Re: OT: Storing/Backing Up Images

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi John... I shoot more than others, less that some, but I end up with 
2GB to 6GB a month (My *ist-DS is always in RAW mode, so my images are 
around 10MB each).

I store all my images on two hard drives that mirror each other. I also 
organize my photos into 4GB groups, and each group is burned onto two 
DVD-R disks (of different brands). One DVD goes into a binder I keep at 
work, and one stays in a binder at home.

I don't use double-layer DVDs, which I understand are generally not 
suitable for backups.

Tim

John Graves wrote:
> I just wrote my 2007 Picture folder to a DVD.  It took about 3.5 Gb and 
> there is space left.   H. Not enough pictures.
> 
> I remember reading somewhere that CD's will outlive DVD's .  Is this 
> still true?  Does anyone have any idea about the guesstimated lifetime 
> for a CD vs a DVD?
> 
> TIA,
> 
> John G.
> WA1JG
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Optio W10/20/30 users - opinions?

[Timothy Sherburne]

Jaume and Henk (and others)... What's the difference between the W20 and 
W30?

t


Henk Terhell wrote:
> I went yesterday to the shop with the full intention to buy an Olympus
> Mju 760 (because of weatherproof properties as well as having shake
> reduction). I want a pocket camera I can safely take along to the beach
> and also use in wet environment. The guy in the shop (the largest shop
> in this country) made a plea  to buy the W20 because the Mju 760 is not
> guaranteed as waterproof, so I walked away with the W20. He mentioned
> that these waterproof Pentax W-series have gained a special niche of the
> market, though I didn't believe his story that other manufacturers only
> like to sell more cameras when water is leaking inside not covered by
> guarantee. Anyway, interesting that a camera seller has convinced me to
> buy a Pentax!
> 
> Henk
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
>> Behalf Of Jaume Lahuerta
>> Sent: 12 August, 2007 12:49 AM
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: Optio W10/20/30 users - opinions?
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just acquired a W20 since i wanted a camera that i could 
>> bring where I'd never bring my DS.
>>
>> I have to say that I am positively surprised by the usability 
>> (responsiveness). It focuses acceptably fast and i can take 
>> pictures to my (moving) child with no problems. The camera 
>> has lots of options, including live histogram and burned 
>> shadow and highlights indicators. It stars and stops very 
>> fast (no moving zoom). You can also set the green button in 
>> order to have direct access to some functions. The first 
>> underwater pictures that I took were specially good. I have 
>> to say that the pool was in the shadow, so there were no 
>> flare problems. The only real issue that I've found so far is 
>> the visibility of the LCD in bright light (and there is no 
>> optical viewfinder). This is the only thing that makes me 
>> wonder if I should have spent some more money and go for the 
>> W30, since they claim to have a brighter screen (although one 
>> never knows with marketing...). There is also anther issue, 
>> that I already observed in the Optio M30. If the camera fires 
>> the flash in ISO set to Auto, the camera ALWAYS uses ISO 400, 
>> which degrades the quality since it is a bit grainy. You have 
>> to force a lower iso (a good use for the programmable green button).
>>
>> Please, let me know if you have more specific questions. I 
>> can send you a link to some pictures and even send you some 
>> original pictures so you can judge the quality. For mi is OK 
>> for its purpose. (Also Steve's Digicams has reviewed both W20 
>> and W30 and has samples).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jaume
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: A* 85/1.4, A* 135/1.8

[Timothy Sherburne]

Shame on you, long-standing PDML members... :) I'm amazed no one pointed 
out Fred's 85MM lens shoot-out:



Didn't he do one with 135s too? Couldn't find it referenced anywhere though.

BTW, you can search the dusty PDML archives to find out more about both 
lenses here:



Tim


Kamiel Wanrooij wrote:
> (This message is a repost, since I got an error back last time)
>  
> Hi,
> 
> I just got the opportunity to buy one or both of these lenses (A* 85/1.4 and
> A* 135/1.8). As far as I've read and heard, these two are legendary
> performers from the manual product range. They appear to be somewhat rare,
> so I would rather not miss out on the opportunity to buy them. I haven't
> seen them being offered anywhere the past few years, at least not anywhere
> near where I live (Amsterdam).
> 
> The only thing is their price. The 85/1.4 goes for around $1000, the 135/1.8
> for $2000. Apart from their specs, rarity, and the fact that they are
> somewhat a collector's item, are they worth anywhere near these prices? And
> is their 'status' overrated?
> 
> Hope to hear some of your thoughts on these two lenses, would hate to spend
> $3000 if it's not worth it. Thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kamiel
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: A* 85/1.4, A* 135/1.8

[Timothy Sherburne]

Do'h! And I notice that Bob did mention Fred's comparison. Yes, the page 
mentioned is still active.

Tim

Timothy Sherburne wrote:
> Shame on you, long-standing PDML members... :) I'm amazed no one pointed 
> out Fred's 85MM lens shoot-out:
> 
> <http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/85compar/>
> 
> Didn't he do one with 135s too? Couldn't find it referenced anywhere though.
> 
> BTW, you can search the dusty PDML archives to find out more about both 
> lenses here:
> 
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/>
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> Kamiel Wanrooij wrote:
>> (This message is a repost, since I got an error back last time)
>>  
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just got the opportunity to buy one or both of these lenses (A* 85/1.4 and
>> A* 135/1.8). As far as I've read and heard, these two are legendary
>> performers from the manual product range. They appear to be somewhat rare,
>> so I would rather not miss out on the opportunity to buy them. I haven't
>> seen them being offered anywhere the past few years, at least not anywhere
>> near where I live (Amsterdam).
>>
>> The only thing is their price. The 85/1.4 goes for around $1000, the 135/1.8
>> for $2000. Apart from their specs, rarity, and the fact that they are
>> somewhat a collector's item, are they worth anywhere near these prices? And
>> is their 'status' overrated?
>>
>> Hope to hear some of your thoughts on these two lenses, would hate to spend
>> $3000 if it's not worth it. Thanks.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kamiel
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pentax in Portland

[Timothy Sherburne]

Thanks, Gabe. I'll tuck those away for my next visit up north.

Tim

Gabriel Cain wrote:
> For Seattle, there are a few good shops around:
> 
> There's Glazer's Camera in downtown, at 9th & Republication
> http://glazerscamera.com/
> 
> And there's Kenmore camera, near Seattle (in Kenmore, one of the suburbs)
> http://www.kcamera.com/
> 
> Of the two, Glazers is less likely to have Pentax gear, but have more gear.
> 
> Gabriel
> 
> Timothy Sherburne wrote:
>> Finally, if none of those suggestions will whet your appetite, Seattle 
>> is only 2.5 hrs away. There must be some good shops in that area? Anyone?
>>
>> Tim
>>  From Vancouver (not BC), Washington (not DC)
>>
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pentax in Portland

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi Morten...

So what brings you to Puddletown?

I'll second Jim's suggestion: Citizens is probably the best place for 
Pentax shopping in this area. The staff is usually helpful and friendly. 
I say "usually" because they're far more human than the drones at Ritz 
Camera - some days it seems like the guys need an extra cup of coffee, 
or maybe something stronger. :)



They have a modest selection of bodies and lenses - don't go expecting 
to have an experience like "B&H". I'd definitely recommend it if you're 
shooting any film while in Portlant: it's the only place I trust with my 
120 film for processing after a day lugging the 6x7 around town, and 
believe me, there aren't a lot of options anymore.

Pro Photo Supply also stocks some Pentax, but I think it's a recent move 
(since the release of the K10D) which is good to see. I don't have a lot 
of experience with them as I usually go to Citizens.



Both shops stock some used gear, too, if you're interested in that. 
However, if vintage equipment is really your cup of tea, then you should 
head on over to Blue Moon Camera:



Finally, if none of those suggestions will whet your appetite, Seattle 
is only 2.5 hrs away. There must be some good shops in that area? Anyone?

Tim
 From Vancouver (not BC), Washington (not DC)


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Citizens Photo in Portland might be able to help.They sell Pentaxes.
> 
> Jim A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 02:22:01PM +0200, Morten Dahl wrote:
>>> I'm going to Portland, Oregon, this summer, escaping Norwegian prices
>>> and VAT for a few days. I will be looking for a Pentax shop (or a shop
>>> willing to order some lenses in advance). Any suggestions?
>> Not since CameraWorld became part of the Ritz chain :-(
>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Gary Fong Lightsphere

[Timothy Sherburne]

You could always try this...



before spending $$$.

t

Walter Hamler wrote:
> http://store.garyfonginc.com/licl.html
> 
> Anyone have and hands on experience with these units. There is a "cloud" 
> version and a "clear" version.
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Metz 32CT4 & ist DS

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hey guys, thanks for all the advice.

In the end, I decided to go for the Sigma EF-500 ST, contrary advice not 
withstanding. I've used other Sigma gear and haven't had trouble, and 
the ST does support P-TTL according to the Sigma website. The only 
feature that I'm missing is the high-speed sync for outdoor fill, which 
the Super has.

Besides, I found one on ebay for $65 LNIB, which you can't beat with a 
stick.

t

Mat Maessen wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If/when I want a dedicated flash, I'll go with the Pentax or, if Metz
>> has done a P-TTL module, a Metz. So far I haven't seen the need:  the
>> Sunpak 383 works fine.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier in the thread, so far no P-TTL module from Metz.
> 
> Though it occurs to me, with a DS/DS2, if all you want is the basic
> flash integration, and TTL operation, either an SCA 372 or a 374/AF
> module, and the SCA 300c cable, would work.
> And if you buy them used (they're all over ebay/KEH/etc.), they're a
> LOT cheaper than the 3701/3000c combo.
> 
> -Mat
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Metz 32CT4 & ist DS

[Timothy Sherburne]

Thanks for the info, Godfrey. See comments below.

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2006, at 8:20 AM, Timothy Sherburne wrote:
> 
>> I need a reasonably powerful flash to pair with my *ist DS for  
>> shooting
>> an event at my daughter's school, and a friend has been kind enough to
>> loan me his Metz 32CT4. He mentioned the possibility of a dedicated
>> module for Pentax, but the research I've done indicates that this  
>> works
>> only with the LX. (My thinking is that there is some trigger voltage
>> issues here.)
> 
> I'm not familiar enough with the Metz line but my understanding is  
> that they have a Pentax-dedicated TTL (SCA 3702 M) module that will  
> work with the *ist DS bodies but the listing does not include your  
> Metz 32CT4 unit. This might be simply because the 32CT4 is out of  
> production, but I can't say. You might try contacting them to see if  
> it is compatible.

Yes, I dug through the Metz website this morning and found a PDF that 
describes camera body compatibility with legacy flashes. The DS and 
32CT4 are listed, and the SCA3702 and SCA3000C are needed to make them 
work together.

<http://www.metz.de/downloadFile.php?type=adapterarchiv&lang=en>

However, the pair runs $150 at B&H, and they note that the SCA3702 is 
specifically not compatible with the DS. I trust the word of the 
manufacturer over the distributor, but those prices? Yuck.

>> My backup plan is to order a Sigma ST500 and be done with it.
> 
> For full support of the *ist DS, you want the Sigma EF 500 DG Super  
> model.

Right. I meant to type "Sigma EF500 ST". The extra features of the Super 
would be nice (wireless, trailing curtain, high-speed sync), but I don't 
use a flash enough to spend the extra $80. I'm spending that on a K10D 
instead. :)

t

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Metz 32CT4 & ist DS

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi gang...

I need a reasonably powerful flash to pair with my *ist DS for shooting 
an event at my daughter's school, and a friend has been kind enough to 
loan me his Metz 32CT4. He mentioned the possibility of a dedicated 
module for Pentax, but the research I've done indicates that this works 
only with the LX. (My thinking is that there is some trigger voltage 
issues here.)

I'm not concerned about P-TTL, but something better than manual would be 
nice. This is the 21st century, after all. :)

What's the group's thoughts on this? Will the module work with the DS, 
or is there some other hack-around?

My backup plan is to order a Sigma ST500 and be done with it.

Thanks!

Tim

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Laid Off

[Timothy Sherburne]

My condolences, John; I just got off a three-month stint as a man of 
leisure myself. Stay positive and network with your family and friends 
and acquaintances.

t

John Celio wrote:
> Hey everyone.  I just got laid off!
> 
> *weeps*
> 
> I fear for the future of the company I am leaving.  I thought things were 
> turning around, but they just laid me off.  Me, the cheapest graphic artist 
> in California.  As far as my boss would tell me, the reason he laid me off 
> is entirely due to money.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

moo.com

[Timothy Sherburne]

I know some of you have Flickr accounts and may be interested in
moo.com, a site that enables you to take your flickr images off-line in
a small way. There's a freebie for Flickr pros (you know who you are).
No affiliation with either site, but I think it's kinda cool.

Tim


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: [Rant:] Film scanning vs. DSLR

[Timothy Sherburne]

 From my perspective, scanning is no joy. I used to have the scanner you 
mention (it broke, so Sony paid me for it instead of repairing it). 
Dust, film flatness, color, focusing problems all take a lot of time to 
figure out, then you through different films at it - oh, brother. Now 
I'm about ready to get a Nikon to replace the Minolta, and, although I'm 
using Hamrick Vuescan, I'm not looking forward to the time required to 
get good scans.

Frankly, I'm doing this to get older images into digital format to share 
with friends and family. I don't need fine-art quality, but clean, 
color-balanced scans that accurately represent the original image with a 
minimum of fuss would be nice. Anybody know of a decent service for this?

And, yes, I'm aware of the hard-core scan-heads that are rolling their 
eyes at this post. :)

Tim

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
> Merely haven't done any colour film scanning since I got my DS, almost a
> year ago. Now, I've had to find I've lost about three years' worth of
> film scans and I'm starting all over again.
> 
> Seems I had almost forgotten what a drag this is. How can it be that a
> 700 euro dedicated film scanner and a computer that performance-wise
> would have been the pride and joy of every met service, just a few years
> ago, aren't able to produce a remotely correct colour balance while
> every cheapo digicam can?
> 
> Still have to see the first colour picture from my DS come out only half
> (make that a tenth, actually) as bad as what I'm  getting from a
> computer/scanner system that has cost several times the price of the DS.
> 
> Ralf 
> 
> *) Minolta 5400
> **) Mac Dual G5
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: How to save a snowflake

[Timothy Sherburne]

Very cool, and very simple! Thanks for posting this, Daniel

t

Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> http://theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/PopularScience/2006/03/1/index.html
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Regarding Zenitar & NON-A lenses on *istD

[Timothy Sherburne]

How do you think it compares to the DA 16-45?

t

On 6/6/04 16:58, William Robb wrote:

> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tom C"
> Subject: Regarding Zenitar & NON-A lenses on *istD
> 
> 
> 
>> With that said, I'm pretty happy with the quality from the
> Zenitar... not
>> the best I'm sure, but a lot of bang for the buck.
> 
> I was quite impressed with the Zenitar. I thought it was quite sharp,
> and it didn't seem at all prone to flare. My only complaint was that
> it's colour rendition was almost cartoonlike.
> Very contrasty lens.
> I found a Tak 17mm fisheye, and sold the Zenitar, as I couldn't
> justify keeping two fisheye lenses.
> 
> William Robb
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Regarding Zenitar & NON-A lenses on *istD

[Timothy Sherburne]

Tom - Are you using the screwmount version, or the K mount version?

t

On 6/6/04 16:53, Tom C wrote:

> W. Robb kindly informed me of the following...
> 
>> Tom, upgrade the camera's firmware to the most recent (I think it is
>> rev1.11). This allows the >camera to operate quite nicely with non A
>> lenses, as it makes metering possible. Also, make sure >that the custom
>> function to allow shutter release with the lens off A is enabled.
> 
> With that said, I'm pretty happy with the quality from the Zenitar... not
> the best I'm sure, but a lot of bang for the buck.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: RE: PAWS Trip to Mt. Rainier
>> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:39:58 -0400
>> 
>>> I unhappily learned that my Zenitar 16mm fisheye will not
>>> work on the *istD.
>>>   No 'A' setting on aperture ring.
>> 
>> Thanks for letting me know that before I bought the lens, Tom! :)
>> 
>> You might be interested to know that I tried Adorama's fisheye
>> attachment in the store, and it does indeed look like a true fisheye at
>> around 28mm or wider. However, on the istD you'd probably have to put it
>> on something like an 18mm or wider.
>> 
>> Amita
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: New Pentax Price List (1.Jun) shows what is left (was Pentax plans to focus on digital)

[Timothy Sherburne]

Interesting, the MZ/ZX-M lives. Their market research must still indicate a
significant interest in basic manual film cameras for students and
beginners.

t 

On 6/2/04 23:44, Rüdiger Neumann wrote:

> 
> http://www.pentax.de/mediapool/attachments/photo/46275/46365/133020/Endverbr
> aucherpreisliste1-2004.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

FW: Product update from bhphotovideo.com

[Timothy Sherburne]

The lens assembler in Vietnam must've recovered...

-- Forwarded Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 17:18:47 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Product update from bhphotovideo.com

Dear Customer 

Thank you for your inquiry for this item:
Pentax - PE16454ED  - DA 16-45mm f/4 ED AL Zoom Lens

We would like to inform you that this item is now available from
bhphotovideo.com.

Check it out:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=315380&is=REG&bi=E15

If the above link does not work, please copy and paste this item code
PE16454ED
into our search box located on the upper left-hand corner of the page
throughout our web site.

If you plan on visiting our retail Superstore in person, please call to
confirm 
that the item is still in stock before you arrive. The demands on our
inventory 
prevent us from guarantying that this item will be here when you arrive.


Thank you, 
The B&H Web Team
www.bhphotovideo.com
420 Ninth Avenue 
New York, NY 10001, USA
800-606-6969 
212-444-6615
~
This is an automated email response and cannot be replied to.
Please click on the following URL: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/email.html
for the appropriate email address.
~




-- End of Forwarded Message

Re: Vivitar's KA/R mount...

[Timothy Sherburne]

Thanks, Mike. This lens works great (unmodified) on my ZX-M and ME Super,
but not so well on a ZX-L owned by a eBay buyer. In the several years I've
owned the lens, I haven't run into either problem you describe.

Anyone interested in buying this lens? It's in great shape! Let me know
off-line.

Thanks,

Tim

On 5/28/04 10:56, mike wilson wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Timothy Sherburne wrote:
>> Hello all..
>> 
>> I need to draw on your collective wisdom: Are there any Pentax K-mount
>> bodies that will not accept a Vivitar KA/R lens? The specific lens in
>> question is Vivitar's Series 1 19-35/3.5-4.5 zoom.
> 
> They will all accept it - after you've modified the back of the lens 8-)
> 
> Otherwise, it's not a good idea to try to mount it on _any_ Pentax.  If
> I remember correctly, there are _two_ compatibility problems.  One is to
> do with the tongue of metal that protects a lever and the other is to do
> with the lens locking tab.  Of possible outcomes, the first will cause
> damage if the camera is operated with the lens mounted, the second will
> cause the lens to be unremoveable from the body.  That's the limit of my
> knowledge, I'm afraid.
> 
> mike
> 
> 
> 

Vivitar's KA/R mount...

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hello all..

I need to draw on your collective wisdom: Are there any Pentax K-mount
bodies that will not accept a Vivitar KA/R lens? The specific lens in
question is Vivitar's Series 1 19-35/3.5-4.5 zoom.

Thanks!

Tim

Re: What is the recommended CF card?

[Timothy Sherburne]

Are you looking just at raw write performance? Some research I did on this
yielded a page and performance database by Rob Galbraith:




His chart indicates SanDisk's Extreme 1GB and Ultra II 1 GB as having the
fastest write times.

t



On 5/27/04 11:23, Mark Stringer wrote:

> What is currently the thinking on a CF card?  1 gig fast, I guess?  I read in
> the archives someone had a problem with lexar standards and downloads from
> microdrives were over an hour (?)
> 
> 
> 

Re: I can't wait

[Timothy Sherburne]

Okay, so Adorama's kit price betters B&H's by nearly $50. Oddly enough, the
body alone is $150 more than at B&H.

t

On 5/27/04 9:53, Mark Stringer wrote:

> Just wondering, I thought maybe there was something new.  istD with lens after
> rebate at Adorama is $1429.  You were not far off.  Sid Barras was asking
> about a source at $799 that most did not approve of.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:50 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: I can't wait
> 
> 
> Wasn't that the discussion last week about pricing?
> (correct me and slap me really, really hard if I misrepresented something)
> 
> Collin
> 
>> From: Mark Stringer
>> Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 09:39:57 -0700
>> 
>> Where can I get one for less than $1300 with lens?
> 
> ---
> 
> 'Tautology is' 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: I can't wait

[Timothy Sherburne]

I think the most reliable deal is probably through B&H: $1,249 for the body
and $429 for the lens, less the $200 rebate, for $1,478 before shipping.

You can find the body for less elsewhere, but savings on the body is diluted
by the higher $499 price for the lens.

I don't know if Pentax will honor the rebate if the lens and body are
purchased from different vendors. The language isn't real clear on that
point. Anyone have any experience on this?

t

On 5/27/04 9:49, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:

> Wasn't that the discussion last week about pricing?
> (correct me and slap me really, really hard if I misrepresented something)
> 
> Collin
> 
>> From: Mark Stringer
>> Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 09:39:57 -0700
>> 
>> Where can I get one for less than $1300 with lens?
> 
> ---
> 
> 'Tautology is' 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

Re: Why Pentax Cannot Supply Lenses

[Timothy Sherburne]

Yikes! Joe, are you pulling the collective leg, or are you serious? I'd be
amazed that the lens assembly would bottleneck at one person, but I have
heard more outrageous tales. It's obviously not a very robust manufacturing
approach.

t 

On 5/25/04 14:08, jtainter wrote:

> I heard through the grapevine that the lens assembler in Vietnam has been ill.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Holga

[Timothy Sherburne]

Just as a follow-up, some of my personal favorites were taken with the
Yashica, like this one:

<http://www.usefilm.com/image/107265.html>

There are some others in my "portfolio" on Usefilm. Feel free to comment!

t

On 5/18/04 14:51, Timothy Sherburne wrote:

> 
> 35mm? I thought they were 120. I suppose there could be a conversion kit,
> but... Unless the thought of using a plastic camera really appeals to you,
> you may want to consider something slightly more sophisticated and get way
> more mileage.
> 
> Several years ago, I wanted to try out medium format and also considered the
> Holga. Instead, I ended up with a Yashica A TLR from a fellow list member.
> Although it's a fully manual camera, it's really a blast to use and makes
> fantastic 6x6 frames on 120 roll film, all for US$50.
> 
> There are a lot of older 120 cameras around in fine shape. I'm sure someone
> on this list has some ideas on good body/lens combos to look for.
> 
> t
> 
> On 5/18/04 14:38, Henri Toivonen wrote:
> 
>> So, I'm thinking of buying one of those cheap-ass plastic-fantastic cameras.
>> After surfing some pics from it, I really want one. :-)
>> 
>> Anyone tried one out? Is it much of a hassle to get it to use 35mm film?
>> What did you pay for it?
>> Comments?
>> 
>> /Henri
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Holga

[Timothy Sherburne]

35mm? I thought they were 120. I suppose there could be a conversion kit,
but... Unless the thought of using a plastic camera really appeals to you,
you may want to consider something slightly more sophisticated and get way
more mileage.

Several years ago, I wanted to try out medium format and also considered the
Holga. Instead, I ended up with a Yashica A TLR from a fellow list member.
Although it's a fully manual camera, it's really a blast to use and makes
fantastic 6x6 frames on 120 roll film, all for US$50.

There are a lot of older 120 cameras around in fine shape. I'm sure someone
on this list has some ideas on good body/lens combos to look for.

t

On 5/18/04 14:38, Henri Toivonen wrote:

> So, I'm thinking of buying one of those cheap-ass plastic-fantastic cameras.
> After surfing some pics from it, I really want one. :-)
> 
> Anyone tried one out? Is it much of a hassle to get it to use 35mm film?
> What did you pay for it?
> Comments?
> 
> /Henri
> 
> 
> 

Re: For all you *istD RAW fanatics...

[Timothy Sherburne]

Yes, but does it need to print them to 4x6 first, then scan the prints? HAR!

t

On 5/14/04 8:30, Brian Dipert wrote:

> www.delkin.com/store/catalog/product_113_USB_Bridge.html
> 
> I've got a review unit enroute and will report back with my observations

Re: PAW - Dog Show

[Timothy Sherburne]

Funny, researchers have recently agreed with you:



t

On 5/13/04 14:09, Christian wrote:

> I like the way dogs and their owners look alike...
> 
> Christian
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "wendy beard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "pentax-discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 7:57 AM
> Subject: PAW - Dog Show
> 
> 
>> As that's where I was all day on Saturday, here's one of the pics.
>> 
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28821195/large
>> 
>> Wendy
>> 
>> 
>> Wendy Beard,
>> Ottawa, Canada
>> http://www.beard-redfern.com
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: OT - help with "autorun"

[Timothy Sherburne]

Sounds like Autorun under Mac OS X has gone the way of the nickel cigar:



There is a bit of technical info on Autorun on the Apple website; it may be
worth a try:



t

On 5/12/04 15:00, John Dallman wrote:

> On a related idea, is there a way to autorun an HTML page on a
> freshly-inserted CD on Mac OS X?
> 
> Googling revealed ways using AppleScript and a CD built on a Mac (or using
> MacImage) that seem to work on any Mac, but I'm happy to ignore Classic
> MacOS if Mac OS X will let me do this trick with a plain text file a la
> Windows. 
> 
> --- 
> John Dallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
> 
> 
> 

Re: Pentax High End DSLR

[Timothy Sherburne]

I guess we need to define "large" and "small". For small, I was thinking of
a 512 MB card, which will hold around 27 of a *istD's TIFF images, roughly
the same as a roll of film. I'm planning on two or three 512MB cards rather
than one large 2GB card or drive. That way, I can use different cards for
different purposes, or avoid the (admittedly low) possibility of losing
images in a card crash or accidental erasure.

You're right that changing cards in the field is inconvenient.

t

On 5/12/04 11:11, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> I have to use multiple smaller capacity cards on my digicam, and, frankly,
> when making larger files (TIFF in my case) it really stinks!  I'd much
> rather have a larger card, and should I get a newer digital camera, you can
> bet I'll be using at least some large capacity cards, regardless of camera
> brand or format.  Thing is, the idea of having a few cards with different
> capacities is appealing as well.  But, when shooting inh the field, so to
> speak, I don't want to have to change cards.  Perhaps for the
> macro/landscape/still life group it's not a problem.  But when
> photographing outside, on the street, in situations that change often,m not
> a good idea.
> 
> Shel Belinkoff
> 
> 
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Timothy Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: Pentax Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: 5/12/2004 10:57:46 AM
>> Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
>> 
>> 
>> I haven't been there yet, but my planned strategy is to use multiple,
>> smaller CF cards rather than one really large card. Has this worked out
> for
>> anyone?
>> 
>> t
>> 
>> On 5/12/04 10:42, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>> 
>>> I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you
>>> considered one of those small, portable storage banks into which you can
>>> download your card?
>>> 
>>> Shel Belinkoff
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> [Original Message]
>>>> From: jtainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> 
>>>> I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that
>>> has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations.
> The
>>> primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster.
>>> When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my
> recent
>>> trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot
> only
>>> in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a
>>> card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in
> one
>>> full day and two afternoons.
>>>> 
>>>> Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I
>>> would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford
> one.
>>> As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost.
>>>> 
>>>> Joe
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: infinitycameras.com

[Timothy Sherburne]

Yikes! Sounds like a bad bunch. Thanks for the link, DagT.

t

On 5/12/04 11:15, Dag T wrote:

> Take a look at this:
> http://www.resellerratings.com/seller_info.pl?seller_id=2684
> 
> DagT
> 
> På 12. mai. 2004 kl. 19.06 skrev Timothy Sherburne:
> 
>> 
>> Hello all...
>> 
>> Can anyone vouch for the integrity this outfit?
>> 
>> Not to get everyone too excited, but they have *ist-D bodies for
>> $1020. No
>> DA lenses from what I could tell.
>> 
>> The price seems too good, and I suspect they may be selling gray-market
>> bodies that may have warrantee complications. Any thoughts?
>> 
>> t
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Pentax High End DSLR

[Timothy Sherburne]

I haven't been there yet, but my planned strategy is to use multiple,
smaller CF cards rather than one really large card. Has this worked out for
anyone?

t

On 5/12/04 10:42, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you
> considered one of those small, portable storage banks into which you can
> download your card?
> 
> Shel Belinkoff
> 
> 
>> [Original Message]
>> From: jtainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>> I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that
> has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The
> primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster.
> When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent
> trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only
> in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a
> card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one
> full day and two afternoons.
>> 
>> Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I
> would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one.
> As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost.
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: PAW: Gentle Smile with Melodica

[Timothy Sherburne]

This is a good one, Frank. Your timing did a great job capturing her pose
and expression. Well done!

t 

On 5/11/04 20:28, frank theriault wrote:

> Another one of my friend Jennifer in concert:
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2355455
> 
> Lighting was horrendous (the single spot was aimed at her body, not her
> head).  I also shot this concert with T Max 3200 (at 3200).  I find it very
> grainy, and by far prefer Neopan 1600 pushed one stop.
> 
> Comments are appreciated.
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 
> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist
> fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
> 
> _
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium
> http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http:
> //hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
> 
> 
> 

Re: Shameless Self-Promotion

[Timothy Sherburne]

Nice work, Tom. I only have two comments: 1) The "Info" link on the first
page looks like it's a bit off center, 2) I get a script error when loading
the "Family" page. I'm using IE 5.2.2 for Mac OS X.

BTW, your photos are outstanding.

t

On 2/13/03 11:42 AM, tom wrote:

> Guys, I have a new website:
> 
> http://www.thomasvanveen.com
> 
> Let the berating begin.
> 
> tv

Re: John Daniele on Photo Net

[Timothy Sherburne]

Thanks for the insight, James. I'm also learning on my own. Of course, if I
thought it were a complete drudgery, I'd use T400CN and drop it off at the
nearest supermarket. As a beginner, though, my brain says, "get me the best
pictures possible" but my eyes see endless combinations of film and chem. So
many choices, so little time (money).

Currently, I'm working with D76 1:1 or 1:3 on Ilford HP5+. This seems to
suit my style at the moment, which can probably be described as
people-and-things-outdoors-but-not-necessarily-planned. Load up the camera,
go for a walk with or without family/friends/pets, and look for interesting
subjects, concentrate on composition and exposure, and snap, snap, snap
away. Develop. Then print, print, print.

t

On 2/11/03 3:00 PM, James T Carpenter wrote:

> Chore!!!  Sorting it all out _IS_ the fun!  (Isn't it??)   That, and
> occasionally capturing that "perfect shot."

Re: John Daniele on Photo Net

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi John...

I'm new at darkroom work, too. There is a bewildering array of films, chems,
papers, techniques and equipment that each alter your final image. Sorting
it out can be a real chore.

Probably the most helpful advise I've received is to focus on one of each
and work from there. For example, D76 is the cornerstone of B&W neg
developing. There is a lot known about how it works and a lot of people
talking about it on the net. It's easy to get help on it when you get into
trouble. This is not always easy to do, because you want to try everything
during the discovery phase.

One of the most useful references I've seen is _The Film Developing
Cookbook_ by Stephen G Anchell and Bill Troop. They include some excellent
info on films and developers that I couldn't find elsewhere, as well as a
background on film chemistry that offers insight into how the stuff works.

t

On 2/11/03 5:34 AM, John Daniele wrote:

> William, Brendan and Bruce Thanks for the comments I am new at this so I
> appreciate the help I am not insulted or ripped in any way. I did my
> developing by reading the instructions on the bottle, there seems to be
> so many variables between what the negative looks like to how it is
> scanned to what monitor it is displayed on. I need to find the time to
> take some classes. I have no room for a darkroom set up the film scanner
> seems to be the way to go for me right now. More of a collector of
> submini cameras Tessina, Minox, and some Robots I had a pentax me a few
> years ago and just loved the build and feel so much I also started
> collecting these. My life is very hectic 11 hour work days :( so time is
> limited in my (bathroom) darkroom I do like to use all of my cameras and
> making an image start to finish has been a real thrill. I need to  work
> less and get a few classes in
> But for now I will keep shooting and ask for your comments good, bad, or
> otherwise I am sure I will learn something.
> 
> Sincerely, John Daniele
> 

Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300

[Timothy Sherburne]

This doesn't mean that you have to use a digital camera, though. You could
just as easily shoot with traditional film and provide them with scans that
could still beat the quality you'd get from today's DSLR, even if they only
keep 4MB.

t

On 2/11/03 8:33 AM, Herb Chong wrote:

> i just received the green light for an article on waterfalls. they want
> digital originals where possible and their image specs are a high quality 4
> megapixel image. if i supply slides, they would scan and keep at no more
> than 4 megapixels. they print on high quality glossy stock, about the same
> as National Geographic uses. anyone who sells their images (as opposed to
> prints) is being forced to go digital. stock agencies who don't won't have
> buyers anymore because the graphic artists want digital. publications who
> don't go digital for their image have trouble because the rest of their
> publication process is digital. time is money.

Re: OT Window coverings

[Timothy Sherburne]

Your window covering should work, but the true test comes from installing
the window cover, sealing the door, then standing in the darkened room with
all lights off for five minutes. During this time, your eyes will have time
to adjust to the darkness and you'll be able to see light leaks easily.
Attack ones on the window with black masking tape or electricians tape.

For my door, the foam approach didn't work well because the door in the
frame a bit too tight for regular use (the darkroom is also a 1/2 bathroom).
Instead, I installed a curtain rod over the door (on the inside of the
darkroom) and my wife made a heavy black curtain (running from floor to
ceiling) that I can cover the door with. This works perfectly for blocking
those stray photons.

t

On 2/7/03 5:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
> Hi all. I'm ready to start bathroom developing and just wondering if this will
> work.
> There is one small window about 16" x 24" that needs to be covered.
> Just wondering if adhering a couple of pieces of black bristol board or
> similar material to the window,then add soem black plastic bags over top
> (and turning ther out side light off) would be ok.When the outside light is
> off
> at night its quite dark out there.
> I have a bit of space by the door but i can foam up that no problem.
> 
> Any comments app.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 

Re: Photo Contest

[Timothy Sherburne]

Ann... Just to be fair, one has to "join" PDML in order to participate in
PUG, and those donations go to support the website and pay for the prizes. I
don't think usefilm.com is making a killing on this.

My guess is that the calendars are a lot like those sold by Photographer's
Edge.

t

On 2/7/03 8:54 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:

> Al Shaikh wrote:
> 
>> I thought you guys might like a little contest. Usefilm.com is
>> sponsoring one with flowers as the theme. If you feel like entering feel
>> free. First and only prize is a set of 5 calendars of your own images.
>> Photographer retains all rights blah, you know the deal.
>> 
>> Enjoy & Good luck
>> al
>> http://www.usefilm.com
> 
> I took a look - 5 images are required.  12 months.  5 calendars. So what you
> win is  one different
> image on each of 5 calendars, not an image a page, it appears.  And you have
> to "join" and a $25 donation
> is suggested to be a member.  Not so appealing to me, at least.
> 
> Just my 2 cents
> annsan
> 
> 
> 

Re: OT: Frustrating

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi Dave...

Dust can be a real bugaboo. I've been fortunate with my darkroom experiences
of late - I haven't had any problems with dust or scratches. My basic
process is this: Load reels and tanks carefully, then process normally.
Finish with a rinse in Kodak PhotoFlo. Hang the negs to dry for 60 minutes
*without* wiping them down; no fans, no cats, no people, 18C air temp. While
hanging, cut into five frame strips and slide strips into Print File archive
sheets. Make a contact print with negs in the archive sheet, then make 5x
and 8x prints as usual. No scratches and no dust and no watermarks, knock on
wood.

t

On 1/31/03 4:09 AM, David Brooks wrote:

> Took a wack of neg sleeves to darkroom class Wednesday.First
> print,scratched,second one,scratchedthird one,well you see were i'm
> going.
> I picked these from the proofs that were scratch free,and the negs
> have not been used since.I'm convinced gremlins are hiding in my
> house scratching neg's that sit to long.
> NOW i can see were digital technology will come in handy.Scan and
> fix.Only way i can save these to do any prints.
> Very frustrating.
> OTOH i did manage to print a good one of aour Tabby cat,only one
> dust spot so i quess thats a success
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> Pentax User
> Stouffville Ontario Canada
> "Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art
> stops and the wall begins"--Frank Zappa
> http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
> http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
> Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
> 

Re: Pentax sighted in In Style magazine!!!

[Timothy Sherburne]

On 1/23/03 3:21 PM, frank theriault wrote:

> BTW, no knowledge is worthless;  sometimes we just need to store it away
> until a need arises.  Like, someday I could bump into Drew, and I think
> that, :"Hey Drew, how's that 67II doing?" would be a great opening line.
> 

It's likely that she would bludgeon you with it in response... 

t

Re: ME Super question

[Timothy Sherburne]

When you say "off" are you turning the shutter mode knob to "lock"? The
meter automatically turns itself off after some number of seconds. What else
could be drawing power?

t

On 1/21/03 10:21 AM, Peter Alling wrote:

> If you remember to turn the meter off battery life won't be measured in
> rolls but in years.
> 
> At 12:07 PM 1/21/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>> Hi!
>> 
>> I have a question related to ME Super or similar camera, ME F, ME,
>> etc.
>> 
>> Given a set of new alkaline batteries, how many films do you manage to
>> shoot before you have to change them?
>> 
>> I do realize that ME Super has to be quite frugal - the only things
>> that need juice are shutter and meter. But still, I am interested in
>> your mileage.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance.
>> 
>> ---
>> Boris Liberman
>> www.geocities.com/dunno57
>> www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
> 
> Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
>Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  --Groucho Marx
> 

Re: Agfa Brovira

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi Bill...

I don't have any experience with this paper, but I did see it mentioned at
the Unblinking Eye:



Good Luck!

t

On 1/21/03 6:39 PM, Bill Owens wrote:

> I just got a good deal on some Agfa Brovira enlarging paper.  I noticed that
> Agfa considers Grade 3 to be normal and Grade 4 hard.  This paper is Grade
> 4, so would it be closer to Kodak 3 or 4?
> 
> Bill
> 
> 

Re: Photo Greeting Cards

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi Ann...

It looks like their distributor is on the web. Go to
 and follow the links for "Insert Cards".

t

On 1/16/03 11:55 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:

> Yep - order cards from CAPE CADS -  1-800-848-7671 (maybe by now they have
> a web address)
> they are a variety of cards that have a window to insert your photo in.
> THe outside boundaries
> of the ones I have are 5 x 7 and the inside is 3 1/2 x 5 1/2 - allowing
> you to slip 4 x 6 inch
> prints in to the frame.  Photo stores sell these for a lot but ordering
> direct they are reasonable.
> They can be framed easily as they work like a mat.  THen you can keep
> better control over
> your image, too.

Re: Photo Greeting Cards

[Timothy Sherburne]

That's the one, Herb. Thanks!

t

On 1/16/03 10:00 AM, Herb Chong wrote:

> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I don't have the link for you, Tom, but I am looking for the company that
> sold die-cut greeting card blanks specifically for photos. You simply
> insert
> a 3.5x5 or 4x6 print into the front of the card, and voilà, instant
> personalized card. Anyone got that one?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tim<
> 
> PhotographersEdge.com. they are on the expensive side.
> 
> Herb
> 

Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE

[Timothy Sherburne]

For 35mm C-41 processing and the resulting set of 4x6 prints, I pay either
$7 for one-hour process & print at the local "one-stop shopping" supermarket
or $16 for 3-day service at my favorite LCS (local camera store).

B&W I do myself for about $3 in consumables (developing and a contact
sheet).

t

On 1/16/03 9:12 AM, Mike Johnston wrote:

> And actually, $10 per roll is probably underestimating film and processing
> costs unless you process your own. I don't know--how much does everybody
> really pay for film and processing, typically?

Re: Photo Greeting Cards

[Timothy Sherburne]

I don't have the link for you, Tom, but I am looking for the company that
sold die-cut greeting card blanks specifically for photos. You simply insert
a 3.5x5 or 4x6 print into the front of the card, and voilà, instant
personalized card. Anyone got that one?

Thanks,

Tim

On 1/16/03 9:38 AM, tom wrote:

> I could have sworn someone posted a link to a lab (besides Ofoto) that
> will take a scan and print it on a greeting card, but I can't find the
> link.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> tv
> 
> 

Re: Need help w/ how to use SM lenses on K mount bodies

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi Steve...

Aesthetics and mechanics aside, I'm not sure if an older Tak 50/1.4 would
have much advantage over a newer k-mount lens, especially in the coating
department. K, M and A series 50/1.4s are quite common and relatively
inexpensive. Some of the older Taks suffer from the "yellow lens curse", for
which there is only one cure. Perhaps another list member can recall the
hyperlink for that?

IMHO, the real benefits for k-mount body users can be found by seeking out
the rarer, faster SM lenses. Most of us cannot afford the A* 85/1.4 or
135/1.8, but their SM ancestors are much more affordable. Of course, you do
miss out on program modes and stop down metering, but you'll be shooting
these wide open anyway, right? 

t

On 1/15/03 8:56 AM, Steve Pearson wrote:

> Thanks everyone for your help.  I understand now how
> to use the adapter.  Now for the important question-is
> it worth it?  IOW, is it worth it to do this for one
> lens (IE the Super Tak. 50mm, 1.4), or should I just
> find an M 50mm, 1.4?  Comments on image quality
> differences?  
> 
> Is it still easy to find a good quality Super Tak.
> 50mm, 1.4?  I imagine the SMC-M is easier to find, in
> good condition?  
> 
> Also, I would then only have 1 SM lens and going back
> & forth might be a bit of a pain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Message text written by
>> INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Maybe this is because I never received the tool
>> with the Pentax 
>> adapter I have, but I always put the adapter on the
>> lens first, 
>> instead of trying to bayonet it into the camera
>> body. Of course, the
>> lens then comes out by itself, leaving the adapter
>> in the body, but
>> when I'm done I've always been able to get it out
>> using a fingernail
>> and careful turning of the adapter edges with my
>> fingertips.
>> 
>> What's the proper procedure for using the adapter?
>> 
>> Joe<
>> 
>> that is the procedure i remember from the directions
>> included with the
>> Pentax-brand adapter i used to own.
>> 
>> Herb...
>> 
> 
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> 

pdml@pdml.net

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi Anand...

This past Christmas, my family gave me the essentials for a darkroom. I then
proceeded to spend at least as much as they did (great gift, eh?) on
additional paraphernalia. Needless to say, I'm not a professional and I
don't even play one on TV. Darn.

Currently, I process my own rolls (120 and 135) of Ilford HP-5+ with D-76
(I'll be trying Delta soon) and print with a 35+ year old Tower diffuser
enlarger, a 75mm Perfex Anastigmat lens, Illford chemicals and MG IV papers
up to 8x10. This enlarger is a real bear to keep aligned, so stuck mostly to
5x7s. I haven't been real pleased with the 8x10s so far. I've got various SS
tanks and reels, clips, trays, tongs, graduates, recycled bottles and a
converted second bath darkroom to keep the show going.

I'm shopping for an older (but good) 50mm lens for the enlarger, and this
weekend I'll be working with my father's waterjet to make a 6x6 negative
carrier for the enlarger. (Yes, I've tried making one out of mat board, but
flatness was a real challenge. There's just no substitute for metal.)

t

On 1/14/03 1:53 PM, Anand DHUPKAR wrote:

> So, my question to all who replied on 'why do you use b&w',
> HOW MANY OF YOU DO YOUR OWN PROCESSING ?  AND IF YOU ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL,
> WHAT KIND OF SET-UP YOU HAVE ?

pdml@pdml.net

[Timothy Sherburne]

Besides the aesthetic benefits already mentioned, I've taken up B&W for more
artistic projects because I can do all the processing at home in a matter of
hours as opposed to over a week at a lab. I could also make my own color
prints, and probably will someday, but color does add another layer of
complexity. Let's get B&W down first.

Family snapshots, though, are still done in color and taken to a local shop.

t

Re: OT: Moral Dilemma re Selling on Ebay

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi Marnie...

Remember that the qualities of a lens are generally subjective. I may find
the images from lens X to be perfectly acceptable, but someone else using it
for a paying job may decide otherwise. One person's ceiling is another's
floor, so to speak.

Avoid describing the lens's image quality and stick to the more mechanical
issues where there is a yes or no answer: Is there fungus on the elements?
Are aperture blades clean of oil? Is the body damaged in any way? Finally,
don't expect a ton of money for it.

t 

On 1/14/03 7:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> This seems really stupid, but I've hesitated to sell a Cimko 70-200mm zoom
> back on Ebay because I now know it's a "bad" lens.
> 
> Oh, most of the pictures taken with it look okay, not that bad, with no
> obvious distortions, until it is zoomed to its maximum focal length, then it
> has swirlies. Not terrible swirlies as some pdmler pointed out awhile back,
> but swirlies.
> 
> I'd like to get SOME of my money back on the lens. But I keep stumbling around
> trying to figure out how to word the ebay ad.
> 
> "Good for the student."
> 
> "Not the best lens in the world, but adequate for the student."
> 
> "This is actually a pretty lousy lens, I won't lie to you, but the glass is
> clear and it will work fine for the uninformed, indiscriminating student until
> they know better."
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> I am beginning to think that having any ethical sense at all and selling
> flawed and/or not-so-hot stuff on ebay may be too much of a moral dilemma to
> resolve. 
> 
> Doe aka Marnie ;-)
> 

Re: I want to start a WAR

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi Marnie...

This is an interesting comment. I have another, somewhat anecdotal example
of the opposite viewpoint. My mom, a high school arts teacher in a small,
rural community recently brought her photography students to an exhibit of
some of Ansel Adam's B&W work here in Portland. The exhibit also included
color prints of similar locations done by Adam Bacher, an accomplished local
outdoor photographer. (You can find his gallery by searching on Google.)

To my surprise, the students all agreed that the B&W work had a greater
visual impact than the color work, although they were both technically
excellent.

t

On 1/13/03 3:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> But I find B&W boring. Put some color photos next to B&W photos and my eye
> will skip right over the B&W to the color. It reminds me too much of the B&W
> TV I grew up with. And everyone on the street was estactic when they finally
> got a color TV! Our family certainly was, because we got ours later than some.
> I instantly found TV more interesting (not necessarily a good thing as a
> child, but you get the idea).

Re: Bongs

[Timothy Sherburne]

I ran across this the other day:



Scroll 1/3 down the page. There's even a link to info on the flying ace you
mention.

t

On 1/8/03 9:13 PM, Mike Johnston wrote:

>> I'm planning on forming my own cult for the expressed purpose of being
>> suppressed by Chinese communists. We're just gonna hang out and smoke dope
>> all day. We're calling ourselves the Falun Bong.
> 
> 
> Mark,
> Speaking of Bong, there's a place on the road to Chicago called the "Bong
> Recreation Area," named after a WWII flying ace or some such. I was at a gas
> station off the interstate over Christmas, when this young kid comes in with
> this big smile on his face. He asks the clerk, "what and where is the 'Bong
> Recreation Area'? I've _got_ to get a picture of this for my friends!!"
> 
> The clerk gave him directions and off he went...
> 
> 
> 
> --Mike
> 

Re: Vs: PENTAX DEBUTS A HIGH-QUALITY ZOOM LENS DIGITAL CAMERA SOSMALL THAT IT FITS INTO A TIN OF ALTOIDSR

[Timothy Sherburne]

On 1/8/03 1:23 PM, gfen wrote:

> They're curiously strong. (r)
> 
> And curiously unpleasant, chalky, and little mints, although the cinnamon
> ones are kinda tasty.

Don't forget about the ginger, speramint, wintergreen, tangerine and lime
"mints"... Those citrus flavors have some serious pucker factor. Kinda like
seeing a gold snakeskin LX! ;)

t

Re: Vs: PENTAX DEBUTS A HIGH-QUALITY ZOOM LENS DIGITAL CAMERA SOSMALL THAT IT FITS INTO A TIN OF ALTOIDSR

[Timothy Sherburne]

They're curiously strong mints. See  for more info.

t

On 1/8/03 1:52 PM, Raimo Korhonen wrote:

> OK - but what the $£&§ are Altoids - do I have to get some?
> All the best!
> Raimo
> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
> 
> -Alkuperäinen viesti-
> Lähettäjä: Rob Brigham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Päivä: 08. tammikuuta 2003 18:10
> Aihe: PENTAX DEBUTS A HIGH-QUALITY ZOOM LENS DIGITAL CAMERA SO SMALL THAT IT
> FITS INTO A TIN OF ALTOIDSR
> 
> 
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0301/03010801pentaxoptios.asp
>> 
>> "Pentax has today announced the ultra tiny Optio S digital camera. The
>> new three megapixel, three times optical zoom 'Optio S' measures just 83
>> x 52 x 20 mm (3.3 x 2.0 x 0.8 in) and weighs 115 g (4.1 oz) loaded with
>> its Lithium-Ion battery and an SD storage card. The Optio S has a tough
>> and stylish aluminium alloy case and has a more 'designer' look than the
>> previous Optio digital cameras. This amazing feat of miniturisation was
>> achieved with a unique sliding lens, a design which has elements which
>> slide out of the imaging path when powered off!!!"
>> 
>> You gotta see the designs for this!
>> 
> 

Re: Pentax DSLR: e-mail from Pentax USA

[Timothy Sherburne]

Well, I guess I should rephrase my initial comment: if you have an
application that can make good use of older technology, then that technology
isn't "out of date".

I have an old Connectix Quick Cam that I don't use anymore because I want
features and a level of quality over what it has to offer. However, this
person has made use of one:

<http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/3839/spblacknwhite.html>

Hmmm.

t

On 1/8/03 12:14 PM, gfen wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Timothy Sherburne wrote:
>> Maybe a few months isn't a big deal, but if you had purchased a digital
>> camera from the same era as the PZ-1, I think everyone would agree that it
>> is "out of date"!
> 
> My Casio QV-10a is out of date? But.. its got 320x240 resolution pictures!

Re: Pentax DSLR: e-mail from Pentax USA

[Timothy Sherburne]

Maybe a few months isn't a big deal, but if you had purchased a digital
camera from the same era as the PZ-1, I think everyone would agree that it
is "out of date"!

t

On 1/8/03 11:37 AM, Cotty wrote:

>> DSLR sell so slowly and are so fast out of date
> 
> This phrase is a non-sequitur. It does not mean a thing. I bought a DSLR
> a few months ago, and if it is superseded at the PMA, fine. I would not
> consider mine to be 'out of date', whatever that means. Would one
> consider a PZ-1, or an LX, or a Spotmatic 'out of date' right now? If it
> was in working order and being used, I would define that as very much 'in
> date'!
> 
> IMO the term 'out of date' is part of the gotta-have hype, is frankly
> unhelpful, and should apply only to film, chemicals, and milk!
> 
> Not getting specifically at you, Pal, I understand the way you used the
> term, and what you meant by it. I simply produce a point of view
> regarding it.
> 
> Cotty (exp. 02/05)
> 
> 
> Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
> http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
> 
> Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
> http://www.macads.co.uk/
> 
> 
> 

Re: I have just joined the list

[Timothy Sherburne]

Welcome to the list, Marcel. Don't forget to check out our members' monthly
gallery at . There is information on submitting your
own work at the bottom of the gallery page.

t

On 1/8/03 9:19 AM, Marcel Appenzzell wrote:

> Hello, everybody ...
> 
> I have just joined the list today after reading it for about a week.  Please
> allow me to introduce myself.
> 
> My name is Marcel, and I have been involved inphotography for many years.
> My first camera was a Pentax Spotmatic, which I still have, although for the
> past twenty years I kave been using newer bodies, and have some LX cameras,
> a few MX cameras, and, of course, the venerable ME Super.  After trying many
> lenses from Pentax the early SMC Pentax lenses seemed most satisfactory, and
> I now have many such optics
> 
> The MX is my favorite camera, and I am always looking for good bodies,
> preferably in black.  I like the small size and that it's a manual camera.
> The LX is OK, and it has a purpose for some special uses, but it is too big
> a noisy many times.
> 
> I make many kinds of photographs, and prefer working with people.  The
> exploration of macro and close up photography is very interesting to me, and
> I am beginning to explore that.  Pentax has nice close up gear.
> 
> So, there you are.  Thank you.
> 
> Marcel Appenzzell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
> http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
> 

Re: Film Types? A Chart?

[Timothy Sherburne]

Thanks, Dave. I couldn't remember what the URL to Shel's site was.

t

On 1/7/03 10:59 AM, David Brooks wrote:

> An additional PDF to Tims is at Shels site:
> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/
> 
> Click on the colour film PDF on the right hand side of page.
> Lots of films,and general usages.
> 
> Dave
> 
>  Begin Original Message 
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 13:06:39 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Film Types? A Chart?
> 
> 
> Has anyone ever made a chart listing film types and what they are
> good for? I mean how they are best used?
> 
> I'd be interested in a print/slide film chart or either/or.
> 
> I've used Kodak Gold 200 almost exclusively up until now.
> 
> Specifically, I am going to start exploring slide film. And I have
> three rolls already that I got when I bought my ZX-5n (they were
> thrown in for free by the pdmler I got it from).
> 
> Provia 100F - ?
> Ektachrome E200 - ?
> Velvia - I am presuming out of doors, but not sunny midday (not too
> high a light/shadow contrast), with a tripod.
> 
> Well, I'll be shooting out of doors anyway, take that as a given.
> 
> TIA, Doe aka Marnie :-)
> 
> 
> 
>  End Original Message 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentax User
> Stouffville Ontario Canada
> "Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art
> stops and the wall begins"--Frank Zappa
> http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
> http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
> Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
> 

Re: Film Types? A Chart?

[Timothy Sherburne]

See comments below:

On 1/7/03 10:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I guess what I am wondering is when I look at something like this I am not
> sure what contrast means.
>
> Does high contrast mean the film HAS high contrast, or can it can HANDLE high
> contrast?

The column refers to the way the film reproduces a scene's lighting. High
contrast films will exhibit a strong difference between highlights and
shadows and unevenness in your scene's lighting will be exaggerated.

Velvia is a film that demonstrates high contrast: highlights are bold and
shadows are dark. I'd choose this film if the scene is more evenly lit
(lower contrast) and I needed the film's pumped up color.

A lower contrast film like Portra NC (a print film) will reproduce the scene
with less of a difference between the highlights and the shadows. It's good
when you want a soft, calm mood in people portraits.

> Seems to me when one would use it would depend on which it means. Has high
> contrast, shoot in low contrast situations; can handle high contrast, shoot in
> low or high contrast situations.

Basically, although the films listed have other characteristics, too, that
will affect your results.

> My one attempt at slide film so far, the pictures had too much contrast (and
> the shadows too dark) -- so curious.

Velvia is probably not the best choice to start with due to its narrow
latitude and high contrast. These characteristics limit its usefulness for
beginners shooting a wide variety of subjects. Provia 100 or 400 would be a
good choice because it offers you more flexibility. I'd recommend sticking
to one film for awhile until you learn what it can and can't do.

t

Re: Photo mag advertising

[Timothy Sherburne]

Funny, magazines that I consider to be "better" are those with fewer ads;
more information, less crap.

t

On 1/4/03 11:49 AM, Mike Johnston wrote:

>>> You know it's bad when the commercials have an intermission.  Like when they
>>> say, "We'll get back to the program after the rest of these messages."
>> 
>> That's a good thing. It's a sure sign that the networks are selling all
>> their time. Good for the economy. Good for me. Good for you.
> 
> 
>> From what I hear, the networks AREN'T selling all their time--hence the
> large number of commercials for its other television shows. Those are
> space-fillers, not revenue-generators.
> 
> Whenever you want to get a handle on the health of a magazine, count its ad
> pages--but remember not to count the ads for the magazine itself, its
> spinoff products, its contests etc., and ads that are likely to be freebies.
> In the case of photo magazines, ads for photo shows are usually trades; ads
> from contributors may be part of the contributors' compensation; and ads
> from known friends of the publisher are probably gifts (for instance, Gordon
> Hutchings is a boyhood friend of Steve Simmons, publisher of _View Camera_.
> You can bet that the persistent ads in _VC_ for Hutchings' book on pyro
> should not be counted among the advertising assets for any issue of _VC_).
> 
> Also, multi-page ads from discount houses are usually heavily discounted.
> The more advertising a single client buys, the less it pays per page. And
> that goes for issue-to-issue advertising, too.
> 
> When I took over at _Photo Techniques_, the ad content was down to 12 3/4
> pages in the issue before my first one. I think the highest one of my issues
> ever sold was 27 pages or something like that. Maybe it was 25. I don't know
> what _Photo Techniques_ is doing in advertising right now (haven't seen any
> recent issues) but it probably isn't 25 pages.
> 
> --Mike
> 
> P.S. It would be less than honorable for a past employee to reveal business
> secrets of a past employer, so bear in mind that ad content is something
> that's there for all the world to see. It's no secret. All publishers use
> it, among other things, to keep tabs on the health of their competition.
> 

Re: Best Backdrop color for B&W portraits?

[Timothy Sherburne]

Ah, of course. Perhaps one of the baby's blankets would serve?

t

On 1/3/03 3:21 PM, Steve Pearson wrote:

> I agree, however our babe is only 1 month old.  So,
> I'm pretty much stuck with "posed" shots, seeing as
> how she can't even sit up on her own.  She's just too
> cute (biased of course) to not take any pics at this
> early age!
> 
> Thanks for the help, I will definately check out the
> PUG as well.
> 
> 
> --- Timothy Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Steve...
>> 
>> Not to through you a loop, but you may want to
>> consider more "natural"
>> backgrounds. I personally appreciate candid
>> portraits that include a bit of
>> the person's environment, but at a large enough
>> aperture as to avoid
>> distracting details. To me, backdrops seem to
>> encourage unnatural and wooden
>> posing (perhaps its the photographer's fault). Tom
>> Van Veen's recent baby
>> portrait post (from another thread) is a great
>> example (just put your thumb
>> over that loud coffee cup ):
>> 
>> 
> <http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/derek/042902/22a.jpg>
>> 
>> The PUG is loaded with other examples, too.
>> 
>> t
>> 
>> On 1/3/03 11:30 AM, Steve Pearson wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm thinking of going with a white sheet for a
>>> backdrop for some b&w's of our new baby.  Seeing
>> as
>>> how I do not have any "professional" backdrops, my
>>> choices are limited.  I also have light blue,
>> green,
>>> tan, etc. colored blankets.
>>> 
>>> Any thought as to which might look best?
>>> 
>>> BTW, I will be trying the Pan-F.  Do you guys
>> shoot
>>> Pan-F at something other than 50 ISO?
>>> 
>>> Thanks again!
>>> 
>>> __
>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
>> now.
>>> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> 

Re: Best Backdrop color for B&W portraits?

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi Steve...

Not to through you a loop, but you may want to consider more "natural"
backgrounds. I personally appreciate candid portraits that include a bit of
the person's environment, but at a large enough aperture as to avoid
distracting details. To me, backdrops seem to encourage unnatural and wooden
posing (perhaps its the photographer's fault). Tom Van Veen's recent baby
portrait post (from another thread) is a great example (just put your thumb
over that loud coffee cup ):



The PUG is loaded with other examples, too.

t

On 1/3/03 11:30 AM, Steve Pearson wrote:

> I'm thinking of going with a white sheet for a
> backdrop for some b&w's of our new baby.  Seeing as
> how I do not have any "professional" backdrops, my
> choices are limited.  I also have light blue, green,
> tan, etc. colored blankets.
> 
> Any thought as to which might look best?
> 
> BTW, I will be trying the Pan-F.  Do you guys shoot
> Pan-F at something other than 50 ISO?
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> 

Re: Sharp B&W Film

[Timothy Sherburne]

Thanks, Thibault, for posting those notes. I'll have to try that combo
shortly.

t

On 1/3/03 11:20 AM, Thibault GROUAS wrote:

>> Which is your favorite for large (8x10 & up) prints,
>> in 35mm format?
> 
> For large enlargements (10x12 and larger) I use Kodak Technical Pan which I
> rate at ISO 20. Here are my recipes with Rodinal :
> 
> - Rodinal 1+100 6' 20° for high contrast but still continuous tone
> (reproduction, abstracts).
> 
> - Rodinal 1+120 6' 20° for places - normal contrast.
> 
> - Rodinal 1+135 6' 20° for people - softer contrast.
> 
> Agitation for the first 10 seconds than 5 seconds every minute.
> 
> I use distilled water (plain water gives me black spots on the negs) and mix
> the developper with a 10ml and 1ml syringes (a must have with such high
> dilutions).
> 
> This gives nice razor sharp negs, far sharper than those I got with Pan F+ /
> Tmax 100. My dilutions and times provide negs that print best at grade 2.
> 
> The other really nice thing about tech pan is that negatives a far thinner
> and transparent than with other films. Enlarging exposures are about 2 to 4
> times shorter and this saves a lot of time with large prints at f/8.
> Exposures are about 5 to 10 minutes when usually it was 20 to 40 minutes
> with tri-X ! I can tell that my arms fell the difference...
> 
> The only problem with Tech pan is its price (about 10 EUR at local stores
> here). Not the kind of film you will want to use with the motor drive set at
> 5fps. Hopefully development with Rodinal is very cheap. And since I use to
> load/unload tech pan in complete darkness I use to develop only the part of
> the film I just exposed and put the remaining film back on the camera for
> later use.
> 
> I'am used to tri-X in Rodinal and can tell that if you like grain 8x10 and
> 10x12 still look nice enlarged. I only choose tech pan when I need absolute
> sharpness. I don't use much other films than those two.
> 
> Oh and since I'am back from my New Year's Eve trip I wish you all a very
> happy new year, and the best photographic opportunities you can get.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Thibault Grouas.
> 

B&W film/developer combinations...

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi all...

Here's a quick poll for all you B&W junkies out there: What's your favorite
film and developer combination for reduced or non-existent grain? I'm
thinking of 8x10 to 11x14 enlargements of portraits.

Thanks,

Tim 

Re: Dumb Newbie Q - What Color ARE Color Negatives?

[Timothy Sherburne]

Marnie, you'll get a lot of responses on this. You've described the
fundamental flaw of color print film: there is a subjective amount of
decision making the printer (person or machine) must make when making your
print, which is precisely the reason slide film gets so much use amongst
people who enjoy photography: there is no intermediate step between the
taking of the picture and the viewing of the resutls (other than
development). From my relatively limited experience, the choices are:

1) Find a lab and/or printer that gives you results you like. Stick with
them until the end of time. Be prepared to ask for redo's from time to time.

2) Switch to slide film and deal with the narrower exposure latitude and the
issues that arise when you want prints from your slides.

3) Do your own color prints. Lots of work, but ultimately educational and
you've got no one but yourself to blame.

4) Scan your negs and become proficient in the science and art of the
"digital" darkroom.

5) Switch to Black & White and forget about color altogether.

I'm sure others will have more ideas for you.

I struggle with the print film issue myself, but I ultimately prefer prints
to slides: I can easily share the prints with others, my wife can use them
for scrapbooks when she wants, and I've got several labs that produce prints
that I'm satisfied with. I end up spending about 2x over slide processing,
but I feel that I have more choices in the end.

That aside, I'm not a "pro" and my livelihood doesn't depend on my
photography, so I can be somewhat flexible in my choices. Your avocation may
call for a different set of priorities.

And, I have to admit, there isn't anything that compares to viewing one's
medium format slide work on a light table. They're like little jewels!

t

On 1/3/03 11:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Okay, here's another dumb newbie q. I've been trying to figure out how to word
> this q for some time and still haven't gotten it right. And it is a multi-part
> q, some parts esoteric and some not. I am also sure it has been asked before.
> 
> Feel free to answer any part of this q that you want.
> 
> 1. What color ARE color negatives? (color print film)
> 
> My experience:
> 
> I started wondering about this when I had some 4x6s blown up to 5x7s. I took
> two negatives to the place I usually have my prints done (a local drugstore).
> I did NOT take along the original 4x6 prints. When the 5x7s came back, the
> color was completely washed out. So I figured, "Okay, it's just a drugstore.
> I'll try a real photo lab."
> 
> Did the same thing with the photo lab, took in the negatives without the 4x6
> prints. This time the 5x7s did not come out washed out, but there was a major
> color shift. For instance, pink clouds came out yellow.
> 
> So I complained to the photo lab guy. He said to bring in the original 4x6s so
> they could them as a guide and they would redo them. They did and the 5x7s
> came out much better.
> 
> I asked they guy why they needed the 4x6s as guides. He said that the first
> time the film is run through the machine, when it is developed and printed,
> the machine tends to get it right because it can look at the whole role to set
> the color standard. But when one or two negatives are reprinted, it can make
> errors on the color standard because it is looking at a smaller set. This
> answer seemed rather disingenuous to me. (It must be noted that it turned out
> this lab does not have digital processing to turn a color slide into a color
> print, so he was not defending the color loss than occur when using
> internegatives -- I asked about that too. I.E. He actually recommended PRINT
> film as being more color accurate.)
> 
> I also asked him some other things, but things I realized were rather
> esoteric, so I ask them here instead.
> 
> 2. Who's to say the original 4x6 prints are right? (Right in the sense that
> they show the color the camera recorded at the time?)
> 
> I had some photos I felt real proud of -- dry grass covered hills that came
> out very yellow. I felt that *I* had had something to do with the resultant
> print color. The time of the day I took the shots; the aperture setting I
> used.
> 
> 3. But if one lab can develop color prints a different color than another lab
> can develop them, how can I ever tell if *I* had ANYTHING to do with the color
> they come out? 
> 
> (Maybe one lab simply printed them too colorful -- not the color the camera
> recorded.)
> 
> 4. What color is actually there? How come any machine cannot look at color
> negatives and arrive at the same color in the prints?
> 
> 5. This is why people use slide film isn't it? Because the developing process
> doesn't change the color? And because the photographer can see what color the
> pictures really came out?
> 
> 6. *Is* the developing of color slide film accurate? (i.e. Do slides come out
> the color the camera recorded?
> 
> Color is very important to me.
> 
> So inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> TI

Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?

[Timothy Sherburne]

William...

I use the TC with my A50/1.4. By good results, I mean sharp 4x6s and 5x7s; I
haven't tried too many 8x10s or larger. I don't use it very often for
non-macro work, but it's been fine the couple of times I have used it.

t

On 1/1/03 11:04 AM, William Johnson wrote:

> I have one of these on the way that I got off ebay.  What lenses do you use it
> with?  Is the 50 the best for macro work or do moderate wides and tele's work
> well also?  
> What is your experience with it as a normal teleconverter?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> William in Utah. 
> 
> 1/1/2003 11:39:56 AM, "Timothy Sherburne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Well, strictly speaking it's not a lens by itself, but Vivitar's Macro
>> Focusing 2x TC is a handy piece of equipment. It's a great combination of
>> quality, price and utility and can be found for about $75 on eBay. However,
>> I would get the more expensive dedicated macro lens if I could afford it,
>> especially the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 Macro or the Pentax A 100/2.8 Macro.
>> 
>> t
>> 
>> On 1/1/03 10:07 AM, Steve Pearson wrote:
>> 
>>> I would like to know, from all of you whom I know have
>>> taken a lot more pictures than I have, what is your
>>> favorite manual focus, K mount, macro lens for flower
>>> close ups?
>>> 
>>> Thanks again!
>>> 
>>> __
>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
>>> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?

[Timothy Sherburne]

It'll change your bank account, too! Har!

t

On 1/1/03 12:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> The A100/2.8 Macro will change your life.   Regards,  Bob S.
> 

Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?

[Timothy Sherburne]

Perhaps using a 200mm macro would cut down on the "busy" background a bit?

t

On 1/1/03 5:05 PM, Fred wrote:

>> My Vivitar S1 105/2.5 Macro is awesome.  It focuses 1:1 without
>> extension tubes or accessories, is Tak sharp, and has wonderful
>> bokeh. example: http://pug.komkon.org/02feb/iris01a.html
> 
> I apologize for being a bit critical, but I don't find the bokeh in
> that shot to be quite "wonderful", but rather a little too "busy",
> almost bordering on being just a little bit harsh. It would seem to
> have about the same bokeh as similar shots with many (but not all)
> macro lenses (many of which are a little on the harsh side).  (My
> favorite macro lens, the A 100/2.8, I'm sorry to say has somewhat
> similar bokeh.)  (But I also love it anyway - .)
> 
> Fred
> 
> 

Nice work, PUGsters...

[Timothy Sherburne]

All the entries were well done this month! Here's a few that I thought were
above and beyond:

Martin Mielke's "Beaver" looks like it's ready to head off into the sunrise
on a (damn) cold morning.

Ken Waller's "Santa Barbara Birds" for it's pumped up color as well as the
fact that it's really monochrome: black, red and shades in between. Simple
composition of just three birds works well, too.

Ray Ford's "Sandwich Boardwalk" is a great study in simplicity: symmetry
between the bridge and its reflection and cool color palette.

Petr Pazour's "Flood Water" conveys a lot of energy and awe, especially when
you notice the "tiny" streetlamp on the right. Seems more like a fine art
photograph than reportage.

Mark Cassino's "Gold In Purple" is a great nature macro shot. The background
bokeh color nicely echoes the colors found in the main subjects and the
lighting adds depth. Well done!

Thibault Grouas' "Fishing" is a fine photo that would have fit in perfectly
with last month's gallery: The alarm one feels for the foundering vessel
contrasted with the calmness (apathy?) of the fisherman, and, of course, the
size of the ship and person. It looks like he's going to get squished!

Marnie Parker's "Golden Moment". At first, I thought this was simply a nice
snap of oaks on a golden slope, a fine composition on its own. However, the
slightly hidden doe in upper third of the frame really made me go "Wow!"
once I found it. I like the fact that this is a wildlife photo without being
blatant about it.
 

Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?

[Timothy Sherburne]

On 12/23/02 3:47 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

> You might not be. The Mamiya 6x6 is difficult to use, because you're
> seeing everything out of the upper lens, while the lower lens is the
> taking lens. Framing becomes a matter of guesswork until you get used to
> it. And while you will get used to it, it's always an inconvenience.
> Furthermore, because you see everything backwards, some shots, like pans
> for instance, are very difficult.

Ummm, well, I've been working with the Yashica for some time now, and I
haven't had any trouble with the reversed image. I does take a little
experimentation at first, but I'm past that point. I don't think the Mamiya
is different in this regard, and the time I've spent with a Mamiya in the
shop, while hardly exhaustive, doesn't indicate that it's a radical
departure from the Yashica. The essentials are the same. Neither camera
lends itself to "action" shots, but I'm not looking for that anyway.

And there's always a prism viewfinder for those who can't get past the
reversed image:



>> For me, the
>> trouble with the Pentax system is the price of the lenses and accessories.
>> The Mamiya is simply a less expensive system. I personally can't comment on
>> the *quality* delivered by Mamiya glass vs. Pentax glass, however. I'd
>> imagine that the Mamiya is going to get beat in most cases.
> 
> Pentax lenses do cost more, but not a lot more. I've paid as little as
> $200 for the 105/2.4 and as much as $550 for the 300/4. But I paid $375
> five or six years ago for a Mamiya 250/6.5. My best buy was the Pentax
> 165/4 leaf shutter, which I purchased like new in box for $375. By the
> way, my 300/4 is much sharper than the Mamiya 250/6.5. No contest.

No doubt. For me, it's a matter of economics vs. patience 

t
 

Re: Framing 6x6 (WAS: Re: 6x6 Waste of Space? < WAS: Re: MediumFormat-Which one is best?>)

[Timothy Sherburne]

Ikea has some glass "Clips" frames in 50cm x 50cm, too, that work great for
bigger enlargements.

t

On 12/23/02 10:02 AM, Timothy Sherburne wrote:

> 
> Right, the "Ribba" frames. They look good, the price is right, and they come
> in 5"x5" format, which is what I get my 6x6 proofs printed in anyway. The
> mats can be a little wonky, though, so you have to hunt for the good ones.
> Highly recommended!
> 
> t
> 
> On 12/23/02 4:43 AM, David Chang-Sang wrote:
> 
>> I kept this in mind as I was shopping for Christmas presents this year.
>> I found that Ikea carries frames that are square, almost specifically for
>> 6x6 images.
>> As you know, Ikea isn't that pricey, so if you need frames for the images,
>> head to Ikea.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Dave
>> 
>> P.S. No, I don't work for Ikea :)
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:32 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one
>> is best?)
>> 
>> 
>> I had Aaron(yep he's still around)make 4  enlargments this summer
>> from the Y-M and they looked great printed at 8x8.I find i am trying
>> to frame the shot so as to be able to print whats on the neg.ie no
>> neg crop.
>> The Y-M's do not have extra lenses wereas the Mamyia C220 and 330
>> do.I may look into that system(along with the other three others)
>> You are correct in paper waste but i seem to waste a lot more
>> getting digital right somedays:)
>> 
>> Dave
>>  Begin Original Message 
>> 
>> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> If you want an 8x10, you are cropping the neg, if you want to
>> print full frame and are using single sheets of paper, you are
>> trimming the print.
>> Most labs now use roll paper, so they just advance the amount of
>> paper they need to make the print as ordered.
>> 
>> William Robb
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Framing 6x6 (WAS: Re: 6x6 Waste of Space? < WAS: Re: MediumFormat-Which one is best?>)

[Timothy Sherburne]

Right, the "Ribba" frames. They look good, the price is right, and they come
in 5"x5" format, which is what I get my 6x6 proofs printed in anyway. The
mats can be a little wonky, though, so you have to hunt for the good ones.
Highly recommended!

t

On 12/23/02 4:43 AM, David Chang-Sang wrote:

> I kept this in mind as I was shopping for Christmas presents this year.
> I found that Ikea carries frames that are square, almost specifically for
> 6x6 images.
> As you know, Ikea isn't that pricey, so if you need frames for the images,
> head to Ikea.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> P.S. No, I don't work for Ikea :)
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: David Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:32 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one
> is best?)
> 
> 
> I had Aaron(yep he's still around)make 4  enlargments this summer
> from the Y-M and they looked great printed at 8x8.I find i am trying
> to frame the shot so as to be able to print whats on the neg.ie no
> neg crop.
> The Y-M's do not have extra lenses wereas the Mamyia C220 and 330
> do.I may look into that system(along with the other three others)
> You are correct in paper waste but i seem to waste a lot more
> getting digital right somedays:)
> 
> Dave
>  Begin Original Message 
> 
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you want an 8x10, you are cropping the neg, if you want to
> print full frame and are using single sheets of paper, you are
> trimming the print.
> Most labs now use roll paper, so they just advance the amount of
> paper they need to make the print as ordered.
> 
> William Robb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one isbest?)

[Timothy Sherburne]

On 12/22/02 5:57 PM, William Robb wrote:

> If you want an 8x10, you are cropping the neg, if you want to
> print full frame and are using single sheets of paper, you are
> trimming the print.
> Most labs now use roll paper, so they just advance the amount of
> paper they need to make the print as ordered.

Okay, this makes sense to me now. I've only only ordered a few enlargements
beyond 5x, and, of course, I needed to trim the unused paper.

t

Re: 500/4.5 too slow? Try a 500 f/4

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hmmm, I think I'd rather have the Nikkor 85/1.5. Anyone know anything about
that lens?

t

On 12/20/02 9:12 PM, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:

> 
> Sigma XQ 500 f/4; photo shown (T mount?), $1199 Canadian
> 
> http://www.camera-exchange.com/teasers.htm
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 

Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake

[Timothy Sherburne]

Amazing. It's tough to look at those 1/30 sec frames.

On 12/20/02 10:01 AM, William Robb wrote:

> Look at this:
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/SuperProgram/
> Its a sizable page, I think about 850kb.

Re: Is this a good deal on a 6x7?

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi Steve...

I've just started tracking prices on eBay for my own purchase and 6x7 MLU
bodies (w/o lenses or accessories) sell for $250 to $400 depending on
condition. Grips go for around $60 to $90, TTL prisms for $150 to $200, and
non-metered prisms for about $100. I haven't tallied up the lenses yet. I'm
not looking at the 67 or 67 II bodies as they're much more expensive.

Camera shop prices seem to roughly be 1.5x higher, but then you're probably
getting something that's been tested, has a guarantee, and is returnable if
you're not satisfied. Also, if you're up to it, the price can always be
negotiated.

t

On 12/17/02 10:46 PM, Steve Pearson wrote:

> Chris:
> 
> I did look at sold items on ebay.  I just can't tell
> what the going prices are for 6x7 equipment.  KEH
> prices look like around $400, just for the lens!
> Bodies start around $800.  Another current auction on
> ebay has the lens at $395 for a buy it now price.  I
> don't know the variations of bodies & lenses well
> enough, but I sure appreciate your help.
> 
> 
> 
> --- Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Steve Pearson wrote:
>> 
>>> OK, I'm giving serious thought to this:
>> [snip]
>>> Is it a good deal?  Once you see it, promise you
>> won't
>>> buy it out from me :)
>> 
>> Sounds a bit high for one with the unmetered finder.
>>  Try a search under
>> eBay's recently completed auctions if you're
>> wondering about prices:
>> 
>> 
> http://pages.ebay.com/search/items/search_completed.html
>> 
>> chris
>> 
> 
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> 

Re: Beards? Non.

[Timothy Sherburne]

On 12/16/02 12:08 PM, gfen wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Pat White wrote:
>> Have you seen Kenny Rogers' large-format work?  It's pretty good!
> 
> No, but I've seen Leonard Nimoy's 35mm work.


You mean this? 

t

Re: Lowest prices on film?

[Timothy Sherburne]

Yes, both rolls were processed at the same lab. I had other rolls done at
the same time with no ill effects, and I've used the lab before.

Looking again, I see the spots on the Portra negs are actually three
dimensional: tiny raised craters on the negative's mask.

The one blemish on the Reala is only two dimensional. It looks like it is in
the emulsion itself.

t

On 12/13/02 9:23 PM, Dan Scott wrote:

> 
> On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 10:35  PM, Timothy Sherburne wrote:
> 
>> This frame was taken with 35mm Portra 160NC. The roll is covered with
>> little
>> "splatters" from about 26 through the end. It looks like it is in the
>> emulsion to me.
>> 
>> <http://www.sherb.org/bad/portrabad.jpg>
>> 
>> Here's a frame from a roll of 120 Fuji Reala (it's imported because
>> that's
>> all you can get). The weird vertical "drip" shape is in the negative.
>> It's
>> the only frame on the roll that has that kind of problem.
>> 
>> <http://www.sherb.org/bad/realabad.jpg>
>> 
>> I've run about a dozen rolls of each and haven't seen any other
>> problems, so
>> this is hardly conclusive. I'll probably continue to get film from
>> them.
>> 
>> t
> 
> Hi Timothy,
> 
> That's a bummer, but interesting that the two different brands show
> similar problems. Were they both processed at the same lab?
> 
> Dan Scott
> 

Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter

[Timothy Sherburne]

It's cheap (<$80 on ebay) and it rocks. There's even an "A" version so you
won't lose program mode if that matters to you. I don't have any examples to
show you at the moment, but others on the list may have some. Note that it
will siphon away two stops of light, so that 135/3.5 is going to be slooow
and tough to focus in dim light. The helicoid capability is really handy;
beats the heck out of using extension tubes. Using 50/1.7 will make a great
pair for macro work.

t

On 12/11/02 12:52 PM, Scott Nelson wrote:

> I seem to recall hearing good things about this TC, but a search of the
> PDML archives didn't turn up anything useful.  Has anyone got one?  How
> do you like it?  If I did pick one up, I'd be using it with a 135/2.5
> and a 50/1.7.
> 
> -Scott
> 

Re: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hi Michael...

I don't have direct experience with the AF360, but here's my theory on the
cause: Camera flashes cause most folks to blink. Hey, it's a natural
reaction to a very intense light. Usually, by the time a person blinks the
exposure has been completed. So it's not a matter of *if*  people blink, but
*when* people blink. One may be able to go so far as to find the average
amount of time a person take to react to a flash, may be 1/4 sec?

It sounds like the quantity and duration of the pre-flashes generated by the
360 are delaying the main burst enough to catch your subjects in the
"blinking" act. How may pre-flashes are being used? One for calculating
reflective light and one for red eye reduction? Can you reduce the number of
pre-flashes? I'm interested to see what the list's 360 users suggest.

t

On 12/10/02 10:00 AM, Michael Cross wrote:

> On Saturday evening, I used my new (to me) AF360-FGZ to take some
> pictures at our Christmas party.  When I got back the prints, the
> majority of the photos had at least one person with their eyes closed.
> 
> The house was fairly dark and the revelers had imbibed quite a bit of
> Christmas cheer by the time the camera came out.  Since everyone's eyes
> had adjusted to very dim lighting, I am wondering if the preflash on the
> AF360 caused people to blink so that when the photos were taken, their
> eyes were closed?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Michael Cross
> Chico, CA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Battery life (Was Re: Interesting read)

[Timothy Sherburne]

On 12/9/02 8:07 AM, mike wilson wrote:

> Boris wrote:
>> They predict that in few years you would be able to run your
>> laptop for 10 hours straight and all you'd need do to recharge it
>> would be to replace a small container with some fluid that would be
>> sold for few pennies everywhere...
> 
> And 50 years ago, in the UK, they said that nuclear power would
> be so cheap it would not be worth charging for it.  That was
> before an unknown number of people were engulfed in the
> radioactive plume from the Sellafield fire in the late 1950's.
> The idea of portable nuclear power supplies sank without trace.
> As I am one of the "plumees", I trust you will forgive my
> scepticism.

I'm not sure of the exact demonstration Boris mentions, but he refers to
either gas-powered microturbine or fuel cell technology. In either case, the
"fluid" is simply methanol or a similar fuel. Fuel cells have been around
for some time but have been slow to reach the marketplace, IMO because
there's little incentive for industries to change to a technology that has a
very low consumable cost. It's also an expensive technical feat to
productize these concepts. Fuel cells are relatively uncomplicated and
environmentally friendly; nuclear power and chemical batteries are, of
course, not.

For more info, see:




Or use google to search for "fuel cells".

t

Nighttime samples (WAS: Re: Night photography)

[Timothy Sherburne]

I took another look at several frames taken recently:





The scans are mostly faithful to the minilab prints. Other (daytime) frames
from that roll are nice and sharp, so I don't think the printing is the
problem.

However, looking at the pictures again, I think the softness wasn't as bad
as I remembered. It probably has less to do with technique and more to do
with exposure characteristics of the film (Reala for the first frame,
Superia 400 for #2 and #3).

t 

On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 02:22  PM, Jostein wrote:

> There were so many interesting thoughts in the Moonlight-thread as to
> why the images _seemed_ blurred;
> 
> - film reciprocity failure,
> - lower film accutance,
> - motion blur (leaves),
> - camera shake,
> - focusing problems,
> - thermal distortions in the air...

Re: Moonlight

[Timothy Sherburne]

Yes, Joe, this is definitely the case in one of my images. Limbs on nearby
trees are blurred due to leaf movement. However, the mountain in the image,
Mt. Adams in southern Washington State, is a 12,000 ft. peak covered with
snow rather than trees. Still has a lack of sharpness.

If #2 is the problem, then perhaps the work around is to use either a
digital camera or black and white film with a high acutance developer. Hmmm,
must experiment soon.

t

On 11/19/02 7:48 AM, Joe Wilensky wrote:

> With long night exposures and subjects in the photo like trees and
> mountains, I assume any leaf movement at all due to wind or even the
> lightest breeze would cause a slight appearance of blurring over the
> whole tree (or even a tree-covered mountain).
> 
> Joe
> 
>> Jostein, I've noticed this same lack of sharpness in my own nighttime images
>> where the exposure lasts several hours. Trees, hills and mountains have a
>> very soft look to them. Photos of the same scene in the morning with the
>> same lens, film and camera are nice and sharp. I have two theories as to why
>> this is in my case:
>> 
>> 1) How the lens is focused at night: it's just racked out to infinity, since
>> I can't see anything through the viewfinder.
>> 
>> 2) Color negative film (and maybe any film) loses acutance at longer
>> exposures.
>> 
>> t
>> 
>> On 11/18/02 11:16 AM, Jostein wrote:
>> 
>>>  There is one thing that strikes me about the focus in these shots.
>>>  Presumably in focus, they seem blurred. It's especially evident in
>>>  Chet's photo when compared to the same scene by daylight.
>>> 
>>>  I don't doubt the eyesight of you guys, and I don't suspect you to
>>>  have flimsy tripods either. so I suppose there must be something
>>>  technical...
>>> 
>>>  Is it just a scanning matter, a matter of large apertures, or is it
>>>  something more peculiar?
>>> 
>>>  The first thing I thought of apart from scanning, was that resiprocity
>>>  failure had something to do with contrast rendering, but it shouldn't
>>>  be that serious, even at 1.5 minutes exposure.
>>> 
>>>  Any suggestions? (Including me imagining things?)
>>> 
>>>  Jostein
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  - Original Message -
>>>  From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
  http://pug.komkon.org/00octo/bkdPUG1000.html
 
 
>>> 
>  From Chet
 
  C> http://www.lookoutnow.com/parks/bryce_04.htm
 
  C> if anyone is curious.
 
>>> 
> 
> 

Re: Moonlight

[Timothy Sherburne]

Jostein, I've noticed this same lack of sharpness in my own nighttime images
where the exposure lasts several hours. Trees, hills and mountains have a
very soft look to them. Photos of the same scene in the morning with the
same lens, film and camera are nice and sharp. I have two theories as to why
this is in my case:

1) How the lens is focused at night: it's just racked out to infinity, since
I can't see anything through the viewfinder.

2) Color negative film (and maybe any film) loses acutance at longer
exposures.

t

On 11/18/02 11:16 AM, Jostein wrote:

> There is one thing that strikes me about the focus in these shots.
> Presumably in focus, they seem blurred. It's especially evident in
> Chet's photo when compared to the same scene by daylight.
> 
> I don't doubt the eyesight of you guys, and I don't suspect you to
> have flimsy tripods either. so I suppose there must be something
> technical...
> 
> Is it just a scanning matter, a matter of large apertures, or is it
> something more peculiar?
> 
> The first thing I thought of apart from scanning, was that resiprocity
> failure had something to do with contrast rendering, but it shouldn't
> be that serious, even at 1.5 minutes exposure.
> 
> Any suggestions? (Including me imagining things?)
> 
> Jostein
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 
>> http://pug.komkon.org/00octo/bkdPUG1000.html
>> 
>> 
> 
>>> From Chet
>> 
>> C> http://www.lookoutnow.com/parks/bryce_04.htm
>> 
>> C> if anyone is curious.
>> 
> 

Re: Pentax Upgrade

[Timothy Sherburne]

I'm not chastising you for asking; it's a perfectly good question. Never
forget that everyone started where you're at. Some day, you'll be the
experienced one fielding questions from those new to photography. Plus, the
debate keeps things lively around here. Trust me, there are lots of members
willing to weigh in on the issue.

Relax, enjoy your class, and concentrate on the art, not the technology.

t

On 11/8/02 11:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Sheesh, didn't mean to start anything. ;-) I am asking stuff in all innocence,
> naturally. I also made a teasing reference about my unsurety concerning
> autofocus in another thread. I do understand, however, that old timers might
> get tired of questions/issues that have been asked/raised 10 zillion times
> before.

Re: Pentax Upgrade

[Timothy Sherburne]

Marnie, you've asked one of those questions that tends to polarize the
photographic community into one of two camps: those that decry the use of
zooms by students, and, sometimes, by anyone; and those that consider zooms
to be just another tool in the bag and, indeed, a sign of progress that
should be embraced.

Perhaps each camp should elect a eloquent representative to state their case
and leave it at that. The alternative is a protracted discussion that
escalates into a flame war and finally degrades into name calling and
insulting, which usually results the departure of one or two upstanding and
respected PDML members.

Other recent topics of recent memory include digital vs. film, flash
photography vs. available light photography, auto focus vs. manual focus,
brand X lens/camera/film vs. brand Y lens/camera/film, SUVs vs. compact
cars, and monarchies vs. everyone else.

t

On 11/8/02 10:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> In a message dated 11/8/2002 7:31:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
>> Getting any Pentax 50mm lens will improve your image quality
>> tremendously, and the discipline that the single focal length
>> forces on you will improve your photography at least as much
>> again.
>> This is one of those areas where you don't run into the law
>> of diminishing returns ever.
>> 
>> William Robb
> 
> No one has suggested that to me before. Discipline? As in walking forward and
> back and moving around to get a good shot, instead of zooming?
> 
> Could you clarify? It's intriquing.
> 
> Doe aka Marnie Parker
> 

Re: Pentax Upgrade

[Timothy Sherburne]

Right, spot metering mode, RTF flash, and TTL flash mode, all of which the
ZX-M doesn't have. 

t

On 11/7/02 1:26 PM, gfen wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Timothy Sherburne wrote:
>> are conveniences, IMHO, that aren't as significant as autofocus and center
>> weighted metering, which the 5n will give you (as well as the other features
> 
> Spotmeter, actually.. and built in RTF flash, which can be mildly useful..
> does the ZX-M do TTL at all? I presume it does..
> 

Re: Pentax Upgrade

[Timothy Sherburne]

I don't have any first-hand knowledge of loading film into a K1000, but I
don't think a "side-grade" to a ZX-M will get you very much. Sure, film
loading is a snap, it's got Program and aperture and shutter priority modes
as well as full manual, automatic frame advance and a DOF preview, but these
are conveniences, IMHO, that aren't as significant as autofocus and center
weighted metering, which the 5n will give you (as well as the other features
I listed). Plus, a basic new M kit will cost only $50 less than the 5n that
another list member is selling, and that came with the highly recommended
battery grip and shutter release.

t

On 11/7/02 10:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I have a Pentax K-1000 (taking first photography class). While I think the
> camera takes pretty good pictures, the manual film load is killing me.
> 
> I am wondering about upgrading to a ZX-M fairly immediately. Or I could save
> my money for 6-10 months and get a ZX-5N. Or I could get the ZX-M now and get
> the 5N later. I could pick up the M fairly cheaply now.
> 
> Should I wait? Or would I find the ZX-M satisfactory enough for about a year?
> Is it really similar to the K-1000? Except for the shutter/aperture priority
> and auto film load, and film advance?
> 
> Probably no easy answer to this, but would appreciate any input. I keep losing
> picures (even one whole roll) because I find manually feeding film into the
> take up spool too hard.
> 
> Doe aka Marnie Parker
> 

Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n

[Timothy Sherburne]

I can't personally vouch for the MZ-5n, but my ZX-M works fine with HIE. No
fogging caused by a frame counter or the plastic back, and I put a piece of
black electrical tape over the DX window to ease my paranoia. I can't
imagine that the 5n would be any different.

t

On 11/3/02 7:33 PM, William Robb wrote:

> 
> - Original Message -
> From: Martin Mielke
> Subject: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n
> 
> The MZ-5 will probably leak IR, either through the DX window, or
> through the plastic back itself. Also, if it uses an electronic
> frame counter rhather than a mechanical one (I don't know), the
> IR source in the frame counter can fog the film, and also cause
> the camera to malfunction by not recognizing the film at all.
> I saw a Canon EOS Elan choke on a roll of AgfaPan 400 because
> the frame counter couldn't see the film. It kept giving a film
> misloaded error.
> 
> Your K-1000 is a much better choice.
> If the dimpled pressure plate causes a problem (it may, or may
> not, you will have to test it yourself) you can attach a piece
> of backing paper from 120 roll film to the pressure plate to
> correct it.
> 
> William Robb
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Hi all
>> 
>> I'd like to try some of infra-red photography. I have a K1000
> and an MZ-5n.
>> I was thinking of using Kodak High Speed Infra-Red black and
> white film (HIE
>> 135-36). Now I've read that there is a problem with the
> dimpled pressure
>> plate of the K1000 creating a pattern on the Kodak film (for
> example, see
>> http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/FAQ_IR.html#KDBW   - part 7:
> Which
>> Cameras?). I've also read elsewhere that some cameras with a
> film window can
>> result in film fogging, although the site I just provided the
> link for
>> disputes this. Of course my MZ-5n has a film window.
>> 
>> Anybody on this list have any knowledge on these matters that
> they can share
>> with me? Should I be looking at some other kind of Infra-red
> film, one that
>> includes an anti-halation layer?
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

pdml@pdml.net

[Timothy Sherburne]

Didn't Kodak kill T400CN? I notice the NY mail order houses have it in
stock, put maybe that's just what's left in the channel.

t

On 11/3/02 9:59 AM, Paul Jones wrote:

> I found the T400CN to be a good all round film and it scans quite well,
> although i like XP2 Super for portraits, it gives a really nice look to the
> subjects skin. I also find the XP2 Super easier to print in a real dark
> room. I noted what william said about the soft emulsion and have been extra
> carefull with it.
> 
> I also find the Fuji Acros scans very well.
> 
> Regards,
> Paul Jones
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 12:20 PM
> Subject: Chromogenic B&W
> 
> 
>> Although I much prefer the look of traditional B&W film, I'd been told
> that the
>> chromogenic stuff scans much better so I tried out a roll of Kodak T400CN
>> (photos at http://www.robertstech.com/frick.htm if anyone's interested).
> It does
>> indeed seem to be much more scanner friendly than the traditional stuff.
> My
>> question is: Can anyone tell me how the Ilford chromogenic films compare
> to the
>> Kodak stuff? I might end up shooting more of this kind of thing.
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Roberts
>> www.robertstech.com
>> Photography and writing
>> 
> 

Re: AURORA alert

[Timothy Sherburne]

Cool, they've got an alert mailing list, too. Thanks for the link,
Jostein...

t

On 11/1/02 1:43 PM, Jostein wrote:

> IMO, the best place to look for aurora forecasts for the Northern hemisphere
> is the webpage of University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
> http://www.pfrr.alaska.edu/~pfrr/aurora/INDEX.HTM  If you click "custom
> maps" you get forecasts localised to 15 degrees longitude sectors.
> 
> Jostein
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Pentax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:34 PM
> Subject: AURORA alert
> 
> 
>> Quote from Spaceweather.com
>> 
>> More Northern Lights are expected in November. Earth
>> is heading for a solar wind stream flowing from a
>> coronal hole on the Sun. Geomagnetic activity will
>> probably increase on Nov. 3rd or 4th when solar wind
>> gusts buffet Earth's magnetosphere.A solar wind stream
>> flowing from the indicated coronal hole will likely
>> buffet Earth's magnetic field on or about Nov. 4th
>> 
>> 
>> I know it's going to be not so nice here in TO this
>> weekend but hopefully monday - tuesday the skies may
>> clear.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> __
>> Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Pentax-A* 85 f/1.4 & Pentax-A* 135 f/1.8

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hmmm, must be the economy. I'm still thinking in late 90's dollars for these
lenses. Maybe it's time to shop around?

t

On 11/1/02 12:22 PM, Glen O'Neal wrote:

> By the way, I remember Shel. Haven't seen him on here in a while. KEH offers
> $480.00 for a A* 85 1.4 in Excellent Condition and I am going to check the
> 135mm.
> 
> Later,
> Glen
> 
> -----Original Message-
> From: Timothy Sherburne [mailto:tim@;sherb.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:04 PM
> To: Pentax Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Pentax-A* 85 f/1.4 & Pentax-A* 135 f/1.8
> 
> 
> 
> Glen...
> 
> While these lenses are relatively rare, I don't think it would be a
> challenge to find one *if* you have the financial means to pay market price
> for one and have a couple of months or so to look. That said, I think you
> will look for a long time (years) before finding a bargain on either of
> these. It seems to me that lenses like the K120/2.8 and A*200/2.8 are more
> difficult to find.
> 
> IIRC, Shel Belinkoff, a past member of this list, recently had one of each
> of the lenses you seek for sale. His website can still be found at
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/> and the last email address I saw was
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Other than that, there's eBay and camera shops that advertise on the web
> (use Google).
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> t
> 
> On 10/31/02 6:47 PM, Glen O'Neal wrote:
> 
>> Hello everyone. I think I may be a fool to ask but I am looking for one of
>> each of these two lenses. I know they are hard to find and expensive to
>> purchase. But I am look for two top notch primes in these focal lengths.
> If
>> anyone has one they would like to sell or knows (now or in the future) on
>> any for sale please let me be the first to know. I know what they are
> worth
>> and I am willing to pay top dollar.
>> 
>> Glen O'Neal
>> 
> 

Re: Pentax-A* 85 f/1.4 & Pentax-A* 135 f/1.8

[Timothy Sherburne]

Glen...

While these lenses are relatively rare, I don't think it would be a
challenge to find one *if* you have the financial means to pay market price
for one and have a couple of months or so to look. That said, I think you
will look for a long time (years) before finding a bargain on either of
these. It seems to me that lenses like the K120/2.8 and A*200/2.8 are more
difficult to find.

IIRC, Shel Belinkoff, a past member of this list, recently had one of each
of the lenses you seek for sale. His website can still be found at
 and the last email address I saw was
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Other than that, there's eBay and camera shops that advertise on the web
(use Google).

Good luck!

t

On 10/31/02 6:47 PM, Glen O'Neal wrote:

> Hello everyone. I think I may be a fool to ask but I am looking for one of
> each of these two lenses. I know they are hard to find and expensive to
> purchase. But I am look for two top notch primes in these focal lengths. If
> anyone has one they would like to sell or knows (now or in the future) on
> any for sale please let me be the first to know. I know what they are worth
> and I am willing to pay top dollar.
> 
> Glen O'Neal
> 

Re: A funny problem with digital

[Timothy Sherburne]

[William Robb's long, sad story snipped, but he does note:]

> Most people are just too stupid to figure things out

William, I feel your pain, but IMHO it's not people that are stupid, it's
the technology. On a daily basis, I deal with computer users that don't
understand that to see the rest of some text in a window, they must use the
little scroll bars on the side. (No kidding!)

Digital cameras, the Internet and computers in general are still in their
evolutionary "primordial ooze". We're in the stone age of information
technology; engineers and designers are still getting digital cameras over
the hump of usability by *anyone*. A hundred years from now, people will
look back on this time and wonder how we made it through the day.

Just about any technology invented, discovered or created by humans has gone
through a bleeding-edge phase before wide spread adoption: fire, "modern"
medicine, cars, telephones. These technologies were clumsy to use to start
with, then bright young men and women thought of new ways to redesign and
repackage them to bring them to the masses. It just takes awhile to get
there.

FYI, I'm not a digital junkie myself, and will be sticking with my film
cameras for a while more. You're right, they still work great and offer
better results than digital for most folks.

t

Waaay OT: Mamiya TLR Mailing List (WARNING: No Pentax Content!)

[Timothy Sherburne]

Hello fellow photophiles...

I'm doing some research on the Mamiya C series TLRs (the ones with
interchangeable lenses) and I'm having difficulty with the Mamiya mailing
list mail server. Is it even functioning? I've been working with the info at



I've already found a very good FAQ on the cameras at
 and the review at
photo.net.

Thanks,

Tim

Re: Information about pentax len and camera

[Timothy Sherburne]

You really can't beat Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Equipment Page,
which can be found at:



Stan Halpin also has a nice site with lots of comments on Pentax lenses and
gear:



For medium format, including the 67 and 645, visit Robert Monaghan's site at



t

On 9/12/02 9:25 AM, Andy Vu wrote:

> Dear list,
>   Can someone point me the web site has detail technical
> information about pentax camera and len? Last time some people said
> about Bob's web page has everything about pentax information? Which one
> is it?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -
> Andy Vu
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 

Re: MZ-S durability

[Timothy Sherburne]

Yes, the ZX-M (and the rest of the ZX/MZ line, I assume) behaves the same
way.

On 9/11/02 4:31 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:21:53 -0700, Timothy Sherburne wrote:
> 
>> Doesn't the display on the MZ-S turn itself off after a few seconds anyway?
> 
> The viewfinder display does, and the backlight for the LCD on the
> outside does. But the outside LCD itself does not.  In fact, it still
> displays the current frame number when the power is turned off
> completely.
> 
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
> 
> 

Re: Asahi 1/21 Spotmeter...

[Timothy Sherburne]

Thanks, Frantisek. Apparently, the tiny red triangle indicates the shutter
speed for 8mm movie cameras running at 16 fps.

t


On 9/9/02 1:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> I've picked up an Asahi 1/21 spotmeter from a fellow list
> member, and I've
>> got two questions about it that I hope the group can answer:
> 
> Hi Tim, perhaps a scanned manual of one of the incarnations of
> the1/21 will help you... see my webpage at:
> 
> http://www.volny.cz/fotof/tech/
> 
> for it. I have the latest model, and indeed it's very nice.
> 
> Frantisek
> photos at
> www.volny.cz/ffranta
> 
> 
> ZDARMA a RYCHLÉ zasílání SMS z www.posliSMS.cz
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Pentax equipment forsale

[Timothy Sherburne]

Okay, that was actually meant just for Tonghang, but the technology gremlins
intervened. Sorry for that.

t

On 9/4/02 10:25 AM, Timothy Sherburne wrote:

> 
> Hi Tonghang...
> 
> I'm interested in the Spotmeter. Do you use Paypal?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tim
> 
> On 9/4/02 10:08 AM, Tonghang Zhou wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Flat shipping cost is $5 to US destinations.  Other places
>> whatever it costs.
>> 
>> SMC K 200/4.0 + caps + original hardcase.-- $85
>> 
>>   In LIKE NEW condition in all aspects.
>> 
>> LX + FA-1 + Grip-B + strap + cap.-- $325
>> 
>>   Perfect functional condition.  Slight ding on top of
>>   finder.  Some scuffles on bottom plate.  Looks quite nice.
>>   The mirror support was gluey so I put a bit of rubber
>>   there.  Focus is accurate.  Lining and foam in perfect
>>   condition.  Mirrow clean.  Meter and times all good.
>>   Everything works good and smooth.  I've been using it
>>   less and less lately.  But it's the most lovely camera
>>   there is anywhere, especially with the Grip-B.  Big
>>   and bright viewfinder.  The speeds above 1/75 can work
>>   without battery.  The strap can hang the camera vertically
>>   so your trigger hand doesn't grasp a bundle of strap
>>   like on other cameras.
>> 
>> AF 160 flash-- $10
>> 
>>   Small pentax flash, guide# is 16 meters (48 feet.)  Two
>>   auto modes, one manual modes.  Works well on any camera.
>>   Looks good.
>> 
>> Pentax 1/21 degree Spotmeter-- $65
>> 
>>   Meter spot 1-degree, field view 21-degrees.  Slight ding
>>   on hood.  No effect.  Otherwise looks great.  Works
>>   perfectly.  Uses 1 common 9v for very low-lighting condition,
>>   and one mercury for other lighting condition.  A new
>>   (unopened) mercury battery is included, which will last you
>>   a long time.  I bought the battery for $8 from a website.
>>   Sometimes I use a hearing-aid battery, which is workable too.
>> 
>> Thanks for looking.
>> Tonghang.
>> 
>