Sigs (was Re[3]: My own DOF confusion)
collin, you are a troll and a moron. shut up. and i am with lasse -- your sig had no place in pdlm. mishka -Original Message- From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <...>
Re[3]: My own DOF confusion
was this a discussion from a different list? speaking of the subj, apparently, the "shallow DOF" term doesn't apply only to lenses. mishka > > Fra: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > DagT: > > Yes, he is a Marxist. An avid follower of Hitler & Stalin.
Re[2]: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > One question though - I am going to have to work with my lens > > stopped down due to the excess light. Probably in the realm > > of f16. This totally sucks for portraiture as it increases > > depth of field. Any suggestions how to fix this? > > If you put one (or more like a couple) of Neutral Density filters on the > front then this will cut the light entering the lens and let you open up > the aperture again. This one is pretty simple to fix really. won't that screw up the AF? mishka
Re[2]: JPEG Question
The "reduced" algorithm, from the FAQ is fairly simple: 1. Transform the image into a suitable color space. 2. (Optional -- omitted) 3. Group the pixel values for each component into 8x8 blocks. Transform each 8x8 block through a discrete cosine transform 4. In each block, divide each of the 64 frequency components by a separate "quantization coefficient", and round the results to integers. 5. Encode the reduced coefficients using either Huffman or arithmetic coding. 6. Tack on appropriate headers, etc, and output the result. Basically, the 3rd step is where the "pixel" come into play. In theory, one can write a codec for an arbitrary color depth. In practice, I am yet to see one. Since all "observable" codecs work on 24 bit color, there's a good reason to think of JPEG as 24 bit format (if you want to be able to read it back, anyway). BTW, zipped 24 bit tiff would be still a 24 bit format, although the concept of "bits per channel" just doesn't exist inside a zip file :) Mishka -Original Message- From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:14:26 + Subject: Re: JPEG Question > > Sorry to rain on your parade, but JPEG is far more complicated than > "eight bits per channel". Internally, there is no concept even of > pixels! Regular JPEGs are usually created from 8-bit-per-channel > bitmaps, and there's not much point in converting them back into bitmaps > of greater depth than that before viewing or printing them, but there > the concept of "bits per channel" just doesn't exist inside a JPEG file. > > If you want to enter the scary world of lossy compression techniques, a > good starting place is the comp.compression FAQ at > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/. JPEG is described in section > 75, which is in part 2 of the FAQ. > > S
Re: JPEG Question
The "usual" JPEG (not JPEG2000) is indeed 24 bit format, 8 bits/color. I have never heard of printers (non-exotic) that would print 16 bit/color. So printing JPEG would give you an image as good as it gets. Of course, assuming you are not talking about JPEG artifacts here. OTOH, if you edit your images first, tweaking the color balance, curves/levels, etc, 16 bit gives a huge advantage. If you do it in 8 bit/color mode, you may easily run into problems with the "colour depth thing", and that will most definitely show on the prints. I normally do all the edits in 16 bit mode, and convert to JPEG only when I am absolutely happy with the final result. Best, Mishka -Original Message- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:44:11 -0600 Subject: JPEG Question > > I am still trying to get my head around the JPEG colour depth thing. > > Anders (I believe) mentioned that a Jpeg is 8 bit per colour, for a > total of 24 bit colour. > > I can do the math, and can see that this should be very good colour > depth (256x256x256=16777216). > > My question however is, since it is still 8 bit per colour, is the > Jpeg file still really limited in fine colour delineation because it > is limited to 256 discreet shades per primary colour? > > My reason for asking is that what I see coming off my digital printer > at work has obviously inferior colour depth to the work coming off > the optical printer. > > Thanks > > William Robb > > >
Re: [1630] trackball problems
what kind of trackball? wired, wireless? optical? i have a wireless optical from logitech, and that kind of behavior usually means that my receiving base cannot get the signal. home this helps mishka -Original Message- From: "Mubeen Noorbhai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:40:14 +0200 Subject: [1630] trackball problems > > Hi All, > > I'm having a bit of a problem with the trackball on my 1630. Has anybody > else had this. It dosn't move very smoothly across the screen and gets stuck > just below the needle position selection area. Blown Board, dirty ball??? > > Any help appreciated > > Feroze > >
Re[2]: no fate but what we make
those are design issues, and size is one of the constraints. mx and me-s are of the same size, but their design differs quite a bit, so you are in effect saying: those small buttons on me-s are because the camera is too small (*)! but those small buttons are only one possible solution, as mx shows. it's only a matter of creativity of the design team, given the constraints. and, for one, i would want a small camera. in fact, i would want, ideally, a vanishingly small tiny camera, provided it takes quality pictures. mishka (*) i did like the buttons when i had that camera. -Original Message- From: John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <...> > All these are size issues. Nobody wants a smaller camera. > > I think APS may be with us in various flavours for a very long time. > > John
Re[2]: Digital Imaging, File Formats, and Color
hey, you can always send your files to india... or, wherever all techies will be, at that time. mishka -Original Message- From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > That's true. Let's hope that people like John Francis still hang around by > then...:-)
Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
this has probably been discussed to death before, but what's the reason to use chromogenic bw? if you take a color negative film, and print on bw paper, wouldn't it give you the same result? am i missing something very basic here? best, mishka -Original Message- From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Traditional B&W film. It should work with Chromogenic B&W. But then > Bill doesn't like Chromogenic B&W.
Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
i scanned a few rolls of BW (some tmax100, some trix, some really old svema) on the nikon -- apart from the fact that ice is not working with it, i couldn't see anything to complain about. just make sure you save and edit all in 16 bit mode, otherwise all you'll have is 256 shades of grey. mishka -Original Message- From: "Nick Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:16:19 - Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner > > I have once scanned B&W with the nikon but not to very good effect. However the > negative was very thin as I'd used some > old chemicals to process it, something I don't do very often as I almost exclusively > use Fuji Velvia or Sensia 200 slide > film. > Best get the answer to this one from someone more experienced. > > Nick
Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
-Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hi Nick In what way was the Minolta "rubbish?" Have > you scanned B&W negs with either? I also used CoolScan 4000 for almost 2 years, and Minolta Scan Multi II for a few months. I might have had a defective unit, but Minolta -- had serious banding problems -- the software is a piece of crap, that didn't do even what it was supposed to -- the color reproduction (esp. the blue channel) was horrible. I routinely had pink areas (like, peoples lips) on my scans that had 0 blue! it had a great price from calumet, but turned out to be a worthless piece of junk. OTOH, the nikon was truly great scanner, and the only reason i parted with it was to be able to scan mf as well. now i am waiting for the 9000 model. mishka
Re[2]: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena
From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sigma have already made a full-frame 12-24mm zoom - a 10mm prime sounds > tricky but not impossible in my decidedly unexpert opinion :-) Have you used it? Neither have I. Mostly, because I haven't seen a single review, saying that it's any good at 12mm. Jeez, take a 20/4, put a digicam's wide angle converter on it -- bang! - problem solved. Mishka
Re[4]: why new optics
maybe it's just because i have never used a lab where you worked at :) mishka -Original Message- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Funny thing about that is that in the labs i have worked at, if the > negative came in sharp, the print from it would leave sharp.
Re: Photographer a Week: Chernobyl
i am wondering how many people here are regularly reading /. ? best, mishka -Original Message- From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:10:51 -0500 Subject: Photographer a Week: Chernobyl > > This woman lives not to far from Chernobyl, and she likes to ride her > motorcycle through there because she can ride fast without encountering > anyone else. Looks like she's a snapshooter but the photographs and > captions are very moving and some of her observations are pretty funny. > The site is about 17 pages long. > > http://www.phule.net/mirrors/chernobyl-kiddofspeed/chernobyl-page01.html > >
re: DA lenses
> From: edwin > > I think the answer is that the DA lenses are smaller than they would be if > they were not DA. Does anybody make a 16-45 that covers 35mm format? > Sigma's 15-35 is not exactly small. by the same reasoning lenses in 35mm format and, say, 6x6, covering the same angle, should be about the same size. well, apparently (luckily!) my SMCA 24mm/2.8 is *much* smaller than hassy's 50mm/2.8 best, mishka
Re: Totally OT but...
what made you change your mind? still naively thinking -- mishka > I was living in Texas > at the time and still thought marguerites in bulk > was a good idea. > > Steven Desjardins
Re: Faces to names...
cotty, thanx -- although i would be a tiny bit happier if that were coming from tanya mishka > >mishka > > Too damned good-looking !
Re: Totally OT but...
man... i thought i invented it, when i had my third one this summer anyway, happy birthday, tanya! mishka > Could be worse. Next August is my second annual 29th > birthday. I'm still in denial... > > -Mat
Re: Faces to names...
here we go: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=136649&size=lg best, mishka
Vs: Panorama project
> Nah, this is not nice, it s great. I just got back > from St. Petersburg and this is better than the city > itself ;-) thanks, Raimo. i have very mixed feelings about this city. the locals tend to think it's the most beautiful place on earth. but when i visit it it usually takes me a few days to adapt to start seeing the great palaces hiding behind the piles of dirt and garbage... still i have to admit, the tons of money (or whatever left, passing through the layers and layers of thieves) thrown at it lately did help a bit. in the downtown at least. > Do you all use Macs because it is a bit dark on my > screen? no, it really is darker than it really is, and it's PS7 fault: this is what happens when i say "save for web", and unfortunately, this is how it has to be done for photo.net best, Mishka
Re: PayPal Beware - seller tracking number mandatory for your safety
> The problem is that PayPal instituted this policy > without notification. This is of course is a serious problem, no matter whether the policy change itself is good or bad. I guess I misread your original posting. Best, Mishka
Re: PayPal Beware - seller tracking number mandatory for your safety
This is totally stupid to blame a business for covering itself from online fraud liabilities! Guess what: if were there no fraud, there wouldn't have been this issue either. They provide a service, with nothing coming close in terms of cost and convenience. I suppose, they run into problems with dealing with fraud ($, PR, and so on) Do you want *them* to absorb it all, and give you a free lunch? The only viable alternative, from business pow is to raise the service charges, and I prefer their current approach a lot! best, Mishka
OT: Sigma SD10, preview and samples
10.2 MPixels... i am wondering how long before their marketoids start calling it 40.8 MPixels (after all, one *could* interpolate around the pixels oh wait, why stop at 40.8? let's call it 160!) sheesh... mishka
Re: OT: metering with 2x TC question
2x converter lets 1/4 light through. Therefore, your lens should be at f/5.6 instead of f/11 Best, mishka > If i'm reading say, 1/250 f 11,what do i set the > lens at.If the converter is letting in 1/2 the light > as Tom R mentioned,it is now an F8 lens,so should i > set the aperature ring on F 8 in stead of F11
RE: Sell me your useless film cameras
well, i suppose, for printing uncropped images at 8x10, 6M of RGB pixels is as goot as it gets. but i don't now any digicam capable of that. yet. but if anyone still shoots B&W film... a 6MP digicam has exactly 2M of pixels of each color. iow, with a red filter on (not that uncommon i suppose, or in photoshop-speak, with red channel selected), it is exactly equivalent to a 2MP digicam. i am sure there will be lots of people claiming that a 2MP digicam is capable of beating 6x7 at printing up to 8x10 and beyond and there also are transparencies on a light table, which look nothing like whatever a 21" monitor is capable of showing (i do have a digital camera and a light table, so i am speaking from my own experience). at any rate, i am yet to see any bargains in either horribly outdated K-mount classics, or in medium format. i suppose the guys who claimed that the market is smarter then the individuals that make it up, knew what they were talking about best, mishka
Re: New to the list
I'll quote this to the judge at my ticket hearing in a couple of weeks -- 80 mph: "Yor Hono(u)r, but this is what this has been design for, dammit!". If it works and he lets me off the hook (not to mention the $200 ticket), I'll even agree with the "low-cost option" part. mishka > Highway System (designed for an average road speed > of 80Mph) travel by road for long distances has been > a reasonable low-cost option in the USA.
Re: *ist-D ad claimed to be sexist
Now I feel sooo much better (although, in my case, definitely the reverse is true) I guess, the ideal ad would show a scantily clad girl trying an *istD and a scantily clad guy holding a bunch of FA* lenses (the big ones, to really get the message across) for her. For the precious moments indeed. Not sure where to stick some violence there, maybe making them wear khaki underwear and heavy boots... mishka > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > And, speaking for myself, I'd rather look at a great > new camera than a scantily-clad woman -- anytime.
Re: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses
i don't know much about *cAmpatibility* (i suppose that has something to do with camps and campari?), but the rest is BS, be it USA or not. mishka > I don't like all this whining on the > list re non-A lenses. If you haven't bought a new > lens since 1981, you are not keeping Pentax in > business anyway. No other company has campatibility > back to the mid-1980s like Pentax. And the *ist-D is > very competitive with any Canon SLR right now. > >Robert James >USA
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
> > a $8000 PC from 20 years ago would still run its > > original software just fine, and is screen would > > still show those gorgeous 4 shades of green... > > And you just compared the computer equivalent of > rubbing two sticks together or using a Zippo to > start a campfire. > > William Robb that was exactly the point i wanted to make. mishka
Re[2]: FA* 80-200mm f/2.8
let me know when you decide to ditch those. i will gladly accept a donation, cost free for you. i don't have any problem whatsoever justifying the primes. especially the fast ones and the macros. mishka -Original Message- > Once you get a hold of a high quality 80-200 F2.8 > lens, it's pretty hard to justify primes in that > range anymore, no more 85,105,120,135,150,180 or 200 > lenses. > Maybe that justifies the higher price of the > zoom. > JCO
Re[3]: FA* 80-200mm f/2.8
> it would replace my 200m f/2.8 (any interest?). you bet! mishka
Re[2]: Concerning the "A" connections
then why not just short it on the body, permanently? mishka > It doesn't know what kind of lens is present, but it > knows that the "A" > pin isn't shorted they way it should be. The camera > doesn't care if this > is because you have a K/M lens mounted or if you are > using an "A" lens > with the aperture ring in the wrong position. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > >
OT: Minolta Multi II
sucks! here goes my hope of scanning MF on a budget. i sold nikon 4000 this summer and got this instead, and it's been an excercise in frustration ever since. the resolution (1180dpi) is ok for my purposes. but pretty much everything else is horrible. the minolta software is lousy, it does horrible job with colors (and realy screws up the green channel if you have saturated reds), vuescan is a tad better, but still, it is as true to the film as 4x6 prints from an 1hr lab are. and the scans have banding no matter how you try, so i believe this is a hardware problem. it's ok as long as you don't adjust the levels. but since there's no analog gain control in hardware, levels is the only way to adjust the final scan. anyway, it's off to ebay, and i would recommend anyone considering getting one to think again. i guess i'll be waiting for the next gen of nikon multiformat offering... mishka.
Re: Following street photography threads
Not sure about Lazlo, but I liked the shot a lot. The geometry, the balance of the umbrella and its shadow, the position of the figures, symmetric wrt to the shadow, but not the umbrella -- it all works wonderfully, for my taste. best, mishka > Lazlo Moholy Nagy, maybe? > Regards > > Albano
Unidentified subject!
To RFsing: > The point of view Miska continues to demonstrate is > deplorable. If he can't adapt his beliefs and > attitudes to this country, perhaps he should return > to a government and political system he is more > comfortable with. We won't miss him here... "We" -- like "We, His Royal Highness"? Anyway, thanks for letting me know that the freedom means "the freedom to adapt my beliefs to yours". To Boris: -- > It is also as much inappropriate to insult a > father whose son just lost two feet in line of duty. My response was to posting the article which I find inappropriate for this list. I did not send it to the list. I was hinting to Bob that this is not the place to post it. I have sent my sypmathies to him about his son more than once. To Gary L. Murphy - > Just consider the source. The Time Magazine > People like that do not have the guts to fight for > something they believe in I don't have tons of believes. OTOH, if you want a piece of me... To Bob Blakely > Another PDML fucker. Thanks for taking my off-line responses to the list and starting another lively discussion. Again, I am sorry for your son's loss. I didn't imply anything about him personaly. But we've been over this times and again. To all: --- I have joined this list over a year ago hoping to discuss things at least remotely related to photography. I don't care if people here are americans, britts, russians, germans, finns, jews, or small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri, and if they slaughter cats, dolphins and bold eagles. As long as it happens off-list. Let's stop this now.
Re: Congrats to Cotty!!!
Ditto! Looking forward to a "Married an proud of it!" thread Best, Mishka
Re: Barcelona
been there this spring. couldn't agree more with you. i still cry whenever i remeber this 30-cents-a-beer city. best, mishka
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
Maybe I need to see a shrink, but if you saw me mentioning the focal length, I suggest you re-read my message and keep your imagination in check. I was talking about *dimensions*: d has dimensions of *length* (m, yards, leagues) c has dimensions of *length* (mm, inches, miles, a.e) m is dimensionless (magnification) f is either dimensionless (Mark, me), or has dimensions of aperture, that is, diameter, i.e. length (cm, feet, parsec) (m+1)/m^2 is dimensionless. f*c MUST have dimensions of length, to be consistent with the fact that d ~ f*c* [dimensionless constant] therefore, f *must* be dimensionless, in other words, it is an F-stop, not the actual aperture diameter. that is unless you measure DOF in square feet or magnification in inches. but that would be a totally different subject . is that clear *now*? best, Mishka > copied and pasted from Mark's post: > > > d = 2fc*(m+1)/m^2 > > > > where d=dof, f = f stop, c = circle of confusion > > size, and m = magnification. > > Now, if anyone can see a value for focal length in > the above formula, he needs to talk to a good shrink > about his over active imagination. > > > My reply was change "f" to "a" (aperture-diameter) > to correct the formula. > (Though in the copy I have f = aperture, which is > the same as using a). > > Us people who know everything are getting real tired > of you people who think you know everything . > > > Ciao, > Graywolf - Original Message - From: "mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > if you look at the formula, as Mark and I wrote it, > the DOF has dimensions of length. if you change f- > stop to the actual diameter, the dimension will > become length^2, which cannot be. > > best, > Mishka
Re: Help with PUG
> > Get a Mac. > > Get a life. ... Get a job. Get a career. Get a family. Get a $%^& big television... Mishka
Re: OT - Brit and proud
dude, are you implying someone should start bombing DC? hold your horses! mishka From: Dan Matyola > It will go on until allthe terrorists and brutal > dictators have no place to hide . . .
Unidentified subject!
yup. for President of Iraq. where people would be able to fully appreciate the finer points of his wit. mishka > Tony Blair for President :-) > > Cheers, > Cotty
Re: Will Digital SLRs improve consumer 35mm zoom lenses?
That depends on what do you intend to use it for. For "general purpose photography" (which probably means, if one midrange zoom is enough and ISO400 and higher is not required), high end digicams are pretty good. I'd say, go for it, for under $400 one can get a very decent 4MP one. Canon G2 comes to mind. I know since I got one. Mishka > Should I stop waiting and just buy one of the 5 mp > slr-like digicams?
give it a rest (was Re: freedom-schmeedom)
althought i had an argument with keith, i do agree with him here: no one made any comments "at the kids expense", you might want to re-read the messages. this kind of accusations is waaay overboard! now *you* are trying to push the buttons. we have dropped the public dicussion here yesterday, so what exactly are you trying to accomplish now, bringing it up here again? mishka > From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: freedom-schmeedom > > > Peter Alling wrote: > > Look Keith, usually I'd be on you side. In this > > case both of you and mishka are off the > > reservation. All you're doing is pushing each > > others buttons and not illuminating the > > argument at all. > This is why I said we've taken it offline. > If Miska wants to pursue the subject, right or > wrong, I'll happily do so, one on one. > If it keeps all you from getting your butts in an > uproar over misunderstood verbal meanderings. > This place is a real seething nest, isn't it. > Haven't figured out it's purpose yet, but I remain > properly wary... > > Especially since it's at the expense of a kid > > who's been badly hurt doing what he believed in.
OT: Barebones Darkroom
Don't be cheap and get (stainless) Hewes reels (e.g from Adorama). I have learned the lesson the hard way, ruining a few rolls, complaining to the world how stainless reels suck, then, buying one of these beauties -- and I have never been happier. Loading a Hewes 35mm reel is completely fool-proof. Mishka > 1) Developing tank with reels, (or reel). I'm > partial to stainless steel they're a bit more > difficult to learn to use but you'll never find > yourself with film binding because there's moisture > or crud in the channels.
RE: How's Adorama For Used Equip?
i have bought some used stuff from them. their ratings are pretty much what they say -- if it's "ex-", it's not "ex" and you'll notice that, which may not be the case with keh. i had no disappointments so far. they have been helpful over the phone whenever i had questions/problems, and there's a generous return policy too. mishka > "...I'm eyeing some equipment from Adorama and I'd > like to know how they are with their used > department. Has anyone bought used from Adorama? > Has anyone in Canada bought used from Adorama?"
Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back
buy a better back ($4500) without having to change your SLR ($1000)? is it me or does it sound like "buy a better camera without having to change neck-strap"? mishka > From: "whickersworld" > Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back > > I think you've completely overlooked the enormous > benefit of using a digital back with a film SLR. > That is, when the digital technology improves, you > can buy a better back without having to change your > SLR.
Re: OK Survey time (was:Paradigm change of Pentax...)
I expect to treat digital as a new format. When the time comes, I will by a DSLR from whoever makes the one that fits my needs. Right now I don't see myself buying a DSLR for a couple of years no matter what -- the technology is still very immature. I have a digicam (Canon G2) for the time being and am keeping the pentax manual focus gear forever. Just like 6x6 gear. There are things (at this stage) is completely unsuitable for (like stereo slides, my latest "thing", that is, untill I can buy a moderate size monitor that'd do *at least* a 3200x1200 true color at 100Hz and for reasonable money). Mishka > Who of us think it's time to move to the dark side > and why? > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert
Re: "Cheap" 135mm lens?
Around $50 for M 135/3.5. I had mine for $35 (off ebay) like new, together with case (it's not like new anymore :) Good travel lens: very small, very light, integrated (although short) hood. Mishka > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: "Cheap" 135mm lens? > > Any thoughts on how much a decent (clean glass, some > exterior wear) SMC-M 135mm lens should be worth?
Re: Bad PR
Woa! Hold it man! It's the other way around: most good P&S would let you shoot pics as good as any SLR. And the last crop of midrange SLRs (Maxxum 7, F100, MZ-S) are fantastic cameras in every respect. Mishka > It's not only the small film format. It's also that > the quality of 35mm SLRs (and that includes other > brands too) has degraded during the past years to the > point that the results are similar to the compact > P&S cameras.
Re: *ist D revisited
manuals are definitely the last thing anyone gives sh*t about. people don't pay money for manuals, they pay for features. mishka > Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:18:24 -0400 > From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: *ist D revisited > > Did *you* do the technical writing, or just watched > through a window some guys at it, and browsed the > manuals after they were printed ? > > Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > > I worked at Bell Laboratories for almost 20 years > > and saw the product development process up close > > and personal. Including the production of manuals.
Re: Question on Pentax Lineup
This is really sad. Maxxum 7 is a fantastic piece of engineering with nothing coming even close in that price range. I know, I used to have one. Mishka > Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:37:19 -0700 (PDT) > From: Peter Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Question on Pentax Lineup > > I also heard that the Maxxum/Dynax 7 was a failure > too.
Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post
For 4mp image from Canon G2, it's ~2.5M (varies). So the compression ratio is about 1:2. Btw, there's a open source RAW converter which works for Olympus, Nikon and Canon: http://www2.primushost.com/~dcoffin/powershot/ Best, Mishka > From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post > > what is the file size of the raw image? > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Ignatiev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > IIRC, canon raw files are just that -- 10 (or 12) > > bits per pixel of CCD matrix. Losslessly > > compressed. > > > > Best, > > Mishka
Re: *ist SLR and K-mount lenses
Adorama and B&H sell new ones for something like $150. I have one and am very happy with it. Mishka > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: *ist SLR and K-mount lenses > > about meters and two good options are the Sekonic > L308BII and Gossen Gossen Luna Pro digital. If you > are prepared to buy second hand either can be found > on eBay for around US$130 > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert
Re: Pentax Macro/pix for the web question
For the web, any macro lens should do. Better yet, digicam. What size are the diamonds? say, X inches. So it should be 10*X inches on the screen. A typical screen has circa 75 dpi, which means the diamond should be 750*X pixels. A 1:4 macro will be 0.25*X on the film, and scan with 3000dpi will give exactly 0.25*X * 3000 = 750*X pixels. However, it'd probably be better to keep away from scanner resolution limits, so 1:2 or 1:1 macro lens should be a safe bet. Mishka >Can anyone help this customer: > >< >I have been on the internet for hours and I have no hair left!! I want to >phoograph diamonds for a web site. They need to appear on the site abot 10 times >real size. I bought a 3+ filter but this was a waste of time and money. I got >myself a camera book (I am a photo novice) and it would appear the only way I >am going to get quality macro images is with a macro lense. I have a Pentax >MZ30 and can not afford anything like ё500 for a new Pentax Macro Lens. Being a >novice the auto features of any lense are important. From the book I read. >Taking Macro images of a diamond will require maximum depth of field so I need an >apeture priority compatible lens (does this make sense?). > >Any help you can give would be wonderful and restore my faith in the internet. > >Thanks > >Hayley>> > >Post your replies here and I will forward to her (?). Since I know nothing >about file sizes for the web. > >Kind regards > >Peter
OT: a very bad week!-was: good things come in threes
I wish I were that lucky... Mishka > Do bad things come in threes too? > Got dumped last weekend.
RE: MX Repair recommendations - PLEASE
Ok, I will be more specific about my KEH repairs experience (which happened about a month ago). My MX had two problems: 1. lousy meter (inaccurate and drained batteries) 2. focusing -- what I saw in focus on the GG wasn't on the film. I have contacted them (i.e. KEH) and asked if they can take care of these. The person (I don't remember the name) answered that yes, sure. Along the way he speculated that focusing may be the lens' fault, but since it happens with *every* lens I own, I have convinced him otherwise. After I had my camera back ($110 repair), I have found that the meter stopped working at shutter speeds < 1/4s. After I have checked the focus (shooting a ruler), I have found it off as well. So I wrote back, sent the camera back, got it again. The meter is fine, but the focus is still off (I shot with different lenses to be sure). The person I dealt with was polite but all my technical questions she refered to a mysterious Tech (capitalization's his), who apparently does speak english (explanation why the "Tech" cannot answer my questions himself). After 2 failed attempts, they offered the 3rd one. When I complained that USPS doesn't work for free, they offer to reimburse postage but not insurance. At this point I had had enough and told them what I think of the service in very straightforward language. After my demands, they have returned the money. So I am back at square one. By the way, this is not the first time I ran in KEH incompetence. Some time ago I have been thinking about buying from them a lens, which had a permanent built in filter. I thought it was yellow, but decided to ask. After TWO WEEKS of email bouncing back and forth and referral to (again) some Tech (who's supposed to look at it), I was told it's blue. After the whole deal was over, I have found their old catalog where this lens was on a page inset, with text stating it's a yellow filter. Man, talk about people being color blind! To be fair to them, the things I have actually bought from them were really great, and they accept returns without questions. Mishka
Re: 50mm Lenses
you may also want to try a (cheap) rangefinder. the lack of mirror and bright viewfinder may buy you a couple of stops -- more than you'll ever get from slr, no matter how much money you throw into it. best, mishka
RE: MX Repair recommendations - PLEA
I can only recommend to stay away from KEH repairs. On the expensive side and very unprofessional. Not to mention they didn't repair the problems that I have explicitely listed, in TWO attempts (yes, that was an MX, still waiting for repair). Mishka
Re: Lens choices?
Ranked by frequency of use it's: 1. 50mm/1.7 -- all-purpose, light and fast 2. 16mm/2.8 fisheye -- *really* wide (think a cathedral top to bottom from across the street). besides, i do like the distortion 3. 24mm/2.8 -- just wide and very rectangular 4. 135mm/3.5 -- portraits and whenever i want to compress perspective. This is my walkaround kit, together with Bogen table tripod. The rest (35mm, 85mm, 105 macro and 200mm) is used very infrequently. best, Mishka
Re: Moving on!
Not much, unless we are talking about P67. It would have been much more on topic if he were driving Honda Civic (with the aforementioned ME-Super). Good luck to you, Greywolf, keep the journal updates! Best, Mishka > From: Andreas Wirtz > Subject: Re: Moving on! > -- > > And what truck and Pentax have in common!
Re: Domke bags - 802/803 satchels?
Frantisek,
I have 803 (two pockets in front), and the first thing I got for it was 3 compartment
padded insert. LX + 50/1.4 fits the middle compartment with no problems. Not sure
about the winder -- I rarely carry it (usually there's enough stuff packed without it
to make my back sore by the end of the day). Two lenses sit in the other two
compartments. If I need an extra lens, the camera goes on top of the bag, resting on
the compartment dividers ("lowepro"-style). The packet on the back of the bag carries
a notepad (paper-kind) and a map. Two front pockets keep a small tripod, a meter or a
small flash (Viv. 550 iirc). At that point it gets as heavy as I can tolerate, so I
wouldn't care for a larger bag.
Also, the 3 compartment insert comes handy when I don't want to carry the wallet or
passpot in my pockets -- they go between the canvass back and insert, which is pretty
much the safest place I can think of, short of leaving it all at home.
But the best part is that it looks just like a regular bag, nothing "photographic"
about it on the outside.
Also, it takes only a second to open the bag and grab the camera... This is as close
to the perfect travel bag as it gets, IMO.
best,
Mishka
> Regarding bodies, I carry at most two. The main (LX
> or af) plus backup, when on assignment (backup being
> MX). Or just one when in "leisure" mode. Lenses at
> most three, 70-210/3.5 (big one, about as big as 2.8
> zooms), 20-35 and lowlight 35/2 or 50/1.4 just for
> sure. Plus Metz 40MZ3. It could be a problem packing
> all these though, especially with the big flash and
> zooms, if winder attached. But I don't want this
> satchel as the bag to carry all my equipment :)
>
> Frantisek
Re: Aprl PUG is open
that was exactly my sentiment. too. mishka > sigh- > > Y'know, its sobering when you see others' "cliche" > shots are not only the same things you've taken and > really liked on your own, but are better than > yours, too.
Re: Film Scanner
I am not sure if this has been already answered, but VueScan supports tons of scanners under Linux and OSX, including Firewire NikonScan 4000ED. OTOH, the last time I checked, XSane was a joke (a year ago). Picture Window Pro supposedly supports 16 bit editing on anything (where anything == Win32 AND Linux at least) much better than photoshop at a fraction of the price. Never tried it though. Best, Mishka > PS: I have another issue. I use Linux. Does anyone > have experience with Linux compatibility of film > scanners. Any input would be appreciated...
Re: Domke bags question
Frantisek, I have a F-803, and it is by far my favorite bag. I have replaced the insert, now it has 3 padded compartments, and I usually pack there an LX, 2-3 extra lenses, meter and a Bogen table top tripod. The middle compartment is large enough to fit vertically LX with 50mm mounted or a rolleicord. If I have too much stuff, then the camera goes on top, lens down, resting on the padded dividers. check out http://w1.320.telia.com/~u32008343/domke.htm for some nice pics. Best, Mishka
RE: 100/3.5 versus 135/2.8 (was Re: New lenses)
WOW! Mounting a lens on a DSLR automatically increases the filter size of the lens... Best, Mishka > My new(to me) FA 75mm f1.4 for the *ist D.
Re: It's Coming
This must be a typo -- should read "He's" Subject: Re: It's Coming - >It's > > > > > > > > > >Coming.
Re: Seeking advise on medium format
I used to have a p6x7, but sold it last year. The answer really depends on what you plan it to use for. Do you need AF and automation? Is weight a factor? How big a tripod do you want to carry? Metal or plastic? Price? Do you need zooms? Do you care for a lot of primes? Do you prefer square or rectangular? Do you consider straight ground glass focussing a must? Once you have answered these questions, there's usually one or two cameras left. P6x7 and 645 are so different creatures that (IMO) they shouldn't be considered simultaneously. For me the answer was (unexpectedly) a rollei tlr (although I now considering a used 'blad, since the prices seem to be dropping through the floor). Best, Mishka > From: Francis Alviar > Subject: Seeking advise on medium format > Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:56:53 -0800 > > I am considering investing in a medium format > system. I'd like to ask owners of the Pentax 645 and > Pentax 67 cameras their opinion on which system to > invest in and why. Besides the difference in film > size, what are the advantages and disadvantages of a > 645 camera compared to a 67 camera and vice versa? > Thank you. > > Francis M. Alviar
Re: Ecological disasters
mike, a very arrogant, pretentious, misinformed and, not the least, misleading remark on your part. ok, i'll stop here, rather than telling what i really think about it. mishka > Just be aware that these Eastern European, old > Soviet, and Chinese films are made with no > environmental controls in place at all. It's one > reason why they're cheaper. Buyers of these films > are subsidizing some serious pollution. > > If that happens to matter to you, choose Agfa, Fuji, > Kodak, or Ilford, companies which are responsible > about pollution. > > --Mike
Re: Svema film was Re: ghosts on film
No, I don't. ...but WHY??? Mishka > Anybody know of somebody selling Svema film in North > America?
Rodchenko
got this book, "Rodchenko, photography 1924-1954", from publisher overstock. one word -- "WOW!". spent the whole evening looking at his photos, my jaw all the way down on the floor. best $20 i have ever spent. mishka
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
if one shoots the "Black Square" painting, i bet, monochrome CGA (320x240) resolution would give the close to optimal results: no grain, very smooth black on very snow like white... resolution is not everything! than again, if one shoots only a fragment of that picture, a simple copy of /dev/null would do an even better job! mishka
Black black paint
Just picked up at /. -- some guys came up with really black black stuff, reflecting 10 to 20 times less than the usual black paint used in optical devices. http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_747664.html?menu=news To make it relevant to the list, just imagine how nice would have been to have SMC in lense elements and that paint on the barrel and the body... Mishka
Unidentified subject!
Rob, can you please point me to where i could get one for that much money (that is, under 2k)? mishka > Yep, his scanner only provides 3200 dpi at MF, it > may have cost a bunch when he > bought it but they are selling for well under 2k
Re: Gift to myself
M135/3.5? that's one of my all time favs! mishka
Re: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
it sounds *very* logical: "three" is a noun/object here, and as objects, "three"-s are definitely not countable -- how many different "three"-s you can come up with? paul stregevsky mentioned a very good rule to see if this is a "mass" noun -- can you put "a" before it? "a three"? -- from which sixpack? :) best, mishka > Mathematically, however, we always say "three is > less than five"; the symbol "<" is called "less > than". Interesting that when we actually compare > numbers we use the amount word, not the number word.
Subject: help recovering files in an image after burning a CD
No problem. Nero has a component called "virtual image drive", or something like this. I have 5.5.x and 5.9.x and both have it. Install it. It will create a bogus CDROM device. Then you can run this "virtual drive" utility (it would appear someone in the Nero folder) and point it to your *real* cdrom with the image burnt to it. Voila -- you'll be able to acces it as a normal CD with al your files in it. If there are questions -- contact me offlist. Best, Mishka P.S. I was surprised to see 5 or 6 replies to the original "HELP" questions, *ALL* of them offtopic.
trackball and photoshop
has anyone tried to used this combo? i had picked up one on sale (logitech optical wireless, a big marble on top) to replace my old mouse. so far it's a challenge for me to even cut and paste text, although i expect that this will improve. the big question is, is it suitable for photo editing? i cannot answer this for myself at the moment because of the previous p. best, mishka
Re: Beware! eBay's "insurance" isn't
actually, it worked for me. i bought a "NIB" FA-1W finder from team-photo.de, and (eventually) got a used FA-1. granted, it took almost a year and it was quite a hassle, but in the end i did cash a check a month ago. of course, minus deductible -- but on the bright side, i got to keep the finder too. i just had to be persistent (to put it mildly). best, mishka
Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules"
Pal, If you meant this, I would subscribe to every single word of this statement, including punctuation marks. Pity you didn't -- but it still summarizes it very nicely. That's the definition of art, be it photography, music or mathematics. That's it --- no rules, lifetime of frustration and a faint hope of striking "it" somehow someday. Mishka > If there are no rules, there are no good images as > theres nothing separate between them. After all, > everything is possible so everything must be equally > good. Furthermore, if there are no rules every > photographer is doomed to lifetime of frustration as > it is impossible to produce good images on a > consistent basis as all there is to it is pointing > the camera in random direction and hope for luck. > > PÅl
Happy new year!
Subj. to everyone here!
how much resolution do i need
i don't make any enlargements larger than 11x14, and even those on very rear occasions (which means i did it twice in my lifetime). do i need the resolution of 100MP camera? you bet! on my computer screen, i can use all the resolusion i can get, as long as i can zoom in and out. i don't care about the "maximum print size" -- i am not even going to print. mishka > I like that opinion. I also have a question of > sorts, I thought a good 14MP full frame sensor would > meet or defeat the finest grain 35mm films? If not, > it's close. So if, as Glen says, 30MP+ come out > (will they be like computer CPUs?) when and what > will be enough? Unless you want something for a > board in Times Square, isn't anything much more > complete and utter overkill? How many of use just > like slides, or 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14. I think > we'll see a large gap, consumer and pro. They'll > get the monsters in case, and we will never get them > due to the price. And RAW format with these things? > Computer companies are loving this, oh the profits!! > > Perhaps the 35mm DSLRs will be consumer only and top > out at not much more than 14MP. Consumer, amateur. > All pros will go for new high tech and big sensors, > of a medium format/large format type? > > Brad
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further
Dear Sir: To support the upcoming Pentax DSLR release, I enclose $50___$100 $6000__ Please send me the free T-Shirt and my PDML membership for the next year. best, mishka > From: Brad Dobo > Subject: Hypothetical Question taken further... > Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:51:11 -0800 > > --- (...) > If we don't buy all the latest and greatest from > Pentax, how can we expect them to develop for us, a > DSLR. We'd be the ones with the want and money to > buy one. But Pentax needs money and a reason to > develop and manufacture and sell worldwide a DSLR. > Are we, in general terms, helping them do that?
K & A 24mm f2.8 the same?
i had both -- they were identical (maybe, apart from coating). mishka > From: Anton Browne > Subject: K & A 24mm f2.8 the same? > Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:58:43 -0800 > > - > > The K and A 24mm lenses are the same are they not? > Apart from appearance. > > Thanks > Anton
re: 35mm scanner, resolution needed?
depends on what you are shooting. i am pretty sure that with anything color, 4000dpi is as high as it is makes sense to go (and very rarely). b&w is a different story though -- tmax100 seems to have frightening high res (although i don't have a lot of experience with it). best, mishka > I can see from my 35mm 100 speed film > negs that the 2400 dpi scanner I'm using > is inadequate. Will 4800 ppi settle the > matter once and for all or should I be waiting > until 6400 or 7200 ppi scanners arrive to upgrade? > JCO
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this whatPentax is up to?)
I am, for one, would be glad to see the new lenses, as long as Pentax continues the backward-compatibility with the old ones. I want to use the old lenses on DSLR. Not the new ones on LX. Faec it, it's like complaining that 35mm lenses don't cover the whole 6x7 circle. Who gives? Besides, a potential to have a decent tiny 10-100 f/1.4 zoom for DSLR is waaay too cool lo be overlooked. Best, Mishka > Subject: Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: > - > > If Pentax decides to build such smaller-coverage > lenses, even if they are K-mount, this will mean the > end of the "unrivaled K-mount compatibility". And > let's face it, this is the only real advantage of > Pentax's SLRs. Yes, they build small and "cute" > cameras, but that's just a plus and not a real > argument.
Re: zenitar fisheye price
Katrin, check out ebay store MoscowGifts4U. I have bought a couple of lenses from the guy, he ships from Ukraine and he's a nice seler. Got the fisheye rom him for $120 (IIRC) -- fantastic lens. Especially, considering that Photoshop can get rid of fisheye effect, making this one hell of a very wide lens. Best, Mishka - From: Scars Subject: Re: zenitar fisheye price Thanks for all the answers... I didn't get it, it was German ebay and I couldn't afford to got much higher than 100 Euro and I also couldn't watch the ending, so I was outbid -_- Does anybody knows a place where I can get one for about the same price (maybe somewhere in europe)? I watch ebay Germany for a while and there's always a peleng for 250 euro, which I can't afford and nothing else. thx bye Katrin
Re: Query for a friend...
I saw a Beattie screen for Hassy. To put it mildly -- a piece of crap: next to impossible to focus on plain matte field. The new screens for LX OTOH are fantastic, fit both LX and MX and can be had for under $30 on Ebay. Best, Mishka > From: Rob Brigham > Subject: Query for a friend... - > Anyone had any experience with them ?"
Re: Mike Johnston on Pentax and a question
What a nonsense! Maybe not as smooth as Ks and Ms (and my A24 and K24 are *almost* equally smooth -- if there is a difference, it's too subtle to matter), I still find the build quality of As pretty high by any standard. > The "A" lens with its typical, tacky 1970s design > style is pretty cheaply put together by comparison
Re: OT: Whining about "Security"
the simple rule i've learned after a similar ordeal: if in doubt, use a p&s. no one gives a damn about "just another tourist". the second you grab an slr (or, heaven forbid tripod and a MF outfit) all the hell breaks loose. best, mishka. > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: OT: Whining about "Security" > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 03:01:46 -0800
Re: I'm back -- and a question
Chris, It's not that easy for me: I am not sure I care much for 24/2 for several reasons -- it's twice as big and heavy -- it uses 67 filters (IIRC) -- it has longer min focusing distance -- I am not sure that f/2 is a real advantage over f/2.8: I don't have trouble focusing, and being 24mm, it's mostly used at f/8+. If there were 24/4 half the size and weight of f/2.8 and at least as sharp, I'd jump on it! -- which also means that AF is of dubious advantage -- pretty much everything is in focus anyway. Besides everyone's saying tthat that KAF3 is coming OTOH, for super wide angle, matrix metering would probably be very useful (at least, center-weighted is next to useless -- but I use a handheld meter with it anyway). So unless FA 24/2 hugely outperforms A24/2.8, I see it having many cons and very few pros... Best, Mishka > From: Chris Brogden > > This is an easy one. Keep the K, sell the A. Use > the MF K lens for those times when feel, handling, > and taking pleasure in the act of photography are > more important than having the most advanced > metering. And if you want to update your > technology, no sense going halfway to an A-series... > spring for the AF 24/2 and get AF along with multi- > pattern metering. > > chris __ @Mail.ru îÁÃÉÏÎÁÌØÎÁÑ ÐÏÞÔÏ×ÁÑ ÓÌÕÖÂÁ http://www.mail.ru __ îÁ ÐÒÁ×ÁÈ ÒÅËÌÁÍÙ: úÁËÁÖÉ ÆÕÔÂÏÌËÕ Ó ÓÏÂÓÔ×ÅÎÎÙÍ e-mail ÁÄÒÅÓÏÍ! http://r.mail.ru/cln1956/souvenir.mail.ru
I'm back -- and a question
I have managed to sort out my email problems, so I'm back. Now, if someone could help me to make a tough decision... Here's the story: I have two 24/2.8 lenses and one has got to go. But I have trouble deciding which one. They are SMC-A 24/2.8 and SMC-K 24/2.8, both mint cometically and mechanically. Looking at light with 8x loupe, I can see that "A" has quite a bit of fine dust inside. "K" has only a few slightly bigger specs. I like "A", since it would potentially give me matrix metering when/if I decide that it's time to get out of 80's. Besides, it probably has more advanced coating. OTOH "K" has this fantastic smth feel to it... Deciding which one goes is driving me nuts. Suggestions? Is it worth the trouble/result keeping the dusty one and having it cleaned (it's not really showing on the pictures, but I am worried about losing contrast because of light scattering)? Am I over obsessing with it and should just flip a coin? Best, Mishka
Re[2]: anyone care to bid? :)
...or, to pay ebay fee -Original Message- From: Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: anyone care to bid? :) > > WOW!!! > > now my question is who has that much cash laying > around to buy it all ? > > --- £ukasz_Kacperczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry for the first htmls message. > > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1385251371 > > > > Happy bidding : > > £ukasz > > > > __ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > > >
Re: Digital-Film Wars: To Byte or not to Byte
Dun't know about downloadtimes, but comparing images "side by side" is nonsense: just get a dual (or more) BIG (21") monitor setup and say goodbye to light table. In fact, on the screen one can see a few images magnified at the same time -- try that with slides! He's either fond of loupes, or has a lousy IT dept. Now, before flames start flying, I am talking about multimonitor setup. Of course, running Photoshop on a single 14" monitor sucks. Mishka -Original Message- From: "Peifer, William [OCDUS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:58:25 -0400 Subject: Digital-Film Wars: To Byte or not to Byte > > Hi folks, > > With all this talk about what was -- and what wasn't -- at Photokina, I > found it interesting to read a short article about a local > commercial/advertising photo studio in the business section of yesterday's > local newspaper. It's a busy studio with big accounts with a major grocery > store chain and several other large clients in our region. > > [The name's Buschner Studios. Perhaps Mark Roberts recognizes the name?] > > The owner stated in this article that while he does use digital cameras to > some extent, most of his work is still done with film. He finds that the > time it takes to transfer images from camera to computer (15 to 20 seconds, > according to the article) is "too slow", and he finds digital to be limiting > because he's not able to line up a series of shots thus captured and compare > them side-by-side. He suspects this may not be the case in maybe five > years, but for now at least, he prefers working with film. This surprised > me, since I thought advertising photography would be most likely of all to > be digitally driven. Seems like this fellow and his partner certainly have > enough business to invest the necessary capital for switching to primarily > digital. Or is this case just a fluke? Or did the newspaper reporter > misquote the typical image download times? > > Hmmm > > Bill Peifer > Rochester, NY > > >
Re: FS: LX and more
what the serial # on the LX? mishka -Original Message- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:24:05 -0400 Subject: FS: LX and more > > Seeing as how we were having List problems on Friday and I wasn't sure > whether stuff was going to get through - I'll post this stuff today. > > My apologies to any who are offended by the For Sale on a Monday rather > than on the usual Friday. > > Here we go: > > 1. Pentax LX - in KEH EX+ to LN- condition - comes with FA-1 finder, > standard split microprism screen (SC-21) and mint condition Leather LX case > (includes box for case), original instruction manual and extra SE-20 > Screen. The only issue is the SE-20 screen has a bit of a mark on it in > the top left corner and does not hinder the critical focus mid point. New > batteries just put into the LX - I've used this for the past 5 months and > all speeds are accurate with no "sticky mirror syndrome" - > $640.00 CDN or $420.00 USD > > 2. Sigma 90mm f2.8 Macro in K-mount - in KEH EX- condition - metal > construction except for the aperture ring - an excellent lens for 1:2 macro > and portraiture. An all around solid lens that takes shots like this: > http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=17106 > 52mm filter size. > $165.00 CDN or $110.00 USD > > > More to come later. > > Cheers, > Dave > > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > >
Re[2]: OT-MF & 35mm scanners, cheap.....
Guys, Have anyone tried these scanners? I am curious how it stacks up against Epson? The optical resolution (spec) here is <1200dpi, so I am curious, even at $800, is it worth it? Mishka > From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: OT-MF & 35mm scanners, cheap. > > > > Hi, > > > > Go to: > > http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk > > > > They have the Minolta multi for about £1000, new. The 35mm > > versions are from £200. All plus VAT for UK & EU residents. > > Look under Digital Imaging > Film scanners on the left hand > > menu. > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > >
Re[2]: The big yellow papa speaks
My SO has a PhD, works at Harvard and cannot imagine herself with web access slower than 1Mbps, so she's not exactly technophobic. Now, when it comes to pictures, she gets mad if I just develop and scan the weekend snapshots, instead of giving her 4x6s she can put in her album. Even the $3 vs $15 cost argument doesn't work. People like books (as opposed to e-books). People like albums. It is familiar. It is convenient. It is a damn good user interface (although I personally do miss hyperlinks in paper books) ! Mishka -Original Message- From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: re: The big yellow papa speaks > > Hi, > > I'm not sure I agree with his comment "The internet explodes the > number of people that have access to pictures". > > The point is made often in this forum that the majority of human > beings have difficulty getting access to things like clean > water, never mind esoteric electronic goods. > > "Film is not going to go away because it is the best way to get > a print" might also be seen as contentious. > > I find it amusing that we are heading for a situation where the > average person is going to expect nothing more than an "image" > with the (technical) quality of a neolithic cave painting. > > mike > > >
Re[2]: OT: D1s review
agree. money is definitely one of them :) mishka -Original Message- From: "Robert Soames Wetmore" Subject: Re: OT: D1s review > > >I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film is still a >superior > >media after seeing these pictures. > > > >-R [Ryan K. Brooks] > > Maybe because there are considerations for some of us other than absolute > image quality.
Re[2]: D1s review
Digital ICE reduces resolution. Really, *anything* you do to a raw scan reduces the resolution. He scans at 3200 because it's a better (read: lower noise/signal ratio) scanner, which translates directly ito better resolution (despite lower dpi -- information theory is weird sometimes, isn't it). According to some tests/estimates, 35mm Velvia slide contains about 12mp of information and 645 slide about 48mp. However, if one cares only about sharpness (as opposed to color detail), the numbers are quite lower, so there's no surprise that in sharpness tests D1s looks close to 645. I don't know about the lattitude though. All I know is that this was a resolution race, and Velvia (or Provia) are the best (color) film can offer. best, Mishka -Original Message- From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:53:08 +0100 Subject: RE: D1s review > > Mind you, he harps on about noise. I don't therefore understand why he > didn't use a scanner with ICE? The digital cameras have automatic noise > reduction in their software don't they, so why put the scans at a > disadvantage? Also, he says that 4000dpi is his perceived maximum of > information from film, yet he scans at 3200? > > I don't doubt that the 1Ds 'could' match 35mm, but I have a problem > comparing it to 645. > > The other issue in my mind is lattitude. I have yet to see a digicam > with the wide exposure lattitude of negative film. Possibly 'narrow' > slides, although I think provia is reasonably 'wide', so if the D1s can > match that it aint bad. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mike Ignatiev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 26 September 2002 13:46 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: OT: D1s review > > > > > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml > > > > A pretty impressive comparison 35mm vs 645 vs Canon D1s -- > > seems like D1s is a undisputable winner compared to 35mm, and > > close to a tie with pentax 645. Now, the price... > > > > Best, > > Mishka > > > > > > >
Re[2]: Is Pentax dying?
i have always thought that it's rather client's right to specify what they want (pay for!), rather than employee's. i mean, i can almost see it: i'm telling our clients, "listen, windows sucks, here's the program for Irix that's far more appropriate for what you are doing..." oh well... mishka > "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >The problem is that some clients abrogate the photographers right to shoot >on the most appropriate media by specifying that their job MUST be shot on >digital media.
Re: OT: eBay shadyness
If he accepts escrow (and, preferably, pays for it too). Mishka -Original Message- From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 17:01:30 +0100 Subject: OT: eBay shadyness > > Would *you* bid on this?! > > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1383940544 > > There is no such thing as a 'worldwide warranty' from Canon... > > Cot > > > Oh swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > > > >
