RE: You can't do that here was Re: goin' to the chapel...
Dan Scott, getting his civil liberties stomped on by Der Mensch, wrote: [T]he cheezey mall doesn't think I have any business taking photos of my son getting fitted for his first tux or eating ice cream at the food court [Snip] Apparently a store owner notified security a man with a camera and a small boy were seen moving through the mall Hi Dan, Welcome to Der New World Order. They probably figured you and your son were al-Qaeda operatives. With a guy like John Ashcroft at the helm in the Justice Department... Oops! I forgot I promised I wouldn't bring that up again! (PEIFER, KNOCK IT OFF!!) Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Digital-Film Wars: To Byte or not to Byte
Chris Brogden replied to my comments on a local commercial photographer and his attachment to film, vs. digital: 15 to 20 seconds [download time from camera to computer] is too slow And how long does it take to develop film? 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 Sure he can... they'll just be a smaller size to fit them on the screen. It's like liking up a bunch of negatives to look at [Snip] I would even argue that looking at digital pics on a monitor can be even easier and more productive in some cases than looking directly at negatives [Snip] Hi Chris, You make good points. So you'd think that for this fellow, switching to digital would be an easy decision. Thus, I'm surprised that this fellow insists that for now -- and probably for five years out -- he believes film is still an advantage for his clients. Hmmm, I'm still puzzled. Maybe I'll see if I can find an e-mail address for this guy and send him a note. Perhaps it's got a lot to do with the types of subjects he shoots. It sounds like he's comparing digital files (non-prints) to prints from negatives, and that's an apples/oranges comparisons That could be it right there. I can see the advantage of comparing hardcopy images (hardcopy meaning a print or a negative, vs. a virtual image). Maybe you would call that a ~preference~ rather than an ~advantage~. This would be indeed be an apples/oranges sort of comparison, as you suggest. Well, one more thing to ponder! Cheers, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Why not use the Auto110 line to make a digital system?
Bruce Rubenstein wrote: They have none of the old tooling, because the camera has been out of production for years. Just to do an identical film camera would cost just as much as to do a new camera - no cost savings. Hmmm, I smell some trolling here, but I'll bite, just 'cause I'm a fun guy. ;-) Do you know with ~certainty~ that Pentax doesn't have the tooling? (By tooling, I mean injection molds for the plastic, diecasting molds for metal parts, jigs for the formed metal parts, etc., etc.) They might have dumped it years ago, especially if it had worn out. Or it might be sitting in boxes, perched on several pallets, in the middle of a warehouse somewhere. That does happen. Ask me about some of ~my~ company's old tooling If the tooling still existed and was still in reasonably good shape, Pentax (or an interested third party) could start cranking out Auto 110s if they believed it made business sense. Remember the Mingca? (Chinese K1000 knock-off, made using the old worn K1000 tooling, IIRC.) Nothing personal and just a general observation: I don't think too many people here have the slightest idea of how real products are designed, developed, manufactured, supported, marketed or what any of this costs. Sounds like a ~guess~ rather than an observation. And probably a very ~good~ guess that there aren't too many on the list who have a full appreciation for the whole process, the costs, etc. I'd venture to say, though, that there are perhaps more folks on the list than you might think, who have a very good appreciation for the process of product design, development, manufacturing, marketing, support, and cost. (Gads, I'm quite sure I can't be the only one!) In the inimitable words of our good friend Peter from across the Big Pond, Toodle Pip! ;-) Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
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: Digital-Film Wars: To Byte or not to Byte
Mishka wrote: 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 I can see where this approach could be problematic, though. Six or eight different shots (Polaroids, maybe?) taken under six or eight different lighting conditions would be easy to compare side-by-side. Six or eight different monitors side-by-side doesn't sound practical at all. Even if so many monitors could be properly calibrated, wouldn't the typical 72-dpi resolution of a typical monitor be a serious limiting factor? Seems like comparing higher-resolution prints, rather than screen images, would be better. No? If that's indeed the case, then maybe this fellow's decision not to go digital at this time has to do with the time it takes to make instant prints from digital images. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Flash suggestions for Zx-5n (Now it's long)
Mishka wrote: Sunpak 433 (i think) is ttl Hi Mishka, Pat, et al., Actually, the Sunpak 433D will ~not~ support TTL on the MZ/ZX bodies -- like Pat's ZX-5n. (I don't believe it will support TTL on any earlier bodies either.) However, the Sunpak 444D ~will~ support TTL on these bodies. I actually have both a 433D and a 444D. The 433D has two contacts on the foot -- a center one that fires the flash, and an offset one that signals the body when the flash is ready. The 444D has three contacts on the foot -- a center one to fire the flash, one offset one that sends a flash ready signal to the body, and a second offset one that receives a flash quench signal from the body. This quench contact is the one that allows for TTL capability. The 433D and 444D are both great flashes for the money, IMHO. Guide number 120 (in feet), bounce and swivel, three auto modes, five variable power output settings in manual mode (full power, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16) -- plus TTL mode on the 444D. You can purchase different dedicated modules for the 444D to support operation on different brands of camera bodies. Sunpak accessories for off-camera flash are considerably cheaper than the corresponding Pentax accessories for, e.g., the 280T. Finally, the 444D is in current production, whereas the Pentax AF280T is not. Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Monopod advice
Doug Franklin wrote: I have a Bogen/Manfrotto 3218 (black, three section) that I use with a 3262 ball head Hi Dan, Ditto -- I've got the same combination as Doug. (I think the Manfrotto part number for the monopod is 434B.) I use mine in exactly the situation you envision for your own use -- pictures of my grandchildren in school plays, etc., shot from the audience. Allows me to steady a K body and SMC-A 70-210/4 quite nicely, and doesn't have near the footprint of a tripod. I often shoot with just the pod and no head -- generally when shooting outdoors -- but that restricts you to landscape-format shots. Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Negative/slide scanner -- and the Epson 1650
Maris Lidaka wrote: A reasonable alternative would be the Epson 1650 flatbed with a transparency adapter Hi Maris, Interesting that you bring this up. I was just looking at some Epson scanners the other day, as I need capability for scanning medium format. (My current Canon flatbed handles 35mm at up to 2400 dpi.) The Epson 1650/1660 and Epson 2450 seem to be two reasonable options. Looks like the 2450 is running somewhere in the neighborhood of US $400 or thereabouts, while the 1650/1660 with optional transparency scanner is in the neighborhood of US $280. Do you -- or anyone else for that matter -- have personal experience with the Epson 1650/1660 for medium- or large-format scanning? Other than the difference in optical resolution (1600 dpi for the 1650/1660 vs. 2400 dpi for the 2450), are there any significant performance differences between these two models? I'm particularly interested if the optional transparency adapter for the 1650/1660 is any better/worse than the built-in adapter for the 2450. Any information you might have would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Negative/slide scanner -- and the Epson 1650
Taka wrote: I'm not sure where you got your prices, but I purchased an Epson 1660 Photo for $180 at Circuit City a few weeks ago Hi Taka, That's the price I saw also, but it doesn't include the optional transparency adapter necessary for medium- and large-format transparencies -- an additional $100 option. However, the standard $180 model will do 35mm scans out-of-the-box. Another one to consider is the 2400 You're correct about its improved optical resolution (2400 dpi vs. the 1600 dpi of the 1660). However, I believe the 2400 will not accommodate medium- and large-format transparencies, which is the only reason I'm considering upgrading from my current scanner. Again, thanks for the information, Taka. Regards, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Re[2]: Negative/slide scanner -- and the Epson 1650
Bruce Dayton wrote: I guess I should give a few quick words about the 2450 as I have had my second one now for a couple of weeks. I have about 300 scans on it so far. I am having much better luck with this new unit Hi Bruce, Thanks for that update. I knew you were considering a second shot at the 2450. Good to hear that your experiences with this new one are positive. Perhaps I'll keep an eye on prices for the time being. The difference between my two options now is only $120 -- still a not-insignificant chunk of change. However, if Epson has any rebate programs, that $120 cost differential may decrease. Thanks again, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
October PUG favorites
Hi gang, Had a quick look at the new gallery this afternoon, and really enjoyed this month's postings -- as I always do! I confess I haven't been good about posting comments, but this month I will. Starting now! Thru the Windscreen by Facit. My favorite this month, I think. Simply beautiful. What good luck to have the camera to eye, with shutter cocked, at just the right moment! Another Scorcher by Bob Poe. This resonates with me. The weather here in upstate NY was much the same this summer as what Bob describes for SC. There's a rusty old tractor (horse-drawn) sitting on the scorched lawn of what used to be a farm, down the road from me. I was thinking about shooting a roll of it for this month's theme, capturing the barbed wire fence, the rusty tractor, and the parched earth around it. Never got a chance. You did a nice job with this concept, Bob. By chance, did you happen to capture any views with the scorching afternoon sun in the same frame as this tractor? That would have been interesting as well. I See the Light by Ken Waller. I love the cold blues and the crashing waves. Ken writes, I believe this photo captures some of the essence of a stormy fall day in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Ken, I believe you're absolutely right. Good shot! And those lightning shots by G. Fenstermacher, Simon King, Brendan MacRae, and Christian Skofteland are shots I enjoyed as well, particularly from a technical perspective. I think I now have a better appreciation for how difficult these shots can be. This year, the little bit of lightning we've had here in Rochester has generally been accompanied by dense, low-lying clouds -- not very good for photographing lightning bolts. I'd love to capture some images like these gentlemen have. Nice work! That's all the comments for now. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
test
Sorry -- having problems posting to the list the past day or so Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: OT: Another story about The Man (tm) coming down on photogs..
William Robb described the erosion of civil rights since 11 September: I am thinking more like the loss of civil rights in Germany, circa mid to late 1930's Seems quite a few folks, both in the US and abroad, have noticed that similarity. Damned frightening, indeed. Personally, I'm glad to see that the current administration in Germany has the backbone to call Bush for what he is. Given that the US was built by the collective toil of immigrants, it's scary how quickly the American public can be whipped into a frenzy of contempt, suspicion, and paranoia regarding recent immigrants, foreign visitors -- even fellow American citizens of foreign descent. You need more than a regime change, more like a paradigm shift. Look at how successful the war on drugs has been, and then think about how successful the war on terrorism will be. Indeed! Couldn't have put it better myself, Bill. Either way, an informed and thinking electorate is really a prerequisite. Therein lies the rub. Call me a cynic, I guess. There's often a fine line between democracy and mob tyranny. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Sorry
Perhaps it might help if some of us keep in mind that the list readership occasionally includes some rather young photo enthusiasts -- Cotty's young son, or Bruce Dayton's young daughters, for example, and there are quite likely some other youngsters. 'Nuff said Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Flatbed scanners for 35mm
Taka wrote: So what would be a recommended flatbed scanner to produce somewhat reasonable quality 35mm scans for about $150? Hi Taka, I'm actually satisfied with results from my Canoscan D660U, but I may not be as critical as other users. I paid about $120 or $130 for it about a year (??) ago. It has a lamp built into the hood for scanning 35mm negatives. I can get 2400 ppi scans out of it, giving full-frame files of about 22 MB. I think the single-pass optical resolution is actually 1200 ppi, and it actually gets 2400 either by multiple passes using some sort of diffractive optics, or else by software interpolation. Often times I don't do any sharpening during scanning or during post-scan processing, and I probably ~should~ do that as part of normal operating procedure. Perhaps you can take a look at my PUG posts over the last year or so and see how the results I get with this scanner compare with your needs? Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Shooting Sunrises/sunsets
JCO wrote: I'm thinking of shooting some sunrises (maybe todays?) with a long lens Hi JCO, Don't know if this would be of interest to you, but several multiple-exposure eclipse sequences I've seen use the following technique. Shoot the horizon earlier in the day, when the Sun is not included in the scene. This exposure, of course, would be metered for proper exposure of the land features. Several hours later, when the Sun is in the scene, make another exposure on the same frame -- but this time, meter for the Sun. For eclipse sequences, there's often a huge difference between desired exposure for the partially eclipsed Sun and desired exposure for the land features -- e.g., a filter factor of perhaps 1000. For your sunset shots, you may not wish to have as large a difference between horizon and Sun. The principle is still the same, though. Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Aerial photography question
Don Williams wrote: Sorry Anthony, to go on being pernickitty, but how does distance introduce haze? Hi Don, I think Anthony was just referring to the fact that you've got a longer path of hazy air you're looking through when you shoot from a greater distance. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
Taking William Robb's advice....
Hi gang, Well, on Wheatfield Willie's advice to Take Toronto PLEASE!!!, I'm off for a few days to Toronto. We'll be taking the grandkids to the zoo, the Lion King, and probably some diversions that will involve being out in the amusement parks and getting soaking wet. I'll be the balding sunburned Yank with the MZ-50 and Sid Barras' old SMC-A 35-105/3.5. Hoping to spend all of my Canadian currency north of the border so I don't have to carry any of it back with me. Either that, or I'll have to make another trip north soon. Hope to see how Fuji Reala does with some wildlife shots. Interested to see how it handles skintones, as well. In the mean time, I'll be unsubscribing for a few days. See y'all next week! Cheers, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Flash Problem - PZ - 1 AF330ftz
Grant Gillingham wrote: The problem I have recently encountered seemes to be a miscommunication between camera flash, using ttl, auto-zoom mode on the AF330ftz Remounting the flash sometimes the lens does get it working again Any suggestions??? Welcome to the list, Grant! Sounds to me like the hotshoe contacts might be oxidized. Perhaps you could try cleaning them with a pencil eraser and see if that helps? Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: What's the best way to clean filters?
On the Lens Pen, William Robb wrote: I tried using a brand new lens pen to clean the rear element of my finder base not long ago. This is not a product I will use on anything I like, ever again. I was afraid it had wrecked my finder base by smearing a grease like substance onto the glass. Hi Bill, I've occasionally noticed the same smearing effect when I use a Lens Pen. I believe that the grease I see in these cases is actually grease that's already on the optic. (If I do a detergent-and-water cleaning on an optic like that, I find that going back at it with a Lens Pen doesn't introduce any new grease.) I don't think these pens are good at removing large amounts of grease, but I've found that they work pretty well for cleaning small amounts of grease, and they're pretty convenient in the field -- as long as you're not trying to clean anything that's ~too~ greasy. So I guess I have to qualify my answer. I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion about dish detergent and warm water. One or two other folks mentioned that as well, and I think someone even mentioned using a sterile cotton ball along with the soap and water. That's exactly what I use to clean my 8 diameter telescope mirror, in fact. I'm curious if you've ever had any luck with glass cleaners like Windex. I've actually had good luck with this stuff on occasion, and I haven't noticed any residue if I do it carefully. I'd be interested to hear anyone else's experiences. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: New Toys
Keith Whaley wrote: I suspect what I'll do before I give it up to the camera repairman is to remove the battery and o-ring I'd stuffed in there... [Snip] Uh, Keith Do ya suppose that the battery cover is engaging on the O-ring (which it probably is), then pushing down enough on that engaged O-ring as you screw in the cover, such that the positive metal contact on the battery case is not even making contact with the inside surface of the cover? Before surrendering to the repairman, I'd be tempted to find a larger button cell that will fit in the compartment properly. Just the other day, somebody mentioned a currently manufactured size that fits -- maybe your local office supply store would be a good place to check, since Office Depot seems to carry a good selection around here (Rochester, NY). Or, use the O-ring, but stuff a little wad of foil between the top of the battery and the inside surface of the door? Good luck! Let us know how you make out. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: just bought a photo printer
JCO wrote: Heads up guys. Oooh, the ladies on the list are gonna take issue with that one ;-) Epson is now offering a $100 rebate on their 1280 printer. Seemed like a good deal so I took the plunge Can anybody recommend a good paper (glossy) for doing color and BW printing with this machine? Hi JCO, I'm actually pretty happy with the Epson Glossy Photo Paper (the stuff that runs $10 to $13 or so for 20 sheets of 8x10). There's a Premium Glossy which I haven't used, so I'm not sure how different of a look it will have. The Epson Glossy out of my Epson 820 printer looks very much like a conventional print. I know some folks have said they don't generally like the Epson papers, so your mileage may vary. Not an answer to the question you asked, but Mark Roberts showed me some 11x14's he did on some Ilford rag paper, back while he was still in town here. Man, that stuff looked great! Of course, you get what you pay for, and that stuff was something like $5 a sheet. A little out of my range, for sure! Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: stops and scales
Scott Fine wrote: Please tell me if this is correct - I subtracted one stop from the next largest, divided that number by 2 and added the result to the larger aperture. I cam up with the following 1/2 stop scale Hi Scott, Nope, sorry -- the results are close, but the method is not correct. Photographic stops are a geometric progression, not an arithmetic one. That means to generate the series, you ~multiply~ by a constant factor. To get the series of whole stops, start with 1, and multiply by 2^0.5 (that is, the square root of two). To get the series of half-stops, start with one, and multiply by 2^0.25 (that is, the fourth root of two, which is also the square root of the original square-root-of-two factor). To get the series of third-stops, start with 1, and multiply by 2^0.1667 (that is, the sixth root of two, which is also the cube root of the original square-root-of-two factor). See the pattern? Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: For the 6x7 brotherhood -- questions on light seals
Rob Studdert wrote: I hate to burst your bubble POP!! POP-POP-POP!! POP ;-) I really think that you should have used a foam which didn't fill the recess ie the 1mm stuff. I use the Micro-tools foam to and I have found that it's pretty dense and doesn't deform as readily as some of the original foams (which often seem softer even when still in good condition). Hi Rob, Thanks for the information on that. I was wondering about choice of thickness before I cut any material for the door channels. The kit I got apparently has the imported foam, which Curt Fargo states is not as dense as the domestic foam. Not sure how the stuff I have compares with the original foam, or with the material you've used. (I know the seals in my 6x7 were ready for replacement, since they were leaving black gooey residue on anything that touched them -- doors, fingers, etc. Yuck!) I figured that once the 2mm stuff compressed after several cycles of door opening and closing, it would get crunched down a bit, so I thought I'd be better off with 2mm rather than 1mm. Also, the old seals that I could actually measure -- on flat surfaces on the sides of the body, and on the inside surface of the door itself -- appeared to be 2mm. I don't think it will be too bad of a job if I end up pulling out the 2mm stuff and replacing with 1mm. Worst part of it was getting the material to adhere to the ~bottom~, rather than the sides, of the recessed areas. I finally got it after some practice. However, Curt mentions in his instructions a simple trick you can use to get thin strips of foam into these recesses. Cut the proper thickness of foam, then adhere it to a black sheet of writing paper -- the kind the young kids like to write on with those brightly colored gel pens. You then cut the paper strip (with foam strip attached) down to proper width, then insert into the recessed channel. If you've already applied a bead of Plio-bond or other suitable adhesive into the bottom of the channel, the paper-mounted foam strip should stick right where you want it. I suppose that before you make any rash decisions you should check it for light leaks in its current condition? Hear, hear! ;-) I think I'm actually light-tight already, but as you sugget, the real test will be running some film through the camera. My concern was more with the present clearance between pressure plate and focal plane, but I think I've figured a way to measure that pretty easily. Again, thanks for the helpful reply! Cheers, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Anti-close up lenses?
Bill Kane wrote: I know this is a question that's never been asked before. I know to be able to focus CLOSER to an object, you need a close up lens . . . . . . BUT, I have a project where I need to actually be able to focus FURTHER from the lens. Hi Bill, One way to look at this is that you need to move your lens closer to the CCD imaging array. Before you do anything else, take a look at your lens mount on the camera. There are actually two types of mounts -- C and CS. They both use the 30mm C-thread, but IIRC, the CS mount positions the lens 5mm close to the imaging array than the C mount. Can you switch your camera between C and CS? I've got a Panasonic video camera at work that I can set either way. Switching the mount from C to CS would solve your problem, I think. Another way to look at this is that your current lens is too strong (i.e., focal length is too short), and you need to weaken the lens. Do this by placing a diverging lens in front of it. Maybe you can obtain a few cheap 2-dia. planoconcave lenses of various focal lengths and try them out? Start with one that's maybe -1.5x to -2x times the focal length of your current lens. Vary the effective correction imparted by this lens by moving it closer to or further from the front of your current lens. Maybe even a pair of eyeglasses would work for a quick experiment, if you can find someone who's nearsighted and wears glasses. Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Exposing slides (and prints too)
Somebody wrote: Do I need to over/under-exposure slides as some sort of general rule? Hi, The general rule for PRINT film is to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. The general rule for SLIDE film is just the reverse -- that is, to expose for the ~highlights~, but develop for the shadows. What's the reason for this, and how the devil does one remember?, you might ask. Maybe it would help to think of it in the following manner. The scene you're shooting spans a range of luminance values, from very bright to very dark. One end of this range is going to show up on your emulsion as an area of low density -- that is, a nearly transparent area on the developed emulsion. (For negative film, very dark areas of the scene show up on the developed emulsion as low density. For slide film, very bright areas of the scene show up on the developed emulsion as low density.) The rule means that you don't want this low-density area of your developed emulsion to be absolutely transparent -- if it ~is~ transparent, that means you've lost information in the process of recording your scene. This rule tells you to set your exposure such that this extreme end of the luminance range shows up on the developed emulsion with a little bit of optical density. Thus, to properly capture all the details of dark areas of a scene on print film, you'll need to overexpose a bit. Likewise, to properly capture all the details of light areas of a scene on slide film, you'll need to underexpose a bit. Short answer -- You're best off to get a spot meter and meter exactly. However, if you have to err in your exposures, you're better off slightly ~over~ exposing print film, and slightly ~under~ exposing slides. Keep in mind that print film will be more forgiving due to its greater latitude. Hope this helps somewhat. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: What's the best way to clean filters?
Hi Brad, Two words: Lens Pen. Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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 .
For the 6x7 brotherhood -- questions on light seals
Hi gang, I spent some time this weekend removing the gummy old light seals from the back of my 6x7 and replacing them with nice new foam. I used the 2mm adhesive-backed foam from the $6 USD light seal kit from Micro Tools (http://www.micro-tools.com/). I've now got a few questions for those of you with 6x7's, 67's, etc. -- even if you haven't installed new light seals. When I close the door against the newly installed light seals, I can feel the springiness of new foam rubber pushing back as I snap the door closed. This is what I expected. So far so good. However, when the latch fully engages and the door snaps closed, it seems like there is still a little bit of clearance between the edge of the door and the edge of this latch. That is, I can still press against the closed door and shut it perhaps another millimeter (?) or so. There's no looseness at all, and everything seems to be light-tight -- it's just that the new light seals are pushing out against the door edges and pressing it against the engaged latch. As I said, I can press against the closed door and force it to close about another millimeter. I'm just wondering if this clearance will interfere with the function of the pressure plate. So here are my questions: (1) Does this clearance I've noticed seem normal? Are you able to press against the closed door of your own 6x7 and get this extra millimeter of motion I've described? (2) With the door not closing completely, is it possible that the pressure plate will not be pressing down completely against the back of the film? (3) Should the latch be adjusted to eliminate this clearance I've described, so that it pulls the door a little more tightly closed? (4) Should the pressure plate clearance and/or tension be checked after replacement of light seals? (5) Should I have used 1mm foam instead of 2mm foam for the door seals? (The channel is recessed 2mm deep.) Heck, maybe it's not the resistance of the new foam causing this -- maybe it's actually the resistance of the pressure plate. Just not sure, so I thought I'd seek the collective wisdom of the 'hood. ;-) Thanks in advance to any of you who can shed some light on this! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: OT: Windoze 2000 features
Hi folks, Just wanted to thank all of you who provided useful feedback on all the issues surrounding upgrading of desktop PCs from Win9x to Win2k. I gathered a lot of useful information, I rathered enjoyed the lively discussion, and I think a lot of people got a chance to blow off some steam. Sorry to those of you whose tender tootsies might have gotten a bit toasted by all the heat from the ensuing Mac vs. PC discussion. I can understand perfectly why Cameron Hood feels the way he does, and I don't blame him one bit. We'll all try to keep it a bit more on-topic in the future. Well, for a while at least. ;-) I've gotta admit that the first PC I ever used was an Apple II, and I've used (and dare I say enjoyed?) Apples and Macs since then. But my computers at home have always been PC clones, and for the most part, my computers at work have been PCs or PC clones as well -- mainly because it's always been cheaper and easier to buy hardware and software to do what I need to do on PC clones. But I'm quite convinced that Bill Gates is just a nickname for Beelzebub Gates. ;-) You may not like the guy's ethics (I certainly don't), but you have to admit that Bill and Microsoft are the perfect example of what happens in a free-market system in that rare circumstance where someone with a brain starts and runs a big company. (As opposed to what generally happens in a free-market economy when clueless people are allowed to run big companies) Frankly, I kinda miss DOS. First time I saw a Windows implementation in the late 80s running on a then-new i386, my first thought was, Hey, just like a Mac -- sorta My next thought was, Hey, I could take a wallpaper picture of Larry, Moe, and Curly, then insert my bosses' head in place of Curly! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk Of course I did, and of course I got a call from my boss at 8:00 PM one night shortly thereafter demanding that I change the picture back to its original form. Some people just have no sense of humor! ;-P I blame GUI OSs in general, and GUI wordprocessors in particular, for the general decline in the quality of business and technical communication, since they've allowed folks to spend way too much time on fonts, colors, borders, etc., that they should instead be spending on content and clarity. But what the hell do I know? One thing I'd venture we can all agree on is that IBM's foray into the GUI OS market was a complete and total failure. Remember OS2? HAR!! Better Windows than Windows my eye! I worked at a scientific instrument company in the Midwest for about a year that made the baffling decision to design controlling software for a couple of their products on the OS2. These instruments were then sold to a client base that -- I kid you not -- included many folks who didn't know how to format a diskette! Don't know how much of my telephone support time was devoted to helping customers navigate OS2. And God help them if they wanted to add a new printer. Boy, if that wasn't a marketing faux pax! Like a colleague of mine remarked, Anyone who designs something to run on OS2 deserves what he gets! Well, thanks for the opportunity for this little stroll down memory lane. I gotta get out more with my cameras, though! ;-) Have a good weekend, y'all! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: 70-2x0 zoom question
Andrew Robinson wrote: In response to my queries about autofocus telephoto zooms, a couple of folks have recommended the Pentax 70-200 f4-5.6 F or FA lenses. Someone else instead recommended the Pentax 70-210 zoom. Elsewhere I found a comment that the 70-210 zoom is not considered highly. Has anyone got the scoop on these two (actually three) lenses? Hi Andrew, Actually, it's even more complicated than you suggest. There are actually four SMC coated lenses in this range: -- an FA 70-200/4-5.6 (not particularly well-regarded); -- an FA 70-210/4-5.6 power zoom (better, introduced when the PZ-1p came out); -- an F 70-210/4-5.6 (discontinued around 1991, considered by many to be the best of the autofocus zooms in this range); and -- the venerable A 70-210/4 constant-aperture, non-autofocus, one-touch zoom lens (considered by many to be the best zoom in this range in terms of both optics and build quality, and a massive beast at ~150mm length and 680g mass). I paid $130 US for mine about a year and a half ago, but $200 is not an unusual price for one in excellent shape. Many folks on the list have remarked that there are two particularly outstanding zooms: one is this A 70-210/4, and the other is the A 35-105/3.5. There are also several non-SMC K-mount zooms in the 70-2x0 range, the most common of which is marked 70-210 Takumar (Bayonet). These non-SMC zooms are of inferior quality and should be avoided. If you're shopping, look for SMC PENTAX-A or SMC PENTAX-F on the front of the lens. Make sure SMC is on there somewhere. You may want to check the following links for some excellent information on lens performance and lens dimensions: http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/ http://w3.one.net/~georgek/pentax/lenses/g0018.html Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: OT: Windows 2000 features
Hi folks, Thanks again to all for your many helpful comments on my Win2k questions. Very good to know your experiences with this. Regarding DOS, I think I'm on the same side of the fence as Fred. I've got a few ancient, but still useful, DOS routines that I use once in a while. The old QuickBASIC compiler still gets a little use once in a while. Heck, I've still got a copy of an old GW BASIC interpreter that came with an Epson XT clone I purchased about 17 years ago! I'll have to wait and see if the upgrade to Win2k will be preceded by an upgrade of our desktop PCs. Cheers, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: OT: Windoze 2000 features
Cameron Hood wrote: #%)_@#%_)(*@#%!! [Expletives deleted.] But Cameron, why don't you tell us what you ~really~ think? HAR!! Thanks for that Mac testimonial -- I ~loved~ it!! I sent a copy to a Mac-using co-worker of mine. He's got about the same opinion of Bill Gates, Microsoft, and PCs as you do. Thanks again for the belly-laugh! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Homemade Cable Switch F
Ken Archer wrote: I just finished a homemade cable for my PZ-1p and it only cost me about $1.50 thanks to Bill Peifer's link from the PDML archives It works great. Thanks, Bill, for the link. Hi Ken, You're welcome -- glad it worked out for you! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Digital doubts
On the digital future, Bob Keefer opined: I really wonder whether the average home photographer really wants to put that much energy into making pictures of the kids' birthday party Hi Bob, I think you've nailed it. As much as many of us PDMLers enjoy working in the digital darkroom, I think you're absolutely right that most folks don't want to go to all that trouble if the goal is a couple dozen 4x6 prints of vacations, birthday parties, and so forth. Hell, ~I~ won't usually go to that trouble if all I want is a 4x6 reprint, and I really enjoy all the fiddling! Kodak's mantra for the past century has been, You push the button; we do the rest. If digital can't deliver that kind of performance to the masses at a competitive price -- and right now, I'd agree that it certainly can't -- then the much more profitable film business will remain intact for a long time to come, I suspect. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Digital doubts
ERNR wrote: I agree if digital can't deliver ... but right now it certainly can't? The important part of my quote you left off was at a competitive price, by which I mean competitive with disposable cameras and low-end point-and-shoot. It ain't there yet, and I don't see it getting there for a long time to come. Maybe they'll surprise us. Kodak (and the rest of them) have realized immense profits from manufacture and sale of film -- a case of giving away the razor in order to make profit in the sale of the blades. Not sure if there are enough blades in digital photography to make it attractive. Perhaps paper and ink sales will one day provide the huge profit margins that conventional film today supplies. If, on the other hand, the profits are squeezed primarily out of services (photofinishing) rather than goods (film), I think Kodak may very well cease to exist -- at least as the manufacturing company we know it as today. The masses *can* walk into an establishment with the digital camera in hand and get prints quite painlessly now. Painless is a relative term, I think. The initial equipment expense is quite steep, and the cost of consumables -- batteries, in this case -- is not a trivial expense. But aside from that, I'd agree that dropping off your memory card at the local Wal-Mart is convenient. As long as nobody damages your expensive card ;-) I shoot film when I want better quality; when the situation is low-light; when I want the images to have a better shot at longevity; when I want to use my Pentaxes. But of course I am picky Couldn't have put it better myself! But I have to concede that there's a certain fun factor and an instant gratification that makes digital -- with all of what I perceive to be its shortcomings -- somewhat enticing. Cheerio, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: the photogenic Finger Lakes
Amita wrote: We're probably going to honeymoon in the Finger Lakes in mid-late October, and we're trying to figure out which lake to stay on. Hi Amita, One place to consider is the village of Skaneateles, on the north end of Skaneateles Lake. (Always thought it was amusing that the name of the lake and village looks like it should be pronounced skan ee uh TEL us, but the correct pronunciation is actually skinny Atlas. But then I'm more easily amused than some folks) This really isn't centrally located, but is instead located near Auburn NY, and not too far from Syracuse. Don't know quite what it is that I like so much about the place -- just the general ambience, I guess. Looks and feels like a very gentrified touristy kind of place that none of the gentrified tourists know about. Very relaxing atmosphere, lots of cool architecture, quaint shops, friendly people The sort of place you could take a leisurely bike ride without having to be constantly on the lookout for the typical traffic a tourist spot might get. Well worth the trip sometime, I think. Another day trip you might want to keep in mind, especially if you're closer to the west end of the lakes, is the village of Naples, just south of the southern end of Canandaigua Lake. It's yet another old, quiet, quaint village with a few arts-and-crafts shops, some historic buildings, and the nearby Cumming Nature Center. Also in Naples is Widmer's Wine Cellars, a large vineyard and winery in the south end of the village. Not too terribly far from Naples, but outside of the Finger Lakes region, is the village of Mount Morris and the nearby Letchworth State Park. Letchworth has some stunning sights for photographers. That's all I can think of right now. Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Long exposure guess
Ayash wrote, regarding my tale of my previous life: And, what do you mean by that? Please explain. Hi Ayash, It was a ~joke~ that shows what a silly question the professor appeared to have asked. Jokes about professors in graduate school are kind of like jokes about bosses and management in industry. Sorry if I didn't clearly indicate that, or if you took it as an offense. Certainly no offense meant. Jokes aren't usually funny when they have to be explained, but I'll try to explain anyway, since you asked ~Of course~ there's a third, fourth, fifth, ..., day in the July calendar. Doesn't matter whether you're looking at the calendar in the US, or in India, or in Antarctica. I suppose it was funny because the way this young professor asked the question, it ~sounded~ as though he was unaware that the rest of the world counts days just the same as the US counts days. Naturally, his real question was not whether there is a fourth calendar day in July in India (the graduate student's country of origin). His real question was actually whether there is a national holiday in India in which citizens celebrate national sovereignty. He certainly realized that such a day probably did not take place on the fourth day of each July, but that's not how the question came out of his mouth. So it was funny. Gopal (the graduate student) thought the question was hilarious, and this was actually one of my and Gopal's favorite stories from our days together working for this particular professor. I haven't seen Gopal in many years now -- I think he went back to India. OK, now I owe you a better (hopefully) story. Let's go back to the same laboratory of the same professor. One hot summer day in this lab, one of the vacuum pumps stopped working because an AC electric motor driving the pump failed. We needed to repair the pump quickly, but that would take too much time. I made the apparently bold suggestion that we could get a replacement motor much more quickly, then I'd install the motor myself. The professor would have to pay for this motor (perhaps US $250) out of his research grant, and since he really didn't have any mechanical aptitude himself, he didn't know if we'd run into any unexpected problems. He reluctantly agreed to purchase the motor, and then in the most whining and pathetic tone of voice, he suggested: Why don't you look in the pump manual and see if it says if the repair will be hard. He returned a short while later to see what I had found by reading the manual. I replied: Don't worry. The manual said that the repair will be tedious, but it won't be hard. Hope the explanation helps. I guess I won't quit my day job and become a comedian just yet. ;-) Cheers, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: APS film -- exposed or not? (was RE: Carry-on inspection of film -- and an unfortunate incident)
Bill Robb wrote: [Everything I always wanted to know about APS processors, and more. Snipped] Hi Bill, Gee, I get the feeling that some of those APS customers really get in your shorts ;-) HAR!! Seriously, thanks very much for your detailed note. Kodak's decision (or whoever's, since APS format development was a joint industry venture, IIRC) to coat the light-sensitive layers and magnetic recording layers right on top of each other probably makes great sense from a manufacturability standpoint, but it sounds like a real nightmare from the point of view of the processing lab. Credit card readers in department stores get dirty just from the dirt and grease from people's wallets, hands, etc. I can't imagine smearing those magnetic read heads with used developer, bleach, fixer, etc., etc. Yuck!! You're right, of course, about the fact that it's really the responsibility of the customer to read the status indicator on the cartridge. I wasn't aware -- until list members pointed it out in their replies -- that these cartridges even had human-readable indicators. I agree that the customer really needs to take responsibility for identifying the status of his/her rolls. I'd guess that APS film is probably most likely to get dropped off at busy one-hour minilabs, and that even if the lab tech felt the need/desire to babysit the customer, the large volume of incoming and outgoing film at such a lab would increase the likelihood that an unexposed roll would be run through the machine, if the lab tech is the only one looking at this status indicator. Unfortunately, I suspect that there are a large number of APS users who aren't even aware that there's a status indicator on the cartridge. After all, what's the likelihood that any given PS user will ever bother to read the manual? (For that matter, how many times have we seen replies on this list advising a high-end Pentax SLR user to RTFM?) Your comments got me thinking about something that I believe product designers generally call human factors engineering. I remember a recent note to the list -- I think Bruce Dayton posted it -- regarding APS cameras and the demographic group to which they appeal. He stated that APS seems to be popular not with a young demographic (like you see in the Kodak commercials), but with a much older demographic. Perhaps older folks who don't have quite as much manual dexterity as they used to, or who don't have quite as sharp of eyesight for close-up, high-resolution inspection as they used to. Drop-in cartridge loading and automatic film threading would probably be regarded by someone in this demographic as a highly desirable feature. Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment The question that comes to my mind, as a devil's advocate, is the following: Can we expect the average member of this demographic to have sufficiently good eyesight -- without putting on reading glasses or holding the roll close to a bright light source -- to distinguish the circle, half-circle, x-mark, or rectangle status indicator on the outside of the cartridge? OK, these aren't cryptic, but then they're not intuitive either. I'll freely admit that someone who shoots a couple rolls of APS film a month will probably be quite familiar with what they mean without the need to look at the written instructions, but what about the user who only goes to the mini-lab half a dozen times a year? If my assumptions about the demographics are correct (and maybe they're not), I'd guess that at least some of the typical APS users might have difficulty reading the printed instructions on the cartridge, and I wonder if they might even have difficulty recognizing -- without close inspection -- that there are even printed instructions there in the first place. How about print contrast? Kodak's black on yellow is probably quite readable, but what about Fuji's color scheme? Black on green, right?? Probably not quite as readable, I'd guess. Don't get me wrong -- I think Kodak/Fuji/et al. probably did a good job designing this status indicator and the printed instructions, given the size limitations of the cartridge. I just wonder if there's an opportunity here to improve the status indicator to make it more readable for older, weaker eyes? Also, is there a product advertising opportunity here to maybe better educate the customer on the special features engineered into the product? Well, enough rambling. Must dig out my Kodak photoguide and review the information on shooting fireworks and cityscapes at night. Cheers, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: APS film -- exposed or not? (was RE: Carry-on inspection of film -- and an unfortunate incident)
Hi again folks, Again, many thanks for your replies on x-ray fogging, APS film cartridge construction, and visible (to the consumer) differences between exposed and unexposed APS cartridges. Once again, I've learned something new thanks to the collective wisdom and experience of the PDMLers. As usual, much appreciated! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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 .
Peifer takes a holiday....
Hi gang, I'll be off visiting with the folks for the next several days, so I'm temporarily unsubscribing. I'll have a word with the good Major (majordomo, that is) to make sure everything is in order. I'll still be able to do my PUG submission from the public library. Hope to be back on-list again early next week. Hope you all have a good weekend! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Pentax and Minolta on Life Support
Steven Desjardins wrote: Does anyone know where you can look at any financial information about these companies? Hi Steven, Answer to your question is, Sure -- I know a couple places! All publicly traded companies in the US (don't know if this includes ~all~ of the major camera manufacturers) file regular reports with the SEC, and these are available on-line. (Can't remember the SEC website address -- sorry.) IIRC, these are called 10-K reports. One can obtain a considerable amount of information on such companies this way. Another place to gather information is from a company's Dunn and Bradstreet report, but I'm sure you'd need some sort of subscription to get these anywhere on-line. I believe you might be able to get a copy of such a report from a business school library or law library, perhaps at some nominal cost. Any reference librarian should know what you mean if you ask for one of these. By the way, nice to see a yet another fellow chemist on the list. I see from the WLU website that you're currently chair of the chemistry department? Glad to see that some folks are still able to succeed at academic chemistry, given today's bleak funding environment. Never was able to secure an academic post myself (analytical, experimental physical, and anything else that my CV would fit). Lots of competition. But my longer-than-expected postdoc at SUNY Buffalo was one of the most rewarding and enjoyable jobs I've ever had, in spite of the scholarly squalor. ;-) Take care, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Eclipse Photo
Wendy Beard wrote: The picture of the day in Daniels's link looks like it was taken normally without any filters - otherwise how else would the golden gate bridge appear on the photo? [Snip] How do you do it? Hi Wendy, The picture on the NASA site is described in the caption as a time-lapse sequence. Typically, shots like these are taken through a very strong filter (typically an optical density of 5 or so, corresponding to a filter factor of ~100,000). To make things interesting, photographers sometimes take an additional exposure (on the same frame) without a filter, when the Sun is not in the field of view. Not sure if there was the typical late afternoon fog coming in off the ocean that day or not. If there was, then the exposure of the water and bridge was probably taken in the late afternoon, well before the start of the eclipse. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Pentax 6x7
Hi Ali, You can check here for instructions on repairing a broken chain: http://www.salzgeber.at/articles/6x7chainRepair.html As Mark Roberts notes, I had this problem with my 6x7 and was able to repair it myself. You could probably find a suitable piece of silver chain at a jewelry store or jewelry repair shop. You'll need a piece 4 cm in length. Might be more difficult to find another aperture coupling ring, but I'd think these would be quite difficult to break and would generally not need replacement. You might want to watch eBay for a good price on a broken camera, then use it for extra parts -- or possibly check with Pentax in Englewood, Colorado to see if they have such an item in stock. Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY -Original Message- From: a.fyffe1 [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 2:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax 6x7 I am looking for source of spares for my Pentax 6x7. Particularly looking for meter coupling chain and the ring that it connects to in the lense barrel Appreciate any help with this. Ali - 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 .
RE: I'm happy - not entirely OT
Treena wrote: Considering that my publisher has a spiteful streak and informed me earlier in the year in a meeting with human resources that I'm an awful person whom no one likes, and everyone thinks my photos suck and just haven't said anything about it in four years even though they do seem to win awards (she's 50-something, not 12, if you can believe it) Hi Treena, My usual response to this sort of thing is, I'm not getting paid to be your *!)(%! friend, and my coworkers aren't getting paid to like me! Phffft!! I think what you describe is precisely why my wife always comments that she hates working for a female boss. I'd much rather work for a man Since my asbestos suit is at the cleaners today, I won't dare offer my opinion. ;-) Seriously, though -- congratulations on a job well done, and good luck in July! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Try this for a strange problem
Rob Studdert wrote: I was reviewing a set of 35mm BW negs that I just cut a sleeved and on one frame I noticed a strange aberration. The left hand side of the image has a distinct double exposure effect there are two copies of the image with a horizontal offset. Looking across the frame the difference between the images becomes less until at about 2/3 across is disappears completely and the neg appears sharp under a 20x magnification The image was shot with an LX (horizontal run shutter) and was hand held Hi Rob, This sounds like some sort of shutter bounce, as I believe it's called. I recall reading in the 6x7 service manual about a mechanism to dampen shutter curtain bounce on the 6x7, but it never occurred to me that one might get bounce in a 35mm body. I suppose it's possible -- just don't know how likely. Also don't know if it's the leading curtain or the trailing curtain that's bouncing. Perhaps if you opened the back, set the aperture wide open and the shutter to perhaps a half-second or so, then fired the shutter while looking at the curtains, you might be able to determine if such a thing is taking place? I'd guess the double-exposure effect would be more apparent on a horizontally moving object than a still object, and might only be apparent for shutter speeds equal to or longer than the sync speed. Just my guess. Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: BW Film in the BRIGHT sunshine :)
Dave Chang-sang wrote: Ok BW shooters - Here's the issue: how do you handle BRIGHT sunshine when shooting BW film ? Hi Dave, Ansel sez -- Use a yellow filter to cut out blue light scattered by a cloudless sky. Use contracted development to cut down on contrast. That is, overexpose a bit to place your shadows perhaps a half-zone higher than they'd normally fall, then develop for a shorter period of time (or in a more dilute developer) so that the highlights develop to a zone less than normal development. You don't need to buy me a beer, but I'll be thinking of your midday-sun shooting while I'm drowning a large helping of chiles rellenos with a frosty glass or two of Dos Equis Amber at my favorite Mexican restaurant tonight. M! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: [2] PUG Comments - The Hitchiker
Simon King wrote: [Comments on Cotty's PUG submission this month] Hi Cotty, Add me to the list of admirers as well. As usual, I found many photos I enjoyed in this month's gallery. (I'll try to get around to providing timely comments on the rest this month.) Yours was one of my favorites. The little girl's expression is adorable without a doubt, but I also like the expression you captured on the face of the mother. I love those arched eyebrows, and the neck craning back to watch the passenger. Reminds me of all the similar rides I gave my older grandchildren when they were toddlers, and all the rides I'll likely be giving to the youngest one when he's a bit older. But getting into the water with a charged high-voltage capacitor (like the one in your AF280T)? You're a braver man than I. I've been zapped a time or two by high-voltage caps on dry land. Getting a zap with wet hands would no doubt be quite an experience. Might cause one to drop his LX, winder, and A85/1.4 right into the pool! ;-) Regards, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: June PUG picks -- The Artist
Frank Theriault wrote: The Artist by Mark Cassino: After Gianfranco's, this is my favourite this month It's his eyes and mouth that capture me His eyes seem at once playful, with maybe a touch of craziness (sorry, I know he's your father, but I mean that in a good way. I just don't know how else to explain it...) in them Love the background, too Hi Frank ( Mark), I had the same reaction to Mark's photo. After viewing it a few moments, I think I pinned it down. The lower part of the face -- the mouth, the chin, the beard -- remind me of Ansel Adams, I think. Looks like the face of someone who has scoured the wilderness with a large view camera. But the eyes reminded me for some reason of pictures I've seen of Salvador Dali. Don't know if that was Mark's intention in making this shot, but I love the result. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: is this person on our list?? mail problems.
Anthony Farr wrote: A few days ago I got an Out of Office AutoReply from a corporate email address to a message I sent to PDML. Like you the addressee was not listed in my address book so I don't understand how I could even have accidentally cc'd him [Snip] Has anyone else had something similar lately? Hi Anthony, I got an MS Outlook out-of-office auto-reply a few days ago as well. This also happened a few months ago, IIRC. I believe the problem is that someone with MS Outlook activates his/her Out-of-Office Manager (presumably before going on extended leave from the office), and then anyone sending him/her an e-mail gets an automatic reply, creating havok for any lists to which he/she subscribes. If this individual happens to get one -- or several dozen -- e-mails from the PDML server, then his/her mailserver dutifully sends out one -- or perhaps several dozen -- automatic replies to the PDML server. And of course, any posting to the listserver gets forwarded to all of us PDMLers. This Out-of-Office Manager is only supposed to auto-reply once to any given e-mail sender -- that is, if I send this individual ten e-mails, only the first one will get an auto-reply. However, I believe that Outlook looks for the From address rather than the Reply-to address. Thus, all his/her PDML mail looks like it comes from dozens of different individual senders (even though the reply-to address is the same), so dozens of auto-replies are sent out (rather than just a single auto-reply to the PDML address). I think Doug's got the listserver set up now so that anyone sending such an autoreply gets auto-unsubscribed, but I'm not sure. I know that when this problem happened several months ago (due to some PDMLer activating his MS Office auto-reply feature), I was getting double the PDML mail for the better part of a day. Each authentic PDML message was accompanied by a note from this particular PDMLer stating that he was out of the office presently, but would respond following his return. Quite aggravating! ;-) Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: is this person on our list?? mail problems. !@#$%^
Hi again Anthony, I just got one of these autoreplies myself from Simon King, another Aussie on the list. The text was: Thank you for your email. I will be off campus on training until Friday 7 June, and will respond to your message as soon as possible. Simon King. This one was sent directly to me rather than as a post from the PDML listserver. I don't expect I'll get another one from him, since: (i) he's probably been auto-unsubscribed, and (ii) his mailserver will recognize me as someone who's already been sent an auto-reply from an earlier message. I've modified the subject line (by adding a string of text !@#$%^ -- so that I'll recognize any other autoreply to this present message, in case one does happen to come. Typically, most MS Office users don't activate the Out-of-Office manager when they're gone from their offices on nights and weekends. (I know I don't, although perhaps some do.) Mostly, they might activate it under the same sorts of circumstances that would cause a PDMLer to temporarily unsubscribe from the list -- that is, if they went on vacation for a week. Thus, it shouldn't be a surprise that you wouldn't be deluged with such autoreplies. Have a good one! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY I'll add the following, in case Simon happens to read this on his return *** Hi Simon -- You may need to resubscribe to the list once you return to your office. IIRC, I think an auto-reply sent to the PDML server may cause you to be unsubscribed. If you get a chance, send me a note off-list and let me know if the auto-reply caused any havok with your PDML subscription. I'm just curious Thanks! *** -Original Message- From: Anthony Farr [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 1:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: is this person on our list?? mail problems. William, Thanks for the explanation. Sounds logical, and as most of my few posts occur in the wee hours, then it figures that local members subscribed from their offices would be the source of my phantom replies. It makes me wonder, 'though, why I'm not deluged with them when I post on weekends, or why I don't get a flood of American Out of Office AutoReplies when I post in our daytime (when you're out of your offices). It also explains why they never do get back to me later. Regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Peifer, William [OCDUS] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anthony Farr wrote: A few days ago I got an Out of Office AutoReply from a corporate email address to a message I sent to PDML. Like you the addressee was not listed in my address book so I don't understand how I could even have accidentally cc'd him [Snip] Has anyone else had something similar lately? Hi Anthony, I got an MS Outlook out-of-office auto-reply a few days ago as well. This also happened a few months ago, IIRC. I believe the problem is that someone with MS Outlook activates his/her Out-of-Office Manager (presumably before going on extended leave from the office), and then anyone sending him/her an e-mail gets an automatic reply, creating havok for any lists to which he/she subscribes. If this individual happens to get one -- or several dozen -- e-mails from the PDML server, then his/her mailserver dutifully sends out one -- or perhaps several dozen -- automatic replies to the PDML server. And of course, any posting to the listserver gets forwarded to all of us PDMLers. This Out-of-Office Manager is only supposed to auto-reply once to any given e-mail sender -- that is, if I send this individual ten e-mails, only the first one will get an auto-reply. However, I believe that Outlook looks for the From address rather than the Reply-to address. Thus, all his/her PDML mail looks like it comes from dozens of different individual senders (even though the reply-to address is the same), so dozens of auto-replies are sent out (rather than just a single auto-reply to the PDML address). I think Doug's got the listserver set up now so that anyone sending such an autoreply gets auto-unsubscribed, but I'm not sure. I know that when this problem happened several months ago (due to some PDMLer activating his MS Office auto-reply feature), I was getting double the PDML mail for the better part of a day. Each authentic PDML message was accompanied by a note from this particular PDMLer stating that he was out of the office presently, but would respond following his return. Quite aggravating! ;-) Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - - 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: Reciprocity failure in short-duration exposures? (Re-send)
A posting from yesterday which hasn't shown up yet -Original Message- From: Peifer, William [OCDUS] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 8:58 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Reciprocity failure in short-duration exposures? Hi Bill R., Bill S., and Aaron, Thanks for the helpful information, gentlemen! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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 .
Home developing -- details, details
Another posting from yesterday which hasn't shown up yet -Original Message- From: Peifer, William [OCDUS] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 9:47 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Home developing -- details, details Hi folks, Really enjoying the latest threads on home darkroom work. Hope I can trouble you all with a few questions It's been ages since I've done developing at home. Back in those glorious ancient days, it was Tri-X 4x5 sheet film and tray development, with an occasional roll of 620 or 126 in a $3 plastic tank. An old surplus enlarger made prints up to 8x10 -- since that's how big my easel was. Negatives developed in Microdol-X; prints developed in Dektol -- because those were the only soups to be found at the local camera store. Haven't done any of this in a long time, but I'd like to get my hands back in the soup and start developing negatives again. Won't be doing any sheet film or tray developing -- just roll film and a tank. So I ask: (1) Do any of you have comments on the practice of presoaking roll film in water (or perhaps dilute Photo-flo??) prior to the developer? That is, load the roll on the reel, then immerse into a temperature-controlled water bath, and then tranfer to the tank. Apparently a water presoak -- a minute or so, IIRC -- was favored by Saint Ansel. The idea was that this would saturate/swell the emulsion, get it equilibrated to the temperature of the developer, and facilitate diffusion of developer into the emulsion. (2) Any comments on tranferring a loaded roll into a tank already filled with developer, rather than adding developer through the cap? Saint Ansel claimed this alternative gives more precise development. I can see where this would be important with a large tank containing ~many~ rolls, and/or with very short development times, but does anyone use this practice for small tanks containing only one or two rolls? (3) Finally, any comments on Microdol vs. D-76 vs. HC-110 vs. Microphen? My plan is to standardize on a single developer if possible. I imagine I'll probably use mostly Tri-X, but I'd like to try TMax 100 and 400 just for comparison. I can also envision using Delta 3200 for very-low-light stuff. Thanks in advance for your comments. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Home developing -- details, details
TV wrote: [Lots of helpful comments on my home darkroom questions -- snipped] Hi Tom, Thanks very much for the reply. That's exactly the kind of information I was looking for. Especially interesting about the practice of presoaking. I wasn't sure if this might be better than a few solid raps against the tabletop to dislodge bubbles. I hadn't thought about the situation you describe, where you're trying to get rid of water spots. Thanks again, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: OT Ritz Camera?
Peter wrote: So which retailer controls the market in the USA? There is a point to all this, I promise. Gee, Peter -- I'd be tempted to guess that in terms of sheer volume in the disposable camera segment, and possibly the film-based point-and-shoot segment as well, stores like Wal-Mart and Target tend to control the market. And I wonder, for the case of the digital point-and-shoot segment, if the market is perhaps controlled by the computer and office-supply super-mega-behemoth retailers. Like Best Buy, CompUSA, Office Depot, and the like. Just my guess. Can't wait to see where you're going with this -- pray do tell! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: metering @ extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeme ISO
Dave (chang-sang.com) wrote: How the H-E-double hockey sticks do you meter that ? My Sekonic L308-B can only go to 8000. Every other hand meter I've seen only goes so high so how do you compensate for ISO above 8000 ? (i.e. 12,500 and higher) Easy! To get the correct exposure for ASA 25,000, meter at 8000, then expose at 1 2/3 stops slower. Alternatively, meter at about 6,000 and expose two stops slower. Every doubling of film speed allows you one stop less exposure to capture an equivalent amount of light (neglecting reciprocity failures) -- it's a geometric progression. If thinking in terms of Base-2 logs and exponents helps (and maybe it doesn't), just think of what power you need to raise 2 to in order to get the ratio of the ASA values. In your case, if 2^n = 25,000/8,000, then n=1.64. If 2^n = 25,000/6,000, then n is about equal to 2. Saint Ansel has a log table in the back of The Negative. Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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 .
Reciprocity failure in short-duration exposures?
Hi gang, OK, so I'm really enjoying a nice leisurely read of Ansel Adams' The Negative. For those who haven't had the pleasure of reading it yet, I'll mention that this is a REALLY GREAT BOOK. All that talk about the Zone System being complicated? Why not at all! Adams makes it all quite straightforward. Now for my question I'm quite familiar with the concept of long-duration reciprocity failure when making extremely long exposures, and I understand the physics behind it as well. What I wasn't familiar with was the fact -- apparently -- that when using electronic flash, flash duration can be sufficiently short that one needs to worry about short-duration reciprocity failure. Is this only a problem with older emulsions with poorer reciprocity characteristics? (For example, Tri-X.) Anyone have experiences in which they needed to make exposure corrections when shooting with flash using such an emulsion? Thanks in advance, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Film for graduation (and a LONG note on zooms, primes, 'n' st uff)
Maris wrote: My son's graduation is in 2 weeks or so - indoors, flash will not be usable as I'm too far away so I'll use a zoom lens. What film should I use (I prefer negative but I'll use slide film) - maybe 800, 1600, or 3200 speed? Hi Maris, I'll give a short answer to your question, but I've also given a much longer answer to Shel's question about zooms vs. primes My grandchildren are always participating in indoor programs -- choir, school plays, etc. -- at their school. Lighting in the school auditorium is probably quite similar to the lighting you'll have at your son's graduation, and distances are probably similar as well. Likewise, I can't use flash during the performances. (Too distracting to the kids.) When I shoot these school events, I'll often use my SMC A70-210/4 and Fuji Superia 800-speed print film, typically exposing at 1/15 to 1/30 sec at f/4, with most of the shots at 210mm. I ~always~ use my monopod for these shots -- the extra stability is essential at the slow shutter speeds I use. In fact, my PUG submission for the May gallery was taken from one such school performance. Why not a tripod? It's more distracting to nearby audience members, I can't set up a tripod while seated in my row, and it creates a trip hazard if I set it up at the edge of the aisle. I find the monopod to be relatively unobtrusive. Hope this helps. * Rambling mode /ON And now for Shel's rhetorical questions about zooms vs. primes Shel asks, Why not use a faster, sharper prime? What is this penchant people have for zooms? In my case, it's a matter of making the best compromise. If I had a 200mm or so f/2.8, I'd probably use that instead, since ~most~ of my shots for these school performances are at the long end of my zoom. But there are also a few I've taken at the short end, and occasionally I've found myself shooting certain scenes at 100-120mm, and others at 150mm. (I've tried to notice where I shoot, because we've often discussed on the list how some shooters buy a zoom, but then end up shooting at only two focal lengths. Thus, a couple of sharper, faster primes would actually serve them better.) I can't get up and walk around during a performance, so I've got to depend on focal length instead of my feet. Thus, I find I need a selection of focal lengths. Perhaps instead of the A70-210/4 zoom, I'd be better served by perhaps a 200/2.8, a fast 85 (perhaps f/2 or so), and possibly my K135/2.5. That leaves me with a hole between 85 and 135, and another hole at 150. There are several fast lenses around 100 to 105 to fill the first hole. I suppose I could add a K150/4 or an M150/3.5 to fill the second hole, but these aren't particularly fast. Unfortunately, cost of optics is a factor since I'm doing this as a hobby. I think the choice of any particular optic, or set of optics, is all about evaluating the benefits and making the best compromise With my zoom, I'm able to switch between focal lengths fairly quickly without taking my eye away from the viewfinder. I'm also fiddling with a minimal amount of equipment and thus minimizing the disturbance I create for other audience members seated nearby. The downside is that I sacrifice speed (and possibly sharpness??) of optics. Or maybe I don't sacrifice sharpness as much as we suspect? Perceived sharpness of a lens is our subjective response to the combination of lens resolution and lens contrast. I know it's the case with telescope optics -- so I suspect it's the case with photographic optics as well -- that perceived sharpness using high-contrast monochrome test targets (the Moon, star fields, ballet dancers in light costumes on a dark stage, etc.) is different from perceived sharpness using lower-contrast polychromatic subjects (the surface of Saturn, emission nebulae, children in colorful costumes on a colorful set, etc). Also, it seems to be the general case that measured resolution and contrast are lower at faster apertures. How much better is the measured contrast of a wide-open 200/2.8, compared to the wide-open SMC A70-210 at 210mm, under various conditions of subject hues, saturations, and illuminances? I'm not asking this rhetorically -- I'd be genuinely interested if someone has test results of some sort. The answer is no means simple or trivial. With five fast primes spanning e.g. 85 to 200, I could capture all the shots from all the perspectives for which I'm currently using my zoom. Certainly faster aperture, and possibly sharper optics, than my zoom. But there's a downside here, for ~me~ at least. The time needed to change focal lengths would mean that much less time in which I'm ready to capture a fleeting image of the performers. Plus, the extra manipulations may tend to be distracting to audience members seated nearby. I have no doubt that a better photographer might be quicker than me at changing lenses, and might
RE: Film for graduation (and a LONG note on zooms, primes, 'n' s t uff)
Maris wrote: Doesn't the slow shutter speed result in image blur, as the students walk across the stage, etc.? Hi Maris, Yes, absolutely. While a bit of image blur from body movement might be acceptable in some types of pictures -- perhaps even adding to the artistic content of the image -- the shot you describe would probably be perceived to suffer from the presence of such blur. I tend to avoid the type of shot you describe if I'm using slower shutter speeds. Faster glass -- or faster film -- would certainly help in such a situation. Paul Stregevsky commented about using multiple bodies on multiple tripods during indoor events, while roaming with a monopod-mounted rig. That's not practical in my particular case, since the performances with the young children are usually short (about an hour), roaming around during the performances is discouraged, and the presence of unattended tripods along the limited open space on the sides of the auditorium represents a considerable safety hazard. But this might be a viable option under different circumstances. For instance, this would probably be a great way to really capture an event if one was working with assistants, so that the tripods could be closely monitored. I think Paul's idea of shooting ~after~ the performances is a great idea too -- I hadn't given much thought to this, but I may try it in the future. In my case, it might also be interesting to capture shots of the kids preparing for a performance (in the adjoining classrooms) ~before~ an event. I don't feel like Shel started a primes-vs.-zooms argument at all. He asked an-always relevant rhetorical question that certainly got me thinking about all the considerations that come into play when I decide what gear to take along. For me, both types of lenses have their advantages -- it's simply a matter of making the best compromise. I'd love to get my hands on a decent 200/2.8 -- I'd regard that as a ~complement~ to, rather than a replacement for, my A70-210/4. I think I'd get a lot of use out of it, but it's simply out of reach economically. Mark Roberts mentions his 80-200/2.8. I know that the manual-focus version of the Tokina 80-200/2.8 zoom (ATX 828, IIRC) is not too terribly expensive on the used market. I've often wondered if I should look for one of these to replace my A70-210/4, mainly for the extra stop. Anyone know how these two zooms compare, apart from the one-stop difference in speed? And how does the Tokina stack up, at 200mm and wide-open, against any of the Pentax 200/2.8's? Also, anyone know how the slower Pentax 200's -- say the 200/4 -- stack up against the A70-210/4 at 200mm? That is, does it make sense to get, e.g., a K, M, or A 200/4 rather than using the A70-210/4 at 200mm and wide open? Can a 200/2.5 even be found, or are these rare as hen's teeth? Seems like this would be the ideal prime at this focal length. Thanks in advance to anyone with some information to share on any of these lenses. And finally, is there any truth to the rumor that the pointed-haired boss on Dilbert is being groomed for an executive VP position at Kodak? ;-) Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Diopter correction lenses
William Robb wrote: Is there an easy way to determine which diopter correction lens a person needs? I am thinking specifically of a way that doesn't involve a trip to the eye doctor. Hi Bill, Easiest way is probably to go to a well-stocked camera store and try a few different diopter values. That's how I selected the best value for me. The Nikon ones seem to be pretty well-stocked, at least in the better stores I've been in. If you're near-sighted (like me), try out a few negative diopters. Hold one in your hand, then look through it at some small print at a distance. If you're far-sighted, try out a few positive diopters. Seems to me that I read somewhere that the round Nikon diopters, when removed from their mounts, fit into the Pentax 6x7 viewfinder/diopter lens mount on the prism finder body. Hope this helps. Happy Queen Vicky Day! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Pentax 67mm UV filter
Paul Stregevsky wrote: Anyone in North America have a used one for sale? Or know of a used one for sale? They go for $55 new at BH. Hi Paul, KEH has a used 67mm Pentax L39 UV bayonet filter in its 6x7 pages, stated as excellent condition, for $39. Alternatively, try accessing their entire used filter listing from the ACCESSORIES category on the used equipment TABLE OF CONTENTS page. I see a used 67mm B+W UV 010 and a used Heliopan UV-0, both in excellent condition, both listed for $19. Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Camera Problems. Please Help!
Jerome Daryl Coombs-Reyes wrote: I let a full day pass, and am finally composed enough to write this email I recently received 4 rolls of slide film back from Kodak (Fair Lawn), and the results were atrocious (and its no longer just because of bad technique!). Specifically, more than 1/2 of the frames are almost totally blacked out. I've posted examples here: http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jerome/temp/help.htm [Snip] Hi, I think Tom (Graywolf) has about nailed your problem. Looks like you may simply be shooting beyond the range of your flash. Your AF-330FTZ is a dedicated TTL-only unit, with a guide number of 92. If you're shooting 100-speed film, make sure that the product of your subject distance (in feet) times your f/stop does not exceed 92. For instance, if you're shooting with your zoom at the long end with the aperture wide open (f/5.6), and you need flash to fully illuminate your subject, don't shoot anything further away than about 16 feet. (How many subjects do you shoot from that distance using the 320mm focal length? I'd guess you're trying to catch things further away from you.) Shooting at f/8? Then keep the distance to your subject no greater than 10 or 12 feet (again assuming that you'll rely on flash to fully illuminate your subject, and that you're using 100-speed film). If your problem is basically one of technique, faster film will help quite a bit. If you go with a film that's N times higher ASA rating, you'll multiply your guide number by the square root of N. For example, GN 92 at ASA 100, but GN 184 at ASA 400. As someone else mentioned, make sure you don't have negative exposure compensation set on your camera. Make sure also that you don't manually override the film speed to a higher setting (e.g., 100-speed film loaded, but ASA override manually set to 400). From your pictures, it's apparent that the flash is synching correctly with the shutter. If the sync speed was off, part of your image (either the upper part or the lower part) would be completely black, almost as if you held a black card over part of the picture. I suppose it's possible that the flash output on your AF-330FTZ is weak for some reason. Perhaps you can go down to your local camera store and try out a different TTL flash? Load up your camera with some 100-speed slide film, mount the 80-320, then take a few shots inside the store with your present flash. Try taking the kinds of shots you've had problems with, using comparable ambient lighting, f-stop, and subject distance. Now take the same shots with one of the TTL flashes the store carries. (Of course, you'll also want to take a few flash shots using optimum subject distance and optimum f-stop. Try it with both your flash and the store's flash. This will allow you to determine if the problem is your flash or your technique.) I suppose it's possible that your camera's TTL sensor is not functioning properly and is causing the flash to quench too soon. Thus, it might be useful to try a flash with auto settings while you're there. When set to auto, the flash is signaled to quench when the sensor in the flash foot says quench, not when the TTL sensor in the camera says quench. I don't think your camera body is the problem, but this would allow you to rule that out with certainty. Good luck with the testing! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Newman and Sieff Books (was: Re: PUG - Definition of Portrait ?)
Concerning his newly acquired Sieff book, Cotty wrote: My luck was in: on her return, she presented me with a brand new copy! Called 'Faites Comme si Je n'Etais pas La' (trans: 'Make as if I'm not here' - M. Sieff's favourite assurance to sitters) [Snip] Great Scott, Cotty! That's not only an excellent title for a book, but a perfect quotation to use as a signature file for e-mails to upper management, when one is feeling in a particularly devilish mood! ;-) (Provided upper management only speaks bureaucratese, and not French) Cheers! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: What the papers say...
Graywolf wrote: Wow! They are selling more $850 digitals than $6 disposables. Who would have figured? Or, is that liar's do figure? Now, if they said the digital is more of a yuppy status symbol than an SLR, I would have no problem with that. Hi Tom, Interesting question -- I wonder about that myself. (Yeah, I know you were being facetious, but you bring up a good point worth serious consideration.) I'm thinking in terms of US dollars and the US market here, but it probably applies in other markets and currencies as well. With so many decent PS digital cameras now in the $400-to-$600 range, it wouldn't surprise me if consumers are buying more digitals than they are buying $300-to-$450 conventional SLR packages. And I'll bet that's more in terms of actual number of cameras sold, rather than just more in terms of sales dollars. Is it possible that total sales ~dollars~ spent per year on digital cameras now exceeds total sales ~dollars~ spent per year on disposable film cameras? Hmmm I don't know about that one -- it might very well be getting ~near~ that point. Perhaps it's even exceeding that point in some markets. After all, you'd have to sell only one $600 digital to equal the sales volume of 100 $6 disposables. However, I (like you) would really be amazed if the actual ~number~ of digital cameras sold per year now exceeds the ~number~ of disposable film cameras sold per year. I just can't see that ever happening, for the simple reason that a consumer of a disposable camera -- by definition -- throws the camera away when he/she is done using it, but the consumer of a digital camera presumably buys a camera once and only once. (Or maybe once every few years.) Eventually, you would think that the market for digital cameras would reach saturation, and sales would level off to a steady -- and quite possibly very low -- value. I don't think the corporate behemoths -- Kodak, HP, Olympus, etc. -- will ever make a decent profit selling digital cameras. I think they'll continue to willingly succumb to price erosion in order to meet their sales growth targets, and they'll exit the camera manufacturing business once the market reaches saturation. The real profits in digital, I believe, will be in ink and paper -- just as the real profits in conventional silver halide photography have been in film. And as long as there is a large consumer segment for which even a $50 digicam is out of reach, I think there will continue to be a profitable market for disposable film cameras for a long time to come. Which hopefully means a supply of reasonably inexpensive conventional film for a long time to come. I hope ;-) Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Re[2]: What the papers say...
Bob Walken wrote: the article in question was specifically about volume rather than dollars, pounds, euros or yen. In fairness to the writer, who is a respectable journalist and unlikely to be lying, he did make an exception of disposable film cameras, which I didn't mention in my original post, which was meant to be more about the mention of Pentax as the canonical (!?) slr, and the writer's false dichotomy between film slrs and digital point and shoots. Hi Bob, Thanks for the clarification on that. If the writer is excluding disposable film cameras from his statistics, then the numbers sound quite plausible. If it comes down to a choice between looking swish or carrying a Pentax SLR, I'd just as soon skip the swish look, thank you very much. ;-) Sounds like a look that might get a person mugged! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Re: Advice Needed For Student
Regarding the K1000, William Robb wrote: Think simple, elegant and reliable. I don't think the K1000 gets the respect it deserves. It has all the features one needs for photography, in a simple, clean, well laid out body. It would be nice if it had direct DOF preview, rather than having to goof the camera to get it. Ah, ~that~ would be the KM. Simple, elegant, reliable... plus self-timer and DOF preview button. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Photographica Report: Pentax 6x7 TTL prism
David Mann wrote: Pentax 6x7 TTL prism for £50, I think its broken as I can't see the needle and William Robb replied: Yes. When the prism is removed, the meter needle should be visible, pointing at the minus indication. Hi Dave, I may have some good news for you. I bought a TTL prism finder with an ~allegedly~ inoperative meter. Mine had the same symptom as yours -- that is, I couldn't see the needle in the viewfinder. Turned out my metering circuit actually ~did~ work, and the reason I couldn't see the needle was because a reflecting optic inside the housing had come unglued. It was ~very~ simple to fix. I suspect this might be a common problem. This reflecting optic is actually a little rectangular prism that sits just in front of, and just slightly below, the eyepiece. You'll need to remove the cover from your TTL prism finder to get access to this piece. Removing the cover is fairly simple. Once the cover is off, the rest is pretty straightforward. Here's how (1) Remove the shutter speed dial assembly. You may want to first set the ASA at something like 100, and the shutter speed position to something like 1/60. To remove this dial, you'll need to loosen and remove the screw in the center of the dial (you can bend a paperclip to fit into the holes on this screw, then twist anticlockwise, using a pair of tweezers to securely grasp both sections of the paperclip). Lift off the dial, then the ASA indicator wheel and spring underneath. (2) Remove the Asahi Pentax (or Honeywell Pentax) plastic nameplate from the front of the prism finder cover. This nameplate is held in place with a little glue. You'll see a couple of screw heads once you remove the cover. (3) Finally, remove the seven or eight screws holding the prism finder cover in place. There are two in the front, two in the rear, two on one side, and one or two on the other side. (4) Now it's time to find out if the metering circuit works or not. With the cover off, you can now see two important things -- one of these important things is the meter itself, along with the + and - exposure indicators. It will be over toward the left as viewed from the rear of the prism finder. Take your 6x7 body, and remove the lens if one is attached. Mount the meter onto your 6x7 body, making sure the detents click into place. Mount a lens on the body, making sure the lens is set to the AUTO position. You now want to turn the TTL finder circuit ON. You'll have to manually switch the TTL finder circuit on by momentarily touching the two ON connectors together. Now point the lens to a bright light, and watch the meter needle for a response. If the needle responds as it should to more or less light, increased or decreased aperture (set at the lens), and increased or decreased shutter speed (set by moving the little potentiometer under the shutter speed/ASA dial), then your metering circuit is just fine. (5) Now to fix the reflecting optics. It may be best to remove the prism finder from the body at this point. I mentioned in Step #4 that there are two important things you can see with the prism finder cover removed -- one of these things is the meter itself, and the other thing is a pair of screws holding the eyepiece housing to the rear of the prism finder body. You'll need to remove this eyepiece housing to see the little rectangular reflecting optic I mentioned at the beginning of my note. Remove the two securing screws, then CAREFULLY tip the eyepiece housing away from the prism finder housing. (I say carefully, because there are a couple of delicate wires inside this eyepiece housing which connect the power contacts to the metering circuit board. They're prone to break at the contacts, and they ~can~ be resoldered, but it's kind of a nuisance to have to do that, so be a bit careful.) (6) With the eyepiece housing tipped away from the prism finder body, you should see a little blackened rectangular glass prism located just in front of and below where the eyepiece was located. IIRC, prism dimensions are about 5mm x 5mm x 20mm. Chances are this little rectangular prism has come unglued. You can probably push this little prism back and forth in its milled recess with your fingers, or a stiff piece of card, or a dental pick, etc. Slide it so the angled, unblackened end is roughly centered under the eyepiece area, then temporarily hold the eyepiece housing back in place and see if the meter is now visible in the bottom center of the prism finder field of view. (It helps to allow light from a desk lamp to illuminate the top area of the finder, above the meter.) You may have to repeat this a few times, but you should eventually find a position for this little reflecting prism where the view in the eyepiece looks the best. Without allowing the little reflecting prism to move, inspect its optimal position, then glue in place with a little contact cement or Super Glue. Now reattach the eyepiece housing and
Repairing a broken aperture coupling chain on the 6x7
Hi folks, The aperture coupling chain on the 6x7 body is a bit fragile, and it's not uncommon that the chain eventually breaks. The repair is somewhat expensive if you take it to a repair shop, but I found from personal experience that it's not too difficult to fix it yourself. Recently, I passed what I learned on to another 6x7 owner -- an astrophotography buff from Austria who had posted a request for assistance on Photo.net. He was able to complete the repair, and he's now posted my repair instructions, along with a few of his pictures, on his web site. If any of you find yourself with a broken aperture coupling chain and you wish to attempt the repair yourself, you may find the following web site useful: http://www.salzgeber.at/articles/6x7chainRepair.html Two of the pictures posted along with the written instructions are the relevant line drawings from the service manual, showing the correct adjustments referenced in the text. Hope this helps! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Photographica Report
Concerning the 6x7 TTL prism finder, David Mann wrote: The plastic thumbwheel that sits under its shutter speed dial, is that meant to be a completely separate part, or is it supposed to stay attached to the prism assembly? [Snip] Also the power switch doesn't actually lock into the on or off positions, it just springs back to the middle. A different prism I played with does the same. Is that normal? Hi Dave, Yes, it's a completely separate part, and it can be purchased new for a ridiculous price ($30 US or thereabouts, IIRC). You're right -- it's easy to lose. Bill Robb told me a while back that this TTL ring was included with the original TTL prism finder when purchased new, but that sellers of used TTL prism finders often do not include this helpful little thumbwheel. I believe I read on the Greenspun archive that a cut-up piece of plastic 35mm film canister works just as well. That ON/OFF switch is meant to be a momentary contact switch. The fact that it rests in the middle position between ON and OFF is perfectly normal. By the way, Dave, I was hoping you might consider gathering and reporting a little bit of useful information. If you happen to remove your TTL prism finder cover to reveal the circuit board underneath, I wonder if you might possibly be able to measure the resistances that the three potentiometers on the circuit board are set to. I'd be especially interested in what readings you get with the prism finder removed from the camera body. I've measured the values for mine, and I believe these are appropriate when one is using a brighter-than-normal screen. I'm wondering what the values are, typically, for a prism finder calibrated for a normal screen. Well, must get some lunch now. Cheers! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Advice Needed For Student
Regarding the KM, I wrote: Simple, elegant, reliable... plus self-timer and DOF preview button. and Annsan duly noted: Ahhh that would be the KX too :) Right you are, Annsan! And of course the KX comes with mirror lock-up, too -- something lacking from both my K1000 and my KM. (Of course, there's that flick-of-the-shutter-button-trick) I think I recall reading a comment from George DeFockert quite a long time ago about the fact that the KX viewfinder is considerably brighter than that of the other K-series bodies. If only I could have found a bargain KX for the price I got my bargain KM for! ;-) By the way, how's the weather today in the Big Apple? It's really miserable up here. Unless one ~likes~ rain, wind, and temperatures in the mid-40s. Uggh! Maybe the sun will come out later this week? Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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:
Welcome aboard, Mohamed! What part of the world do you hail from? You'll find we have members from all over. Can't help you much on selecting the best screen for an MX, but I can point you to a couple of sites to watch for used screens -- eBay (http://www.ebay.com) and KEH (http://www.keh.com). You'll find that list members sometimes have spare Pentax gear for sale as well. Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Hello every one, I just joined the discussion group and this is my first message. I have a MX which I bought 25 years ago and I am re-discovering it after almost ten years of non-use. I'll be using it mainly for macrophotography (I just bought a SMC 100 f/4 Macro). Can some one advice on the best focusing screen to use for Macro? I read somewhere that SE and SG are best suited for this. Are these the correct designations? Are they easily available? Thanks, Mohamed - 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 .
Parts/Service Manuals for 6x7, 35mm, 110, lenses...
Hi folks, Ran across the following link and thought I'd share the information. It appears that Finger Lakes Photo Books carries a large selection of service manuals for Spotmatics, K-mount bodies, and 6x7. For instance, the service manual I bought recently off eBay for $40 is available from these folks for $25. Aarrrgh!! Anyway, in case anyone's interested: http://www.photobooksonline.com/books/manual10.html I'm still looking for a service manual -- or even a schematic of the metering circuit -- for a 6x7 TTL prism finder. They don't seem to have one of these. TTFN! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: good deal on a non MLU 6x7?
gfen wrote: I found an ad for a non-MLU 6x7 with TTL prism (new batteries, as well), 90mm 2.8 ls lens, and caps for $650. Is this reasonable? Is this, better yet, a good deal? Three words: Jump on it! Assuming it's not totally beat to hell, and that it functions properly. From what I've been able to tell, even $450 to $500 would be a good deal on a working 90 LS and TTL prism finder. You may want to actually verify that this is in fact a ~metering~ prism. I noticed a non-metering prism on eBay recently that was listed as a TTL prism finder, but the accompanying picture was most definitely the non-metering prism finder. Take a look at the following URL to see what a non-MLU body and TTL prism went for a few days ago, despite the missing TTL ring on the shutter speed dial: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1347251635 I think that's too high, but I suppose it gives you an upper limit of the going rates. Good luck! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: good deal on a non MLU 6x7?
gfen asked: Why is it I always assume everyone on the internet is mail? and Len replied: Perhaps because you are using e-mail. Then again, you probably meant male. VBG Hi Len, In the event that he has to pay a WHOLE lot of money on postage and handling, would that be fee-mail? VB Groan Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Delivery
Peter wrote: Another sprog... Piles of luvverly Limited lenses, and a few other bits. And a new toy A Cosina CSR! With spot meter - apparently. How delightful. Toodle pip Hi Peter, I'll take one of those toodle pips you're always listing. I know I don't have one, and I'm sure I'll need it VBG ;-) Ta ta for now, and have a good weekend! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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 .
Ansel Adams on The American Experience
Hi folks, Just had to share this one PBS had a 90-minute episode of the series The American Experience last night. This one was on the life of Ansel Adams. I knew I was going to be gone for the day and most of the evening, so I recorded it on the VCR. Haven't had a chance to view it yet, but I'm looking forward to it. Anyone else see this one? If you missed it, you may want to see if your local PBS affiliate will rebroadcast it later in the week. Our station here in Rochester often does. Next week's episode will be on John Nash, Nobel laureate in economics, upon whose life the movie, A Beautiful Mind, was very loosely based. That one might be an interesting one as well. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Zoom recommendations
Alan Chan wrote: Not that I do not believe you, but I stripped down my 1st 70-210/4 few years ago and I know the nylon washers you mean (white colour right?). As I could see, if you tried to increase the friction by tightening the washers (2) super tight, you might be risking boken washers due to too much pressure over time. [Snip] Hi Alan, Yes, absolutely -- I think that would probably happen if these two screws were tightened too much, and this is a certainly a risk when one tightens the screws to reduce or eliminate zoom creep. Seems like you could replace old washers with new ones from the local hardware store, as I don't believe there's anything special about them. Don't know if anyone from the list has had to do this with a loose A 70-210/4. I may try this at some point down the road if I start to notice zoom creep again. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Camera bags- advice needed
Taka wrote: Now that I have access to an SLR, I'm all set to get back into photography and need some help w/ camera bags. [Snip] Anyone have the dimensions of the Pentax M or A 70-210mm f/4 zoom? That's the one I want to get. Hi Taka, Not sure if you've already made a decision on bags, but Shel has pointed out on several occasions some of the advantages of the Domke satchel-style bags (F-803, if I remember correctly). Sturdy, washable, and doesn't scream, Steal me! I'm loaded full of expensive camera gear! If you do a lot of street photography, might be a very good way to carry gear. Take a look at this site for K-mount lens weights, dimensions, filter ring sizes, years of production, etc: http://w3.one.net/~georgek/pentax/lenses/g0018.html The SMC Pentax-A 70-210mm f/4 constant-aperture zoom is a great lens, but fairly hefty. A mass of 680 grams, outside diameter by length of 72mm x 149mm, 58mm filter ring, and minimum in-focus distance of 1.2 meters. I really get a lot of use out of mine. I picked up one in excellent shape on eBay for $135. When you start looking, be careful to avoid the cheaper and lesser-quality Takumar lens. Your mention of the 70-210mm reminds me that I have to get my upcoming PUG submission posted. Good luck with your search! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Leaving the List
Dan Matyola wrote: I've decided I have to sign off this list -- at least for the time being. I simply cannot deal with the huge volume of posts. Hi Dan, Sorry to hear you're leaving. Hope you'll still have time to submit photos to the PUG once in a while, as I've enjoyed many of your contributions. Keep in touch, and come back soon if you can! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: AF200T ?
Cory Waters wrote: Any idea what the T and W on the little green and red strips mean? I'm thinking Tele Wide but. Hi Cory, That's exactly what the T and W mean -- telephoto (probably 135-ish) and wide angle (probably 28- to 35-ish). Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Best Deal Ever?
A 6x7 TTL prism finder for $56 US, average cosmetics, and metering circuit described as inoperable. All it needed was to have a loose reflecting optic inside the prism housing glued back in place. Works just fine now. A KM body with a non-functioning hotshoe for $32 and change. I removed the top cover, bent the hotshoe contact a little bit, and functionality was restored. This is now my most-used 35mm body. A Sunpak 444D flash, including Pentax PT-2D dedicated module, for free. Part of a lot of mostly old, mostly broken flash stuff. Fixed the broken units, sold off an interesting Fujica flash from the lot, and used the net gain to purchase the PT-2D module in a separate transaction. The one that got away? Probably a Program Plus I spotted last fall on eBay. Came with three or four lenses, one of which was an SMC-M 85mm f/2. The entire package went for a grand total of about $160. Aarrgh!! Wish I would have bid a little higher on that one! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: film questions
Rogier van der Peijl wrote: 1. Can anyone suggest a good film for night photography, the subjects are illuminated, I will not be using flash and because of slow shutter speed of course a tripod. 2. does anyone have experience with using UV film? (and of course can you tell something about the experience) Hi Rogier, 1. Depends what you're shooting, and probably what the illumination is. Fuji (at least the consumer stuff) seems to be better at capturing blues and greens, while Kodak (again, consumer stuff) seems to be better at capturing reds and browns. Here are three night shots shot on Fuji consumer print film, just to give you an idea. (The first was shot on Fuji Super G+ 800 and scanned from the print, while the others were shot on Superia 400 and scanned from the corresponding negatives. The third one is actually a very short hand-held exposure.) I'd probably pick a Kodak emulsion if I was trying to capture something like a patch of red stellar nebulosity in the night sky, and I'd ideally pick a film with severe reciprocity failure if I were attempting to capture a meteor shower by shooting very long (several-minute) exposures of the night sky. Hope these examples at least give you an idea of what the Fuji consumer stuff is capable of. http://pug.komkon.org/01feb/7sisters.html http://pug.komkon.org/01aug/mars.html http://pug.komkon.org/02mar/diner23.html 2. I'm curious what you're trying to capture in the UV. You realize of course that unless you have very expensive and specialized quartz or fused silica lenses, you won't get very much (or any) UV intensity at the film plane. Are you actually trying to capture visible-wavelength fluorescence caused by irradiating your subjects with UV light? For this, conventional visible-wavelength color film should work fine. Otherwise, conventional silver halide BW film will respond to UV irradiation, but you only get a BW image, and of course, there's still the limitation with the lenses. Hope this helps, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Whats your most used Camera?
Paul Jones wrote: What is your most used camera body? Eons ago, when I developed and printed my own stuff, it was an old 4x5 Speed Graphic. Haven't done any of that in many, many years. More recently, my KM body gets the most use. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: 1 Quart?
Wendy Beard wrote: I'm familiar with both metric and imperial, but I know exactly how you feel. I haven't a clue what some of the american measurements are. When a recipe calls for a stick of butter or a cup(!) of butter I am well and truly stumped. Hi Wendy, If you think cooking's bad, try watching some of those old American Westerns that have been edited for export into European Union countries. EU ministers now require that we convert all English units of measure into officially approved SI (metric) units. Not quite sure what to make of it when the new sheriff rides into town wearing a 37.85-liter hat. Or when the bad guys warn him to get out of town by 20:00 GMT. Yikes! :-) VBG :-) Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: New to group - Looking for advice : )
Julia Gerace wrote: This is my first message here and I've never seen this format before - Wow... Hi Julia, Welcome to the group! As I was going through my in-box, I noticed your name right away -- recognized it from the considerable number of shots you've posted to Photocritique.net over the past several months. I'm no expert, but I've enjoyed quite a number of your postings there. A couple I think are particularly adorable: http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzma5n-p10110737 http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzmgJn-p10110737 You do a very nice job photographing children. Children can be difficult subjects -- the little ones often don't sit still long enough, and the older ones are often self-conscious. Wish I could do a better job of it. I find it difficult to manually focus fast enough to keep up with the action. My 16-month-old grandson doesn't mind me getting right in close and shooting away with a fast 50mm while he's eating, playing, etc., but his older brother and sisters don't like a camera right in their faces. For them, I find that 105 is a good focal length for head-and-shoulders indoor shots, and maybe 85 for including a little more of the body or background. I have better luck if they're engrossed in an activity and not aware of the camera. My 135 is faster at f/2.5, but I usually don't have the necessary distance to get the framing I like indoors. It's my choice for outdoor portraits, however. For what it's worth, I'd say you're doing well with the equipment you have. A fast portrait lens might be the best bet for your next equipment acquisition. There's a great site Stan Halpin maintains discussing SMC Pentax lenses: http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/ But like several other folks have mentioned already, your creative vision is probably the most important thing. If you haven't seen it already, there's a monthly Pentax Users Gallery: http://pug.komkon.org I think the May gallery is an open theme, and the June one is a portrait theme. Hope you'll consider sharing some of your work in these upcoming galleries. Regards, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: New to group - Looking for advice : )
Len wrote: Gee, Bill, what did you do to those pictures? They aren't there any more. ;-) Bill Gates ate them, I suppose. ;-) Seriously, I've had trouble a couple other times posting links to Photocritique.net. Some people get a broken link when they click on them. You may need to go to the Photocritique.net home page, then search for a photographer (Julia Gerace in this case), then go to the list of posted shots. Don't remember the dates or titles for the two I linked in my note, but one was a shot of one of her daughters taking a picture with a PS camera at the zoo, and the other was a shot of her two daughters mixing up dough for Christmas cookies. Cute shots, both! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: 135-600mm lens on 3011BN+3030 head setup
Nitin Garg wrote: Do you have a recommendation on a good monopod to use it with ? As it is I am looking to buy one since I cant carry around a tripod all the time :) Hi Nitin, I've got a Bogen 3218, which is the black model that's equivalent to the chrome-colored Bogen 3018. (Same as the Manfrotto 434.) These run $40 (chrome) and $42 (black) at Adorama -- I think their price might be a couple dollars cheaper than BH. Manfrotto rates this monopod at 12 kg, or about 26 lb. And I've found it quite comfortable to carry around at 780 grams (a bit less than 2 lb). Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Calibrating a 6x7 TTL prism finder
William Robb wrote: I think the second way would be the correct way, as this will let you set both sensitivity and linearity. However, I would really want to know which pot did what. Thanks, Bill -- that's what I thought too. I played around a little last night, and it appears that changing the resistance at only one pot doesn't give the desired result. (I measured each one before adjusting anything, so all three are now back to their original values.) It may be that I've got to change two values at a time -- perhaps increase or decrease a pair of them, while keeping the difference (or maybe the ratio?) between them the same? I might eventually get the desired result by more trial and error, but I suppose it would be quicker to just get a service manual or put a call in to Pentax Colorado or Mississauga. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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 .
Calibrating a 6x7 TTL prism finder
Hi folks, All this talk about calibration of leaf shutter speed on the 6x7 leaf shutter lenses reminds me of a question I was going to ask the group. Here's the question I recently obtained a used TTL prism finder for my 6x7. (Was sold as meter inoperative, so the price was most excellent. Turns out that the meter circuit was perfectly fine -- I just needed to glue down a little reflecting optic inside the housing. But I digress) I ran it through its paces with a 105mm f/2.4 lens and an evenly illuminated white test target, and I found that the exposure setting indicated by the meter is actually one stop underexposed -- compared with another exposure meter and two 35mm TTL metering bodies of known accuracy. My guess is that the metering cicuit of this used 6x7 finder was calibrated for a brighter screen than the one I have. Naturally, I'd like to calibrate the meter so that it gives the correct exposure with the standard screen in my 6x7. Seems like there are two alternative approaches to this, and I'm hoping someone in the group may have done this before. First approach would be to make a fine adjustment in the positioning of the shutter speed dial and/or the concentric, nested, ASA indicator wheel. There are a couple screws on the back of the ASA wheel of the finder, and a couple more on the inside of the shutter speed dial bushing-thingy of the finder. This is probably the safest way, but a bit tedious. Also, not sure if I can get a full stop of adjustment by loosening either pair of screws, rotating the corresponding wheel a bit, then retightening the screws. Second approach would be to adjust one (or more?) of the little potentiometers (or trimmers) on the metering circuit board, inside the housing of the prism finder. The question is, which one? I've got the cover off of the finder (the cover needs a touch-up paint job anyway), and I see the little metering circuit board glued to the left-hand side of the pentaprism itself. There are three little potentiometers on this board, lined up from the back (eyepiece end) to the front of the prism. My guess is that one of these probably sets a supply voltage for the metering circuit and should not be adjusted; another sets the span (or sensitivity) of the metering circuit -- that is, how far the meter deflects from center position if the light is changed by a stop, sort of like the slope of the calibration curve; and another sets the zero -- sort of like the intercept of the calibration curve. I think I want to change only the zero, or intercept, adjustment. Has anyone done this before? Looks like only one of the potentiometers (the center one, IIRC) has a direct wire connection to the shutter speed/ASA potentiometer on the left side of the finder. I'm guessing that this is the one I want to adjust. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Medium Format Enlarging
Regarding the use of T-Max in the 6x7, Paul Stenquist wrote: I shoot quite a bit of T-Max 400 in the 6x7, rating it at 200 and underdeveloping it a bit. I haven't had any trouble with the transport mechanism. However, I've only shot around 100 rolls total with this camera, perhaps 15 of the TMY. TMY does dry exceedingly flat, flatter than any other I've seen. I find this makes it very nice to work with in the enlarger [Snip] I'll continue shooting TMY because I think it's great film, and if my transport mechanism fails, I'll just have to have it repaired. Hi Paul, Thanks for your comments on my question. That's very helpful to know. Sounds like the transport mechanism should be able to handle this thicker base, as long as it's in reasonably good operating condition. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Scanning
Regarding back-illumination of MF negatives on flatbed scanners, Dave Mann wrote: The transparency adaptor would be the best way to go but you may see newton rings. A light box just doesn't throw off enough light for scanning. I tried it once :) Thanks for sharing that information, Dave. That's very helpful to know. I may be playing around with this idea some more in the near future. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Scanning
Bruce Dayton wrote: Those of you who scan 120 film - how do you do it? Do you have issues with film flatness? Hi Bruce, I'd be interested to find out as well what everyone's experience is with this. Haven't done any of this myself, and I was wondering if it's possible to simply sandwich the negative between thin glass plates. I noticed that the Epson 2450 accommodates large negatives, but don't know if it would accommodate a sandwich such as I describe. I won't be buying a 2450 any time soon, since I'm still using my limited budget to acquire 6x7 accessories. I thought I'd try scanning 6x7 negatives by laying them directly on the bed of my cheap CanoScan D660U, then back-illuminate them either by setting a lightbox on top, or by reflecting the scanner's built-in front-illuminating light source with some sort of home-built adapter (kind of like the transparency adapters some of the flatbed scanners currently use). Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Scanning
Regarding an idea for back-illuminating MF negatives on a flatbed scanner, gfen wrote: I've tried this, and let me make it simple: Don't bother. :) I went though the same thoughts, except 4x5 instead of 6x7. The easiest solution for me was to give up and buy a Umax Astra 4450 which comes with a 4x5 lit section of the top. Thanks for those words of warning. My cheap flatbed actually has a back-illuminating source in the lid, used for scanning 35mm slides and negatives. Actually works pretty well, and with some hardware tricks that Canon implemented, I can get 2400-ppi scans -- good for 8x10 prints. This lamp in the lid is quite a bit bigger than a 35mm frame, but I don't know how much of a 6x7 frame it would illuminate. How well does that Umax scanner work (resolution, Dmax, etc.)? Current price? Thanks again, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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 .
Lugs on 645, 6x7, 67, and 67 II
Hi folks, Can anyone tell me off-hand whether the lugs on all the medium-format bodies are the same size? For instance, will a pair of lug clips (is that the right terminology) for a 67 II also fit on the earlier 6x7/67 lugs? Conversely, will the lug clips for a 645 fit on the 6x7/67/67 II lugs? Thanks in advance, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: Skinning your 6x7 -- and gluing the skin back on
Hi folks, Thanks to all who responded to my request for information on a suitable adhesive for reattaching the leatherette skin pieces I had temporarily removed from the metal body of my 6x7. (By the way, I think it may have been Chris Brogden who pointed me in the direction of the 6x7 service and parts manual on eBay. Chris, if you're reading -- thanks!) I think for the time being, I'll just go with the standard skin, although the alternative snakeskin and furry-critter alternative treatments were... well, interesting. I may get a dial gauge and check the lens-flange-to-film-plane clearance before doing the adhesive job, just in case I need to shim the lens flange. Thanks again! Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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 .
Skinning your 6x7 -- and gluing the skin back on
Hi folks, Before anyone gets the impression I did something gruesome to a 6x7, let me explain I had to perform a minor repair to my 6x7 body over the weekend. The little aperture coupling chain broke on me, and I had to remove four little pieces of the plastic skin from around the lens mount in order to gain access to the screws. (Not too hard of a job, now that I've got that service manual Aaron told me about. Thanks, Bro!) Everything's back together now, except for those little pieces of skin. The original glue that holds the skin to the body is a nice soft, non-hardening rubber-type cement. Super-glue would probably hold it, but a soft rubbery glue would be better if I ever needed to take these pieces off again (e.g., to shim the lens mount in order to adjust the precise film-plane-to-lens-flange distance). What kind of glue is best to use to hold the plastic film skin to the metal body? I'm thinking either silicone sealant (RTV, like the aquarium-type cement), or that non-hardening automotive form-a-gasket stuff. Any advice? I'll thank you in advance for it! In the mean time, I'll be patiently waiting for my 105mm f/2.4 lens. Thanks, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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 .
FS: Correction Lens Adapter Z, -3 (minus-three diopter)
Hi folks, I just received a shipment from KEH yesterday. One of the items I ordered -- which I may have to return -- is a brand new Pentax correction lens adapter Z, in minus-three diopter. Since this was listed in KEH's Pentax K-mount accessories page, I thought it would fit my MZ-50. Wrong! This one doesn't look like the correction lens adapter M or K (and I have one each of these, but not in the right prescription). I'm not sure what body this Z diopter goes to. It's a nearly flat black rectangle with rounded corners and a couple of little clip thingies, about 1.5 cm x 2 cm, with a molded plastic diopter lens. The little picture that came with it (black, white, and orange, with the official PENTAX corporate logo, plus part name in English and Japanese) makes it look like this fits some point-and-shoot model. Aarrrgh!! Anyway, before I call KEH to arrange for a return, does anyone need one of these things? I paid $13 for it. It's new, and it's available at that price to whoever wants it. I'll even pay for the postage within the US (first-class in a padded envelope). Please contact me off-list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] If nobody wants it, does anyone at least know what this thing goes to? I'm thinking maybe one of the IQ Zoom models? Thanks, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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 .
Disabling databack on ZX-5n
Dave ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: How does one disable the 'Databack' function on the ZX-5n? Hi Dave, ...and welcome to the list! One way to disable the databack (assuming it's just like the databack on my MZ-50) is to simply open the camera back and remove the disk-shaped CR2025 lithium battery from the inside of the door. Another way is to repeatedly press the DATE button on the back of the camera (no need to open the back for this). Cycle through the various date-imprint modes until the LCD display shows a series of dashes; that is, -- -- --. When these dashes are displayed, the date-imprint function is disabled, and no data will be imprinted on your negatives. Hope this helps. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: More image theft...
Graywolf wrote: The US copyright law makes it clear that you have to register the object with the copyright office before you have the right to pursue legal redress Hi Tom, Actually, that's not correct. Your rights are protected whether you register your work or not. In fact, you are no longer even required to affix a copyright notice to your work to protect your rights -- although it makes it much easier to make a legal case if you do affix a proper copyright notice. See Nolo Press' FAQ on US copyright law. Look around in http://www.nolo.com for the link to copyright law. They also sell a lot of books on copyright, trademark, and patent law, including DIY stuff. (I'm certainly not a lawyer, but these fellows are.) Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: OT: Steve McCurry on NPR
Thanks, Tom V! What a nice surprise hearing the Steve McCurry interview on the radio this morning on my drive to work. Bob Edwards (that's the NPR Morning Edition guy, right) said that McCurry's then and now pictures are on the NPR web site. I think the URL is http://www.npr.org (??) Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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: More image theft... (Dario Bonazza, now he's got yours)
Shucks, I must have missed it! ;-( He's got the original purloined image back up on his page. From the tone of the replies, I suspect I'd rather buy what Dario posted, instead of what this fellow posted. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY -Original Message- From: Dario Bonazza 2 [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More image theft... (Dario Bonazza, now he's got yours) Hi folks, Just look at it now :-) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1338873380 Dario Bonazza - 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 .
