RE: PAW PESO - Death and a Dove
Hi Sheel, both are cool experiment and, especially this second one, may look great as proper prints. However, the WEB presentation does not seem to do them justice - and probably can't due to limitations of the medium. Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:30 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: PAW PESO - Death and a Dove > >Variation on an earlier upload > >http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/d_n_d.html > > Shel > >
RE: ist DL disappointing price
>-Original Message- >From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:19 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: RE: ist DL disappointing price > >On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Leon Mlakar wrote: > >> price for a new model. In one of online shops in Slovenia *isD is >> available for $1025 (EUR 849) while they ask $1003 (EUR 830) for >> isdDs. That's even more absurd. > >Not sure, I think they are just clearing the -D stock... > >> DL is not listed yet. > >...to make room for the DLs :-) > :-) I don't think they stock many things - the availability for DS is two weeks, availability of D is listed as special order. But they do stock 350D from the Dark Side, though. Cheers, Leon
RE: ist DL disappointing price
> > >I'm wondering if something else is afoot. It seems unlikely to >me that Pentax would spend such an effort to create a new body >that's only 4% less in price, but with some significant >feature differences. > >Perhaps they're planning on eliminating the DS and D, and >introducing two new bodies: one ~$1,000+ 8MP body with the >features of the DS and another even higher up the ladder, say >$2,000+, with more "pro" like features similar to the "MZ-D"? Might be just pecularities of European pricing, combined with initial high price for a new model. In one of online shops in Slovenia *isD is available for $1025 (EUR 849) while they ask $1003 (EUR 830) for isdDs. That's even more absurd. DL is not listed yet. Cheers, Leon
RE: PESO: A portrait revisited
Great job with both the original image and retouching. Thanks for sharing details. Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 3:52 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: PESO: A portrait revisited > >Thanks for all the nice comments. Sorry I'm late responding, >but I've been busy trying to get some other work processed and >printed. Shel asked what was done in converting and retouching >the original. As I said, I had the help of a professional >retoucher, whose time is normally billed at $300/hour. We >started by doing a straight grayscale conversion. She says she >has experimented extensively with all of the recipes and >considers them mainly bullshit. After the conversion, we >created an adjutment layer and cranked away on the levels to >achieve the tonality and contrast we wanted. Every little >adustment was a new layer. I believe there are 14 in all on >the final PSD. We masked the man and made a halo around his >headin the background, then flipped the right side of the >background over to the left to make it symmetrical. The eyes >on the original included reflections of the street. >Interesting, but bizarre. So we painted new eyeballs. We also >painted his facial wrinkles to make t! > hem more prominent. We added a vignette, then brought down >the most extreme highlights with the shadow/highlight tool and >the burn tool. And that's about it. The PSD file is about 380 >megs. The tiff is 60 megs. I printed it for my portfolio last >night. Digital BW is a good thing. >Paul > > >> Hi! >> >> > Some of you may recall a portrait I posted last year. It's >a shot of >> > an older fellow who shines shoes outside a clothing store in >> > Birmingham, Michigan. I've revisited it as a high contrast BW with >> > some background cleanup and other mods, including removing >> > reflections from the eyes. I had some help from a professional >> > retoucher who has been working with me on another project. >The new version is here: >> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3451662 >> > >> > The original is here: >> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2512646 >> >> Game, set, and match!!! >> >> You win, Paul, you surely do... >> >> But then again you had some pro help... >> >> Boris >> > >
RE: *ist D discontinued ?
I am a bit surprised that we all so easily accept and agree with the idea that the tool we use is a mere disposable item. And that's less than decade after the cameras were being praised for their durability. Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:49 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ? > >Its not a ridiculous hypothetical. In the past it was very >common to be able to buy FILM cameras with better buiid >quality that offered no better features or performance than >much lower priced models. >These cameras were durable and build to last. >IMHO, this is not necessary with current digital cameras but >it does not mean that these cameras wont be offered ( i.e. >like a digital leica ?) JCO > >-Original Message- >From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:41 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ? > > >and I will repost this: "Your argument is based on ridiculous >hypotheticals" > >Christian > >- Original Message - >From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:36 PM >Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ? > > >> Read my first word: "IF". >> I never stated this was actually the case. >> I was just trying to make the point that >> I would not pay signifigant amount of >> money just for better build quality DSLR ( as I WOULD >> in the past for a film SLR). >> JCO >
RE: RAW v JPEG
> >As a long-time user of the TIFF format for somewhat unrelated >purposes, I feel most inclined to comment on this note: > >Tiffs don't have any of the post-processing advantages of RAW > >Which is obviously untrue, since TIFF (unlike JPEG) won't >usually compress data by throwing actual image data away, and >also has the capability of storing 12 bits-per-channel (well, >actually, it will have to be be 0-padded 16-bit, but...) > And there's one more thing people tend to forget - each time one opens, possibly modifies and saves a JPEG back to the file more of the image data gets thrown away. Even with high quality JPEGs these things do accumulate ... Cheers, Leon
RE: PAW - "Rusty Nail"
Hi Dave, the texture on this driftwood is great and well recorded. The colors of the rust are quite nice. Low warm sunlight really brings them out. A shadow is a bit strong, which would imo be even good if there was a narrow strip of light separating the nail and shadow. Lacking that the edge of the nail gets sort of lost in the shadow. Good work. Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: David Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 11:10 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: PAW - "Rusty Nail" > >Hi all, > >PAW is almost actually meaning PAW to me again... it's only >been two weeks since my last one ;) > >As the title implies, this is a photo of a rusty old nail. >The file is about 90kb... > >http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?t=PAW&print_id=94 > >As always, comments are welcome. > >Cheers, > >- Dave > >http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ > > >
RE: Repository for RAW Image Format Details
>-Original Message- >From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 3:58 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net; pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: RE: Repository for RAW Image Format Details > >Let me rephrase that: Do closely held and "undocumented" >proprietary formats allow for more or enhanced creativity and >innovation, or is that just a smoke screen? > Smoke screen. Cheers, Leon
RE: PESO: This morning's shoot
Hi Paul, I like this one. Replace the baseball cap with a hat and there you are: a nice the commercial ad for a car from that era. At least I think that's how commercial ads looked in the sixties/seventies. Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 3:11 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: PESO: This morning's shoot > >I shot a car this morning for a magazine article. It's an >extremely rare '66 Plymouth Belvedere HP2. This was the car >that Chrysler built to convince NASCAR that the hemi was a >production engine. It was a very basic car with vinyl bench >seats and very little trim. Only a couple thousand were built >with the HP2 designation. Very few are left. This one has 4000 >original miles on the clock. It was raced in the sixties, then >stored in a climate controlled warehouse for thirty years. A >few years ago it was restored to its original color and >returned to exact factory delivered specs. It's valued at over >$100,000. I believe it was about $4000 new. >I shot this pan with the K85/1.8 at 1/30th and f11 with a polarizer. >http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3428842&size=lg >Paul >
RE: PAW PESO - Laurie on a Sunny Afternoon
>> The way you set the shot suggests you're not after the portrait but >> after >an >> atmosphere/mood/feeling. > >There was never any intention of making a portrait, certainly >not in a traditional sense. > >> There are very little visual clues to indicate what mood. >It's a kind >> of ambiguous. Rather, it would be if it wasn't for the wheel. Very >> prominent feature in the background. It's got to play some >role >> in the story. No, it's not ambiguous, it's enigmatic. > >What mood does the wheel and tire suggest to you? > If it was just her pose, I could imagine a wide range, anything from disappointment, tiredness, boredom, sadness even. The eyes are covered and most of the face hidden so apart from the pose there's nothing to tell. And a cigarette is a good companion in any of these moods. (side remark: this is close to the point where my English gives up - I'm not sure I am as precise as I could be in my language) As for the wheel, it does reduce the options. My first and the strongest impression is frustration. > >Thanks for taking the time to comment. I'm really pleased >that you've given the photo some thought. > It is an intriguing photograph. Perhaps not the one that would rate highest on the aesthetics scale, but certainly the one to be returned to and viewed many times. Cheers, Leon
RE: PAW PESO - Laurie on a Sunny Afternoon
On my monitor there is a rather slight separation between the nose and the back of the arm. Normally it should be enough (but would really need to see the print to be sure). Unfortunately there is also a shadow line that runs in the middle of the arm which exactly meets and extends the nose line. The way you set the shot suggests you're not after the portrait but after an atmosphere/mood/feeling. There are very little visual clues to indicate what mood. It's a kind of ambiguous. Rather, it would be if it wasn't for the wheel. Very prominent feature in the background. It's got to play some role in the story. No, it's not ambiguous, it's enigmatic. If this was your goal then it's a successful image. But do something about her nose. Cheers, Leon P.S. So, what's the wheel doing there ? >-Original Message- >From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 4:41 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: PAW PESO - Laurie on a Sunny Afternoon > >Hmmm there is a pretty sharp delineation between nose and >arm on my monitor, although, since others have mentioned it, I >wonder if that could be in part because I know it's there. >I'll look more into that. Thanks for your comments. > >Shel > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Scott Loveless > >> Hey, Shel. Overall, I like the composition and the >exposure. My only >> concern is her face - her nose and arm blend together making it hard >> to see where her nose stops and her arm starts. It's a bit >> distracting. Otherwise, I really like this photo. >> >> On 6/5/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/05.html > > >
RE: PSD v TIF v PNG
> >i always save the "straight scans", 16bit. these are >"negatives", they are burned on dvds, and stored away. i very >much want to avoid re-scanning in future. If you scan a lot then it makes sense. Not many of my photographs are interesting enough to be worth scanning, so I don't. Besides, when I started doing this, better and better scanners were regularly thrown to the market. Both reasons together led me to decision not to keep them. Cheers, Leon
RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
>-Original Message- >From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 1:36 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon >or Canon competitors?) > >in terms of megabytes/s, my 2-3 times stands. the difference >is made up by the relative sizes of the RAW files. > One could argue that one waits in seconds and not in megabytes for a buffer to empty. But something else strikes me as rather interesting: is the difference in RAW file size between *istD and D70 really that big? Why would that be so, considering both cameras store basically the same amount of image information? Or don't they? >not >shooting RAW with a DSLR is sacrificing most of the gains over >digital compact camera. I understand we are talking RAW files only. Cheers, Leon
RE: PSD v TIF v PNG
> >But why destroy all that information in a file only to have to >start over again later should you want another copy of the >file? I just don't understand your reasoning. Of course, >with PS 7.0 you have to do a lot of your work flow in 8-bit >anyway, so maybe the difference isn't that great an issue. > Well, I could have saved the straight scan. But that's a five minutes or so job, hardly worth couple 100 of Mb. >From the straight scan on everything I do is the interpretation of the scan that ends with an 8-bit file prepared for a print. As you pointed out correctly, most things, except for color and tonality adjustments, must be done with 8-bit image in 7.0 so I have to switch to 8-bits rather early. Should I wish to find another interpretation of the photograph (be it different tonality or conversion to B/W or something else) I pretty much need to start from the straight scan. Of course there are situations where another interpretation could have been made from some point in the middle of the flow. These are the cases where 16-bit support along the way comes into play but it's just not there in 7.0. Last year and a half I haven't been able to follow what's been going on with PS (or to do much related to photography other than taking photographs), so right now I really don't know what the newest versions are capable of. As it seems that I'll get some more time in the future, I might have to rethink the way I'm doing things, including a possibility of ditching 7.0 for something better. Cheers, Leon
RE: PSD v TIF v PNG
> >PNG won't save as a layered file, so if you intend to do >further work on the file, or may just want to have an >"original layered final" copy, you'll still need a TIFF or >PSD. My workflow is such that I always save a PSD or TIFF >with all the layers, alpha channels, and saved selections that >were used in its creation. > Yes, that's what I meant by once you finished the processing. No layers, no additional info, just image data. My workflow is slightly different, and I typically save master as an 8-bit PNG (although I would prefer 16-bit if PS 7.0 could do it). Afterwards I adjust this master by resizing, final sharpening and gamma adjustments etc for the final presentation media (WEB or print). 16-bits would be better input for this final processing but tiff is just too huge. However, unlike those who shoot digital, I can always rescan the original and am therefore not so sensitive to the loss of information in 8-bit digital "master". Cheers, Leon
RE: PSD v TIF v PNG
Photoshop lets you save the 16-bit per channel image in PNG? Which version? I know 7.0 doesn't. Once you finished your processing (PSD preserves layers and other Photoshop internal information) I don't see any disadvantages except that 16-bit PNG is probably not as widely supported as TIFF. The advantage of PGN is very good lossless compression that gives you smaller file of any other standard format. For personal archive is a good choice. BTW, PNG is not Adobe's format. That's a public standard and acronym stands for Portable Network Graphics format. Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 8:46 AM >To: Pentax-Discuss >Subject: PSD v TIF v PNG > >Does anyone know of any disadvantages in saving processed >images in the Photoshop .PNG format? >I just worked on an image I want to keep at the best possible >quality, and compared the various file sizes as follows ( file >is a 30cm x 20 cm 16-bit RGB image in sRGB): >PSD file size is 303 MB >TIF-ZIP file size is 285 MB >TIF-NONE file size is 310 MB >TIF-LZW file size is 379 MB >PNG file size is 218 MB > >These are considerable variations in the volume of data >stored: all saves after the first conversion from .PEF (saved >as .PSD) were then taken from the .PSD file, and I am >concerned that image degradation will be permanently saved! >Although, of course, I can always go back to the .PEF file, >and a print from the PNG file looks fine. >All advice gratefully received - and followed! > >John Coyle >Brisbane, Australia > >
RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
The Bruce's original message I was replying to stated raw to storage medium writing times being 1-2 secs for D70 and 7-9 secs for *istD. That's 3.5 to 9 times slower than D70. D70 is hardly an action/sports model. My entire reply was made in this context. Both your "2-3" times and my "almost an order of magnitude" have similar margin of error and are equally misleading, only to the opposite sides Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:15 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon >or Canon competitors?) > >the fastest of the "ordinary" DSLRs, excluding the >action/sports models, are about 2-3 times faster than the >*istD with perhaps equal or slightly larger buffer size. the >action sports models are 5-6 times faster and have 4 or 5 >times the buffer size. > >Herb >- Original Message - >From: "Leon Mlakar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:31 PM >Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon >competitors?) > > >> That's a long time, indeed. Something you do not think about >with film >> camera. But, if the figures for Nikon D70 are correct, it >sounds to me >> that larger buffer provides only a partial, temporary workaround. A >> redesign of electronics to speed up the writing by almost an >order of >> magnitude would be more desirable solution. > > >
RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
Bruce, I did understand what you meant - I was just trying to make a little joke out of it. I apologize if it led to confusion. Cheers, Leon > >You may have misunderstood, I am not taking consecutive shots >with a motor drive, these are single shots fairly close >together - could even be done without a winder. But you are >right in that the kid will grin when you are not ready. It is >just that with the *istD and full buffer, you are not ready >for a much longer time. > >You are correct that it is not just a buffer problem. Write >speed/compression and/or whatever else it takes is necessary also. >
RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
> >Here's another - taking candid portraits of a young kid who is >moving around and you are catching some great facial >expressions. Click, click, click as you go. Suddenly you he >puts on the cutest grin and the BUFFER is FULL. > In my personal experience, even with 4.5fps PZ-1P the young kid will put on the cutest grin precisely between the two frames :-) >When shooting RAW on the *istD, the fastest cards take about >7-9 seconds per shot to write out. Slower cards can take up >to 15 seconds per shot. With a full buffer, that is quite a >bit of time to elapse. That's a long time, indeed. Something you do not think about with film camera. But, if the figures for Nikon D70 are correct, it sounds to me that larger buffer provides only a partial, temporary workaround. A redesign of electronics to speed up the writing by almost an order of magnitude would be more desirable solution. Cheers, Leon
RE: Lithium AA's if manual doesn't specify?
http://store.sundancesolar.com/aareba.html Here in Slovenia I can still get Rayovac, but they appear to be discontinued by Rayovac. Maybe some old stock is still around. Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:27 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: Lithium AA's if manual doesn't specify? > >i can't find them in the US anymore. > >Herb.... >----- Original Message - >From: "Leon Mlakar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:16 PM >Subject: RE: Lithium AA's if manual doesn't specify? > > >> >> Why don't you try rechargable alkaline AA's? I've been using >them for some >> time in my (seldom used) flash. They have the shelf life of >ordinary AA's >> so >> I know that it'll work when picked up, even though I didn't recharge >> batteries last week. Unlike NiMh that work at 1.2V they work >at 1.5V of >> ordinary alkalines. True, rechargable alkalines are only >good for a 100 or >> so recharge cycles but that, I suppose, should not be an issue. > > >
RE: PESO: Repairs delayed
Thank you, good people, for your comments. You helped me realize that the reason for my reservations about this photographs was not the DOF but the tonality. So the specific part of the question was wrong after all. I like this shot so I'll play with it a bit before making a print. I believe it should be possible to get it lighter a bit without loosing details on the white paint or getting the wood planks in front to bright. Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: Leon Mlakar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 12:19 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: PESO: Repairs delayed > > >These days I was browsing through some old photos I didn't >scan yet. This one was taken quite some time ago, in summer >2002. What do you think in general and regarding one specific >question: is DOF too shallow? > >http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3400464 > > >I also seem to be unable to find a good English title for it. > >Cheers, > >Leon > >
RE: Lithium AA's if manual doesn't specify?
Why don't you try rechargable alkaline AA's? I've been using them for some time in my (seldom used) flash. They have the shelf life of ordinary AA's so I know that it'll work when picked up, even though I didn't recharge batteries last week. Unlike NiMh that work at 1.2V they work at 1.5V of ordinary alkalines. True, rechargable alkalines are only good for a 100 or so recharge cycles but that, I suppose, should not be an issue. Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: Joe Wilensky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 3:21 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: OT: Lithium AA's if manual doesn't specify? > >I've picked up a small digital point-and-shoot (not Pentax), >and it takes AA batteries. The manual mentions using alkalines >and recommends NiMH rechargeable AA batteries, but says not a >word about using lithium AA batteries. This is a fairly >current camera (2004, discontinued this year). Is there any >reason I can't use lithium AA batteries in this camera? > >Joe >-- > >Joe Wilensky >Editor, Cornell Chronicle >Cornell News Office >312 College Ave. >Ithaca, NY 14850 > >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >(607) 255-3630 phone/voice mail >(607) 255-5373 fax > >http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/Chronicle.html >
RE: PAW - German Color Power
>Hello together, > >this is a picture I like quite much - though it's maybe a bit >colourful... It's a new shopping temple in the south of >Germany an the use of the DA16-45 produced a nice effect... >Hope you like it... It's quite a bit more than just "a bit" colorful. And a good thing it is, too. Great colors, especially this yellowish light back in the middle. It even manages to add some warmth into what would otherwise look like a cold, utilitarian structure. It is an interesting thing you used the term "temple" - indeed I often saw these malls as temples of modern consumer society. And people shopping there as modern sort of pilgrims, seeking salvation in buying more and more things they don't really need. There isn't much room to improve this photograph. Other people already suggested some. Personally, I would try to get it even more perfectly symmetrical. I don't see this photograph suitable for "Chinese Garden" approach. Cheers, Leon
RE: PESO -- "Lights (A theraultian exercise.)"
>-Original Message- >From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 6:59 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: PESO -- "Lights (A theraultian exercise.)" > >Thanks Frank, glad you liked it. I don't think anyone else >even saw it. > Well, you're wrong ... it sits in the browser for couple of days now. Sort of like it, but not quite. I was hoping for some divine inspiration to explain this "not quite" bit, but no muse stopped by so far. The colors of the sign are okay and I really like that row of lights. It's just that somehow they don't seem to fit together in this frame. And I have no explanation why. Cheers, Leon
RE: PESO: Black Tulip
Frank, it looks like you are inventing a new technique - painting with OOF. Hell, it looks you took a very uncharacteristically sharp photo of a black tulip in front of a painting (aquarelle perhaps) of black tulips. If hard pushed to find something that could be improved, I'd say that having the top left corner empty would not hurt the picture. But that's just something I'd say when facing a strong lamp and a big guy or two back in shadows. Was this really your first try at macro shots? Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:18 PM >To: PDML >Subject: PESO: Black Tulip > > >Frankie does macro! > >So, this is a lot harder than I thought. This is the best >macro of my day shooting at the Tulip Festival in Ottawa last >week. I now realize that any jerk can stick a macro lens on >and get real close, but there's much more than that to >actually get it to look good. > >Be brutal, but honest. Comments would be most appreciated. > >I know, it's not really black, it's deep violet, but they call >it a black tulip anyway: > >http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3406927 > >Thanks in advance. > >cheers, >frank >-- >"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson >
RE: An Old Man
Hi Boris, I saw Shel's comments while putting together my thoughts. There's little to add ... Maybe just that yes, it could have been a worthy portrait, but really needs more careful processing. Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 8:57 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: PAW: An Old Man > >Hi! > >http://webaperture.com/gallery/photos/49886 > >Two questions: > >1. I've been doing some editing here... Do you think it wasn't >overdone? >2. Is it a worthy street portrait? How can I improve? > >As usual, be brutal but/and honest... > >Thanks in advance. > >Boris > >
RE: PESO: Bluejay
You can take a shot of a bird with 2 secs delay and get away with something like this Amazing capture. Just curiosity: how much of the frame did you crop out? Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: Fred Widall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 12:52 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: PESO: Bluejay > >This guy showed up at my feeder this morning. > >Shot with my *istDS and F 70-210mm (@210mm). Camera was tripod >mounted, shutter set to 2 second delay with mirror up, and >using a homemade cable release. Image cropped in PSCS. > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/fwwidall/16082770/ > >-- > Fred Widall, > Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall >-- > >
RE: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
I could be both. Last year I ordered 28-105 in a local shop and got it only after 4 months. It was nowhere to be found in their supply chain in Europe. Apparently it was a combination of increased demand and batch production so they had to wait for another batch. Even when they've got the lens, they received less of them than they ordered. Leon >-Original Message- >From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 4:16 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future > >it's been at least 3 or 4 months since they haven't had any. i >think that lack of production has at least as much to do with >it since everything is gone, not just the good ones. > >Herb >- Original Message - >From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 1:01 PM >Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future > > >> BTW, I got my KEH catalog in the mail and was stunned by the lack of >> used Pentax AF primes. I initially thought that KEH might >be divesting >> themselves, but "Top Ten Most Wanted" ad on the back cover included >> Pentax AF primes. To me this means they can't keep them in >stock. Is >> this because the DS has made these desirable? > > >
PESO: Repairs delayed
These days I was browsing through some old photos I didn't scan yet. This one was taken quite some time ago, in summer 2002. What do you think in general and regarding one specific question: is DOF too shallow? http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3400464 I also seem to be unable to find a good English title for it. Cheers, Leon
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
> >I am still chuckling about how this thread has morphed from >someone trying >to learn the nuts and bolts of exposure more or less being >told, by some >experienced photographers who know this stuff well enough that >they have >forgotten how well they know it, that it doesn't matter, into >a thread about >4x4 vehicles where more or less the same mindset is at play. >I suppose it's the teacher in me that finds it rather sad. > That's not unusual - we like abstractions to simplify the world for us. 4x4 for wheels, computer-aided matrix exposure meters for cameras they are all abstractions designed to simplify the task and lessen the skills required to do something. But what a lot (I'd even say most) people fail to realize that there's something called the "Law of Leaky Abstractions" (no, I didn't made it up ) - at some point the simplifications stop working and you're faced with raw complexity of real world. Like with 4x4 people often fail to realize (and marketing carefully fails to remind them) that when road gets wet and slippery enough and you're cornering fast enough (protected from the slippery road by 4x4 drive abstraction) you're about to experience a unique feeling of all four wheels loosing road contact at the same instance (instead of just two, as happens with 4x2). The same goes for auto-exposure - the first abstractions (CW metering) were simple enough to leak when facing backlit scene. Today's are more complex, but still the will fail under certain circumstances. I'm not against abstractions. They are fine - they let us do things we would not be able to do without them (as a side effect they do produce world where the ratio between the people doing things and people who actually know how to do things is rapidly falling towards zero) and is quite alright to use them. What is happening and was being expressed in this thread, though, is that they work that well that people start to believe they'll always work. Being a simplified model of the real world they inherently can't - otherwise they'd become as complex as the real world they model and we'd need new simpler model to be able use our initial model (or something like that ) Leon PS: Another example: people are putting so much faith in the might of spelling checkers that protect them from the incredibly stupid rules of English spelling that I've often seen word "asses" being used instead of the intended "assess".
RE: PAW and a Question
>-Original Message- >From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:13 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: PAW and a Question > >Hi! > >> This works for me. The light play is quite attractive. >However, I find >> the crooked shade on the lower lamp somewhat distracting. >Even if the >> shade had been straightened, I think this is one case where I might >> also try to alter the perspective so that the two lamps are parallel. >> It feels like it would be more pleasing that way. But I like it as >> shot. > >Paul, I spoke with few people about this shot. Then I looked >at it, and looked at it, and looked at it. And then I realized >that the upper lamp is the King. The lower lamp is the >Shacherezade (spelling?) that is looking at the King from >beneath... And she's telling him the stories... Stories of >light and shadow... Interesting you should say this. My first association was the commercial I saw on TV recently - a tall glass of milk talking from above to some kind of milk bar while leaning over it... yeah, I know I'm watching TV too much. The point is, there's a tension in this photograph and a sort of anticipation of what's to happen next. > >And then I finally realized that to me this photo is quite whole... Indeed it is. And the one that can easily be liked, for that matter. Cheers, Leon
RE: istd or istds or wait?
>-Original Message- >From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:12 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: istd or istds or wait? > > >- Original Message - >From: "Leon Mlakar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >The D's built-in flash supports wireless control of the 360FGZ. The >> >DS will also allow wireless flash control, but you need one 360FGZ >> >mounted on the body to control a remote 360FGZ; its built-in flash >> >does not support the control protocol. >> >> I see. Didn't know that. How stupid. I was eyeing DS, but >it's now off >> the list. > >Don't base your decision solely on flash capability. Look >through the archives of this list and you'll see lots of >disappointment in the TTL flash area with the D. I personally >never experienced the inconsistent flash exposures that many >people here complained about so you might want to think about that too. > It's not just flash, it's not that vital, it's all things together - both wheels, HyperProgram, absence of stupid "turist" program modes - something I enjoj with PZ-1p - and wireless flash, the only reason I sometimes choose to fight with my spouse's MZ-6. I've been toying with idea of getting something digital for quite some time now and I'm still not sure that it's a good idea. I mean, I've read quite a few endless digital-good-film-bad and vice versa discussions and still belive that film's better (pray, may these words not start another endless thread) and digital is more convenient. Recent failure of CCD on my video camera just confirmed that those gadgets are fragile. And even if I convinced myself that changing camera every three years is what I want, I just couldn't made my mind about which of D/DS would be more to my taste. I still think not adding wireless control to built-in flash is stupid! Okay, I'll dig throught archives. Thanks for pointer. Leon
RE: istd or istds or wait?
>>> >> >> I see. Didn't know that. How stupid. I was eyeing DS, but >it's now off >> the list. > >I guess that wireless flash control is important to your work? >For me, it's "nice feature, but never used it" kinda thing. So >far, my flash needs have been fulfilled nicely by a couple of >non-dedicated Sunpak 383 units and a few Lumiquest bounce >diffusers, a Wein slave trigger. > Well, it's not vital. Ocassionally I use MZ-6 and a combination of built-in and FGZ in wireless mode. Works better than bouncing off the ceiling. I guess I would miss the convenience. Leon
RE: PESO -- Off Road II
I second that. Very unexpected. Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: Anthony Farr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 6:53 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: RE: PESO -- Off Road II > >"Off Road I " was a nice shot of a toy in the forest. "Off >Road II" is a work of art. It's weird and wonderful and I >could look at it all day long. > >regards, >Anthony Farr > >> -Original Message- >> From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Another take: >> >> http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_offroadII.html >> >> Technical Data: >> >> smc Pentax-FA 28-200mm f3.8~5.6AL[IF] @65mm f6.7 Pentax >*ist-D iso-400 >> 1/180sec. >> >> Some tweaking in Raw conversion and Photoshop, but nothing major. >> Pretty much as captured. >> >
RE: PESO (s) Various bird shots...
Funny, but I like Egres Out of Focus, too. Not prefer it to the in-focus one, just like it on its own. I brings a feeling of distance, of being far away. Leon >-Original Message- >From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:16 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: PESO (s) Various bird shots... > >On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:00:12 -0400, frank theriault wrote: > >> Well, Peter, you're going to hate me for this, but my fave of the >> bunch is Egret Out of Focus. > >OK, so is _anyone_ surprised by that. :-) It's Theriaultian. > > >TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > >
RE: PESO Whistle Stop
Cute. I like the light and composition. And the light. Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: Scott Loveless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:19 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: PESO Whistle Stop > >Howdy, Gang! > >Here's a photo of my daughter last fall at the Whistle Stop. >It's an old train station converted into an ice cream parlor >near St. Louis. > >http://twosixteen.com/gallery/index.php?id=29 > >-- >Scott Loveless >http://www.twosixteen.com > >-- >"You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman > >
RE: istd or istds or wait?
> >>> The D body has a few features that some find essential/convenient >>> (like the dual control wheels, HyperProgram, battery grip access, >>> wireless flash control in the body); the DS has simpler controls, a >>> few more program presets for snapshooters, and overall faster >>> operation - it's also a little bit smaller and lighter. >>> >> >> Are you by "... wireless flash control in the body ..." >saying that I >> could use my 360FGZ (hope I got the letters right) in wireless mode >> only with D but not DS? > >Basically, with the D you need one 360FGZ unit and with the DS >you need at least two. > >The D's built-in flash supports wireless control of the >360FGZ. The DS will also allow wireless flash control, but you >need one 360FGZ mounted on the body to control a remote >360FGZ; its built-in flash does not support the control protocol. I see. Didn't know that. How stupid. I was eyeing DS, but it's now off the list. Thanks, Leon
RE: PESO - Away From His Desk
> >In my culture, anyone seeing such a structure, even only a >part of it, knows that it is a coastal swimming baths. Most >of these were built in the early 20th Century as a way of >providing Olympic standard pools that can be refreshed cheaply >and easily with seawater, thus not requiring filtration or >chemical treatment. At any time in daylight, in any weather, >you can expect to see a swimmer 'doing laps'. You don't have to be from down under to recognize a swimmer in the swimming pool It's a very good photograph, and the swimmer opens to many interpretations. Without a swimmer this would different photograph, a much more minimalistic one. The one I'd prefer, I think Cheers, Leon
RE: istd or istds or wait?
>The D body has a few features that some find >essential/convenient (like the dual control wheels, >HyperProgram, battery grip access, wireless flash control in >the body); the DS has simpler controls, a few more program >presets for snapshooters, and overall faster operation - it's >also a little bit smaller and lighter. Are you by "... wireless flash control in the body ..." saying that I could use my 360FGZ (hope I got the letters right) in wireless mode only with D but not DS? Leon
RE: PAW PESO - Portrait of a Woman in White
1. Feet are missing. It bothers me. I know she's sitting, and if the feet were there, we'd be seeing only the soles of the shoes, still I miss them. You may try to try knee-up portrait - that would leave enough of the left wheel to still place her in the wheel chair. It would also go better with the tight framing of the top of the head. 2. Background is busy, sure, but the most tragic thing is that plastic bottle just behind her left shoulder. 3. Shadow left by her head on the white cloth looks bluish. It's probably because of the sunny day, nevertheless our eyes would still see it darker but not bluish. I quickly transformed the picture into grayscale and imho works better. Maybe it's even worth trying some sephia toning. Other than that I find it interesting at the least. Leon >-Original Message- >From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 6:46 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: PAW PESO - Portrait of a Woman in White > >I'm not sure if I like this one. There are some aspects to it >that I find quite compelling, and others that suggest I could >have done a much better job on this one. Others from the >series were dismal failures. > >http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/wiw.html > > >Shel >
RE: PESO: I Was Wrong! Hurrah!
> >Oh, yes, she can do that. But I am not good enough at throwing >the frisbie for her to catch it in the air regularly. > >Incidentally, for this shot I had to both throw the frisbie >and take the photo. Good thing you remembered to throw the frisbie and not the lens Lens seems to be doing fine, but then, you can't really tell from the low-resolution image. Leon
RE: Paranoid question of the week...
>I'm a little out of touch with all of this, but AFAIK, >depending on the key size and encryption algorithim you pick, >it would still take current technology available to the >governments decades or centuries to crack something encoded by >PGP using DSA or AES right? > >On 5/20/05, Leon Mlakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The original question was about CF card (from the camera, I assume). >> That would require in-camera PGP software. Government budget >is likely >> to be able to break through PGP, though. >> For all what *we* (that is, general public) know, yes, you are correct. My statement was meant to be in the context of original question but really wasn't phrased like that. In this context I think the camera manufactures, if they implemented on-camera PGP, they would still not want to sacrifice speed over security. Given limited processing power of the camera that would mean less CPU intensive algorithms and more importantly, shorter keys. Leon
RE: Raw
>-Original Message- >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 12:52 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: Raw > >I differ with you on how to present the information to someone >who doesn't need to know about it/isn't ready for it. You >might find it useful to hear things that you balk at >understanding immediately, with the notion that you might >recognize that the information exists at a later date. Some >folks, the majority in my experience, become distracted and >confused by too much information presented at once and often >I've seen them give up on an endeavor entirely (and I don't >mean that this applies specifically to Ann at all). > Apart from difference in people, the medium you choose to convey the information is also likely to play an important role. In an oral lecture, presentation, training, etc, people are more likely to become distracted, bored, confused when confronted with the answers they did not have questions for yet. In a written form, however, one has a coice of skiping over the parts one is not ready for yet and returning back later. Leon
RE: PESO: Initmate moments
>-Original Message- >From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 12:28 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: PESO: Initmate moments > >On 5/19/05, Leon Mlakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Touche! You know, the original title was "Climbing up [the ladder of >> life]", but changed it later as I wasn't sure whether this photo can >> really convey such message. Thank you (I guess :-) for >making me wrong! > >Well, it's funny, but every kid's different. Yes they are. By the Great Joke of the Universe, I live in a building with three apartments ... and three children, born ten day apart. So I can make direct comparison, without time lapse ... Ours is the most beautiful, the smartest, the everything, of course :-) > As a father of >three, > [ ] You're living with three ladies and used to live with four No wonder you're seeking an escape in taking snapshots of cats >It's also funny how the photo quotient drops with each child. >First one, literally hundreds. Second, maybe 100. Third, >well, my camera was stolen, and I took a while to get a new one. After a year, I'm at about five rolls of color neg. and three or four rolls of BW. Not counting obligatory snaps of trips, family gatherings, etc. I use another body with sigma zoom for those Cheers, Leon
RE: Paranoid question of the week...
>From: Graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:28 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: Paranoid question of the week... > >Well, the fornistic types claim they can now copy files from a >hard drive that has been rewritten multiple times and bulk >erased. So if you need real data security I recommend total >distruction of the drive. >From magentic disk it is often possible. CF (flash memory) is a different, solid state technology that does not suffer from imprecisions of mechanical movements. I very much doubt that once you erase the previous contents of the flash memory block and overwrite it with new contents (like zeroing everything), there's any residual charge left that would permit the identification of the old contents. I belive a single overwrite would do. >Or you can just encrypt everything with PGP and not worry too >much about actually erasing it. The original question was about CF card (from the camera, I assume). That would require in-camera PGP software. Government budget is likely to be able to break through PGP, though. Disclaimer: I'm better with computers than with my camera. Still, I'm no hardware expert. If you (that is, original poster) have serious concerns about this, you should consult an expert in the field. Cheers, Leon
RE: PESO: Copenhagen Carnival 2005
Nice set you've got there. But, may I ask, why you seem to be using 28-70 at f/8 or f/11 all the time? I mean, some shots like Karneval-05_IGP2573, Karneval-05_IGP2624, Karneval-05_IGP2459, maybe Karneval-05_IGP2470, Karneval-05_IGP2466, Karneval-05_IGP2502 could have benefited from shallower DOF to blur the background a bit? The way you did with most 70-210 shots. Were you really carrying three cameras? Cheers, Leon >-Original Message- >From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:48 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: RE: PESO: Copenhagen Carnival 2005 > >OK >The last 10 files in this "set" is from todays Carnival Shoot: >http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/272378/ > >Jens Bladt >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > >-Oprindelig meddelelse- >Fra: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sendt: 14. maj 2005 21:43 >Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Emne: RE: PESO: Copenhagen Carnival 2005 > > >Hi Jens >I am waiting for "more" too before giving a comment ;-) >greetings Markus > >>>Jens Bladt wrote: >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/13828373/ Cotty: More pics of chicks will follow! Comments are welcome. Regards Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > >
RE: PESO: Initmate moments
> >I think what I like about it is that at once, it seems to >emphasize how helpless and dependant on others an infant of >this age is, yet it seems that she's already trying her best, >in her limited way to explore and see what's up with the world. > Touche! You know, the original title was "Climbing up [the ladder of life]", but changed it later as I wasn't sure whether this photo can really convey such message. Thank you (I guess :-) for making me wrong! Cheers, Leon
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
> >--- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here is a book that I recommend to people who want to take better >> pictures, but don't really want to learn photography. >> >> John Hedgecoe's Photography Basics by John Hedgecoe >> >> Perhaps it is more what you are looking for. > >I will look into that one, thanks. > >And I am not sure what I am looking for, either. > Learning craft takes time and work. For the time being I gave up investing time to learn it properly and am satisfied (but not happy) with taking what basically are snapshots with increment >From what you wrote, it sounds like you're aware of the time and work involved, just not sure whether you want to invest either. Or at least, how deep you want to dig into it. Leon
RE: PESO: Initmate moments
>-Original Message- >From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:47 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: PESO: Initmate moments > >I'd agree with everything Bruce said, plus add that the >background seems a little bright for this type of shot. It >adds a bit of harshness where, I'd think, softness is in >order. Now when you mention it, yes, I see what you mean. I didn't really noticed it before. > Losing a small bit off the left side may help as well. > Theres' a lot more wasted space there than is necessary. > Yes, there's a lot of space there. I'm not yet sure whether it adds or takes away. Thanks for suggestions. Cheers, Leon
RE: PESO: Initmate moments
>Things I would like to see: > Just a little more DOF - not lots, but I would like to see just a > bit of the hand and a bit more of the top of head being in >focus - use > your DOF preview to gauge how much > > Eyes - a baby's eyes are so deep and full of communication - I would > really like to see more than this - probably a slightly different > angle would do it. > >Keep at it, they grow so quickly and change all the time. > Indeed they do. Thanks for suggestions. I do agree about the eyes. If I was to choose one of three things suggested by you and Shel, it would be "try a different angle". I have one frame where she lifted her head a bit more, but has weaker overall composition. I might reconsider again. I'm not so sure about DOF - I have several frames stopped down one and then one and half stop (this one was taken at f/2) but they just don't feel so ... well, intimate. Cheers, Leon
RE: PESO: Initmate moments
>> >>Comments appreciated (even if only >>I-would-move-camera-teen-feet-away-and-stand-on-the-left-foot kind :-) > >I wouldn't change a thing. Brilliant shot. Well done. > I won't - I can't. It was taken seven months ago. Only started to clean up huge backlog - it was sort of busy year :-)
PESO: Initmate moments
Ok, let's bite the bullet ... I'm trying to build a collection of hopefully non-cliché portraits of my daughter, as she grows. This is one of my favorites: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3374686 If you don't care for photos of other people kids, never mind, just skip this one. Every so often I get a chance to shoot something else, too :-) Comments appreciated (even if only I-would-move-camera-teen-feet-away-and-stand-on-the-left-foot kind :-) Leon
RE: Can I be a ludite please?!
> >>My daughter, several years hence, will >>keep asking me in wonder: "Why is this so blurry, Dady?" > >Teller "It's not blurry, it's Theriaultean". >;-) > ;-) I like that shot.
RE: Can I be a ludite please?!
>> >> It's a New Way - everything sharp from the nose to infinity. >> ... >> Marketing types selling this as a big advantage. > >Ansel Adams touted it as the way in his f64 days. >It's not a new thing. The "New" part is that you have to have it on each and every photo from those mass produced tiny-sensor compact digicams. Period. >Marketing is taking a system flaw and trying to sucker people >into thinking >it is an advantage. Sure. And gradually, being unable to produce and very rarely to see anything else, people develop "everything sharp" aestetics sense, closing the circle.
RE: Can I be a ludite please?!
>-Original Message- >From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 8:12 AM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: Can I be a ludite please?! > >On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 07:32:17AM +0200, Jens Bladt wrote: >> Three things about digital photography are superior to film: > >> 3) Better DOF at the same AOV. > >Well, *greater* DOF at the same AOV (and f-stop). > >More isn't necessarily better. > It's a New Way - everything sharp from the nose to infinity. Can be seen on New Era family snapshots and holiday photos. Have to keep searching who's there on purpose and who by accident. My daughter, several years hence, will keep asking me in wonder: "Why is this so blurry, Dady?" Marketing types selling this as a big advantage. Leon
RE: 500mm Zooms
The current Photo-of-the-week on www.photo.net was made by Sigma 50-500. Looks decent, at least at the resolution presented. Leon >-Original Message- >From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:04 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: 500mm Zooms > >Does anyone have any experience or comments on the following lenses? > >Sigma Zoom Telephoto 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO Aspherical for Pentax AF > >http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A =details&Q=&sku=121742&is=REG > >Sigma Zoom Normal-Telephoto 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX APO RF >Autofocus Lens for Pentax AF > >http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A =details&Q=&sku=192448&is=USA > >Thanks. > >Tom C. > > > >>From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >>Subject: Re: OT: Digital camera sales in the USA >>Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:50:15 -0400 >> >>You understand, good. It's amazing how many others do not. >> >>Tom C wrote: >> >>>How can that work. Losing money on every sale means the higher the >>>volume the more money you lose. Unless of course you're being >>>faceatious. ;) >>> >>>Tom C. >>> >>> >>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Digital camera sales in the USA Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:41:45 -0400 Yep, they lose money on every sale, how do they make it up, Volume. Bob Sullivan wrote: >Found this in email today. Somebody said there is nothing so >devistating to an opinion as a fact. With 900,000 shipped >and a 20% >market share, I make it 4,500,000 digital P&S cameras for >the USA in >the 1st quarter. Wow. >Regards, Bob S. > >Kodak Leads in U.S. Digital-Camera Market ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - >Eastman Kodak Co., which shipped more digital cameras in >the United >States in 2004 than any of its Japanese rivals, retained >its edge in >the first quarter, a market research firm said Monday. >Kodak shipped 900,000 point-and-shoot digital cameras to domestic >retailers in the January-to-March quarter - 41 percent >more than in >the first quarter of 2004 - and its market share rose to 20.4 >percent from 18.1 percent a year ago, according to IDC, based in >Framingham, Mass. > > > > -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>A man's only as old as the woman he feels. >> --Groucho Marx >> > > >
RE: reverse mounting lenses
> >I don't think I would be able to shoot 3x macro of anything >that flies. :) Yeah, you have a point here :) I just associated word "bug" with "flying" (guess that comes with English being a second language) and forgot about the magnification you're trying to get. Leon
RE: reverse mounting lenses
Wireless flash and P-TTL are both useful but not essential. HSS, contrary to what you implied, is not a good idea for stopping a motion. At the speeds beyond the flash sync speed the shutter is never completely open, hence a single flash pulse cannot expose entire frame. HSS works by delivering a series of light pulses that are sync'ed with movement of the gap in the shutter that let's the light to the film/CCD. This means that the fast moving subject is "frozen" several times with several light pulses. HSS is only good for fill flash on a sunny day if you want to shoot open to reduce DOF. To freeze the motion you're much better off using shutter speeds lower than the sync speed. Remember, the duration of a single flash pulse is 1/2000th of a second or less, depending on how much light is necessary. If you stop down enough, the fast moving parts (wings?) of the subject will not get recorded on the film/CCD so you'll see no blur. See http://webs.lanset.com/rcochran/flash/hss.html for some examples and more technical details. Leon >-Original Message- >From: David Zaninovic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:38 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: reverse mounting lenses > >> Pentax flashes can deliver TTL even with screw-mount lenses, >but don't >> have any hopes for P-TTL. > >I would like to have P-TTL because of the wireless high speed >flash option on my D. I will try to find some tubes that will >transfer electrical contacts. >It is much easier to shoot bugs handheld with flash set to >1/4000 speed and have a few tries to get the focus right. > >
RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
> > Batter is made from flour, eggs and water. Pasta is made from > flour, eggs and water. But they're different things. Kerry > and Bush no doubt shared plenty of ideas with each other, and > with socialists and with the Monster Raving Loony Party. But > they're all different parties. > There are no eggs in pasta. It used to be food of the poor. Made of just flour and water. Leon
RE: Re: Odp: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Different opinions are expected, as always, just don't take > it personal. :) > > Sometimes it's very hard not to take it personal. > I wonder if I'm really the only one PDML'er who thinks that > Z-1p is user friendly and easy to master, Nope, you're not. PZ-1p is my third camera, after Minolta 505si and Pentax SuperProgram. I did not find it complex to understand and after some ten rolls I can set most frequent things without thinking about it. I found the user manual that comes with it close to useless, though. There are many things other people mentioned that are not there, but I'm fairly happy with the camera. But I do not have 20 or more years of experience with photography and have not developed "my ways of doing things" yet. I guess that for someone that comes from the more traditional line of cameras, PZ-1p may require some rethinking of basic techniques one used to use with more "classic" bodies. Hyper modes, however practical, may feel just too different for such audience, at least at first. > the only one who > feels that MZ-S is not as good as it could and should have > been. Can't say as I didn't really use it apart for short time in the shop. However, when choosing between used PZ-1p and new MZ-S based on reviews and data sheets, I did not find the latter attractive enough to justify the extra money. Regards, Leon - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: (P)Z-1p on-line manual needed...
http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6 Cheers, Leon > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 9:51 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: (P)Z-1p on-line manual needed... > > > Hello, > Somebody posted a link to the (P)Z-1p on-line manual some > time ago. Could you please repost it to the group? I've lost > it somewhere... > TIA > Greetz > Encor > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
