Re: PESO: Send out the clowns
Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attachtype=postid=239772 a) Pretty. b) Needs a LOLcats-style caption. ;-) -- Glenn -- 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: PESO: Send out the clowns
Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] mentioned: I'm not familiar with the term LOLcats-style caption. Something like; Send Out the Clowns ? I'm referring to things like these: http://lolcats.com/ http://realinterrobang.livejournal.com/290916.html http://icanhascheezburger.com/ http://catsnstuff.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/invisible-stuff-n-cats-comic-relief/ Traditionaly done to cat photos, but other animals show up reasonably often. Canonically, the caption should be in the notional feline dialect, lolspeak: http://www.google.com/search?client=operarls=enq=lolspeaksourceid=operaie=utf-8oe=utf-8 but I'm not sure how important that is. (I'm not a devoted follower/participant of the meme, but I giggle at the ones that show up in friends' blogs and have attempted a caption or two.) -- Glenn -- 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.
OT: *grumble* Copyright infringed again (story, not photo)
Gr. I found another porn site using one of my stories, _with_my_name_filed_off_ (again), and am feeling rather grouchy about it. God knows, I'm pretty reasonable when people ask me for permission, though I do insist on a link back to my own web site. And my own copy of the story is Very Easy to find using Google, so it's not as though anybody wanting to republish it will encounter any difficulty establishing authorship or contacting me, even if hey found it at some other plagiarist site. And I could _really_ use the money from a reasonable licensing fee, considering that they didn't ask first. But somehow I doubt I've even a snowball's chance of collecting. And I'm not even getting credit for my work. Useful advice welcome, though my main purpose in posting was to vent rather than to seek advice. -- Glenn -- 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.
OT: EXIF Q
On the photos I shot last night in my non-Pentax PS digicam, what's the difference between an EXIF reported ShutterSpeedValue of 1 sec. versus 1/1 sec.? (Gosh, it didn't _sound_ that slow while I was shooting, and though the people came out fuzzy, the backgrounds are sharper than I would expect for one second handheld ... OTOH, I can see a transparent blur in one frame where a dancer had time to move completely across the frame while the shutter was open, so maybe it really was a whole second.) And don't worry, I was also shooting my K2 with a more sane shutter speed of 1/60 or 1/30 depending on what part of the room it was pointed at, though I wish I'd had a wider lens on it instead of the 50mm (but if I'd brought a wider lens it would also have been slower, so ...) -- Glenn -- 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: OT: EXIF Q
Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] explained: There is none AFAICT. In EXIF spec, the shutter speed is written as a division of two integer. It is easier to just display the values than to interpret them 1/1 obviously should be written 1. So it's the camera, not eye-of-gnome, that's the source of the strangeness -- that much makes sense. The strangeness itself, 1 sec. on some frames and 1/1 sec. on others on the same menory card from the same evening, is just ... a randomly odd quirk of the camera's firmware, huh? There are times I wish I could sneak a look at the source code to firmware. This is one of those times. (I'd also like to see the source code for a fuel-injection computer someday.) I do notice that on the frames I've checked, 1 goes with 0.00 EV and 1/1 goes with any other EV reported under shutter speed. Meaningful clue, or still just random quirkiness? It still means the shutter was open for a thousand milliseconds either way, just as it would in math class, right? I'm guessing (I wonder if I can find out for sure online) that one second is the longest shutter speed this camera will do. I'll try firing it in a dark room later and see what shutter speed it reports for that. (Of course, even more than I want to learn all the details and tricks of this camera, I really want a better one. I keep wanting it to do things that I take for granted in my film cameras (like, oh, being able to choose the moment to shoot instead of having the shutter open some random amount of time after I press the button, or pick what part of the scene to meter on, or shoot at a sensitivity greater than 100 ISO). But I shouldn't complain too loudly, as it's a hand-me-down from a friend who upgraded, and without this gift my only option for shooting digital would be my cell phone.) -- Glenn -- 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: OT - guitar recommendation solicitation
Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Looking to pick up an acoustic guitar (of the six string variety). Nothing too fancy, but not department store junk, either. Was wondering if a few of you could recommend something in the sub-$500 range. I'm specifically not looking for signature guitars, acoustic-electrics, or anything funky. Just the standard, run of the mill, boring guitar that doesn't sound like shit. In that price range, go for a Yamaha, Seagull, or Washburn. Basic mass-produced guitars with no cachet at all but perfectly good sound, feel, and playability. I'm personaly partial to Yamaha (the 6-string and 12-string I play on stage are both low-end Yamahas), but I've held a couple of Seagulls I rather liked. In all three cases, you're looking at student-priced guitars good enough to use for real (and, not that it's relevant in your case but I'd feel neglectful not saying it for the benefit of anyone else reading, I wouldn't want to hand a student anything less anyhow -- a department store junk guitar is more difficult to play and can frustrate a student into giving up). Er ... unless Alvarez makes anything in that price range. The Alvarez guitars I've played have all been in the $900-$2000 range -- well out of my reach -- but they've all felt really nice in my hands, have been especially easy to play (I've held a couple of Alvarez 12-strings that were easier to play barre chords on than my _electric_ guiar), and sound good. I don't think they make anything in the price range you asked for, but hey, just in case I'm wrong ... Determining exactly which sound will fit your tastes best will require putting up with the guitar-shop jerks, of course, but all four brands I've mentioned will well surpass your run of the mill [...] guitar that doesn't sound like shit criterion. (I can't promise they'll be boring though. If you like a strong-but-not-overpowering bottom and 'warm' low-mids, for example, you may find whatever replaced the FG-3xx series in Yamaha's lineup especially not-boring.) I forget who makes 'em with a satin finish on the back of the neck instead of the customary glossy -- I think it's Seagull but I'm not sure. If that's a feature you'd like (it does feel nice), you'll want to look that up. -- Glenn The Homespun Ceilidh Band http://www.homespunceilidh.com -- 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: OT - guitar recommendation solicitation
Oy, typos. I shouldn't be awake now. lots of _boring_ downtime for extras... -- Glenn -- 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: OT - guitar recommendation solicitation
Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested:
I have a Takamine mini jumbo that cost maybe $250 at
{slaps forehead} Right, Takamine. I don't find most
of them as _comfortable_ as my Yamahas, but they don't
suck. The Takamine I want is the double-neck (6 and 12)
hanging up in a music store a few miles up the road from
my house, but it's a couple price-brackets above what
we're talking about now ... *sigh*
I think of Taks as 'not aging well', but I have to keep
reminding myself that guitars owned by a street musician
who played in the rain and snow (he's since moved to
indoor gigs) aren't a valid sample for determining that.
Guild makes some nice cheaper acoustics
IMNSHO, not as good as Yamaha, Seagull, Washburn, or
Takamine. They feel -- and sound -- clunky to me,
though they may be good for lead parts played softly
into a microphone. I found them to get plenty loud
when needed, but loud wasn't howthey sounded best.
(But it's been several years since I've touched one,
so I dunno, maybe they've gotten better?)
Other than that, Epiphone, Gibson,
Alvarez and Yamaha also all make some decent guitars
in your $ range.
Oh, Alvarez does make something in that range after
all? That's a bit of good news. And Gibson?! I'd
have thought those to be out of reach. (Give me a
moment to fondly recall somebody's Gibson Hummingbird
that I got to play for a while.)
I'd stay away from the Fenders, every
one I've played seemed cheap and tinny.
I'm surprised but I'll have to cop to not having relevant
firsthand experience with 'em. The ones I've played have
been electric (noticeably better than my Hondo, not as
nice as my brother's PRS), classical (my Fender classical
guitar is actually pretty darned good), or _vintage_
(the Fender 12-string for the actor playing ... uh, either
Guthrie or Seeger, I forget which, in _Forrest_Gump_, which
I wasn't supposed to touch but there's lots of boing downtime
for extras on a movie set and it was right there and another
extra sitting next to me, and the other prop guitar, and,
well ... Hey _that_ Fender was pretty nice, though it could've
used some care from a tech.
If you can afford a little
more I'd wait and take a look at a Taylor. Every one
I've played are simply great, beautiful tone, low
action, and exceptionally well crafted. Better then
some Martins I've played, in fact, the lower end
Martin's simply suck...don't be fooled by the brand.
Taylors are nice, but not as nice (again, IMNSHO) as Alvarez;
I like them maybe a teensy bit more than my Yamahas, depending
on my mood. I'm not a big Martin fan either -- I agree that
the low-end ones leave something to be desired, and the better
ones sound great for other people but don't sing as well in my
hands as a Yamaha, Alvarez, Gibson, Taylor, or 1960s Fender.
-- Glenn
--
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: OT One more orbit out of the way
David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 31, 2007 10:39 AM, David J Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a day early, but, looks like the planet has made another orbit around the sun, and we still have not blown it up, yet.:-) I sure hope you haven't jinxed the planet Dave. There is still a few hours to go. I'm not worried. Given the amount of inertia involved, even if something big enough to reverse Earth's course or knock it out of its orbit (I'm counting knocking us into a perpendicular orbit as a case of not completing this orbit, as well as events that send us hurtling into the sun or out of the solar system -- but if we just get bumped into a nearer or farther orbit in the ecliptic then I'll only consider that a change of schedule) .. given the amount of momentum involved, I have no worries that the planet could be accelerated quickly enough to prevent completion of our current orbit on or close to schedule. :-) (But for folks who _like_ to worry, may I suggest Exit Mundi, a collection of realistic end-of-the-world scenarios? http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm) Even the known methods for _destroying_ the Earth, rather than just redirecting it so that it fails to complete its current orbit, take more than 24 hours, so David hasn't jinxed us even if a very resourceful arch-villain is working on it. See: How To Destroy The Earth http://qntm.org/?destroy The Earth is built to _last_. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy. (This, of course, is a good time to suggest reading Why Destroy The Earth http://qntm.org/?why as well, which includes arguments for why _not_ to.) So my prediction is that despite Mr. Brooks' _admittedly_ premature congratulations, the completion of the current orbit is still a safe bet. Whether he's jinxed the _next_ orbit remains to be seen, but fortunately most known methods of blowing it up will take more than a year to set up ... -- Glenn -- 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: OT One more orbit out of the way
And a Happy New Year to you to Glenn.:-) Awww, for me? Thanks! ;-) (And thanks for your part in giving me an excuse to post those end-of-the-world URLs.) Happy shooting and good light to everyone here in the months ahead! -- Glenn -- 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: Interesting ULA.
On Dec 31, 2007 11:52 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt very much if it is enforceable. http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4326/camera-test-fujifilm-finepix-is-1-a-narrowly-defined-user-licensing-agreement-page2.html Waitaminute ... since when do we _license_ (essentially lease) cameras instead of _buying_ them? Cameras are _hardware_, right? (Yeah, I know that the notion of renting a camera does exist, but does the existence of an End User _License_ Agreement imply that Fuji will not, in fact _sell_ this camera to anyone? Most of us own our gear, right?) Sheesh -- bad enough that we let them get away with not-selling us most of the software we 'license' (that is, you don't technically buy the software or even buy a copy of it; you buy a license to use the software). This is [expletiving] silly. Then again, if covenants on land are enforceable ... shudder -- Glenn -- 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: Cameras you wish you still had
A: What cameras have you owned that you wish you had never gotten rid of? Super Program KX (not so much gotten rid of; stolen from me) B: And, just for fun, what cameras have you lusted for but never had? LX 67II Olympus OM-2n 8x10 view camera Any Pentax DSLR Stereo Realist (I lusted after the Nikon D70 that seems to be the standard camera for my bandmates, but assuming there's a Pentax model that I would like at least as much -- which seems a pretty good bet -- I'd rather have the compatibility with the lenses I already have.) -- Glenn -- 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.
Retrospective Lessons
I meant to post this last week, but I don't think I got around to it ... My ex-housemate hasn't removed the last of his stuff, and he said I could use his computer scanner until he takes them away (my scanners don't have transparency adaptors, his is a Canoscan LiDE 600F) so I've been scanning lots of old negatives and the occasional unmounted roll of slide film and burning things to CD, not particularly prioritising, (beyond reaching for rolls that I'd only ever gotten contact sheets made from before ones that I've already had printed), just getting through as many rolls as I can manage to do before I run out of time, momentum, or blank CDs. Consequently, I've been looking at a lot of images from 1997-2004, and although (or maybe because?) I'm flipping through the scans relatively quickly, I'm starting to note patterns in which of the things I tend to try really work, and which I should remind myself not to do any more. The biggest lesson I've learned from this exercise so far is more obvious than any other pattern I've noticed, and a very simple, if not inexpensive, adjustment to my shooting style: I should really use infrared film a lot more often. (Hmm. While I was writing this, there was a zzzZZZIIIP*THUD*, the rather distinctive sound of a two-car collision on a rain-slick street. The police showed up a lot more quickly than any of the other times I've called 911. Both drivers are ambulatory, *whew*. This has, of course, nothing at all to do with the rest of this message.) -- Glenn -- 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: Spam: Retrospective Lessons
Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Hmm. While I was writing this, there was a zzzZZZIIIP*THUD*, the rather distinctive sound of a two-car collision on a rain-slick street. The police showed up a lot more quickly than any of the other times I've called 911. Both drivers are ambulatory, *whew*. Sounds like a photo op to me, Glenn. Oh, aye, as soon as I got of the phone I grabbed the (non-Pentax, point-and-shoot) digital camera so as to blog it, but it wasn't a really photogenic enough angle from my window to warrant trying to make art from ... given the amount of film I've already burned on similar shots since moving to Baltimore, and the certainty that more opportunities will crop up soon enough (just like chances to shoot firefighters in action within walking distance of my house, especially since the winter fire season is about to start). (Some of the old rolls I've scanned recently were from the time when I could watch -- and photograph -- drug deals being transacted, from my windows, every day of the week except Saturday (when the Seventh Day Adventist church on the corner was busy) ... fortunately I haven't had any photo-ops like _that_ in several years. I do wonder how long after the fact it'll seem safe to post those photos as slice-of-life-in-the-city images without fearing that the drug dealers in the pictures will seek me out to express umbrage.) Now the time a few years ago when one of the cars from a collision got cut in half by a tree (as in, they took that one car away on two different trucks), conveniently in daylight for ease of photographing, that one I shot a lot of frames of. I did grab whichever body has the 100-300 zoom on it at the moment (uh, the Program Plus, I think) to use as a telescope to try to see whether one of the vehicles struck a house or landed just short of it, but I'm going to have to put on clothes and go out on the sidewalk to be able to tell for sure. But one thing for sure about living in Baltimore is that there's an abundance of photo-ops, many of them painful -- physically, fiscally, or both -- for the subjects. (OTOH, we also get some really dramatic _skies_ here, too.) Ah, the first wrecker has arrived; if the pull the SUV away first, I'll have to go see whether the Jeep is in a particularly interesting position with the SUV out of the way... (So maybe I'll burn some film after all, or maybe not.) I _should_ try to get to sleep. -- Glenn -- 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.
OT: Which copyright date to put on a scan?
(Yeah, I've been busy offlist and not participating here much, just glancing at most-recent threads every so often. Sorry about that. Hope tochange it soon ...) My ex-housemate hasn't taken his computer away yet, and he has a scanner with a transparency adaptor (35mm strips only, alas, not 120 nor mounted slides) so I've been scanning a bunch of my old to take advantage of it while it's still here. A lot of film from 2001-2003. When preparing a scanned image for posting on the web or emailing to a subject -- mostly adjust-levels, unsharp-mask, scale, and maybe crop -- one of my standard actions is (duh) to add a copyright notice. Here's the thing: I'm not really certain whether it's more appropriate to put in the year the photo was captured on film, or the year I scanned and prepped it. Or should I just ignore what's more appropriate and put the current year because I _can_ (because it's a new version with (minor) changes plus the change in medium)? Using the current year if I'm blacking out (or whiting out) the background or making other significant changes to the composition seems obvious to me. When it's just a matter of applying two filters and adding the copyright notice, it feels a lot less obvious. So: what do _you_ do when adding a copyright notice to a new scan of an old photo? And, if you have the time: why? -- Glenn PS: Hey, on the plus side it means finally getting more Pentax shots into digital form even if they're all from old shoots -- due to my chronic difficulty affording processing, most of the photos I've _seen_ lately have been the ones I've shot on the PS digicam, not on film. Not much to even _consider_ submitting to the PUG lately, until this scanning-frenzy began... unless using a Pentax lens reversed in front of the digicam for macro counts as using Pentax equipment, that is. PPS: I'm sure I've asked before but I recently lost my file server's /home drive and all my mail archives with it: what developer do y'all suggest for Kodak HIE (subject is an outdoor wedding); and similarly for TMZ shot at various speeds? -- 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: Limits of machine printing (was Re: Wal-Mart and film processing)
Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Might I suggest looking into doing your own scanning and printing digitally? You'll lose any issues with framing and neg film (Slide mounts are still an issue unless you don't get the slides mounted). I've been thinking of that for some time but haven't been able to afford a slide/neg scanner yet (nor do I have a printer capable of suitable-quality output) ... and unlike flatbeds, film scanners don't seem to turn up as my friends' I've upgraded and the old one needs a new home hand-me-downs. (A photo-quality printer is a little more likely to turn up that way but hasn't yet.) But getting a halfway decent film scanner is on the agenda ifwhen the opportunity arises. -- Glenn -- 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: OT - of interest to PDA users...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the reason for not using it during a flight is what you said, they are afraid wireless will mess with their electronics. I wonder about the modern aircraft thing too, but I'd rather be safe than sorry too. The last time I looked into this in depth (caveat: it's been a few years so my info may be out of date), the _FAA_ had no problems with people using cell phones on planes but the _FCC_ did. The concern was not interference with avionics, but potentially confusing the cellular switching network because a phone at high altitude might be within range of more towers simultaneously than a phone on the ground ... ... and the cellular networks had not been adequately tested in that mode to determine whether it was an _actual_ problem or not ... ... and a bunch of people were bitching at the FCC for being so slow to do the tests and accusing them of delaying such tests out of fear that there _wouldn't_ be a problem and then the payphones on planes would lose customers. At that time, the big question was whether such devices needed to be switched off for safety specifically during landing and takeoff; the consensus among experts was that they were safe to use mid-flight. If commercial avionics were that vulnerable, then we'd just be waiting for terrorists (domestic or foreign) to put a jammer more powerful than any pocket-sized device in their luggage on a timer. (Okay, _that_ might still be a vulnerability anyhow; but I hope not.) If they were really worried about interference, intentionally or otherwise, well the skin of the aircraft is metal, right? And _their_ antennae are mounted on the outside? So all they have to do is put screens on the windows with a spacing smaller than the wavelengths they're worried about (if the windows are tinted, just using a thin metallic tinting would do and the passengers wouldn't see a visible mesh) and the plane turns into a big Faraday cage -- nobody's cell phone will work at all and we'll all be forced to use the payphones without any arguments over the rules. If the bulkhead and cockpit door are metal and connected to everything else, then they can even keep any RF leakage from PDAs and DVD players from getting to the cockpit. The last time I flew (several years ago but post-9/11), I think they asked us to turn off all personal electronics for takeoff and landing but said we could turn them back on when the fasten seat belts sign went out. I thought it was silly but didn't mind turning off my phone for those brief periods. The _ettiquette_ concerns of cell phone use during a flight are another matter entirely. I don't see any problem with a seatmate making or receiving a couple of brief calls, but a long conversation would be equally annoying on a cell phone or on the plane's payphone. Videos on a DVD player, PDA, or laptop seem like they wouldn't be a problem if headphones are used. -- Glenn -- 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.
Limits of machine printing (was Re: Wal-Mart and film processing)
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: they could not print what I saw in the viewfinder. IIRC, they weren't as bad as wherever K-Mart sent film out to, where they cut somebody's face in half on a group photo then tried to tell me it was my mistake even when I showed them the negative with a millimeter or so of space between that person and the edge of the frame, I've explained before why this isn't possible on a machine printer. Yes, you have. Some machines -- and some installations -- seem to be worse than others. The lab I use now prints enough of the frame that what I get back is pretty close to what I saw. (Not exact, but reasonably close.) The nearest Wal-Mart minilab and the bulk lab that K-Mart sent film out to were bad enough that I basically couldn't shoot any subject that came close to filling the frame. And in the case of that group photo where the rightmost person got cut in half, I could understand the gap between them and the edge of the frame getting swallowed up, but the gap plus half the person? How many millimeters is it acceptable for the machine to lose? The lab I go to now did explain that they couldn't machine print the entire frame either, but their machines are set up to print a lot more of the frame than the one-hour places I've tried ... and if I _really_ need it, I can get hand-printing on an enlarger there. If you are putting needed picture elements that close to the edge of the frame you need to rethink your composition strategies anyway. Isn't one of the stock bits of advice get closer? I try to _use_ the frame (when the combination of the lens I've got and where I can stand allow me to compose exactly as I'd like, that is) to show as much or as little context as I think suits the subject. So I'm looking, when I remember anyhow, at the edges as well as the center. I know my viewfinders are not 100% coverage, and that the machine isn't either, but as long as the two lose _approximately_ (very approximately) the same amount of the frame, its reasonably useable. When I had a similar problem at a Ritz Camera a long time ago, the operator tweaked something and got me more of the frame (though still not as much as I get from the machines at my current lab). At Wal-Mart they said that was impossible, but I don't know whether they meant that model of machine didn't have that control or that with the volume of customers they were serving they din't have time for that sort of adjustment. I don't know the make/model of any of these machines ... I had notes on a few of them at one point, but I've no idea where I put those notes. I suppose if I were always using the same minilab, or if they all cropped the same amount, I could put pencil marks in all my viewfinders ...? I'm not philosophically opposed to cropping, by the way, but if I want a standard-size print from an intentionally cropped image, I'm back to paying pro-lab prices anyhow; the other way to get full control of my framing is to back up to make sure everything I want will get printed, then take scissors to the print to take back out the bits I don't want that I included just to be sure none of the intentional stuff got cropped by the machine. -- Glenn -- 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: Wal-Mart and film processing
[dropping in mid-thread 'cause I'm months behind] Igor Roshchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of all the non-specialized labs, I like Wal-Mart's one-hour service. It looks like its relatively consistent acceptable quality. They usually don't mind redoing the prints if you don't like the colors, they do matte finish, and by doing it locally there is a smaller risk of a mixup. Smaller risk of a mixup, agreed (they still did manage it but getting it straightened out at the counter was feasible). As to the rest ... well, my mileage did vary. I wasn't really thrilled with their printing (with their throughput and schedule they haven't the time to correct wrong guesses by the machine frame-by-frame), the folks at the one I went to re-did prints grudgingly, and -- the detail that finally chased me to the pro labs -- they could not print what I saw in the viewfinder. IIRC, they weren't as bad as wherever K-Mart sent film out to, where they cut somebody's face in half on a group photo then tried to tell me it was my mistake even when I showed them the negative with a millimeter or so of space between that person and the edge of the frame, but I was still frustrated to be told that their machine was not able to print as close to the edge of the frame as my viewfinder let me compose, and I was tired of having to try to remember, or guess, where the printing limit was on each body I used. It defeated one of the cool features of using an SLR in the first place. (That being inside the nearest Wal-Mart store makes me physically and mentally uncomfortable probably didn't help. I'm not sure why that particular store bothers me so much. I don't care for Wal-Mart in general, but most of their stores don't affect me that strongly.) So after a bunch of different bulk labs and one-hour labs, I finally decided I needed to take my normal processing to the same kind of lab that handled my push-processing and my IR, and resigned myself to having to wait a lot longer to save up enough money to pay for each batch of processing. -- Glenn -- 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: Fuji or Kodak?
Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. In daytime, I like Agfa 100 or 400 but have trouble finding it; in particular weather with that deep blue sky I like Konica 100, which is, alas, as hard to find as Agfa. I'll settle for shooting Fuji 800. I don't care as much for Fuji or Kodak in the 100-400 range in colour (but oh how sweet Kodachrome 25 was, eh?) but Reala or Royal Gold will do in a pinch, when I've run out of the stuff I like better, but if I'm shooting Kodak in daylight I'd much rather it be Portra (or Tri-X, of course ... or HIE!). In evening, or with a long lens / fast action, gimme the Fuji 800 in general or, depending on the subject, Kodak pro films in the 800 range (I used to shoot Ektapress PJM, which seemed to be 640). Kindly keep the Kodak MAX away, thank you. Portra is okay. At night, TMZ is my very special friend, but Fuji Press (aka Superia X-Tra) 800 and 1600 come in handy as well, as does Delta 3200 (I use it more or less interchangeably with the TMZ) and Ecktachrome P1600 if I can find it (at which point I've left not only your implied context of colour but your stated context of print). So basically I like Tri-X/HP5, Agfa/Konica consumer colour films, or Kodak pro films in daylight, and switch to the T-grain BW (TMZ/Delta3200) and Fuji colour at night. Subject matters as well, but that depends as much on my mood at the moment as it does the particular category of subject, so it doesn't break down into a tidy rule-of-thumb like my time-of-day film choice habits do. -- Glenn -- 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: OT rant Flash!
Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bandwidth is dirt cheap for commercial sites, and even cheaper for non-rural consumers. I can get multi-meg Ethernet for less than a T1 cost 4-5 years ago. So why load sites down so much that it feels like I'm still on dialup, eh? ;-) (More importantly: bandwidth is not the ony resource consumed, and if I've got eighty tabs open in my browser already, client-CPU-intensive pages slow down even if I'm not also running GIMP and Mplayer on the same machine.) But that's not my main point. It's not about stealing photo's, it's about ensuring that your site looks the way you designed it. Bzzzt! You _can't_. Not reasonably. You don't know how big my screen is, how much of it I've given to the browser, or what the screen resolution is set to. (Worse, you don't know whether I even have Flash installed in the browser I'm using today -- gee, I see an awful lot of interesting-sounding links that lead me to an all black page.) If my screen is a different size then yours, then either I'll have to scroll horizontally to read anything (one of the faster ways to get me to give up and go read something else instead) or leave a big empty space around it. HTML is designed to make such problems go away. The price? The designer has to give up the I Precisely Control Every Exact Detail Absolutely mindset and let the browser, and the user, make some of those decisions. PDF has its purpose, and Flash has its purpose, but there are times -- and on the web, most times are those times -- when you should let HTML do what HTML was designed to do. And you _want_ to allow users, especially users with visual impairment (okay, we're talking photography, which implies a certain level of vision, but some of us need help with the fine print) who want to be able to change the font size to read the content that all the glitz is supposed to make them want to read. Or, for that matter, to be able to replace a designer's oh so pretty and tasteful colour combinations with ones where you can actually read the text without getting a headache. You don't want to a) make it harder for spiders to navigate the site (usually), b) make it harder for people using different software than you expected to navigate the site, c) make it harder for people to adjust the look to be easier to read, d) make it difficult or impossible for users to bookmark the pages they want or (a big deal) send URLs of those pages to friends who may also be interested ... Hey, a while back the big problem was sites that replaced all of the perfectly good HTML navigation stuff with Javascript controls that broke for blind users, security-conscious users, and anyone using a text browser. Now it's Flash instead, which I'm given to understand is less of a security issue but is still a problem on the other counts. I don't think it's mostly about making it look right everywhere (even when the user is deparately trying to change it so they can read it) most of the time; I think it's about having to out-glitz the last web designer to get the client's attention, or marketing folks hung up on what would e pretty in a television commercial. -- Glenn PS: Yes, I do still use a text browser. If I want to look something up in a hurry, or instantly strip out accented letters and asymmetrical quotation marks for ease of copy-and-paste, or if I'm screen-scraping information to have some script parse, I fire up trusty old Lynx. It's not what I use for surfing, but like many other tools it has its uses. And it's annoying when what should be a useful tool is thwarted for not-very-good reasons. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Goin' to Montanaaaaaa!
Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh wait, no. It's Colorado. Well, I knew it was one of those western states with mountains. But Frank Zappa didn't write a song about going to Colorado and I'm not going to put anything by John Denver in a subject line under *any* circumstances. Yippe-yi-yum-tay-aaayy I'll have to bring my own dental floss instead of harvesting any out there... So no need for a pair of zircon-encrusted tweezers then, but I'm sure you can still find an excuse to ride a pygmy pony ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Who's BLOGGING?
graywolf wrote: I just setup WordPress on my website. I really don't know why, I surely do not need another project. Now I need to go and learn how to use it. Anyway, I thought it would be nice to know who on the list has a blog setup, and where it is. I will even link you in mine. Reply here, or privately as you will. I've been blogging for a while now at http://dglenn.livejournal.com (which makes me look more active than I am, since the Quote-of-the-Day entries are posted automagically). I had been right on the verge of hacking together a bunch of roll-my-own scripts to add blogging to my main (mostly static) web site, when it finally registered just how many of my RL friends were using LJ. Seeing the comment handling system (yaay for threaded comment presentation!) and the networking effects there was enough to make me decide that even if using it was too easy for a serious nerd, it was still a good way for me to go. LJ's feature set seems to facilitate community-forming, and I'm in the group of bloggers who finds that a useful trait. (But I eventually came up with a new technical challenge anyhow: I've created mirrors (new posts only so far, archives to follow when I get a round tuit) on three other services using the same software (so as to not be beholden to one service provider), and am now working out tools to automate keeping the four copies in sync. The mirrors, in case anyone finds them more convenient, are http://dglenn.insanejournal.com, http://dglenn.greatestjournal.com, and http://www.blurty.com/users/dglenn. At present, most of the comments are on LJ.) -- Glenn PS: If anyone still picking software cares about my opinion, I really hate Haloscan comment boards. / -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
A conversation yesterday
An exchange started yesterday at the Southern Maryland Celtic Festival, by someone who saw me photographing the band that performed after us with my K2: You can't beat that Pentax. [After checking which camera I was using] Well, I suppose, depending on your tastes, you might beat it with a different Pentax. Or, depending on your tastes, you might not. Yeah. They're great cameras. I have an LX. Whoops. I'd forgotten about the LX. Yup, you can beat the K2 with another Pentax even if you really like the K2 ... (I also had a conversation with a couple of much younger fans, when they saw the cameras I was using. They were intrigued by the Holga, though quite reasonably more attracted to the Pentax K2 (I had also brought the Program Plus and PZ-10); one said she'd gotten a Canon AE-1 specifically for a photography class. I wish I'd brought an S3 with me ... I did pull out the Argus 'brick' that I'd brought along but not used, for a bit of show and tell.) I shot 125 frames on my digital camera yesterday. Plus eight rolls of film and finishing off two more rolls that were already loaded when I started. I'd started the day thinking I was probably too tired to do a lot of shooting and might need a nap before our performance ... but there was so much to shoot even though I didn't wander too far from our stage most of the day. (Okay, a lot of that was trying to catch other performers in different postures / with different expressions / from different angles.) -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
OT: Photos Sentencing
OT because they were shot with my non-Pentax digital ps (the Pentax photos still haven't been developed yet): The idjit who totaled my car went to trial yesterday, and I got a phone call from the Assistant State's Attorney handling the case afterward. She said the photos I gave her on a CD last month, which she printed out and introduced as evidence, were a factor in the judge's decision to impose the maximum possible penalty for the crimes the fellow was convicted of. Oh. Those cars were _crushed_! I'd been subpoenaed as a witness, as were several neighbours, but when we were in court last month to hear the guy request a postponement, the judge told us this time we'd be on call witnesses -- didn't have to show up unless the State's Attorney called us, just had to stay near a phone and within an hour's travel of the courthouse yesterday. I'd wondered what we could add as witnesses other than showing a large number of faces to illustrate how many victims there were; as it turned out we were not called in to court yesterday. But I feel like I was helpful anyhow. (Note that the maximum penalty was only sixty days, and I'm still out of a car, but at least the idiot is actually getting punished. Hey, anyone got a spare car that'll carry a double bass and pass Maryland inspection, for under $1400? (That's what the insurance company gave me for my car.)) http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/, if anybody's curious. -- Glenn, still trying to figure out how to get from Baltimore to Glen Dale for a gig tomorrow. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Waaay OT: International Louie Louie Day
Not at all germane to the list, but something tells me a few of you will get a kick out of this nonetheless. Via the Clan MacAthair mailing list: | Today is a very special day of celebration. | | Today, April 11 is INTERNATIONAL LOUIE LOUIE Day! | | While no country has actually made any kind of official declaration, and | there have been no mandated holidays that I know of, that shouldn't stop you | from using the time to celebrate this very special day. | | Why today, of all days? | | 1) Richard Berry, the author of this song, was born on April 11, 1935. | | 2) His original recording of LOUIE LOUIE was released during the week of | April 13, 1957, which means this song is 50 years old! | | 3) The Kingsmen recorded their version of LOUIE LOUIE on April 6, 1963. | | 4) On April 10, 1998, The Kingsmen regained their original recordings back | from the record companies that refused to pay them ANY royalties, despite | the millions of sales. | | There's some other great moments in LOUIE LOUIE history attached around this | time in April, but I think it's best that you read the rest of this | information for yourself at the LOUIE REPORT blog. | | The latest blog posting is formatted like a comic strip with fun graphics, | word ballooons, and goofy humor. I hope you enjoy it. | | So today - enjoy INTERNATIONAL LOUIE LOUIE DAY! | | Dancing is strongly recommended! | | . me gotta go now . | | ERIC PREDOEHL | http://www.louielouie.net/blog/ | ... | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | You can automatically subscribe/unsubscribe to | THE LOUIE REPORT, the Louie Louie newsletter, | thanks to the robotic helpers at our website, | http://www.louielouie.net/16-subscribe.htm | | LouieLouie.Net is a production of Octalouie LLC. | | Octalouie LLC is firmly against internet pollution, | be it spam, chain letters, computer viruses, or other | types of high-tech annoyances. | | For more information on the subject, please visit: | http://www.octalouie.com/resources/resources_pollution.htm -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Getting farther afield re: DST
Taking this out of order ... graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On second thought I think I will write my congressman and propose that he introduce a bill to make everyone use sundial time. A part of me would find perverse pleasure in that -- the purity of it, having 'noon' actually mean when the sun is straight up, and being able to set clocks precisely by direct observation of natural phenomena without needing to consult an external authority for the time or for a table of adjustments to your observations. But ironcally, the two weeks each year when I actually _use_a_sundial_, I use one with corrections to mean time (clock time). (I use a ring-dial calibrated to that location and those two weeks: http://www.dglenn.org/events/pennsic/ringdial.html Reading the time from one edge at the start of the two-week camping event, from the other edge near the end of the two weeks, and in between the rest of the time, the sundial gives a useful-enough approximation to wall-clock-time despite the drift of solar time over that two week span. But I'll have to get the friend who made it -- the same one who wrote the text on that page -- to make a new one this year because they're holding the Pennsic War a week earlier than they used to.) Switching to sundial-time the rest of the year would provide a handy excuse for my chronic tardiness though: I'm sorry I'm late; my watch is on Baltimore time, not Rockville time. Hmm Or even better, I went to Hagerstown over the weekend and forgot to set my watch back when I returned. Yeah, that's the ticket! Backing up to Greywolf's earlier paragraphs: Why don't we just all set our clocks ahead perminently then. It's been tried. Too many people _didn't_ like it. And there were too many schoolbus accidents in the mornings. If your want your day to be longer, just get up earlier, and don't fuck with the rest of us. Now that makes sense to me. Folks who want extra evening daylight start showing up at 0800 or even 0700 in the morning and leaving accordngly early; folks who'd rather enjoy a few months of finding it easier to get up on time in the morning because of the earlier sunrise continue showing up at 0900 and leaving at 1700. Workplaces that have shifts that need to be coordinated change or don't change their schedules depending on which is better for their customers and which is better for employee morale. I just don't feel as strongly about the don't fuck with the rest of us as I do about be honest with yourselves and the rest of us as to _why_ you're fucking with our clocks. -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: BW or color?
Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a tough time deciding which way to go on this one: BW: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5716008 Color: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5708787 Color..without question! The exercise generated throb of her pulse along with the driving beat of the iPod have her flushed and completely pumped. Thanks Jack. Yes, I do hate to lose the color in her cheeks. She was actually quite fast (well compared to me anyway:-). I see what both of you mean about her cheeks, but the BW has more impact for me, evokes a more visceral reaction. -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: DST
Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several years ago I bought two of those Atomic clocks, one for my house and one for my studio. They set themselves based on a radio signal from the National Atomic Clock. One attraction was that they automatically set themselves for DST when it started and back to standard time when it ended. Apparently the National Atomic Clock wasn't told about the change, since neither of my clocks reset itself this morning and I had to manually reset them. They've corrected for the changes automatically for four years before. How much do you wanna bet that they will reset themselves on April 1 ??!! [Caveat: I am speaking'ex recto' on this matter ...] I don't know how those clocks and the national broadcasts works, but I rather suspect they work like various network clock synchronization protocols on the Internet. With the 'net ones, the synch messages are sent in Universal Time (aka GMT), and it's up to the receiving device to know how many hours to add or subtract for the time zone it's in and whether it's Daylight Spending Time or not. If I'm right, then a) your clocks will reset themselves 1 April as you guessed, and b) it's not the National Atomic Clock's fault (though feel free to continue to blame the Congress). For the same reason, just knowing that your computer gets its clock set by NTP or timed or some other network time service doesn't mean it'll have automagically adjusted itself this morning unless the OS was told in advance about the new schedule. (As for why I referred to it as Daylight Spending Time, well it turns out that it doesn't save energy -- gasoline consumption by folks taking advantage of the extra daylight more than offsetts any reduction in electricity consumption for lighting, and if schoolkids are going to school in the dark then it means lights are being turned on before dawn instead of after dusk and we're not even saving electricity yet -- and it doesn't save most people any money. In fact, the retail industry and the golf industry are the biggest supporters of DST because with more after-work daylight, _people_go_shopping_ (and golfers play more golf). So it's al about the _spending_ baybee!) -- Glenn, currently with 2/3 of the clocks, 1/2 of the VCRs, 1/7 of the computers, and 1/3 of handheld devices in the house set to the official time so far. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: DST (small clarification)
Er ... I was speaking 'ex recto' about the National Atomic Clock broadcasts, but what I wrote about network synchronization is correct for the protocols I've looked at closely (not an exhaustive list, but enough for me to credit someone else's claim that it applied to all the major ones), and the bit about the economic rationale for Daylight Spending Time comes from this radio interview: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7779869 -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: DST
Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WARNING! CONSPIRACY THEORY BELOW So apparently, when Americans have an extra hour of daylight after work they like to shop. The US chamber of commerce is a huge proponent for changing DST to an earlier date. [...] Can you really call it a conspiracy theory when the proponents haven't been terribly secretive about it? (When the candy manufacturers' lobby left candy pumpkins on lawmakers' chairs to remind them that extending DST past Hallowe'en would help them sell more candy, that wasn't exactly subtle ... even if these aren't the arguments they're making in the mass media.) And as I said upthread, I've started calling it Daylight Spending Time for that reason. Though you may have something with the current administration's connections to big oil. That may well have been a factor in this having passed when it did, rather than other times it was proposed. -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: DST
Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My, my! Most people here find Daylight Savings Time delghtful. Few people can make good use of the extra hour of daylight before work. My personal objection has more to do with calling it Saving Time when it a) doesn't _save_ anything, and b) has as its main purpose increased _spending_. The nomenclature actually bothers me more than the change back and forth or what time we set the clocks to, though I must say that as a bit of a night owl I've got enough trouble getting up in the mornings as it is (so while I might not have gotten good use out of an extra hour before work when I was employed full-time, having extra time between sunup and when I had to get out the door would have made it a lot easier for me to get to work when I was expected to be there.) Many people find good outdoor activities for the extra hour after work. Lawn and garden care come to mind first, then other recreational activities - kids' baseball, soccer, swimming,... Which ties right back into the reason I call it Daylight Spending Time: the golf industry lobbied for it, saying that it would account for huge increases in revenue from greens fees and sales of golf clubs; the oil industry knows that people will be driving to more places in the evenings if they have an extra hour of daylight after work; and the retail industry likes it because even more than gerdening and Little League, folks use the extra time to go shopping. Note, by the way, that one group that tends to oppose DST is farmers. An extra hour of daylight in the evening _is_ nice; I'll grant that. But so would an extra hour in the morning be, from my point of view, so I see it as merely exchanging two times of more or less equal value instead of saving any daylight. The sun's still up the same number of hours regardless of when we set the clocks to ... and I remember thinking it was strange and wrong to be catching the school bus before sunup so much of the time when I was in middle school and high school. The change back and forth, though I perceive it as a relatively minor deal thanks to having been accustomed to it for so long, nonetheless does have consequences. Traffic accidents tend to increase dramatically for about a week after the spring time change, for example. And there is the nuisance of trying to remember which of my VCRs make the change automagically and which do not, when programming them to record something on the other side of a time changes from when I'm thinking about it. Personally, I'd rather keep the clocks the same year 'round, and just adjust _schedules_ as appropriate for the season! If an office can actually save money by having people start and end their workdays earlier in the summer, or if doing so pleases most of their employees and boosts morale, let them switch to summer hours; if another business does better staying open late, let them simply do so. Why must we all be in lockstep all the time anyhow? As long as we can agree on what time it _is_, and can thus manage to make our appointments on time, what is so magical about the hour we have arbitrarily labelled nine o'clock in the morning? Sure, it's important to have some clue when other businesses you interact with will be open, but we already have to look that up on the web or on a refrigerator magnet or call and ask, because some entities we interact with are in a different time zone, and some keep banker's hours, or standard office hours, or customer friendly hours, or typical shopping-mall hours (which already have a seasonal change around Christmas!), or typical grocery-store hours, or 24/6 hours or 24/7 hours, or drive-up window open until 1AM hours. I don't think what I'm suggesting would really make things any worse. Movie production crews and farmers aren't going to change their schedules just because the clocks say a different number than they did last week at the same time -- if the call is for an hour before dawn so that shooting can take advantage of as much daylight as possible, it doesn't matter whether dawn is _labelled_ 5AM or 6AM. Recreational facilities are going to stay open later in the summer because the days are longer, regardless of whether the clocks have changed to encourage them to do so. And most parks around here have had signs posted that give the hours as sunup to sundown for as long as I can remember, meaning that their hours change on a day-to-day basis, not twice a year -- for what they are, that just makes sense. In businesses that offer flextime, things are even easier: if you like extra daylight after work, just come in earlier; if you'd rather eat your breakfast in sunlight, come in at the regular time. But despite my claim to usually consider Daylight Spending Time only a minor annoyance, I'm a bit put out by this _change_ to the Daylight Spending Time _schedule_. So I'm thinking about it more than usual, and a lot of these little things are right there at
Re: DST
Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I love DST. Grace and I just came back from a walk. Sunset in Detroit was at about 7:45 PM tonight. By June we'll be at 9:45. It's wonderful. If it's a conspiracy, give me more conspiracies. The more I think about it, the stronger my feeling that the Big Problem with DST is that it's (IMNSHO) incorrectly justified and incorrectly named. If the reason for having it were quite simply, most people just happen to like it (and if that's true), it wouldn't rub me the wrong way so. (Even though not-changing makes more sense to me.) I am well aware that many people do like it. But that's not the reason I keep hearing for why we should have it. And I don't know whether the folks who like it are in the majority or not (though I'm sure somebody must have polling data on that). -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: DST
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: But despite my claim to usually consider Daylight Spending Time only a minor annoyance, I'm a bit put out by this Understatement isn't a stranger to you eh Doc? We may have been introduced at some point, yes ... -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K-Mount Accidents?
Just curious, has anyone accidentally detached their lens from the body? Not with K mount that I can recall -- I've hit the button while reaching for DOF preview, but I wasn't rotating the lense at the time, so no trouble. I've nearly dropped a lens while trying to preview DOF on a camera that didn't have a DOF preview switch (using the old hit the lens release and rotate the lens until the actuator clears trick), but I don't think I can quite count that as an accidental removal. I've had screw-mount lenses with stiff aperture rings start to unscrew. I don't remember any coming all the way off though. So unless my memory has developed a leak, no, at least not with Pentax. -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: My Annoying Birthday
P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geez, bummer man. Though sad to say it makes me feel better about my car problems. Hope your car is all right. So far, I'm still not even certain what the insurance situation is -- whether the other owner's insurance will cover it, or declare that it's not their responsibility because their policyholder's was stolen and make me try an uninsured-motorist claim with my insurance (where the deductible is about two and a half times my monthly grocery budget). I did get a subpoena to appear as a witness at the driver's trial a few weeks from now. David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Makes me feel less bad about scratching my bike in a stupid crash on Saturday. Being a bit too used to my commuting bike (with rim-brakes), I grabbed the brake lever a bit harder than I should have. That taught me how much stopping power a big disc brake has. The wheel locked instantly and the road was jumping up at me before I knew what had happened. *ouch* At least I wasn't close enough to get physically injured, even if my car is more smooshed. Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bummer indeed... Yah, as are the resulting transportation difficulties since. *sigh* Wish me luck. Marnie aka Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/25/2007 12:19:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'll say this much about having a PS digital camera to use: the more I use it, the more I want a DSLR. I'm getting a greater appreciation of digital photography from seeing what this camera can do ... and a greater appreciation for my film cameras from seeing what it _won't_ do that I'd been taking for granted for so long. I spent most of the week before last carrying around the digital and a K1000, switching off between the two. Bummer, bummer. Yes, to all of the above. A DSLR can't be beat. However, even if/when you get one you'll still want a digital PS. I carry an Optio S4i (think that's it, I always forget the suffixes) in my purse. Very handy dandy for situations like you encountered and other things. *nod* Oh, I can see the usefulness of a PS, but if I had to choose just one, I'd just carry the SLR everywhere (as I already do with a film body and have for several years). My hand-me-down PS (beggars can't be choosers) is too large to have the most important advantages of a PS digital -- it weighs enough to notice (though it is, yes, much lighter than a K2 or a K1000, each of which I often carry), and doesn't fir in my purse. It fits into a coat pocket, but that'll only be good until the weather warms up. I'm currently experimenting with a cheap little case I found at a thrift store, to see whether I prefer to use the shoulder strap on the case or remove its own strap and clip it to the strap of my purse, Having fewer straps to tangle and fewer things to pick up is good, but it throws off the balance of my purse uncomfortably. I'm still making up my mind. Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're absolutely right: you cannot replace a DSLR's responsiveness and image quality with a compact digital camera. Not at this point in time anyway. That said, I have a Fuji F30 that I use as a audio/visual note pad for when I don't want to carry the K10D. It's about the same size and weight as my Rollei 35S. It delivers reasonably good picture quality even at ISO 800 and has the capability to append an audio memo recording to any photo on the storage card. Very handy as a note taker and even good for some pictures that are a little more than snapshots! This is a SiPix SC-2100, 2.1 megapixel, digital zoom (1x or 2x only, not continuous), no ISO setting (the EXIF data days 100 ISO), awfully basic (though I do have exposure compensation and a little control over white balance, if I have time to get through the awkward menus). Let's put it this way: the person who outgrew it, upgraded, and gave this to me, is someone who thinks of herself as not a photographer, just an ordinary person who wants to be able to take snapshots, and even she wanted something better. So it's not much, even as a when you don't want to carry your real camera camera. Even so, I'm glad to have it. Although I keep bumping into its frustrating limitations, it's good enough for some uses and the speed/ease of getting an image from seen it and thought to shoot to on the web/in my blog is extremely useful sometimes. As is not having to bother asking myself, Is this whim-shot worth spending film/developing money on or will I wonder why I took it when I get the proofs back? It deals quite well (for the resolution and the limited optics) with the sorts of shots you expect a PS to be used for most of the time: daylight photos at portrait or group-photo distances without too much contrast. The problem is that _I_ shoot at night and at dusk and macro and from too far away and in
OT: My Annoying Birthday
A bunch of smooshed-car photos, none taken with a Pentax (because all my Pentax cameras use film and I haven't gotten to the lab yet with the film I shot -- these were all done with my widdle PS digital), from the hit-and-run accident involving my car and three other parked cars twenty minutes before the start of my birthday. http://dglenn.livejournal.com/881401.html I spent most of my birthday editing photos (the PS does not do very well at night -- it's got the expected too-small built-in flash but has major contrast problems even when the subject is close enough for that -- so I had to dredge detail up from the dark end of the histogram) to email to the police, then emailing copies to neighbours. The good news: they caught the driver. The bad news: the owner said the driver din't have permission (stole the keys) so it's probably going to be treated as an uninsured motorist claim, which means a deductible about half as much as my car is worth (and the car is old enough that any suspension damage will total it, so knock wood and hope all I need is an alighnment and the bodywork). I'll say this much about having a PS digital camera to use: the more I use it, the more I want a DSLR. I'm getting a greater appreciation of digital photography from seeing what this camera can do ... and a greater appreciation for my film cameras from seeing what it _won't_ do that I'd been taking for granted for so long. I spent most of the week before last carrying around the digital and a K1000, switching off between the two. -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Batch file type conversions?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to convert 120 tiffs to jpegs, while changing the color space to srgb. Is there a way to do this as a batch process rather than one at a time? The 'convert' program that is part of the ImageMagick suite is a batch-oriented, command-line tool for this sort of transformation. If you're using Linux, obtaining that and getting it running should be trivial; I don't know for sure how much or how little headache installation is under Windows or MacOS -- it _should_ be trivial there as well but I haven't done it myself, as I do 99.5% of my command-line stuff in Linux (and lately more than 70% of my GUI tasks as well, but that's subject to phase-of-moon fluctuations, sunspots, and which house Mercury is in). http://www.imagemagick.org/script/convert.php It looks like[*] it'd be: foreach foo (*.tif) convert $foo -colorspace SRGB `basename $foo .tif`.jpg end in csh/tcsh (under Linux or MacOS) -- someone else would have to give you the sh/bash/ksh syntax. If a Windows command prompt window still works the way I'm used to, you might get away with simply: convert *.tif -colorspace SRGB *.jpg there, depending on just how 'native' the Windows port of ImageMagick is. (If it acts more like a Unix program trying to cope with a Windows environment, instead of acting like an MS-DOS program, then it might be easier to do dir /w temp.bat and then edit temp.bat to be a hundred and twenty 'convert' commands, unless you already have Cygwin installed, in which case you can just fire up a bash or tcsh window under Windows.) -- Glenn [*] Caveat: I've never used the -colorspace option to 'convert', so I'm not 100% certain I've understood this right. But -convert SRGB didn't give me an error message when I tried it on one file just now, so it at least does _something_ ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Moral dilemma
Tom Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Coyle wrote: What would you have done? Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live. The street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told. Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a single photograph. As an individual, amateur photographer, I might have looked for interesting shots relating to the response to the call, but would not have shot the body itself. That is just more than a little morbid for me, and kinda' disrespectful of both the deceased and his/her family. If I were a news photographer, that would depend on the editorial policy of who I was shooting for. [...] That's pretty much what I was going to say, except that I hadn't gotten as far as thinking about what I'd do if I were employed as a news photographer. I'd shoot the overall scene, shots of police collecting evidence other than right next to the body, etc., but while the thought most certainly would have occurred to me, I don't think I would have photographed the body of the victim himself. That can be adequately recorded by some police photographer. I can envision making a different decision depending on circumsttances, if for some reason I thought it was Very Important to tell the story that images of the body would be needed to tell, but I'm not really sure what those circumstances would have to be -- I need to think about it more. I just know that I'd feel ... goulish ... photographing a body in a situation that seemed sensationalist or exploitative or, well I'm having trouble putting my finger on exactly what it is that would seem to make it feel wrong. I'm not sure I can suport this position logically; just that it would feel like I was being creepy. In my neighbourhood, I've had the chance to photograph a lot of fires, a fair number of automobile crashes, a few arrests, and one person lying in the gutter for unknown reasons and whose fate I do not know. (I called 911 _first_; my second act would have been to throw on clothes and go down to see if there were anything to do while waiting for the ambulance, but others appeared on the sidewalk before I'd finished talking to the emergency dispatcher and seemed to by trying to provide assistance in the couple of minutes it took for an ambulance to arrive.) I've also photographed a burglary in progress (while berating the 911 operator for the lack of police response -- the cops did show up _twelve-[expletive]ing_HOURS_later_ despite there being an enhanced enforcement zone (lots of cops positioned ready to go, and surveillance cameras) a mere four or five blocks away!). I've ordinarily got no compunction photographing wrecked cars being hauled away -- including one cut in half by a tree and hauled away on two different rollbacks -- but I also nearly never hear how the occupants fared. The time I spent a while photographing an SUV and a police car smooshed together so firmly that it took two large tow trucks pulling in opposite directions nad laying rubber to pry them apart -- quite a dramatic image -- I felt terrible when I found out later that an officer had still been in the (stopped) police car when the SUV had rammed it. Rational or not, my feeling changed from what a dramatic tangle of metal, to feeling like I'd done something wrong by starting to shoot before finding out how the officer was doing, and I waited around to hear. (He died at the hospital; the driver of the stolen SUV survived.) I don't recall whether I ever got around to having that film developed; this happened years ago. When I had started shooting, the idea that the driver of the SUV could have deliberately rammed an _occupied_ vehicle was so alien to me, that I could only imagine that the officer had bailed after putting his car in position. (The thought still _is_ that alien to me even though I know better.) The question of when it's tsk, tsk, how awful, but I might as well not let these sights go to waste, and when it's I'll feel like a ghoul after I stop concentrating on the viewfinder, is sometimes an easy one and sometimes uneasy. When I'm having trouble figuring out the answer to that, it probably means that I should back off and let the images go unrecorded. If I were shooting for news media, I'd probably have to wade deeper into those less-certain cases. -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
