become, do I buy an *istD, do I sell all my 35mm gear and buy
a cannon 10D, do I sell my 35mm gear and buy a 645 or 67? If I thought the
*istD was going to evolve into yearly updates with either bigger sensor
size or greater megapixel sensors I would not consider anything else. With
all the talk of a babyD I would be surprised to see anything above the
*istD (even if it was only the Sony 8 megapixel sensor slapped in) for a
couple of years.
Jeff
Re: a family photo
I think we can safely say you have moved into the realm of collector. That is a lot of Pentax gear. Reminds me of the poster I bought a couple of years ago. Hope you have fun with them. Jeff At 05:34 PM 6/28/2004, you wrote: Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:09:40 +0200 From: "keller.schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: a 'family' photo Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had this idea of taking them all out on a bright day - for a family photo of Pentax gear. Here is the result: www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-kellersv2/19.JPG Only one member could not be present, a 2,0/35 Tak that is currently curing yellow disease. Obviously, it was impossible to capture this with a Pentax ;-) Sven
RE: PAW Before the fishermen
Good shot, great technique. Don't you just love photoshop? Of course some may say pictures are becoming hyper-real. They sure are pretty though. -- Of course maybe with photoshop, our pictures are becoming more about what WE perceive, than what the camera perceives... Thanks, Jeff Jonsson Marriott Library, University of Utah 801.585.5587 -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW Before the fishermen This PAW is the product of an experiment the focus of which was to preserve the colours of the sun rise and sky in the image without sacrificing all detail in its foreground. To form the image I selectively combined two shots from a +_1 stop bracket in Photoshop. I pasted the darker image over the brightest image, registered the images (set top layer opacity temporarily to 50%) and then set about selectively erasing the areas of the darker image (good sky) with a feathered brush at 25% opacity until I came up this: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2412599&size=lg It's not perfect but it gives me a lot of ideas for future images along the same vein particularly given that it was only hand held. Comments and criticisms welcome. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: PAW: From my recent trip to Northern AZ, and Southern UT.
Well, if it's of any interest, the four images I shot for my panorama, It took maybe 10 seconds. Since it was handheld, I just hopped out of my car with my *istD, walked over to the edge, snap, snap, snap, snap, with the foreknowledge that I would be stitching them. Then when I got home, and after I had loaded my images, and done some editing, I found those 4. I fired up panavue, and within maybe 10 minutes, I had the stitched image. After a crop, and some image adjustment, voila. Very simple, very easy, and I didn't have to lug around a tripod, or a heavy camera, or wait for film processing, or pay for film or processing. I used to own a Mamiya 6x6. I found myself never using it, and yearning for the *istD. So I sold it, and haven't looked back. Thanks, Jeff Jonsson Marriott Library, University of Utah 801.585.5587 -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: PAW: From my recent trip to Northern AZ, and Southern UT. > Methinks you have this backwards from a practicality standpoint. > Stitching multiple exposures is hardly a practical substitute For a > simple single LF image Well of course it can't offer all the benefits of an LF image but for wide high pixel count images the great works that are popping up here are excellent examples of what can be achieved without investing in any extra kit but a software package (of which there are free packages) and a little post processing. == Just a little post processing? What about all the time and effort to take The photo? That's what I am talking about. I am sure I can setup and Expose one large format photo much faster and easier than taking a whole bunch Of little shots and spending more time stitching together. And with a single LF Image at least you can see entire image for composition and also shoot For the decisive moment, like waiting for perfect sunset or the wind to die down, or the clouds to open up, not so with multiple images and stitching. One nice thing about stitching is you can go wider than you widest lens For extreme wide angle photography. But you can do that with any format, Dslr or LF. JCO
RE: PAW: From my recent trip to Northern AZ, and Southern UT.
The FAJ had no problems with vignetting that I could see. There was maybe 1/4 of the image overlap. It was all handheld. If the folks on the list have never looked at or used Panavue ImageAssembler, ($64 from www.panavue.com) let me tell you it's the absolute bomb. I tried lining up the 4 shots using Photomerge in Photoshop CS. It was a joke. I plugged them into Panavue, set my flags to the same points in each photo, and voila, what you see is what you get. Panavue seems to look closely at each photo and warp them just so, to produce one hell of a nice panorama. The original is about 8000 x 2000 pixels. I have printed it at 12" x 47" and I'm gonna have to redo it. I somehow got the color balance all wrong and it just looks green. Ah the joys of print color matching. Thanks, Jeff Jonsson Marriott Library, University of Utah 801.585.5587 -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PAW: From my recent trip to Northern AZ, and Southern UT. On 1 Jun 2004 at 9:24, Jeff Jonsson wrote: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2407474 That's pretty amazing, well done. How did the FAJ hold up WRT vignetting and CA? How much overlap did you allow and did you use a tripod and calibrated pano head? What were the dimensions (in pixels) of the final composite and have you printed it poster sized? :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 18-35 vs. 16-45.
Hmm, the lightness will seem different when I take my Tokina ATX Pro-II 28-70 off there. I think I may just go for the 18-35, because it's probably all I can afford right now. I just wanted to see if anybody hated it. Thanks, Jeff. - Original Message - From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 2:19 PM Subject: Re: 18-35 vs. 16-45. > Jeff, I see in a magazine today that Tamron has just released a 17-35mm DI > (i think!) f2.8-4 lens. The DI stands for Digitally Integrated, I think. I > could be mistaken though and have this confused with another lens as I had a > lazy night on the sofa reading lots of photography mags last night! lol. > Anyways, the Tamron lens looks great, not sure how it is priced though. > > I have the FAJ 18-35mm. I really like this lens. I have been achieving > some great results with it, and it really does offer "bang for the buck". > The only thing I believe that lets it down is that it feels so light, it > makes me think that I am shooting with a toy! lol. The results speak for > themselves though, and this is obviously not the case. Also, it is a bit > slow - f5.6 at 35mm. > > At GFM, I will be able to compare the two, and I'll keep you posted. Hope > this helps some. > > tan. > > - Original Message - > From: "Jeff Jonsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 2:59 AM > Subject: 18-35 vs. 16-45. > > > > Has anybody compared the optical quality of the two new aperture ring-less > > lenses? I am going on a week long road trip through the Southwest next > > month, and want to get a super-wide zoom for my *istD and was wondering if > I > > could get away with buying the far less expensive 18-35. Is there a third > > party super-wide zoom that anyone would recommend for the *istD? > > > > Thanks, > > Jeff. > > > > > > > >
18-35 vs. 16-45.
Has anybody compared the optical quality of the two new aperture ring-less lenses? I am going on a week long road trip through the Southwest next month, and want to get a super-wide zoom for my *istD and was wondering if I could get away with buying the far less expensive 18-35. Is there a third party super-wide zoom that anyone would recommend for the *istD? Thanks, Jeff.
RE: Photo Software
Many thanks for all the replies. I have a good plan on how to proceed now. Jeff -Original Message- From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:47 AM To: Jeff Geilenkirchen Subject: Re: Photo Software Hi! Jeff, if you have valid license and bad CD of an old PS version, perhaps it is worth calling the Adobe and without telling the CD is bad you might want to request an update for the latest PS version. I suppose you would get it for a low price as it is an upgrade. And of course, then you would receive a working CD... HTH. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
RE: Photo Software
Good points Matt! The copy I have is pretty old. Considering the advancement of digital photo processing I figured there had to be something out there someone knew about which could handle the same basic stuff that PhotoShop did at a more reasonable price. J -Original Message- From: Matt Giess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Photo Software Hi Jeff > I'm at a loss for use with photo software since my PhotoShop CD appears to > be not usable anymore when I needed to reinstall it. :-/ you should be able to approach the publishers of the software for a replacement CD at a nominal cost - the massive cost of the software is for the license to use it, not for the medium it is transferred to you in. As an example, I bought my girlfriend 'The Sims', a popular computer game, but the CD was badly scratched by a dodgy CD drive. We contacted the manufacturer, and received a replacement CD for £7.50 ($12 or so) which just covers the costs of actually sending us a new CD, not the cost of the licence. Of course, this assumes that you actually hold a licence and you have a version of PhotoShop that is still supported - I'm not sure what will happen if you have an older version. I'm pretty sure that copyright law allows you to burn a back-up CD for your own use, if you manage to get a replacement it may be worth doing so and storing the original well out of harm's way - as both of us have found out to our cost, CDs are not indestructible! Hope this helps Matt
Photo Software
Hello everyone! I'm at a loss for use with photo software since my PhotoShop CD appears to be not usable anymore when I needed to reinstall it. :-/ Does anyone have any recommendations for some economical photoediting software as a replacement to PS since it's so expensive? Or would anyone know where to get PS copy at a reduced price? Thoughts & suggestions are welcome! :-) Thank you for your time, Jeff
RE: Cheap Storage for your *ist D
Apple has a memory card reader which works with their regular iPods. I just picked up a 40Gig model and have some nice photo plans for it. The iPods also function as an external HD when connected to a computer. I just doesn't get much better. If you are looking at getting a mini, you can add $50 more you'll get 11Gig more memory and more accessories included with the 15Gig iPod. J -Original Message- From: Kevin Thornsberry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cheap Storage for your *ist D I guess I'm behind the times. The article states that there have been problems with the ipod mini due to formatting. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Mann Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cheap Storage for your *ist D > I just saw a segment on TechTV's "Tech Live" where they were showing > that the > Creative MuVo MP3 player contains a regular FAT32 formatted Hitachi 4GB > microdrive. The MuVo sells for around $200 while the 4 GB microdrive > sells for > close to $500. I thought that was old news :) People have tried with the Ipod mini as well, but that apparently doesn't work. I hear its hard to find the Ipod mini at the moment anyway. They haven't even arrived down here yet (I must find out when they're due). > Creative is obviously getting a heck of a volume discount. It doesn't surprise me. I work for a company that manufactures its own products, and you'd hardly believe some of the pricing we get on parts - and we aren't that big a manufacturer. For the finished product there is quite a markup between us and the customer as well. You'll have to take my word on that as I'm not allowed to give out numbers. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
RE: *ist D sensor noise survey
I haven't done the test, I can actually see the two pixels in my images. They're stuck on, and appear as bright dots. The same two pixels in every image, at least those with dark enough subject matter that they can be seen. I have dead pixels in my Canon Powershot G1, but the canon manual actually says that a certain few pixels will always die on the chips they used. They show up larger in those 3MP images, than the two pixels in the 6MP images from the *istD. The easiest way to spot dead pixels is to take an exposure with your lens cap ON. I encourage list members to try this, and let's see how many of you have them. If they are to be expected, then we can all just accept them, if not, then those of us that have them can send our cameras back to pentax for warranty repair. Thanks, Jeff. -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 4:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *ist D sensor noise survey On 10 Feb 2004 at 15:22, Jeff Jonsson wrote: > Ok, what about actual dead pixels? Mine seems to have a couple. Does > anybody else see them, or should I be considering sending it back? Doesn't sound so good, none of the six test results I've seen so far show dead pixels. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: *ist D sensor noise survey
Ok, what about actual dead pixels? Mine seems to have a couple. Does anybody else see them, or should I be considering sending it back? Jeff. -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: *ist D sensor noise survey Hey it's a while since we had a survey... I'm interested in making an informal survey of the noise performance of our *ist D cameras. Anyone with access to a PC who has permission to run the little test app at http://www.starzen.com/imaging/deadpixeltest.htm can participate. One exposure is all that's required for the test however in order to achieve consistency we need to make sure that each camera is set up the same. I propose that the test shot should be made as follows: 10 seconds manual exposure (lens capped) 200ISO Daylight WB NR off Saturation setting (middle) Sharpness setting (left most) Contrast setting (left most) sRGB CS TIFF L file The tiff file can then be opened and tested under the default settings of the DeadPixelTest application and the information file saved. I ran the procedure above and the results were as follows: [DeadPixelText] Version=1.0 Description= FileType=TIFF NumBadPixels=15 0=Hot,2798,135,69 1=Hot,1954,339,113 2=Hot,1809,585,64 3=Hot,726,610,112 4=Hot,726,611,192 5=Hot,726,612,112 6=Hot,2312,753,121 7=Hot,323,766,94 8=Hot,572,1365,116 9=Hot,1627,1400,64 10=Hot,2163,1958,96 11=Hot,2162,1959,113 12=Hot,2163,1959,145 13=Hot,2164,1959,112 14=Hot,2163,1960,98 The first two numbers is the pixel location and the last number is the heat, 0 being off and 255 being full on. So I have one pixel that's 3/4 on at 10 seconds. If anyone would like to mail me their results I'll collate and publish the data later down the track (I'll keep data sources anonymous if requested). Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: OT: Notebook Problems :(! Operating System Not Found
I completely agree. The clicking is likely the read head arm wildly moving back and forth between its stops, trying to align itself. Your HD is giving up the ghost, and if you have data you want to save, save it now! Jeff. -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 3:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Notebook Problems :(! Operating System Not Found "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Completely off-topic but I was wondering if anyone's had this problem >before on a laptop. Mine's being difficult lately and since yesterday >I've turned it on several times only to have a black screen with the >words 'Operating System Not Found' after the Compaq boot screen. This >symptom's accompanied by a clicking noise from the harddrive. After >about a million tries, its finally restarted this morning but I dare >not say how long it'll be up for. Sounds like major hard drive trouble brewing. Back up everything NOW! >Some research on the net suggests something like a loose IDE >connection, which makes the comp not recognise a fixed drive. Not very likely on a laptop but you never know. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: D - Not Pentax but an interesting digital "save"...
Works for me. Jeff. -Original Message- From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 2:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: D - Not Pentax but an interesting digital "save"... Ok, so you all know that I'm not shooting digital with Pentax, but this is particularly relevant to all digital users. Just wanted to show you something that I have just worked on from the wedding I did on Monday. This was a GROSSLY underexposed image. Definitely one for the reject pile, but something about the expressions on their faces wouldn't let me ditch it. So, thanks to digital, I was able to "save" it... What do you all think of the results? The full res. file has some grain, as you would expect being underexposed, so I just added a bit more for effect... http://www.tanyamayer.com/experiment.jpg I have made a lrvly 8x10 inch print from it! Not bad for something that would have been in the trash if it had been shot on film! Also, thanks to you guys who advised me when I asked about using a 135mm lens with flash that only zooms to 105mm, I have been using a flash in manual with the Oly, and have been leaving it set at 28mm, through all focal lengths. This shot was taken at around 80mm, after a day of stormy, humid weather and believe me the bride and groom were SHINY. In fact, the bride barely had any makeup left on at all, and the groom's forehead, well, it actually had beads of perspiration along it. You can see, I was directly in front of them, and the shadow on the background is really quite soft. AND, there are NO hotspots on their faces!! (There were a couple of tiny ones on their teeth that I PS'd) Very little shine is present - the flash almost looks bounced, but it wasn't - it was direct... S, I have ditched my lumiquest stuff, and my stofen's and I am now shooting everything with my flash set at 28mm, the results are so much better. It just means that the flash range isn't quite as high (distance) and I simply move in a bit closer to accommodate... This was at first, a risky way to go about things, and again, it was only due to shooting digital and being able to immediately check the results that I am now confident enough to use flash this way... Any thoughts to add to this? tan.
RE: Scanning Question
Paul's advice works well if your scanner is only capable of scanning grayscale at 8 bits. Also it helps if the DMAX of your scanner is below 4. However, with a 16-bit grayscale image, you'd have 65536 shades of gray to play around with. And again, downconverting to a TIFF is gonna strip out 65280 of those shades, however you will get the widest gamut on your remaining 256 shades. Don't underestimate the power of your high-end equipment to produce a better looking grayscale than a $100 flatbed scanner. And you can always add sepia or selenium by using making a Pantone Duotone of your grayscale image. Jeff. -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Scanning Question I scan BW negs in RGB. That way I can control the look of the gray or tone them a bit toward a sepia or a selenium look if I wish. Plus, I think I get better gradations of grayscale in RGB. When I want small files I convert the scans to grayscale in PhotoShop after they've been scanned, cleaned and adjusted. Paul Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Hi gang ... > > Over the next few weeks I'm going to attempt scanning a lot of > conventional B&W negs. I have heard a number of conflicting opinions > on the best way to do this. Most comments center around whether to > scan in RGB or greyscale. Greyscale would be nice as I could save some > space, but if RBG will give higher quality results, I'll bite the > bullet. > > I have scanned using both methods before, although with the help of a > friend who did most of the work and setup, so I'm still pretty much > uneducated and inexperienced wrt the subtleties. > > Scanners used will be an Imacon Flextight 626 (I believe that's the > number) and the Nikon Coolscan IV 4000dpi unit, if that makes any > difference. > > Thanks for any help, > > shel
RE: Scanning Question
Actually being a scanning expert for my job I will try a response... The Imacon Flextight is essentially a drum scanner, and as such has a pretty good DMAX, 4.6 for the 646 to be precise. And, I'm not sure (because it doesn't say in the B&H big book) but I think it can do up to 16-bit grayscale. Of course TIFF only supports 8-bit grayscale, so if you're scanning with TIFF files as your format of choice for the end-result file, I wouldn't scan in RGB. You'll end up with a file that's more than 3 times as large, and won't really gain any tonality you won't get with a 16, or even 12 bit grayscale image. Obviously you can only work with the 12 or 16 bit in Photoshop, and save as PSD, but if you're down-converting to 8-bit grayscale for your TIFF, then scanning in RGB is overkill by an order of magnitude. The Nikon Coolscan 8000 scans at 4000dpi, and again, can produce a 12-bit grayscale image. Also, it has a DMAX of 4.2, it should pull out quite a bit of shadow detail. My opinion, as someone who has overseen the scanning of over 20,000 grayscale images at high resolution, RGB is just not useful, and you won't get a better tonal range by doing it. In fact, if anything, you'll just get a muddier image, and waste disk space. Shel, please contact me directly if you need any more advice. I work at the Marriott Library, at the University of Utah in the Digital Technologies division. One of my primary job duties is managing workflow of large-scale scanning operations. If you want to see some of our output visit this website: http://www.lib.utah.edu/digital/digcol.html Here at my shop, we use the Nikon Coolscan 8000, a Coolscan LS-2000, two CreoScitex Eversmart Jazz+ flatbeds (true 2900 dpi across a 16"x20" bed), a Leica S1 Digital scanning camera (effective 25MP) a Zeutschel 1 A1 bookscanner, and some other assorted scanning devices, so I have some pretty good experience with high end equipment. Thanks, Jeff Jonsson Digitization Systems Analyst, Marriott Library 801.585.5587 -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:01 PM To: PDML Subject: Scanning Question Hi gang ... Over the next few weeks I'm going to attempt scanning a lot of conventional B&W negs. I have heard a number of conflicting opinions on the best way to do this. Most comments center around whether to scan in RGB or greyscale. Greyscale would be nice as I could save some space, but if RBG will give higher quality results, I'll bite the bullet. I have scanned using both methods before, although with the help of a friend who did most of the work and setup, so I'm still pretty much uneducated and inexperienced wrt the subtleties. Scanners used will be an Imacon Flextight 626 (I believe that's the number) and the Nikon Coolscan IV 4000dpi unit, if that makes any difference. Thanks for any help, shel
RE: *ist D A24/2.8 vs FA24/2 comparision?
To my eye, the FA* 24 is actually displaying more chromatic abberation than the A/24. Am I wrong? Jeff. -Original Message- From: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D A24/2.8 vs FA24/2 comparision? Rob, a sample (center and edge) is published in my *ist D test: http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p11e.htm Browsing is slow now, maybe the web's got some problems today (or is it just my ADSL provider?). Dario - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:11 PM Subject: *ist D A24/2.8 vs FA24/2 comparision? > Has anyone compared the performance of the A24/2.8 and the FA24/2 on > the *ist > D? > > I'm not all that fussed with the size and the chromatic aberrations (toward the > image the edges) when it's used on the *ist D. > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >
RE: AF 400T and *ist D?
Got slightly bad news for you, The *istD has a problem with TTL flash metering. It tends to be off about 1 or more stops with any TTL flash. To minimize the problem, set the ISO to 400 as there has been some speculation on the board that it works best there. Also, I've been using an auto-flash (Vivitar 285HV) with the camera set manually, and I get a very good exposure. It is also speculated on that the AF360FGZ with P-TTL works better than any other TTL flash. We're waiting for a TTL bug fix in the next firmware update from Pentax. Jeff. -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 7:10 AM To: pentax discuss Subject: AF 400T and *ist D? Can the AF 400T flash be used with the *ist D. Can it be used in TTL mode? Can it be used in TTL mode with K or M lenses? Paul
RE: Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 Pro II
I have the Pro II, and I like it very much. I don't know if I have any examples I can show right now, but I have been very pleased with the results with my film bodies. I haven't used it much with my *istD. In general, I'm not real thrilled with what I'm getting from my *istD in general... Regardless of lens :( Jeff -Original Message- From: Rothman, Aric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:42 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 Pro II Anyone use this lens? If so, comments on, or links to web images made with this lens would be much appreciated. In particular, anyone use it with the *ist D? Aric > -Original Message- > From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Q: SMC-A 50mm f:2.8 Macro > > > > It's a good lens that might go for $150 if you were patient. A 50mm > > Macro means you will get quite close to your subjects. You can use > > it as a walking-around-lens, but you will notice the slower f2.8. > > Ditto, dito, and ditto. > > > It has the reputation of being an excellent macro lens. > > > Seems like the 50mm macro is a sharp little beast! > > It is a very nice 50mm macro lens. It is just a tad less sharp than > the F/FA 50/2.8 Macro lens design, but it's s-o-o-o much nicer to use > (focus feel, etc.). > > I use an A 100/2.8 Macro lens for most of my macro shooting, but I > still keep an A 50/2.8 Macro lens around for occasional use > (especially for traveling light) - it's just too nice a little lens to > let go of... > > Fred > >
RE: OT: Kodak APS cameras
Nitrate film stock is responsible for the "fire in the crowded theater" saying. Movie theaters would routinely catch fire while they were using nitrate film. You know how movie films sometimes stick in the gate during projection and you see a frame burn? Well with nitrate stock, that would produce an explosion. Jeff. -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 12:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Kodak APS cameras Okay, but what does the fact that silver negatives that last hundreds of years have to do with a nitrate based film not being made anymore? It's the nitrate that decomposes and becomes dangerous over time, not the silver. It's the nitrate content that made the film industry abandon it for use in movie film, and I'd guess later in home consumption films. keith whaley Herb Chong wrote: > > yeah, but people talk about silver negatives lasting hundreds of > years. > > Herb > - Original Message - > From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:47 AM > Subject: Re: OT: Kodak APS cameras > > > I don't think anyone has used a nitrate based film for dozens of > > years, maybe 30!
RE: A bizarre ebay experience.
You can relist, but you're still gonna owe them the listing fee and their cut on the purchase price. I'd send an two emails a day, and then 4 emails a day, and then an email an hour, etc. until I got a response. They need to clear it up for you. Jeff. -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A bizarre ebay experience. Yes, I filed a complaint with Safe Harbor. But thus far I haven't heard from anyone. I may just relist. The alleged buyer has not contacted me. Perhaps he only meant to place a first bid in order to track the auction. On Jan 14, 2004, at 6:42 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> Did anyone notice a recent change in the look of ebay - specifically >> on the feedback page. More usable and sortable for the feedback. >> I'm not quite sure when it went in to effect, but, changes like that >> could perhaps account for some odd problems elsewhere. Obviously, >> programming changes have occurred. Maybe Paul is a victim of Ebay >> bugs. >> >> Bruce > > YUp - feedback page change caused some errors > getting on and loading > today - very annoying... everytime they make > things better they get > worse. > > Paul, gosh - that sucks. but could be a hacker as > someone said. > Did you try contacting SAFE HARBOR? > > annsan > > >> >> Wednesday, January 14, 2004, 2:11:25 PM, you wrote: >> >> MWMK> My question may be: Is there a hack in the ebay system that >> allows >> MWMK> "buyers" to trick ebay into thinking they won a BIN when it >> wasn't BIN? >> >> MWMK> Second question: Did you examine the headers of the email to >> be sure >> MWMK> they came from ebay? >> >> MWMK> IL Bill >> MWMK> On Wednesday, January 14, 2004, at 04:00 PM, Paul Stenquist >> wrote: >> >>>> I'm the seller. And I'm scrupulous :-). My complaint is that ebay >>>> accepted a "buy it now" bid, and this was not a buy it now auction. >>>> >>>> "Rothman, Aric" wrote: >>>> >>>>> If you get no satisfaction, would you share the eBay ID of the >>>>> seller? >>>>> It's good to know from who to say away. >>>>> >>>>> There is a serious flaw in the feedback system at eBay. >>>>> Unscrupulous >>>>> sellers can hold you as a feedback "hostage." That is to say, they >>>>> will >>>>> not supply feedback to a completed transaction until you do. That >>>>> way, >>>>> they can retaliate with negative feedback if they swindle you and >>>>> you >>>>> leave negative feedback for them. >>>>> >>>>> One eBay seller (and sizeable brick and mortar dealer) is Zeff >>>>> Photo. >>>>> Last time >>>>> I checked, they have 100% positive feedback. They shouldn't. I >>>>> purchased >>>>> a Bronica EC with lens from them, and paid immediately using a >>>>> method >>>>> they would >>>>> accept. That should equate to immediate positive feedback for me. >>>>> I >>>>> held >>>>> up my end of the transaction. The camera and lens has several >>>>> immediately obvious >>>>> defects not disclosed, and it locked up after a few shutter >>>>> triggers. >>>>> I obtained return authorization and had it shipped back via FedEx. >>>>> I >>>>> was >>>>> contacted a few days later and was informed the damage was due to >>>>> RETURN trip >>>>> to Zeff, and I would have to make a claim. Since I am not aware of >>>>> any temporal >>>>> anomalies in the vicinity which would cause damage manifest a few >>>>> days earlier >>>>> to have a cause several days later, I was skeptical, to say the >>>>> least. >>>>> >>>>> Long story short, I got a refund, but not for the significant >>>>> shipping charges accumulated during the whole ordeal. Their eBay >>>>> guy told me I was "lucky" and he >>>>> was "doing me a favor." Some favor, to the tune of $45 lost to >>>>> unnecessary shipping >>>>> expense >>>>> >>>>> Zeff Photo has a good reputation,
RE: Question or better yet, idea
I say that since the *ist is not a digital camera per se, there would be no way to "upgrade" the firmware, without sending it back to Pentax to have whatever ROM chip that holds the operating information, upgraded or replaced. Jeff. -Original Message- From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:26 AM To: PDML Subject: Question or better yet, idea Hi! Pentax has proved by giving an example that a camera with crippled mount is not really so crippled. I wonder, whether they can produce an firmware upgrade for *ist, MZ-30 and similar cameras... Especially, with compatibility with M and K lenses, *ist may become quite attractive camera, right? What do you say? Boris
RE: FS Friday: 50mm f/1.4
Aha, that's what B&H is for! Jeff Jonsson -Original Message- From: Rothman, Aric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:59 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: FS Friday: 50mm f/1.4 William, Thanks for the info. I wended my way back through recent messages and found the details. The ist-D keeps looking better and better. I really enjoyed working with it at the store. The problem is, Pentax lenses seem hard to come by, at least here in the US. Does Pentax have a greater presence elsewhere? I am planning a trip to Europe this year, and would love to go on a Pentax glass shopping spree. Local camera store/shows don't often have Pentax-made lenses, just the third party stuff. Aric > -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FS Friday: 50mm f/1.4 > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Rothman, Aric" > Subject: RE: FS Friday: 50mm f/1.4 > > > > > Mark, > > > > What modification had to be made to make the M series lens > work on the > ist-D? I tried to use the very same lens on an > > ist-D at the local shoppe, but could only use it at full aperture. > > Camera software update. It was released yesterday. > > William Robb >
RE: For sale Friday - oops.
Oops, Meant to reply about Joe Wilensky's post. He's the one selling the PZ-1p kit. Same thing. Joe, don't do it! Jeff Jonsson -Original Message- From: Jeff Jonsson Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: For sale Friday I wouldn't sell my PZ-1p for an *ist D. No way, no how. As far as I am concerned, the PZ is still the best camera Pentax has ever produced. (Not having ever played with an MZ-S.) I absolutely love my PZ-1p. I am still in the infatuation stage with my *ist D. Jeff Jonsson -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:07 AM To: pentax list Subject: Re: For sale Friday On 9/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Folks > >I have few bits available on ebay and so should promote them here, I >believe. > >ME2 Winder Mint- > >100mm F4 Dental macro 'A' series > >Some new 6x7 body caps > >An LX box! > >Some other bits > >A couple of interesting flashes: > >Cokin Creative Flash > >Sunpak 120J Bare Bulb kit > >http://www.stores.ebay.co.uk/cameradirectbrightonest1998/plistings/list >/ all/de >pt4/index.html?dir=1&col=4&sotimedisplay=2 > >Kind regards from sunny Brighton Looks like the latest firmware has pushed Peter into a decision - looking for an *ist D mate? ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Flash Photography and *istD revisited.
I have also noticed that my Sunpak MZ-440AF just completely overexposes everything when attached to my *istD. I was beginning to think something was wrong with it. I've used it with my PZ-1p, and ZX-5n with no problems, in fact been very happy with it. Shot a couple of weddings with it in fact... I only have one other TTL flash for Pentax, the AF220T and that seems to do a slightly better job, but it isn't very spanky. I want to get the AF360FGZ, but I'll hold off if people think there's a real firmware issue that needs to be solved. Of course Pentax has never been speedy at anything, so I wouldn't count on a firmware upgrade any time soon... Unless we all begin flooding their mailboxes with complaints about TTL flash exposures... I think tonight I'll try out my 285HV and see how that does. Does anybody think that's a bad idea? I know they've had some voltage issues in the past, particularly with the 283, but mine is a fairly new 285, and I've used it successfully on my PZ. Thanks, Jeff Jonsson Marriott Library, University of Utah 801.585.5587
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Judging by what you've said, and I don't want to pee in your cornflakes here, but I'd say you went to the Ward, not a temple. They don't have sacrament meetings in Temples. Only Ward houses. Also your non-mormon friend marrying a Mormon would not have been married in the temple. (Temples weddings are actually 'sealings' where the couple is sealed together in this world, and the next, through a vaguely Masonic ritual, wholly unlike any wedding you've ever seen.) Weddings in Ward houses have almost no more significance to Mormons than a Civil marriage. Ask my brother. "Temple weddings" are what all of the faithful aspire to. Jeff Jonsson -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Hi, > Wow, must not be in Utah. France and England. When I was 14 I went with a school friend to stay with our pen-friends in Reims. We were looking forward to 2 weeks of binge-drinking and chasing French girls. Turned out our pen-friends' family was Mormon. We were very disappointed. They dragged us along to the temple on Sundays and we took communion. We were quite excited at first, but they turned the wine into water. Even then I was an atheist. Luckily they were not too strict on other dietary matters. They had bought a teapot and some tea especially for us. They brewed up and served it to us at 5 o'clock precisely every day, and watched while we drank it. Later one of my friends - not a Mormon - married into a Mormon family. The wedding took place in the temple in Leeds, UK. As far as I know, nobody was excluded for not being a Mormon. Certainly all her family and friends were there. The reception was in a different place. Very strange, a wedding reception with no booze. -- Cheers, Bob
Getting way OT, Was: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
The official LDS church based in Salt Lake City does not practice or condone Polygamy. Those who practice it are excommunicated from the LDS Church. However those who practice it do believe in the prophecy of Joseph Smith, and use The Book of Mormon as their holy text. So I guess you could call them fundamentalist Mormons. And no, Polygamy is not legal even in Utah. Believe it or not, with the official Church's blessing the State of Utah is trying to crack down on Polygamists. In fact, a "Polygamy summit" was held by a bunch of county and state attorney's this summer to formulate a plan to go after them. A big famous Polygamist, Tom Green, was just sent to prison on a sex with a minor conviction for sleeping with and impregnating his 14 year old umpteenth wife. What pisses me off is that his legal team is now appealing on the grounds of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Texas Sodomy case. I'm sorry, but having sex with minors doesn't come under that ruling to my way of thinking. One of the major major problems with Polygamists, is that they are a huge drain on the welfare system. Because they don't allow the wives to work outside the home, and can never hope to support their gigantic families on one Man's salary, they take gobs and gobs of welfare handouts to support their illegal lifestyle. I hope the State does come down on them and come down hard. Jeff Jonsson -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Aren't the mormons the ones that engage in legal polygamy? jco J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Hi, I've been to Mormon weddings and inside Mormon temples, and I'm an atheist. -- Cheers, Bob Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 7:53:12 PM, you wrote: > Hey, around these parts (Utah) there are no photogs allowed in the LDS > (Mormon) Temples. So all the pics the couple gets are portraits > outside the Temples with temple as backdrop, and pictures at the > receptions. Oh, and non-Mormons are not allowed inside the temples at > any time, so as is sometimes the case with converts, one half of the > family is not allowed to even GO to the wedding ceremony! Not being > Mormon myself, I refuse to call Mormon Weddings "Weddings" I refer > only to them as "receptions" because that's the only part I'm ever > invited to. > Jeff Jonsson
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Wow, must not be in Utah. Around here they literally check your "Temple Recommend" card at the door. You can only get one of those from your local ward bishop. I've been inside a Mormon temple too, right after they build them, they do publc open houses. Then they dedicate them, and forevermore bar non-members and even non temple-worthy members. I'm only talking about Temple Weddings. Once in a rare while, they will do a wedding in a Ward house (chapel) with the local bishop presiding. Mainly when one of the parties to the wedding isn't temple worthy. Case in point, my brother (athiest) married a Mormon and they had a short but sweet marriage in a Ward house. Jeff Jonsson -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Hi, I've been to Mormon weddings and inside Mormon temples, and I'm an atheist. -- Cheers, Bob Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 7:53:12 PM, you wrote: > Hey, around these parts (Utah) there are no photogs allowed in the LDS > (Mormon) Temples. So all the pics the couple gets are portraits > outside the Temples with temple as backdrop, and pictures at the > receptions. Oh, and non-Mormons are not allowed inside the temples at > any time, so as is sometimes the case with converts, one half of the > family is not allowed to even GO to the wedding ceremony! Not being > Mormon myself, I refuse to call Mormon Weddings "Weddings" I refer > only to them as "receptions" because that's the only part I'm ever > invited to. > Jeff Jonsson
RE: wedding photography...ugh!
Well, I know for sure it's not "To Ride the open steppe, feel the wind in your face, and have a falcon at your wrist." -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: wedding photography...ugh! "Leonard Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >If the best life lies in being able to do something you enjoy, and make >a >living at it, then I think Monte is doing pretty well. Whether we approve >of his approach and style or not. It's just so easy to criticize successful >people, when we know we can shoot better than they can. Oh, but I *couldn't* shoot better than him... within his particular specialty. I just detest his photos :) If I were going to go into business doing that kind of work I'd probably study his stuff intently because it's clearly successful. BTW, I thought the best in life was "To crush your enemies. To see them driven before you. To hear the lamentation of their women." -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: My Meager wedding experience (Was: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.)
I've read the books, I also warn people about the risks. I'm an amateur, not inexperienced. ;) Thanks, Jeff Jonsson -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: My Meager wedding experience (Was: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.) For those about to venture into wedding photography, be careful and buy a few books on it. My wedding photos and planning was much better after some good reading. I also felt compelled to warn the client up front that photography processes are not 100% reliable and there is always a small chance of something going wrong. That way if something did go wrong they would be more willing to accept it. Also, when things went right ( they always did thank God ) they might tend to be a little more thankful for the photos they did get.. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
White Balance
Good Point! I haven't seen much on the list in the way of managing the white balance for the *istDers. Since my purchase of a few weeks ago, I've kept it on automatic white balance. Does anyone here actively change their white balance specific to their subjects or lighting? Any thoughts are welcome here. Have a great day, Jeff -Original Message- From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 8:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Just one tip > Kevin Waterson wrote: > > > If you could impart just one tip to someone regarding photography, > > what would it be? > > With the *ist D, check your ISO and white balance before you start shooting. Bill
RE: *istD tally
Count me in on that tally if it matters! I just returned back to the list after a long break. Cheers! -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 5:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:*istD tally Since the *istD was released, I have tried to keep track of PDML'ers who have bought the camera. I have no idea if my list is complete, but so far it counts 55 names! Impressive, imo. Cheers, Jostein -
RE: Just curious ...
I have not. -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 8:20 AM To: PDML Subject:Just curious ... Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom?
RE: Powerpoint
Don't hold back now...tell us what you really think! ;-) -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 11:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Powerpoint Then we can look at it another way, a person who makes a possibly life threatening multi-million dollar decision from a twenty minute PowerPoint presentation certainly fits my definition of a fool. Of course, the adviser who presents it that way fits my definition of incompetent. -- Chaso DeChaso wrote: > >>>Interesting take, blaming the misuse of software >>>for a problem, >>>rather >>>than those who misued the software. > > >>Well said. I get to see quite a few ppt >>presentations at work and they >>never impress me. It has nothing to do with ppt >>itself - they're just >>bad presentations. > > > Well, this oversimplifies the problem by > underestimating the way in which tools condition our > thinking and condition the problems and solutions at > hand. It is also surprising that anyone would > casually and quickly reject a thinker such as Tufte > trying to tell us something. > > I would not say the medium IS the message but > certainly it alters, limits, abstracts the message in > various ways. This may happen independent of our best > intentions. > > It is overly idealistic to imagine that humans are > these perfect things hovering high above the world > making decisions; in fact we are immersed in the world > and are conditioned by its perameters. Our thinking > is conditioned by the language we happen to use as > well as by the software we select (or have selected > for us, for the most part). No matter how perfect we > think we are, a presentation is going to be different > with different media - people will learn different > things. We make different mistakes when using > different tools. Engineering projects have different > types of failures based upon different types of > software, and versus doing things "by hand". Assuming > humans haven't changed, this focuses the attention on > the role of the media and methods thereof. Also, at > the extreme, different types of projects become > possible and impossible. > > Humans are not limitlessly creative or vigiland > therefore we rely upon convention, precedent, > technique, culture, tools, etc. to influence answers - > this is a part of life and not necessarily "bad". > (Most pieces written on piano are different than those > written on guitar - and few are capable of dreaming up > complete pieces in the abstract not associated with > instrumentation, while laying in bed...even they are > conditioned by memory of the instruments). Given that > this is a fact, one can then turn attention toward > laying a certain amount of blame on tools and methods > that are more mistake prone in certain contexts. > Powerpoint is certainly a media which predisposes one > to certain errors mainly related to oversimplification > as Tufte argues. Yes, if we were almost perfect and > nearly godlike we would catch every mistake and only > have ourselves to blame, but in fact as soon as one > relies on a tool and gives over some responsibility to > the tool (which we must and always do) then we can > speak about the influence of the tool itself and about > how for example powerpoint may have been a legitimate > contributing factor the shuttle disaster. > > Chaso > > > > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > > -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
RE: Fantasy about New HD from Toshiba
Wow Herb! How many frames and at what resolution? Jeff -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Fantasy about New HD from Toshiba i already have a 4G MicroDrive inside my *istD and it is totally inadequate for more than a day or two's worth of shooting if i am stretching things out and a couple of hours at most when in a good location. i will have a second one soon and am looking at 80G as inadequate for a 2 week photography trip. Herb - Original Message - From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:23 PM Subject: OT: Fantasy about New HD from Toshiba > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/12/16/toshiba.tinydisk.ap/index.html > > Imagine it (& over time higher-capacity) stored permanently > inside a camera, with enough storage to avoid the need for memory > modules at all. Like an endless roll of film. Just keep shooting. > Transfer with USB/FireWire/RF as needed. Could be very useful.
RE: Need photo printer recommendation
I've had a $200ish Epson Stylus Photo 870 for a few years and have yet to find a disappointment with it. I'm looking forward to it breaking so I can take advantage of some of the current technology. ;-) J -Original Message- From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 5:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Need photo printer recommendation That's what I'm using and am quite pleased with it. Bill - Original Message - From: "Andrew Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 1:12 AM Subject: Need photo printer recommendation > I'm looking for a printer to replace my Epson Stylus Photo (the original > Stylus Photo). Santa says I need to keep the cost under $200. Looks like > the current Epson in that category is the Stylus Photo 925. However, the > reviews I've read are not universally favorable. So I figured I'd ask this > list for advice. Is there another printer I should be looking at? An HP or > Canon? > > Thanks! > > Andrew Robinson > >
RE: *istD
Wow! I paid $1449...but that was at a local store. So, I guess I paid the extra to take it home and play the same day. J -Original Message- From: Sylwek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 5:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: *istD on 15.12.03 14:32, Tanya Mayer Photography at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Best online price ever?!!? > > http://www.infinitycameras.com/viewitem.php?IndexID=4227 > > Anyone ever dealt with these guys before? > They have very poor comments from customers. And shipping is 60$. I'd better buy for 30$ more here: http://www.digitalmegastore.com/products/?Pentax*istD02567&com=8 -- Best Regards Sylwek
Pentax 35mm & 645 stuff for auction
Check out these items on Ebay. All have jpegs to show the condition. Pentax 1.4X Tele-Converter for 645 system Pentax 220 Film Insert for 645 bodies - MINT Pentax 220 Film Insert for 645 bodies - MINT Pentax Auto Extension Tube set for 645 Pentax TS-110 remote Timer & Switch - MINT Pentax AF500FTZ Auto Zoom Flash Unit - Excellent Pentax F5P TTL Flash Extension Cord - MINT Pentax TTL Hot Shoe Adapter FG - MINT http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=jeff.wootton%40lycos.com FREE ADHD DVD or CD-Rom (your choice) - click here! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;6413623;3807821;f?http://mocda2.com/1/c/563632/131726/311392/311392 AOL users go here: http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;6413623;3807821;f?http://mocda2.com/1/c/563632/131726/311392/311392 This offer applies to U.S. Residents Only
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #658
Hi Lon,
I have the Pentax A*300 2.8. I use it with a Bogen 444 Carbon One
tripod, so I would assume the 3221 would be fine. I also have Pentax 1.4XL
teleconverter for it.
While it comes with a nice metal case, I recently bought a backpack style
camera bag so that I can get more use out of it. I was leaving the lens
home a lot of times since it was not convenient to carry through the woods.
This is not light lens. According to the KMount equipment page it
is 6.5 pounds. (I never put mine on a scale to verify it.) Make sure you
want to carry this extra weight around with you at the zoo.
While I love the pictures I get from it, I will be the first to
admit, it is not a very versatile lens. Make sure the tripod head can
handle it. I have a Giotto MH 1001 (I think, as my gear is not in front of
me. It is definitely a giotto ball head though) which is a little
undersized. While it is rated for the weight, I think the length of the
lens makes it a bit unwieldy on that ball head.
Even with that drawback, which would probably be solved by me
buying a better ball head (someone here will comment I shouldn't be using a
ball head with this setup,) I still love the lens. It has enabled me to
get shots that were not possible in the past. For zoo shots remember you
more then likely would not be walking around with this beast on the camera,
so figure on extra time to get the tripod setup, mount the lens, and then
attach the camera.
Jeff
At 03:20 PM 7/11/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:15:08 -0400
From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: PDML Pentax Discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: My first long telephoto prime: advice sought
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I'm a sucker for zoo shots.
My Sigma 70-300 is a tad short at the long end.
I've compensated with 500mm f8 mirror lenses (Lentar
and Spiratone), but am thinking about faster primes
combined with TCs.
I do NOT need a "birdie lens". I don't think I want
to mess with something as long as a 600mm.
That leaves me with 300mm and 400mm primes from Pentax.
Just how impossible/heavy/awkward is the A 400mm f2.8?
Will a Bogen 3221 tripod be adequate for it?
And how about the 300mm f2.8 lenses?
-Lon
Re: First true workout for the Optio S.
Let me know what you may be looking for. I can probably set something up and put it up on the internet if you like and I can find the time. Hey, any excuse to take some shots - and help out a fellow PDMLer... Cesar Panama City, Florida Nothing specific. Just some sharp images, to compare with my Dimage 7. Jeff.
Re: First true workout for the Optio S.
Yesterday I had a chance to play with an Optio S at Japan Camera (Toronto). Wow, I'm excited. With this camera, there's no reason for not carrying one all the time. Could someone direct me to sample shots and reviews? Jeff.
Re: Wouldn't THAT be nice! (TORONTO)
What a bummer. Weeknights are tough for me, after a long work day. I wanted to meet the man behind the "Lighthouses" (I'm a sucker for Lighthouses). Jeff. Mark Roberts wrote: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I really enjoy our little get togethers that we in Toronto have once in a while. It's nice, as well, to meet the odd out-of-towner who swings this way, like Paul Stenquist, Stan Halpin, or Mark Roberts (coming in April!). OK, looks like my Toronto trip is on. It's been moved up slightly: I'll be arriving on Thursday, 03 April and probably only staying one night due to my very restricted budget, so any get-together will have to be Thursday evening rather than Friday. I'd have preferred Friday (as would many others, no doubt) but that's the best I can do at the moment.
Re: PC Cord and : New toy
Hi Dave, So far all the info I obtained indicate that the 285HV does have a PC socket which will enable you to connect it to the F. Jeff. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeff i looked at the Vivitar 285hv and there is a double male socket on the side of the flash.Would you think this is the socket that would connect to the F. Dave > You're welcome. Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all. Thanks to list member Jeff,i am now the pround owner of a Minolta F Spotmeter. Jeff did me a HUGE favor and i picked it up last night.It differs from his by only a few tenths in the EV mode(one is right but which one)in unscientific test.Clean,with box and manual. Hope to put it through its paces this weekend. Once again thanks Jeff. Dave(not buying anything else this year)Brooks
Re: New toy
Dave, You can get a Holga, with change to spare. Jeff. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Dave(not buying anything else this year)Brooks C'mon Dave - it's march :-) I know I know.Only have $186 in the MF fund so i'm safe for now. Dave £ukasz --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Szukasz banku bez prowizji ? mBank - za³ó¿ konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: New toy
This weekend is fine. You can always reach me at 416-346-4346. BTW, those New York Fries counters are great for testing spotmeters :) Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have considered getting BACK into using a spot meter (after giving up and selling my Pentax digital Spot meter a few months ago). After hearing about Jeff's, and how it is used, and the features it has, I'm considering one myself. Speaking of which, Jeff, is sometime this weekend good for you? CHeers, Dave Original Message: - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:03:57 US/Eastern To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New toy Hi all. Thanks to list member Jeff,i am now the pround owner of a Minolta F Spotmeter. Jeff did me a HUGE favor and i picked it up last night.It differs from his by only a few tenths in the EV mode(one is right but which one)in unscientific test.Clean,with box and manual. Hope to put it through its paces this weekend. Once again thanks Jeff. Dave(not buying anything else this year)Brooks mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: New toy
You're welcome. Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all. Thanks to list member Jeff,i am now the pround owner of a Minolta F Spotmeter. Jeff did me a HUGE favor and i picked it up last night.It differs from his by only a few tenths in the EV mode(one is right but which one)in unscientific test.Clean,with box and manual. Hope to put it through its paces this weekend. Once again thanks Jeff. Dave(not buying anything else this year)Brooks
Re: Tele specifications for the AF280 flash?
I have an AF280T c/w an AFT-1 and a 135 fresnel panel. If anyone is interested, please contact me off the list. Jeff. Jose R. Rodriguez wrote: Steve, Since my Pentax Accessories Manual indicates that the Telephoto Adapter for the AF-280T (AFT-1) gives a greater concentration of the flash beam with telephoto lenses in the 85mm - 200mm range, the flash without the adapter should cover up to a 85mm lens. I have used the AF-280T (w/o Telephoto Adapter) with my 85mm lens and it works great on an LX. I hope this helps. Regards,
Re: the *ist D (Faith in Pentax
Fred, LOL. Faith for me was holding onto all my glass and not cashing out to get the D30 the first time around. I am sorely tempted either way though... new *ist D body or the 16-40/f4... Cheers. On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 09:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just consider that, Jeff, to be just a little penance for not having ~complete~ faith in Pentax - . Fred
Re: *ist D - Pricing
Was this pricing confirmed anywhere? I didn't see any mention of it... if it's under US$2,000, it's going to be *total* steal! On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 09:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, according to the same source the body is plastic, thus justifying the expectedly low price.
Re: a real advantage of the D*ist!
Let's hope the battery life (is there a rechargable???) is as good as Canon's. I can get by on a day's shoot of a 340 MB microdrive filled twice on a pair of batteries loaded up in the battery grip and using an external flash. Cheers. On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 09:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But that's what Minolta's digicams are known for - draining power. They are about the most energy hungry cameras around (check the dpreview.com for a comparison).
Re: *ist D photos
Black is good... that silver body reminds me too much of a cheap EOS Kiss... On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 07:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And it is black !!
Re: the *ist D
Man, I dropped off the list in frustration a few months ago but my faith is renewed with the sneak peek... thank God I held on to my Pentax glass and invested very little in Canon glass for my D30! Having said that, my only regret is that I won't be able to carry over my 70-200/f4 "L" lens... that is truly a great lens for race circuits. Cheers. On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 05:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today I'm just going to enjoy the news about the *ist D.
Re: It's Coming
Mark Roberts wrote: Top that. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=746359 and I raise you Jeff
Re: K-mount lenses that lock on Pentax bodies
I've been using Vivitar, Tamron Pentax & Ricoh lenses on all my manual focus Pentax & Ricoh bodies, without any ill effect. As per recommendation from a camera salesman, I never attached my KRP lenses to the Z-1p Autofocus camera. It seems that the drive shaft gets locked onto the Ricoh contact. Jeff. Does anyone know for sure which K-mount lenses cannot be used on the MZ-series bodies? I've had a Ricoh AR lens (I think) lock onto the mount permanently of one MZ body, but are there other lenses that do the same thing? I'm asking because I have a customer with a Ricoh body that can use the "A" Ricoh lenses, and she has a Vivitar zoom lens for it that she was hoping to use on an MZ body. Did Vivitar, or any other company, make lenses for Ricohs that cannot be used on an MZ body, or was it just Ricoh who made them? Thanks, chris
FS Friday (Super Program)
Still have for sale Super Program in excellent condition A50/1.4 in excellent condition AF280T in G/VG condition Winder MEII in G/VG condition Asking $300 or B/O Willing to split PayPal OK Contact me off list. Jeff.
Re: OT: PayPal, C/C, and fees (WAS: RE: FS: MZ-S, KX, lots of lenses)
Shaun Canning wrote: The point is Gary, that no matter how you do it, all charges and fees should be included in the purchase price for most transaction (e-bay excepted for the stated reasons). If you are doing a 'friendly' transaction through a forum such as this, there is no need to add anything. Just tell us the total price, then we will decide to buy or not! :):):) Cheers Shaun Shaun, you're my man. That's what I wanted to convey all along. Jeff. PS: Tom, I'm sorry if I offended you. Maybe your wording scrambled my brain a bit.
Re: FS: MZ-S, KX, lots of lenses
I don't mind people advertising their cameras for sale, but after all we are supposed to be a friendly group. To charge the buyer 3% for a service that benefits the seller, by giving him/her the security of instant cash, is ridiculous. I have purchased and sold many items using Paypal and CC's, and I would refuse to deal with someone who insists on charging me fee. Jeff. Gary L. Murphy wrote: This is worse than those sleazy Brooklin outfits that charge premium for credit card transactions. Why?? Would you rather Tom just jackup the prices to cover =HIS= lose for your benefit of using a CC? That's exactly what merchants do that take your plastic. Or do you think they just take the lose? Not hardly. Tom, if you want to make this a business offer, then you should take it to one of the marketplace forums. Again, why? Tom is not the first person to give the members of the PDML a first shot at some Pentax gear, and I'm sure he will not be the last to do so.
Re: FS: MZ-S, KX, lots of lenses
I'm glad you said it Paul. This is worse than those sleazy Brooklin outfits that charge premium for credit card transactions. Tom, if you want to make this a business offer, then you should take it to one of the marketplace forums. Jeff. PS. What happened to "or best offer"? Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: Tom Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I can take PayPal but you will need to add the 3% fee. Tom, PayPal does not allow its Premium or Business members sellers to require the customer to pay the 3% fee. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: My Official TOPDML photo
You forgot to mention Aarons brotherhood tool, the P67. Jeff. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seeing as how I was singled out in this particular Email from Jeff.. let me reply.. :-) Left to right - Aaron (sucking on the popsicle), Brendan, Yours Truly, and happy go lucky Frank. Cameras - well.. Brendan's using his Pentax PZ1-P with the Tokina 28-70, you can pass over my camera since it's a non-pentax issue camera, and Frank had his MX at the end of the unofficial "For Pentax" strap. Cheers, Dave Original Message: - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:14:38 + To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: My Official TOPDML photo http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1310244 The guy on the far left appears to be sucking on one of those humungous popsicles. Can we have a left-to-right ID please? Thanx Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: Who shoots Ricoh body with Pentax lenses?
I started off with the XR-1 in the late 70's. Then upgraded to the XR-2S with the winder. I used Vivitar, Soligor Tamron and Pentax lenses with them. These were very rugged cameras. In the late 80's I bought a second hand XR-X (which I still own). This camera may not be as rugged as the other ones, but it's loaded with features. And it keeps on ticking. Owning Vivitar S1 lenses with dual program contacts makes the XR-X (XR-M in the US) a great backup body. Another Ricoh to look for is the XR-P. A rugged manual program camera. HTH, Jeff. Collin Brendemuehl wrote: And which bodies are you using? Some of them seem pretty well-built, like the KR-5 & KR-10. Some seem pretty mediocre. Recommendations? Collin
My Official TOPDML photo
To make the outing official I brought with me my wife's ESPIO. Pictures don't lie. David C-S is sporting a C***N. We should have barred him from this outing. Aaron is all smiles. He just suckered us into moving his film fridge. Everyone else is smiling at me. After hiding my face behind the GSW690III, now I'm holding a toy camera. Dave B was so embarrased, he hid behind the fridge. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1310244 Jeff.
TOPDML, this is how I saw it.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=281968 Jeff.
Re: FS (I know, it's not friday)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Frank. BTW, the 280T comes with an AFT-1 snout and a 135 fresnel lens. Never used it, but I presume it's a tele adaptor. Jeff. frank theriault wrote: Just to second what Jeff said: I've seen the items listed, and they look great. I'd say 9+ is conservative for the body and lens. Buy with confidence! Plus, if he stiffs ya, I'll find him and have a little "chat" with him, on your behalf (for a modest fee, of course!). . cheers, frank Jeff wrote: I need to generate some cash to pay for my latest MF acquisition, so I'm selling the following: Super Program body in 9+ condition A50/1.4 lens in 9+ condition Winder MEII in 8 condition 280T in 8 condition Looking for $330 US Please contact me off the list if interested. Jeff. -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
