RE: Aussie *ist D Prices
when I was researching such things, it seemed like the Nikon D 70 was superior to the Canon in every way, for not too much more money. If I was going to buy one I would go with the Nikon. It seems like the Canon gets talked about a lot more, maybe because it's the cheapest of the options at the moment. Original Message Follows From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Aussie *ist D Prices Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:35:57 +0100 (BST) On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Trevor Bailey wrote: > If I wanted to lay down the cash, I want a Pentax, But price is telling > me 300D Canon. As to the 10D, have never seen one in the flesh. Trevor, Price once told you to buy the MZ-60; was that a good decision? How much money did you lose on it so as to upgrade to a more functional camera? Add the fact that you already have a few Pentax lenses and see the big equation, not just the initial outlay. My feeling is that the 300D is a money-pinching instrument on behalf of Canon, a brutally downsized . I hope that Graywolf was right in his comments the other day that the Baby-D will not be the same thing, though my motive for that is all to do with brand allegiance rather than any impending personal choice. Kostas (I think the main question is "do I want to go digital" and thus still think that my next camera will be an -S, not a -D).
RE: "C41" B&W film
that's pretty interesting-can you suggest more information on how to do it? what kind of scanner do you use? Original Message Follows From: Fred Widall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: "C41" B&W film Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 21:18:23 -0400 (EDT) I have used a few different C41 B&W films and as others have mentioned the results can be quite good, but at a far greater cost (both for film and developing) than traditional B&W film. I generally shoot Agfa APX100 which cost me less than CA$3 a roll, and develop at myself using a Patterson daylight tank. I use Rodinal as my developer and I estimate it costs approx CA$0.50 to develop a roll. I scan in my negatives and print on my Epson 880 inkjet printer. You might want to try developing at home, its really quite easy, and the rush at seeing the results when you first remove the film from the tank is wonderful. I picked up my daylight tank (with 2 reels) on ebay for approx the same cost as having one roll of C41 B&W film processed. -- Fred Widall, Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall --
Re: psyched
try this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3A+blog&btnG=Search
- Original Message -
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: psyched
> Hell Frank, I'm older than you and I know what they are.
> (I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you).
>
> frank theriault wrote:
>
> > --- Paul McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I got blogged by boingboing.net my
> >
> >
> >>favorite blog. Xeni Jardin,
> >>one of the bloggers
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Blog? Bloggers? Blogged?
> >
> >Translation, please...
> >
> >thanks,
> >frank the old geezer
> >
> >=
> >"In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while
the living person is dependent and has no individuality." -- Karl ("I am not
a Marx Brother") Marx
> >
> >__
> >Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
psyched
It's Paul of the never ending breakdancing pictures. I'm psyched, I got blogged by boingboing.net my favorite blog. Xeni Jardin, one of the bloggers had put up a set of breakdancing photos which were my inspiration, so I sent her my set. I got 2300 hits so far today. It's pretty neat. I wish I got a few comments in there though. http://www.boingboing.net/2004/08/17/breakdancing_photos.html I'm getting the individual emails rather than the digest now so I'll be a bit better about responding. Thanks for all the advice. As soon as I get back to Boston I'm going to shoot a couple more rolls of the dancers and see if I can apply some different ideas. Paul
RE: PAW - Happy Snap (Dog Door Afternoon)
I like it a lot. I wish there were a little bit of context in it showing what building it is attached to. Otherwise it's lovely, I love that kind of stuff. Paul Original Message Follows From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW - Happy Snap (Dog Door Afternoon) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:07:15 -0700 Was wandering through West Oakland not too long ago, and saw this. I liked the strong colors and graphic style, and the idea that one can find art anywhere. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/dogdoor.html Shel
re: first wow
Thanks for the feedback everyone. To save space on replying, I won't reply to each post, but thanks to Frank, Lasse, and John. All the shots were done with a K1000, so I can adjust aperture as needed. I just bought an ME Super also, but I think that I can adjust aperture with that too. I understand about how the background is distracting from the dancers. I have to say that I really love the background and the crowd details and I think that it's important to me to capture that this is a public performance and that people are reacting to what's going on. But I guess I'm not sure how to capture that and still maintain enough detail in the foreground to keep what is happening clear. It seems like the shots work better the larger they are. Is that the mark of a total beginer? I'm definitely going to go back and shoot some more film because I think I'm learning a lot and it's a lot of fun, so I'll try to use all the advice. I may try standing on a pillar there and shooting from above and see how that goes. It's a difficult situation, because it's taking place in a little pit in the middle of a traffic island (kind of like a very miniature apitheatre) and it's totally surrounded by spectators so it's pretty hard to get an uncomplicated background. Again, thanks everyone for the feedback. I'm on vacation, so it's taken me a while to get back to you. Paul message 2 Hi, Paul, I don't disagree with anything Lasse said. I, too found that while the dancers in the foreground were caught doing interesting things, the people in the background distracted from that. You could crop, but even then, you'll still get the odd foot or hand or whatever in the background that one may find distracting. Cropping what you presented to us would help immensely, but even better, think of a few things for next time (not that you'll go shoot street dancers again tomorrow, but you know what I mean, generally, next time you're in a similar situation). Try to keep the background as uncluttered as possible. Given what Lasse and I said, that's a given. Another idea may be to try different angles, like shooting from different elevations, so that you're looking down, and get more pavement in the background. It may be absolutely impossible to shoot without getting spectators in the background, as they may be surrounding performers in a circle. In that case, consider opening up the aperture a bit. Or, a lot. Try shooting as wide as your lens will go. That way you should get the background spectators out of focus due to the narrower depth of field (DOF). Sharp subject with blurry background can be very effective in separating a subject from an objectionable or uninteresting background. HTH. BTW, welcome aboard!! cheers, frank
First wow
I'm not sure if I know the rules of the WOW, but please give comments or suggestions on this album. http://public.fotki.com/paulmac/critiqueable/first_wow/ Thanks Paul
The new guy's pictures
Hey there, Thanks for all the advice regarding lenses. Several used and more than used lenses are on the way to me as we speak. I shot up a couple of rolls of film in Harvard Square the day I got the K 1000 in the mail just to see if I could get anything out of it. I'm pretty pleased with the results, but would definitely love to get suggestions. Some of them are on the dark side, but I'm not sure if it's my monitor. I didn't have prints made up. If they are dark, is there an easy or not so easy photoshop trick to lighten them as a batch? I've spent a lot of time photographing these breakdancers with my digital camera (canon A70). I really liked using the SLR because it was a lot more responsive and I think that I was able to get the exact shot I was looking for more often. The nice thing about the digital though is that I can shoot 120 pictures and not worry about it, so I tend to get lucky a bit more. Anyway, here's the breakdancers http://public.fotki.com/paulmac/break_dancing_harva/ shot during the day with FUJI 200 I think. and here are some more street scenes from harvard. http://public.fotki.com/paulmac/harvard_square/ Shot in the evening with FUJI 400 (I think). Since I have no clue what I was doing, I was generally setting the shutter speed a little less than as fast as I could get it, with the idea that things were moving quickly and I would get clearer shots that way. Is that basically right or not? And does anyone have suggestions about an image host? I like this FOKTI alright, but it is a little slow and square. Also I had some problems getting the slide show to work. Thanks a million Paul
one more question
if you use a screw mount adapter on a k mount body do you lose the ability to use the light meter? I'm a little confused about that. Thanks Paul
RE: first question
First of all, thanks for the awesome help. Of course your help leads me to having other questions: Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying? Were they made by Pentax? Specifically the 135mm 2.8? Are there any 3rd party lens manufacturers that you can recomend 100%? And any to totally avoid? Any recomendations for a usable and affordable flash? To answer Norm's questions 1) What's your price range? Hmmm...trying to keep it pretty cheap. I'd like to make out under $400 for everything including tripod, case, etc. 2) Are you concerned about weight? I'll be driving mostly, but maybe doing some light backpacking and day trips. So not terribly concerned, but also I would rather not be totally weight down. Again, thanks a million. Everybody had something useful to say. I do appreciate it. Paul
