Re: OT - decisions, decisions ... (photo humor)

[Boris Liberman]

Igor, it is totally a good thing that I did not drink any tea or coffee 
at the moment I opened the picture... Boy I had a good laugh...



On 11/18/2012 9:52 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:


I thought you might enjoy this difficulty of choice:

http://www.gexxxdesign.ru/pictures/canon2.jpg
or for large size:
http://www.gexxxdesign.ru/pictures/canon3.jpg

It says: (in Russian)
"I don't know what to choose"

Each lens has an adjective, which follows the pattern:
"a bit too _-ish"
hard, motley, grim, slim, thin, cool, soft, wide
foolish, narrow, dark, flavorless, reddish, empty, skimpy, raw
vulgar, sweet, weak, muddy, wild, bulky, bad, light
scary,  leguminous, barrel-like, shrunken, expensive, plateresque, long, big
bright, uncomplicated/simple, slimsy, harsh, snaggy, gray, white, stiff
cunning, strange, dim, oblong, heavy, slow, boring, ugly,
round, crooked, oddball/eccentric, rude

PS. The author of this set is a photographer, Vladlen Abdullin,
He specializes in wedding photography:
http://vladlenabdullin.ru/weddings.html
While some photos are oversaturated, there are very interesting ideas.
(If you click on a set, a more detailed set from that wedding opens.)
These might be interesting for some PDMLers.

Igor





--
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 - decisions, decisions ... (photo humor)

[Igor Roshchin]

I thought you might enjoy this difficulty of choice:

http://www.gexxxdesign.ru/pictures/canon2.jpg
or for large size:
http://www.gexxxdesign.ru/pictures/canon3.jpg

It says: (in Russian)
"I don't know what to choose"

Each lens has an adjective, which follows the pattern: 
"a bit too _-ish" 
hard, motley, grim, slim, thin, cool, soft, wide
foolish, narrow, dark, flavorless, reddish, empty, skimpy, raw
vulgar, sweet, weak, muddy, wild, bulky, bad, light
scary,  leguminous, barrel-like, shrunken, expensive, plateresque, long, big
bright, uncomplicated/simple, slimsy, harsh, snaggy, gray, white, stiff
cunning, strange, dim, oblong, heavy, slow, boring, ugly, 
round, crooked, oddball/eccentric, rude

PS. The author of this set is a photographer, Vladlen Abdullin,
He specializes in wedding photography:
http://vladlenabdullin.ru/weddings.html
While some photos are oversaturated, there are very interesting ideas.
(If you click on a set, a more detailed set from that wedding opens.)
These might be interesting for some PDMLers.

Igor


-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Cotty]

On 05/11/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Nothing really wide in that lineup though.  Not at least in that format.

This is true. Already my shooting habits mean that I use the A20 a lot,
not so much the 85. The 50 will be fine, and then the 85 can come back
to EOS ;-)

If I want wide, the K15 on the 1DmII is pretty good.

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Nov 5, 2007, at 6:56 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> Cotty wrote:
>> On 05/11/07, Antti-Pekka Virjonen, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>
>>> Just admit it Cotty, you really want one of these next, the girl  
>>> not the
>>> gun ;-). Or maybe both.
>>>
>>
>> Hey I'll take what i can get!
>>
>> Seriously, I'm done with buying kit for now. I just won a K50 1.4 and
>> that completes my purchases for now. I'll use it with my DMC-L1 along
>> with A20 2.8 and 85 1.4. A camera and three primes - simple :-)
>
> Nothing really wide in that lineup though.  Not at least in that  
> format.

If Cotty wants something wide for the L1, the lens to have is the  
Olympus ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5. A superb performer.

That said, a 20, 50 and 85 is a very nice kit for the L1 ... No  
reason that you always have to have all bases covered, just the ones  
you want to use. I've got a few more options, but the lenses I use  
most are a Nikkor 20/3.5 and Olympus 35/3.5 Macro with the L1 body.  
The addition of the 25/1.4 to have one very fast normal lens is  
something I'm considering. I use the FA43/1.9 with it too.

Godfrey



-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[P. J. Alling]

Nothing really wide in that lineup though.  Not at least in that format.

Cotty wrote:
> On 05/11/07, Antti-Pekka Virjonen, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>   
>> Just admit it Cotty, you really want one of these next, the girl not the
>> gun ;-). Or maybe both.
>> 
>
> Hey I'll take what i can get!
>
> Seriously, I'm done with buying kit for now. I just won a K50 1.4 and
> that completes my purchases for now. I'll use it with my DMC-L1 along
> with A20 2.8 and 85 1.4. A camera and three primes - simple :-)
>
>   


-- 
The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the 
difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team.

-- P. J. O'Roark


-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Cotty]

On 05/11/07, Antti-Pekka Virjonen, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Just admit it Cotty, you really want one of these next, the girl not the
>gun ;-). Or maybe both.

Hey I'll take what i can get!

Seriously, I'm done with buying kit for now. I just won a K50 1.4 and
that completes my purchases for now. I'll use it with my DMC-L1 along
with A20 2.8 and 85 1.4. A camera and three primes - simple :-)

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Antti-Pekka Virjonen]

> 
> 
> The battery, no the girl. She has mad eyes.
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty

Nahh, she is just crazy about that big gun.

Just admit it Cotty, you really want one of these next, the girl not the
gun ;-). Or maybe both.

Antti-Pekka


Antti-Pekka Virjonen

Computec Oy
R&D Turku

www.computec.fi 


-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Christian]

Good point!  Guess I wasn't thinking...

Christian

graywolf wrote:
> Why not do the initial build at home then move the box to your parents?
> 
> 
> Christian wrote:
> 
>> A friend added to the paranoia the other day and suggested running 
>> another rsync job to another Linux box at my parents' house for even 
>> more redundancy.  Not a bad idea...  The initial sync would take hours 
>> over the internet but changes and additions would go relatively quickly.
>>
> 


-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[graywolf]

Why not do the initial build at home then move the box to your parents?


Christian wrote:

> A friend added to the paranoia the other day and suggested running 
> another rsync job to another Linux box at my parents' house for even 
> more redundancy.  Not a bad idea...  The initial sync would take hours 
> over the internet but changes and additions would go relatively quickly.
> 

-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Christian]

P. J. Alling wrote:
> She looks like she can chew up nails and spit them out as bullets...
> 

My kind of girl  and she excellent taste in lenses. :-)

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

> Cotty wrote:

>> 
>>
>> The battery, no the girl. She has mad eyes.




-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Tom C]

Thanks to all for the suggestions and insight.

I decided to go with the two 500GB drives configured as a RAID 1 array.  I 
like the idea of having an automatic, almost real-time backup of the primary 
drive.  I also chose this option because drives in general are dirt cheap 
and I can install another one or two shortly after getting it.

In fact, I'm likely to install two more 500GB drives, so I have plenty of 
space and options for allocating swap and scratch.

I was telling my son how cheap this stuff is. Back in the late '80's I 
worked on a project where I recovered 4.5GB of DASD on IBM 3380's.  That was 
on my resume for 10 years because it represented over $750K savings to the 
company. I took that off several years ago.  4GB drives, if they can be 
found anymore are dirt cheap.  A 4GB microdrive goes for under $100, not 
mention that 4GB solid state CF are now so inexpensive as to make 
microdrives look like dinosaurs.

Tom C.


>From: David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>Subject: Re: OT- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions
>Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:04:49 +0900
>
>At 05:03 AM 2/11/2007, you wrote:
> >I'm within hours from making a decision regarding a new desktop.
> >
> >I'm currently using PS2.  The desktop comes with Vista Home Premium, 
>though
> >it's possible I'll go to XP Pro depending on how performance seems.  I'm 
>on
> >a laptop at present with Vista Business.  No major complaints after 
>turning
> >off eye candy, reminders, automatic scheduled processes, and telling it 
>to
> >look like classic windows.
> >
> >I'll likely get 1TB of storage.  But there are options.
> >
> >1.  2 X 500 GB non-RAID SATA drives.
> >2.  2 X 500 GB configured as RAID 0.
> >3.  2 X 500 GB configured as RAID 1.
> >
> >Let's forget option 3 since I can backup to any external drive I want.
> >
> >To the meat of my question... Ideally the Windows virtual swap file and
> >Photoshop scratch area are not supposed to be on the same physical disk.
> >With option 2 though, Windows and CS2 will see 1 big drive.  Who can tell
> >which physical drive is being utilized for what?  It seems counter to 
>what I
> >think would be the best approach (which is to have an additional RAID 0
> >array for PS Scratch, which I won't).
> >
> >While a little performance may be lost, might it be better to go with a
> >non-RAID configuration and be sure that Windows swap and Photoshop 
>scratch
> >are on two independent physical devices? Any one have experience with 
>this
> >exactly.
> >
> >Also, I'm a little afraid of RAID 0 and recoverability. Thanks.
>
>Stay away from RAID 0 for file storage. I lost 8 months of data (which I
>didn't back-up) due to a drive that physically destroyed itself.
>
>I recommend building your workstation for speed, & looking into Network
>Attached Storage (NAS) for file storage/back-up. (I'm currently considering
>a Netgear ReadyNAS configured for RAID 5.)
>
>If you went that route, option 1 (or ideally 2), would be the way to go 
>IMHO.
>
>Also, check the windows web site. There is a white paper there about
>configuring your system for digital imaging.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>--
>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.



-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[P. J. Alling]

She looks like she can chew up nails and spit them out as bullets...

Cotty wrote:
> On 02/11/07, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>   
>> On a happy note:  I just took delivery of a beautiful 580EX to replace 
>> my dead Smegma 500.   m shiny, new flash.
>> 
>
> Ooooh. I've had mine for a while now - still haven't figured it out. I
> hate flash. I stick the camera on manual, 1/250th and f8 and the flash
> is spot-on every time, direct or bounced. You'll really want one of
> these next :-)
>
> 
>
> The battery, no the girl. She has mad eyes.
>
>   


-- 
The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the 
difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team.

-- P. J. O'Roark


-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Cotty]

On 02/11/07, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:

>On a happy note:  I just took delivery of a beautiful 580EX to replace 
>my dead Smegma 500.   m shiny, new flash.

Ooooh. I've had mine for a while now - still haven't figured it out. I
hate flash. I stick the camera on manual, 1/250th and f8 and the flash
is spot-on every time, direct or bounced. You'll really want one of
these next :-)



The battery, no the girl. She has mad eyes.

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Christian]

Cotty wrote:

> Dude - you want to move from there, sounds like a dangerous place to live.
> 

Wild, wild, Freaking, West...  Even my Kid's hamster is armed

On a happy note:  I just took delivery of a beautiful 580EX to replace 
my dead Smegma 500.   m shiny, new flash.

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Christian]

Christian wrote:
> Cotty wrote:
> 
>> Dude - you want to move from there, sounds like a dangerous place to 
>> live.
>>
> 
> Wild, wild, Freaking, West...  Even my Kid's hamster is armed
> 
> On a happy note:  I just took delivery of a beautiful 580EX to replace 
> my dead Smegma 500.   m shiny, new flash.
> 

Ok then sorry for the Canon pr0n...  That was meant to be off-list. 
  Must... not...  turn...  red...

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Cotty]

On 02/11/07, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:

> what if I had to leave my house and 
>only had a few minutes to get the family to safety?  All my kids' and 
>family pictures are stored digitally and I worry about losing them to 
>natural disaster or some other tragedy including computer crashes.  So 
>here is my latest scheme:
>
>Once a week or more I manually run an rsync command to sync the files 
>from the Linux box to an external USB drive.  If I have to leave the 
>house in a hurry I can just grab the external enclosure which is in the 
>office next to the front door.
>
>A friend added to the paranoia the other day and suggested running 
>another rsync job to another Linux box at my parents' house for even 
>more redundancy.  Not a bad idea...  The initial sync would take hours 
>over the internet but changes and additions would go relatively quickly.

Dude - you want to move from there, sounds like a dangerous place to live.

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Christian]

The fires in California got me thinking about my image storage and 
backup requirements.  I thought, what if I had to leave my house and 
only had a few minutes to get the family to safety?  All my kids' and 
family pictures are stored digitally and I worry about losing them to 
natural disaster or some other tragedy including computer crashes.  So 
here is my latest scheme:

All my images (I only have 95GB stored currently) are on one 320GB SATA 
drive on my Windows XP Pro box for editing in PSCS3.  The windows system 
has 1 other 320GB SATA drive for storage, a 160GB IDE drive for OS and 
programs and a 60GB SATA drive for PS scratch.  At ~4am every day I have 
an rsync cron job kick off on my Linux system that syncs files from the 
Windows box to my Linux box where I have 2x 320GB SATA drives in a RAID 
1 set.  The Windows filesystem is mounted via CIFS on the Linux box.

Once a week or more I manually run an rsync command to sync the files 
from the Linux box to an external USB drive.  If I have to leave the 
house in a hurry I can just grab the external enclosure which is in the 
office next to the front door.

A friend added to the paranoia the other day and suggested running 
another rsync job to another Linux box at my parents' house for even 
more redundancy.  Not a bad idea...  The initial sync would take hours 
over the internet but changes and additions would go relatively quickly.

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While a little performance may be lost, might it be better to go with a 
> non-RAID configuration and be sure that Windows swap and Photoshop scratch 
> are on two independent physical devices? Any one have experience with this 
> exactly.
> 
> Also, I'm a little afraid of RAID 0 and recoverability. Thanks.

As I understand it, the only performance loss will be in read/write of files.  
Not really a problem for other than gamers, especially at the real-world times 
we are talking about. So it takes 10 seconds to write a file instead of 7.  No 
problem for me.

I would be more than a little afraid of Raid 0.  But, then, I am a notoriously 
lethargic backer-upper.


-
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[David Savage]

At 05:03 AM 2/11/2007, you wrote:
>I'm within hours from making a decision regarding a new desktop.
>
>I'm currently using PS2.  The desktop comes with Vista Home Premium, though
>it's possible I'll go to XP Pro depending on how performance seems.  I'm on
>a laptop at present with Vista Business.  No major complaints after turning
>off eye candy, reminders, automatic scheduled processes, and telling it to
>look like classic windows.
>
>I'll likely get 1TB of storage.  But there are options.
>
>1.  2 X 500 GB non-RAID SATA drives.
>2.  2 X 500 GB configured as RAID 0.
>3.  2 X 500 GB configured as RAID 1.
>
>Let's forget option 3 since I can backup to any external drive I want.
>
>To the meat of my question... Ideally the Windows virtual swap file and
>Photoshop scratch area are not supposed to be on the same physical disk.
>With option 2 though, Windows and CS2 will see 1 big drive.  Who can tell
>which physical drive is being utilized for what?  It seems counter to what I
>think would be the best approach (which is to have an additional RAID 0
>array for PS Scratch, which I won't).
>
>While a little performance may be lost, might it be better to go with a
>non-RAID configuration and be sure that Windows swap and Photoshop scratch
>are on two independent physical devices? Any one have experience with this
>exactly.
>
>Also, I'm a little afraid of RAID 0 and recoverability. Thanks.

Stay away from RAID 0 for file storage. I lost 8 months of data (which I 
didn't back-up) due to a drive that physically destroyed itself.

I recommend building your workstation for speed, & looking into Network 
Attached Storage (NAS) for file storage/back-up. (I'm currently considering 
a Netgear ReadyNAS configured for RAID 5.)

If you went that route, option 1 (or ideally 2), would be the way to go IMHO.

Also, check the windows web site. There is a white paper there about 
configuring your system for digital imaging.

Cheers,

Dave



-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"
Subject: OT- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions


> I'm within hours from making a decision regarding a new desktop.
>
> I'm currently using PS2.  The desktop comes with Vista Home Premium, 
> though
> it's possible I'll go to XP Pro depending on how performance seems.  I'm 
> on
> a laptop at present with Vista Business.  No major complaints after 
> turning
> off eye candy, reminders, automatic scheduled processes, and telling it to
> look like classic windows.
>
> I'll likely get 1TB of storage.  But there are options.
>
> 1.  2 X 500 GB non-RAID SATA drives.
> 2.  2 X 500 GB configured as RAID 0.
> 3.  2 X 500 GB configured as RAID 1.
>
> Let's forget option 3 since I can backup to any external drive I want.
>
> To the meat of my question... Ideally the Windows virtual swap file and
> Photoshop scratch area are not supposed to be on the same physical disk.
> With option 2 though, Windows and CS2 will see 1 big drive.  Who can tell
> which physical drive is being utilized for what?  It seems counter to what 
> I
> think would be the best approach (which is to have an additional RAID 0
> array for PS Scratch, which I won't).
>
> While a little performance may be lost, might it be better to go with a
> non-RAID configuration and be sure that Windows swap and Photoshop scratch
> are on two independent physical devices? Any one have experience with this
> exactly.
>
> Also, I'm a little afraid of RAID 0 and recoverability. Thanks.

With 2 drives, I'd stear clear of RAID.
With 2 drives, you can to either Raid 0 (fast, but half the reliability of a 
single drive) or RAID 1 (twice the reliability of a single drive, but half 
the capacity).
Put your PS swap onto the second drive.

I ended up with 5 drives, 4 of which are configured as two seperate RAIDs 
(0+1).

William Robb 


-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Tom C]

PS2... meant Photoshop CS2.



Tom C.


>From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: pdml@pdml.net
>Subject: OT- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions
>Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:03:51 -0700
>
>I'm within hours from making a decision regarding a new desktop.
>
>I'm currently using PS2.  The desktop comes with Vista Home Premium, though
>it's possible I'll go to XP Pro depending on how performance seems.  I'm on
>a laptop at present with Vista Business.  No major complaints after turning
>off eye candy, reminders, automatic scheduled processes, and telling it to
>look like classic windows.
>
>I'll likely get 1TB of storage.  But there are options.
>
>1.  2 X 500 GB non-RAID SATA drives.
>2.  2 X 500 GB configured as RAID 0.
>3.  2 X 500 GB configured as RAID 1.
>
>Let's forget option 3 since I can backup to any external drive I want.
>
>To the meat of my question... Ideally the Windows virtual swap file and
>Photoshop scratch area are not supposed to be on the same physical disk.
>With option 2 though, Windows and CS2 will see 1 big drive.  Who can tell
>which physical drive is being utilized for what?  It seems counter to what 
>I
>think would be the best approach (which is to have an additional RAID 0
>array for PS Scratch, which I won't).
>
>While a little performance may be lost, might it be better to go with a
>non-RAID configuration and be sure that Windows swap and Photoshop scratch
>are on two independent physical devices? Any one have experience with this
>exactly.
>
>Also, I'm a little afraid of RAID 0 and recoverability. Thanks.
>
>Tom C.
>
>
>
>--
>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.



-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[pnstenquist]

I use a plumped up version of option one: five 500 GB non-RAID SATA drives. I 
back up important work on alternate drives as necessary, and I back up all 
photo files on DVD. Non-RAID individual drives give me lots of flexibility. 
That's what I like.
Paul
 -- Original message --
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm within hours from making a decision regarding a new desktop.
> 
> I'm currently using PS2.  The desktop comes with Vista Home Premium, though 
> it's possible I'll go to XP Pro depending on how performance seems.  I'm on 
> a laptop at present with Vista Business.  No major complaints after turning 
> off eye candy, reminders, automatic scheduled processes, and telling it to 
> look like classic windows.
> 
> I'll likely get 1TB of storage.  But there are options.
> 
> 1.  2 X 500 GB non-RAID SATA drives.
> 2.  2 X 500 GB configured as RAID 0.
> 3.  2 X 500 GB configured as RAID 1.
> 
> Let's forget option 3 since I can backup to any external drive I want.
> 
> To the meat of my question... Ideally the Windows virtual swap file and 
> Photoshop scratch area are not supposed to be on the same physical disk.  
> With option 2 though, Windows and CS2 will see 1 big drive.  Who can tell 
> which physical drive is being utilized for what?  It seems counter to what I 
> think would be the best approach (which is to have an additional RAID 0 
> array for PS Scratch, which I won't).
> 
> While a little performance may be lost, might it be better to go with a 
> non-RAID configuration and be sure that Windows swap and Photoshop scratch 
> are on two independent physical devices? Any one have experience with this 
> exactly.
> 
> Also, I'm a little afraid of RAID 0 and recoverability. Thanks.
> 
> Tom C.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.


-- 
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- PC, Photoshop, and RAID Decisions, Decisions

[Tom C]

I'm within hours from making a decision regarding a new desktop.

I'm currently using PS2.  The desktop comes with Vista Home Premium, though 
it's possible I'll go to XP Pro depending on how performance seems.  I'm on 
a laptop at present with Vista Business.  No major complaints after turning 
off eye candy, reminders, automatic scheduled processes, and telling it to 
look like classic windows.

I'll likely get 1TB of storage.  But there are options.

1.  2 X 500 GB non-RAID SATA drives.
2.  2 X 500 GB configured as RAID 0.
3.  2 X 500 GB configured as RAID 1.

Let's forget option 3 since I can backup to any external drive I want.

To the meat of my question... Ideally the Windows virtual swap file and 
Photoshop scratch area are not supposed to be on the same physical disk.  
With option 2 though, Windows and CS2 will see 1 big drive.  Who can tell 
which physical drive is being utilized for what?  It seems counter to what I 
think would be the best approach (which is to have an additional RAID 0 
array for PS Scratch, which I won't).

While a little performance may be lost, might it be better to go with a 
non-RAID configuration and be sure that Windows swap and Photoshop scratch 
are on two independent physical devices? Any one have experience with this 
exactly.

Also, I'm a little afraid of RAID 0 and recoverability. Thanks.

Tom C.



-- 
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: Decisions, decisions...

[Herb Chong]

i understand and my guess that in about 3 years, they will be selling full 
frame sensors at all but the entry level cameras. however, that is about 3 
years too late for me.


Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "pentax list" 
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...



AFAIK it is Canon's plan to consolidate the top line into one model,
obviously full frame with the higher frame rate, and that's just a matter
of the electronics handling the data quickly enough. It will happen. They
don't want people using ~200mm 2.8 focal lengths for sport when there's
much more expensive ~300mm and 400mm 2.8s to be sold

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Cotty]

On 10/9/05, Herb Chong, discombobulated, unleashed:

>from a megapixels point of view, they have settled. higher frame rate has 
>its cost. on the film side of things, the tradeoff never had to be made in 
>the same way. a piece of film has the same resolution in every camera body, 
>as JCO is fond of pointing out.

AFAIK it is Canon's plan to consolidate the top line into one model,
obviously full frame with the higher frame rate, and that's just a matter
of the electronics handling the data quickly enough. It will happen. They
don't want people using ~200mm 2.8 focal lengths for sport when there's
much more expensive ~300mm and 400mm 2.8s to be sold




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Herb Chong]

from a megapixels point of view, they have settled. higher frame rate has 
its cost. on the film side of things, the tradeoff never had to be made in 
the same way. a piece of film has the same resolution in every camera body, 
as JCO is fond of pointing out.


Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "pentax list" 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...



If a sports shooter had unlimited funds and had to choose between the two
Canon models above, which one do you think he would choose? And so you're
saying he's settling for second best?

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Cotty]

On 9/9/05, Herb Chong, discombobulated, unleashed:

>D2X and 1Ds Mk2. price is enough.

Sorry Herb, I have to disagree. Why would Canon run the 1DsmkII and the
1DmkII in tandem? The answer is that they both fulfil different needs,
based on current technology.

If a sports shooter had unlimited funds and had to choose between the two
Canon models above, which one do you think he would choose? And so you're
saying he's settling for second best?




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Herb Chong]

D2X and 1Ds Mk2. price is enough.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "pentax list" 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...



Please define a top-of-the range Nikon and Canons.

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Herb Chong]

they cost about half the price of the top of the line bodies.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...


Those, being full-on Pro bodies for PJ work, would not be 'mid-range' in 
my books. Mid-range in my books is the D70 or 20d (Since Nikon doesn't 
have a real mid-range body at the moment). The

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Steve Jolly]

Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:

Btw: did you saw the dpreview news? There is a new Sony camera, a
prosumer with the new 10MP APS-C sized Sony sensor. That's the reason
I don't know if I should wait or not (the sensor, not the camera). The
problem is nobody seems to think we'll see a new DS with this sensor
in spring (or am I wrong?).


Actually the sensor used in this new Sony is SLIGHTLY smaller than APS-C. It
has 1.7x crop compared to 35 mm frame. I bet there will be another new APS-C
sensor from Sony, but I am afraid that now Konica-Minolta would have
priority acess to it because of cooperation between these two companies.


By my reading of the dpreview article, that sensor is for EVF cameras, 
not DSLRs.


S

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu]

On 9/8/05, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that waiting for the "next" model will provide a
> significant improvement that's cost effective.
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 

Neither do I. But more MP will give me more room for cropping (yup,
I'm a lousy photographer who can't get the composition right :) ) and
will allow me to keep the camera longer. I decided few years ago that
I'll go digital when I could buy a nice 8MP+ DSLR, and the *istDS *is*
a nice camera. I thought I could wait for the next Sony sensor, but...
4 rolls or film destroyed by our dear minilabs and suddenly waiting
doesn't seems such a god ideea. And 6MP are certainly enough for A4
prints.
I guess it's just the fear my brand new camera will be outdated one
month after purchase. Quite silly.

Thank you (all) for your replies - you're really helpful when it comes
to enablement 

In fact - to be honest - I'm waiting for a camera with "Ansel"&"HCB"
modes - instead of those useless Picture Modes nobody uses 

-- 
Best regards,
Alex Sarbu

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Cotty]

On 8/9/05, Herb Chong, discombobulated, unleashed:

>i said mid-range Nikon and Canons. that means 1D Mk2 and D2H.


Please define a top-of-the range Nikon and Canons.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Adam Maas]

Those, being full-on Pro bodies for PJ work, would not be 'mid-range' in 
my books. Mid-range in my books is the D70 or 20d (Since Nikon doesn't 
have a real mid-range body at the moment). The


-Adan



Herb Chong wrote:


i said mid-range Nikon and Canons. that means 1D Mk2 and D2H.

Herb...
- Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...


The only one I'm aware of is the (much) larger buffer in the D70, D50 
and 350D/XT and the generally better write speeds. AF is essentially 
on par (Nikon's with AF-S and Canon's with proper ring-type USM may 
be faster in some situations, but the SAFOX VIII sensor has better 
coverage and more cross-type sensors than the competition. Neither 
the 350D or the D70 are AF speed-demons).

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Herb Chong]

i said mid-range Nikon and Canons. that means 1D Mk2 and D2H.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...


The only one I'm aware of is the (much) larger buffer in the D70, D50 
and 350D/XT and the generally better write speeds. AF is essentially on 
par (Nikon's with AF-S and Canon's with proper ring-type USM may be 
faster in some situations, but the SAFOX VIII sensor has better coverage 
and more cross-type sensors than the competition. Neither the 350D or 
the D70 are AF speed-demons).

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Herb Chong]

buffer size and AF speed. some of them handle focus tracking of moving 
objects better too.


Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...


Out of interest, what are the features in question that the mid-range 
Canons and Nikons have over the Pentax DSLRs?

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Adam Maas]

Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Herb Chong wrote:

all of Pentax's SLRs and all of their DSLRs have limitations that 
prevent me from capturing in about 10% of the situations i shoot, by 
design. these are situations where i know the mid-level Nikon's and 
Canons are capable of getting the shot.



Out of interest, what are the features in question that the mid-range 
Canons and Nikons have over the Pentax DSLRs?


Kostas


The only one I'm aware of is the (much) larger buffer in the D70, D50 
and 350D/XT and the generally better write speeds. AF is essentially on 
par (Nikon's with AF-S and Canon's with proper ring-type USM may be 
faster in some situations, but the SAFOX VIII sensor has better coverage 
and more cross-type sensors than the competition. Neither the 350D or 
the D70 are AF speed-demons).


-Adam

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Herb Chong wrote:

all of Pentax's SLRs and all of their DSLRs have limitations that prevent me 
from capturing in about 10% of the situations i shoot, by design. these are 
situations where i know the mid-level Nikon's and Canons are capable of 
getting the shot.


Out of interest, what are the features in question that the mid-range 
Canons and Nikons have over the Pentax DSLRs?


Kostas

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Herb Chong]

all of Pentax's SLRs and all of their DSLRs have limitations that prevent me 
from capturing in about 10% of the situations i shoot, by design. these are 
situations where i know the mid-level Nikon's and Canons are capable of 
getting the shot.


Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "R.C.Booth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...


I agree.  Faster AF hasn't been an issue for me since all I have are manual 
focus lenses.  As with computers, the latest model is always a bit obsolete 
by the time it hits the market - its never ending.  My biggest concerns are 
image quality and how it handles and the D does very well in each respect. 
And, I've begun to figure out the processing of RAW files and am very 
impressed with the results.

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[R.C.Booth]

I agree.  Faster AF hasn't been an issue for me since all I have are manual 
focus lenses.  As with computers, the latest model is always a bit obsolete 
by the time it hits the market - its never ending.  My biggest concerns are 
image quality and how it handles and the D does very well in each respect. 
And, I've begun to figure out the processing of RAW files and am very 
impressed with the results.


RCB
- Original Message - 
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...



On 9/8/05, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Strangely enough, several of us seem to manage quite well with the "D"

A higher frame rate, and faster AF, would definitely be welcome.  But
unless it's your primary source of income the "D" can serve quite well.



I think we've reached the point now where many "improvements" may be
more sales hype than devices that will allow one to obtain better
photos.

Prices of dslr's seem to have stabilized, and are such that quality
bodies loaded with useful features are available for most amateurs.

I don't think that waiting for the "next" model will provide a
significant improvement that's cost effective.

cheers,
frank


--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[frank theriault]

On 9/8/05, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Strangely enough, several of us seem to manage quite well with the "D"
> 
> A higher frame rate, and faster AF, would definitely be welcome.  But
> unless it's your primary source of income the "D" can serve quite well.
> 

I think we've reached the point now where many "improvements" may be
more sales hype than devices that will allow one to obtain better
photos.

Prices of dslr's seem to have stabilized, and are such that quality
bodies loaded with useful features are available for most amateurs.

I don't think that waiting for the "next" model will provide a
significant improvement that's cost effective.

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[danilo]

I agree with you Jens.
Digital cameras aren't a new technology that needs several improves anymore.
Those days are gone. (even if it was three years ago)
What we have now is enough for most people.
Of course you can wait for the next model, but then, why not wait more
for the *next one* again? (and so on)
As you say it's the same with computer, everyday the prices go down
and the specs go up, so maybe the real question is "do I need/want a
digital camera today?"
If your answer is "yes" go buy what you can find now (this is also a
particular moment, when you may find a new *Ist-D for less than 900$,
as someonewlse said).
If your answer is "I can wait" then wait, but when  you'll can't don't
wait for "the next one", cause there will always be a "next one" to
drool onto! lol
If your answer is "I need it but I will also want the newer model
that, within an year will reach the shelves", then consider buying one
used one instead..

In this "everyday better" scenario, you, pentax users, have also some
advantages, as pentax camera seems to "resist" longer than other
brand's ones (canon for one).
It's like buying a Mac, you know that that model will last longer than
a PC... (not that it will become better with time, hey it's not a
bottle of wine!!)


just my 2 cents.

by,
danilo.

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Sylwester Pietrzyk]

Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote on 08.09.05 11:01:

> Btw: did you saw the dpreview news? There is a new Sony camera, a
> prosumer with the new 10MP APS-C sized Sony sensor. That's the reason
> I don't know if I should wait or not (the sensor, not the camera). The
> problem is nobody seems to think we'll see a new DS with this sensor
> in spring (or am I wrong?).
Actually the sensor used in this new Sony is SLIGHTLY smaller than APS-C. It
has 1.7x crop compared to 35 mm frame. I bet there will be another new APS-C
sensor from Sony, but I am afraid that now Konica-Minolta would have
priority acess to it because of cooperation between these two companies.

-- 
Balance is the ultimate good...

Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu]

On 9/8/05, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Go for a high end digital camera now (DSLR) camera. It's not important wich
> one as long as it's a Pentax - to facilitate your expensive lenses - and
> future lenses. Changing brand is a very expensive PITA. Be prepared to buy a
> new body every 2-5 years. The same as with (other) computers.
 
> 
> Jens Bladt
> Arkitekt MAA
> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
> 

Well, my "expensive lens" is the FA 50mm f/1.7. But you're right, it
will be a Pentax DSLR.
Btw: did you saw the dpreview news? There is a new Sony camera, a
prosumer with the new 10MP APS-C sized Sony sensor. That's the reason
I don't know if I should wait or not (the sensor, not the camera). The
problem is nobody seems to think we'll see a new DS with this sensor
in spring (or am I wrong?).
I could keep a 10MP camera 2-5 years, but I would be surprized to keep
an *istDS more than 2. I'm a lousy photographer, so I need more pixels
for croping ;)

With the computers it's not exactly the same situation. I could
upgrade it when necessary, add more RAM, a new hard drive, even change
the mainboard&CPU (I'll have to do that someday in order to be able to
use a PCI Express video card).
With a camera, I don't have this option.

-- 
Best regards,
Alex Sarbu

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[John Francis]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 07:29:44AM +0200, Jens Bladt wrote:
> 
> I love using the "D", except the buffer is too small (make five shots, then
> wait 30-40 seconds :-(
> AF is too slow for some occations. It's not a camera for sports photography.
> For that you'll need 8 4-8 FPS, a larger  buffer and very fast AF.

Strangely enough, several of us seem to manage quite well with the "D"

A higher frame rate, and faster AF, would definitely be welcome.  But
unless it's your primary source of income the "D" can serve quite well.

RE: Decisions, decisions...

[Jens Bladt]

Buy two 512 or 1024 MB cards. Get a portable hard drive with a card reader.
It will suit both CF and SD for the next years of camera buys! If you have
two different cameras at the same time - no problem. A portable hard drive
is cheaper than a few 4GB cards.

Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. september 2005 23:52
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Decisions, decisions...


Because different cards donìt give you different taste on images (like
different film).
Because memory cards aren't disposable (like film), hence you are not forced
to buy them again and again for shoting.
Using different cards will only force you to buy more cards for having
enough CF and enough SD for your needs. Why?

Dario

- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...


>I don't see what difference it makes.  I shoot different brands and types
> of film.  Why don't you think it a good idea?
>
> Shel
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Dario Bonazza <
>
>> Shel,
>>
>> I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need
> some
>> D specs.
>>
>
>

RE: Decisions, decisions...

[Jens Bladt]

People who wants to buy a computer often ask the same question. Perhaps if I
wait, something better will be around, and probably cheaper. It's getting
cheaper and better alle the time. Well, it doesn't change that fast. Pentax
doesn'øt change that fast. Most earlier Pentax top (film) models have lasted
5-15 years. For digital they'll probably be in the market for a year,
perhaps two.

That's true, but IMHO not a good reason to wait. Get on board now. The
sooner the better. Get some experience and a lot of nice shots.

Go for a high end digital camera now (DSLR) camera. It's not important wich
one as long as it's a Pentax - to facilitate your expensive lenses - and
future lenses. Changing brand is a very expensive PITA. Be prepared to buy a
new body every 2-5 years. The same as with (other) computers.

6MP is fine for most work - you can make nice prints in A4-size (8x12") at
300 ppi - and even larger if you res up a lot in PS or similar. If you wmat
8 , 10 or 14 MP you must remember to spend more money on new harddrives as
well. When I shoot appr, 130 pics takes up 1,5 GB of hard drive space. More
MP's means more need for computer space. When will you need a larger picture
than 8x10"?

I love using the "D", except the buffer is too small (make five shots, then
wait 30-40 seconds :-(
AF is too slow for some occations. It's not a camera for sports photography.
For that you'll need 8 4-8 FPS, a larger  buffer and very fast AF. For
"normal" shooting it's an excellent choise and a very pleasant camera to
use. Very high quality. Mine has done almost 20.000 shots and works and
looks exactly as when I first got it one year ago.

I don't know the DS, but it seeems to be higly valued in reviews. It has a
larger buffer than the "D" but can't make TIFF's (who needs this anyway - I
shoot RAW exclusively?)


Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. september 2005 22:08
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Decisions, decisions...


Hello everyone!

My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to
some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs.
I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't
stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few
more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very
expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes,
it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this
year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes
better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at.
But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new
cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3
cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see
another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera
only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model.

Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D
replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at
this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains
hurts too 
Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem.

--
Best regards,
Alex Sarbu (which don't knows what "brief" means ;) )

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Shel Belinkoff]

Thanks for the reminder about the adapter.  

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi 

> IF you buy a DS and have a few SD cards, THEN buy a D, you are not  
> necessarily in a bad position. There are several vendors offering SD- 
>  >CF card adapters that allow you to use your SD cards in CF cameras,  
> with a 10-20% performance penalty. This is not so bad as it seems  
> since the D has relatively slow write performance anyway: the card  
> plus adapter is not the bottleneck.

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[derbyc]

Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


> However, storage cards are reasonably inexpensive and generally a one- 
> time purchase. Two 1G cards rated at 45-60x, in either CF or SD  
> format, are a little less than $160. That's ten rolls of film plus  
> processing, less than two/three weeks film consumption for me, and  
> you can reuse the cards for many thousands of cycles.
> 
> Godfrey
> 

Yeah, storage is just so cheap, it isn't worth too much thought these days. I
picked up a 2GB SD card for $209 aussie the other week, and already it has paid
for itself I think, just in the convenience. And just a quick calculation (*),
use the card fully about three times, and it's paid back in D&P costs.

Only weird thing, while the card reads fine on my reader at home, the card
reader at work won't recognise the 2GB. It comes up as a FAT disk, but it's all
gobbledygook in Windows explorer.


* 188 frames=5 rolls of film = ~$50 for film + $25 for developing only.
209/75=2.8

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 9/6/2005 1:44:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a) buy the *istDS
b) wait a little for the DS2 (well, buying from bhphotovideo is cheaper)
c) wait for the DS2 replacement. That could mean... next summer? Or I
can hope to see it at PMA?

WTF, my car is cheaper than a camera . No kidding.

Alex Sarbu
===
Surprisingly, 6mp makes for a very fine picture. 8mp is not much better, and 
most claim they can't see a difference. It has to be more like 12mp before you 
can see a difference.

H_ll, I was tempted by the DS (I have the Canon digital rebel). 

So if I were you, I'd go with the DS if its feature set is good enough for 
you. I doubt they will go lower and they might start disappearing.

My .02 cents.

Marnie aka Doe 

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

IF you buy a DS and have a few SD cards, THEN buy a D, you are not  
necessarily in a bad position. There are several vendors offering SD- 
>CF card adapters that allow you to use your SD cards in CF cameras,  
with a 10-20% performance penalty. This is not so bad as it seems  
since the D has relatively slow write performance anyway: the card  
plus adapter is not the bottleneck.


If you have a D and then buy a DS, that's a bit of a pain as you have  
to buy SD cards: there's no adapter possible that will allow a CF  
card to be used in an SD slot.


However, storage cards are reasonably inexpensive and generally a one- 
time purchase. Two 1G cards rated at 45-60x, in either CF or SD  
format, are a little less than $160. That's ten rolls of film plus  
processing, less than two/three weeks film consumption for me, and  
you can reuse the cards for many thousands of cycles.


Godfrey


On Sep 6, 2005, at 3:24 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

OK, thanks ... there's some sense in what you say.  However, first  
I must
spend some time with a properly set up and working DS to know  
better how I
like digital and what features I really want and need.  I shall  
keep your

comments in mind when/if the time comes to get a second body.

Shel




[Original Message]
From: Dario Bonazza
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...

In other words, if you need say 1GB (max.), you have to buy 2 GB  
(1 GB CF



+

1GB SD) for having 1 GB wit any camera (in case one fails, in case  
you



are


continuing using one for some reason, etc.).

Dario

- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...



I don't see what difference it makes.  I shoot different brands  
and types

of film.  Why don't you think it a good idea?

Shel




[Original Message]
From: Dario Bonazza <





Shel,

I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you  
truly need



some


D specs.

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Shel Belinkoff]

OK, thanks ... there's some sense in what you say.  However, first I must
spend some time with a properly set up and working DS to know better how I
like digital and what features I really want and need.  I shall keep your
comments in mind when/if the time comes to get a second body.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Dario Bonazza 
> Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...
>
> In other words, if you need say 1GB (max.), you have to buy 2 GB (1 GB CF
+ 
> 1GB SD) for having 1 GB wit any camera (in case one fails, in case you
are 
> continuing using one for some reason, etc.).
>
> Dario
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...
>
>
> >I don't see what difference it makes.  I shoot different brands and types
> > of film.  Why don't you think it a good idea?
> >
> > Shel
> >
> >
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: Dario Bonazza <
> >
> >> Shel,
> >>
> >> I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need
> > some
> >> D specs.
> >>
> >
> > 

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Dario Bonazza]

In other words, if you need say 1GB (max.), you have to buy 2 GB (1 GB CF + 
1GB SD) for having 1 GB wit any camera (in case one fails, in case you are 
continuing using one for some reason, etc.).


Dario

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...



I don't see what difference it makes.  I shoot different brands and types
of film.  Why don't you think it a good idea?

Shel



[Original Message]
From: Dario Bonazza <



Shel,

I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need

some

D specs.

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Dario Bonazza]

Because different cards donìt give you different taste on images (like 
different film).
Because memory cards aren't disposable (like film), hence you are not forced 
to buy them again and again for shoting.
Using different cards will only force you to buy more cards for having 
enough CF and enough SD for your needs. Why?


Dario

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...



I don't see what difference it makes.  I shoot different brands and types
of film.  Why don't you think it a good idea?

Shel



[Original Message]
From: Dario Bonazza <



Shel,

I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need

some

D specs.

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Shel Belinkoff]

I don't see what difference it makes.  I shoot different brands and types
of film.  Why don't you think it a good idea?

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Dario Bonazza <

> Shel,
>
> I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need
some 
> D specs.
>

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Dario Bonazza]

Shel,

I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need some 
D specs.


Dario

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...



I agree 100% with Peter and Bruce, unless you want to go for a used body.
Then the KEH offer sounds pretty good.  If after using the DS for a while,
I find that I like the idea of digital, I'm thinking that a good used D 
may

be my second body, unless there's something really new from Pentax which
causes a great change in the price structure or available models.

Shel



[Original Message]
From: P. J. Alling

The Ds is often selling for less than the DL these days, which for what
it is, makes it an incredible bargain.
The Ds2 will probably sell for an intermediate price between the D,
(which is still a current model), and DL.
I don't think you could find a better price/performance ratio than the
Ds currently represents.  The Ds2 is an
incremental improvement over the Ds, the biggest improvement being the
larger review screen on the back.  Not
that useful IMHO.  If the Ds is really such a large investment, you'll
probably be waiting a long time for the D
follow on to become as great a bargain.  Get a Ds and enjoy shooting.

Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:

>Hello everyone!
>
>My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to
>some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs.
>I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't
>stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few
>more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very
>expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes,
>it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this
>year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes
>better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at.
>But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new
>cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3
>cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see
>another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera
>only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model.
>
>Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D
>replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at
>this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains
>hurts too 
>Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem.
>
>
>


--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Shel Belinkoff]

I agree 100% with Peter and Bruce, unless you want to go for a used body. 
Then the KEH offer sounds pretty good.  If after using the DS for a while,
I find that I like the idea of digital, I'm thinking that a good used D may
be my second body, unless there's something really new from Pentax which
causes a great change in the price structure or available models.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: P. J. Alling 
>
> The Ds is often selling for less than the DL these days, which for what 
> it is, makes it an incredible bargain.
> The Ds2 will probably sell for an intermediate price between the D, 
> (which is still a current model), and DL.
> I don't think you could find a better price/performance ratio than the 
> Ds currently represents.  The Ds2 is an
> incremental improvement over the Ds, the biggest improvement being the 
> larger review screen on the back.  Not
> that useful IMHO.  If the Ds is really such a large investment, you'll 
> probably be waiting a long time for the D
> follow on to become as great a bargain.  Get a Ds and enjoy shooting.
>
> Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:
>
> >Hello everyone!
> >
> >My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to
> >some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs.
> >I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't
> >stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few
> >more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very
> >expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes,
> >it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this
> >year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes
> >better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at.
> >But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new
> >cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3
> >cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see
> >another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera
> >only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model.
> >
> >Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D
> >replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at
> >this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains
> >hurts too 
> >Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem.
> >
> >  
> >
>
>
> -- 
> When you're worried or in doubt, 
>   Run in circles, (scream and shout).

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu]

On 9/7/05, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --
> When you're worried or in doubt,
>Run in circles, (scream and shout).
> 

That's an excellent ideea! Thanks! 

(no offence, I really appreciate your help - and I think you're right)
-- 
Best regards,
Alex Sarbu

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I am quite happy with the image quality and capabilities of the DS  
for my work. When I realized that it sufficed for my needs, I decided  
to wait through the summer to see if anything substantially better  
would be announced for release before the end of the year. The DL was  
announced, end of summer came, and nothing else was announced, so I  
sprang for a second DS body. Within a week or so, the DS2 was  
announced, but reviewing the changes and considering the additional  
cost a new model will carry, the DS was a very good choice.


It will take significantly "better" specs/capabilities to entice me  
to spend the additional money for another new body within a year. A D  
replacement/upgrade will need 8-10 Mpixels with the same or better  
noise characteristic, improved write speed, larger buffers, hopefully  
SD & CF card capability (or SD card), etc, priced in the vicinity of  
$1100-1200 to be worth my while upgrading..


What all this says is that it's really up to your desires and needs.  
The 6Mpixel DS body is quite a good performer and will do a very good  
job, and it's a very very favorable price at present (in the US  
anyway). A better body will come along, but expect to pay  
substantially more for it and wait a while. I count the time until it  
gets here as "number of photo opportunities missed", that's  
significant to me. It might not be for you, but only you can say that.


Godfrey

On Sep 6, 2005, at 1:07 PM, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:


Hello everyone!

My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to
some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs.
I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't
stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few
more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very
expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes,
it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this
year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes
better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at.
But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new
cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3
cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see
another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera
only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model.

Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D
replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at
this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains
hurts too 
Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem.

--
Best regards,
Alex Sarbu (which don't knows what "brief" means ;) )

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[P. J. Alling]

The Ds is often selling for less than the DL these days, which for what 
it is, makes it an incredible bargain.
The Ds2 will probably sell for an intermediate price between the D, 
(which is still a current model), and DL.
I don't think you could find a better price/performance ratio than the 
Ds currently represents.  The Ds2 is an
incremental improvement over the Ds, the biggest improvement being the 
larger review screen on the back.  Not
that useful IMHO.  If the Ds is really such a large investment, you'll 
probably be waiting a long time for the D

follow on to become as great a bargain.  Get a Ds and enjoy shooting.

Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:


Hello everyone!

My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to
some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs.
I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't
stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few
more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very
expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes,
it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this
year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes
better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at.
But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new
cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3
cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see
another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera
only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model.

Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D
replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at
this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains
hurts too 
Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem.

 




--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Shel Belinkoff]

Last time I looked (yesterday) KEH had two LN- istD bodies for $725.00

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu 
> To: 
> Date: 9/6/2005 1:43:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...
>
> Well, in Romania the *istDS is over 1000 euro (strange, but there is
> an *istD at a slightly lower price. Hmm... faster or wireless
> flash&grip?  ). I'm willing (but not happy) to pay
> the price, but for the *istD2... 2000$ (1500euro, but I guess it will
> be closer to 2000  around here) is simply too much. Yes, that would
> help me delay replacing the camera - but at double the price; so the
> options seems to be:
> a) buy the *istDS
> b) wait a little for the DS2 (well, buying from bhphotovideo is cheaper)
> c) wait for the DS2 replacement. That could mean... next summer? Or I
> can hope to see it at PMA?
>
> WTF, my car is cheaper than a camera . No kidding.
>
> Alex Sarbu
>
> On 9/6/05, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One big question is how much you are willing to spend.  The DS is
> > about as low as it is going to get.  A great time to buy it.  The D
> > replacment will likely come in at a price point significantly higher -
> > could be as high or higher than when it was introduced.  Are you
> > willing to spend $1500-$2000 USD for a body?  If not, the DS is the
> > one to get right now.
> > 
> > HTH,
> > 
> > Bruce
> > 
> > 
> > Tuesday, September 6, 2005, 1:07:55 PM, you wrote:
> > 
> > ACS> Hello everyone!
> > 
> > ACS> My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due
to
> > ACS> some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs.
> > ACS> I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't
> > ACS> stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know,
few
> > ACS> more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very
> > ACS> expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible).
Yes,
> > ACS> it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't -
this
> > ACS> year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes
> > ACS> better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at.
> > ACS> But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new
> > ACS> cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3
> > ACS> cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see
> > ACS> another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera
> > ACS> only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model.
> > 
> > ACS> Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D
> > ACS> replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little
at
> > ACS> this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains
> > ACS> hurts too 
> > ACS> Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem.
> > 
> > 
> >

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu]

Well, in Romania the *istDS is over 1000 euro (strange, but there is
an *istD at a slightly lower price. Hmm... faster or wireless
flash&grip?  ). I'm willing (but not happy) to pay
the price, but for the *istD2... 2000$ (1500euro, but I guess it will
be closer to 2000  around here) is simply too much. Yes, that would
help me delay replacing the camera - but at double the price; so the
options seems to be:
a) buy the *istDS
b) wait a little for the DS2 (well, buying from bhphotovideo is cheaper)
c) wait for the DS2 replacement. That could mean... next summer? Or I
can hope to see it at PMA?

WTF, my car is cheaper than a camera . No kidding.

Alex Sarbu

On 9/6/05, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One big question is how much you are willing to spend.  The DS is
> about as low as it is going to get.  A great time to buy it.  The D
> replacment will likely come in at a price point significantly higher -
> could be as high or higher than when it was introduced.  Are you
> willing to spend $1500-$2000 USD for a body?  If not, the DS is the
> one to get right now.
> 
> HTH,
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> Tuesday, September 6, 2005, 1:07:55 PM, you wrote:
> 
> ACS> Hello everyone!
> 
> ACS> My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to
> ACS> some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs.
> ACS> I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't
> ACS> stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few
> ACS> more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very
> ACS> expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes,
> ACS> it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this
> ACS> year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes
> ACS> better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at.
> ACS> But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new
> ACS> cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3
> ACS> cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see
> ACS> another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera
> ACS> only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model.
> 
> ACS> Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D
> ACS> replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at
> ACS> this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains
> ACS> hurts too 
> ACS> Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem.
> 
> 
>

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Bruce Dayton]

One big question is how much you are willing to spend.  The DS is
about as low as it is going to get.  A great time to buy it.  The D
replacment will likely come in at a price point significantly higher -
could be as high or higher than when it was introduced.  Are you
willing to spend $1500-$2000 USD for a body?  If not, the DS is the
one to get right now.

HTH,

Bruce


Tuesday, September 6, 2005, 1:07:55 PM, you wrote:

ACS> Hello everyone!

ACS> My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to
ACS> some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs.
ACS> I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't
ACS> stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few
ACS> more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very
ACS> expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes,
ACS> it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this
ACS> year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes
ACS> better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at.
ACS> But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new
ACS> cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3
ACS> cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see
ACS> another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera
ACS> only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model.

ACS> Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D
ACS> replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at
ACS> this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains
ACS> hurts too 
ACS> Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem.

Decisions, decisions...

[Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu]

Hello everyone!

My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to
some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs.
I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't
stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few
more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very
expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes,
it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this
year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes
better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at.
But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new
cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3
cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see
another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera
only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model.

Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D
replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at
this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains
hurts too 
Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem.

-- 
Best regards,
Alex Sarbu (which don't knows what "brief" means ;) )

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[David Mann]

On Jan 17, 2005, at 10:28 PM, Cotty wrote:
No, not really. Grain was the wrong word to use, I hereby retract it. I
find film (col neg that is) gives a 'spongy' feel to prints, I really
don't know how to describe it properly. Digital shots seem 'cleaner',
more representative of the scene... somebody help. What do I mean??
Hmm, perhaps it's the SpongeBob SquarePants camera you're using?
http://shop.nickjr.com/sm-spongebob-squarepants-disposable-camera-with- 
flash--pi-1795352.html

I wonder if it's an underwater model...
Cheers,
- Dave (even thought about seeing the movie)
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Cotty]

On 17/1/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

>(it was nice and sunny when i set out on my 3 hour tour,yes a 3 hour
>tour)

Spooky. You know how you build up a mental image of someone you've never
met? I've always imagined Dave as looking like The Skipper !  (was it
Alan Hale??)

!!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions...


I havent done that but I seriously doubt it would
be needed becase when I scan the arista-developed negs they don't
need any corrections compared to 1-hr lab-developed
C41 negs.
C-41 is nice. It's a pretty bomb proof process.
If the negs you are getting have (visually is sufficient) the same 
mask colour as commercial processed negs, you are probably not going 
to have any problems.
I have seen crosscurves out of C-41 when the process gets far enough 
out of control, but you really have to be ignoring your plots to get 
that to happen.

William Robb 

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions...


I swear I read somewhere that you could "overfix"
BW film and that was another reason I didn't want
to change to constant agitation for Fix.
If you are using a sodium based fixer, it's pretty hard to over fix 
B&W, but it can be done.
With ammonium based fixers, you shouldn't fix much past the clearing 
time.

With C-41, it's pretty well impossible to over bleach or fix, the 
whole idea is to remove all the silver anyway.

William Robb 

RE: Decisions...Decisions...

[J. C. O'Connell]

correction: 

"the process instructions with the chemistry did not specify constant or
intermittant agitation ( BAD OMMISSION !)"

ADD: FOR THE BLEACH-FIX processing step!!!

JCO ( my bad ommission)


-Original Message-
From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 1:58 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions...


yes an adjustment of the starting temp equal to plus half the total
delta T would be the way to go. But since I used constant agitaion and
they recommended that would give higher contrast ( I read that as more
development) I decided to go with 85 deg starting temp. and it worked so
well I never risked messing with my process procedures. It could be the
drift is minor, I don’t really know. I guess I 
will do some tests just to be sure nothing really crazy is going on

the process instructions with the chemistry did not specify constant or
intermittant agitation ( BAD OMMISSION !) so I just assumed with a 10
minute time intermittant agitaion would be fine since I remembered that
intermittant was OK with BW fixing...

JCO

-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 11:55 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions...



- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions...



> One of the beauties of using 85 deg processing is that since it is
> only about 12 degrees above room temperture, there is much less drift 
> in the process temp vs. time in an untempered process. With 100 deg 
> processing the drift would be much more of a problem.

A good point to bring into the discussion is more on temperature 
drift.
Back in the dark ages, if we wanted to hit a median temperature of 
(eg:)85ºF, we would measure how much the temperature of an untempered 
tank drifts down during the development cycle, halve that number and 
increase the starting temp by that amount.

In practice, if the drift over 6.5 minutes is 8ºf, then the tank 
temperature to start would be raised to 89ºF.
This completely obviates the need for any temperature control, 
providing the temperature drift is reasonable.


> The only "trick" is I built the intermittant agitation
> timer myself which is a timed relay to turn motor on only
> 5 seconds out of every 30 seconds. But I think you could
> do second step with constant agitation too with same results so
> intermittant roller timer really isnt necessary...

You can use constant agititation during blix and wash as well.

William Robb 

RE: Decisions...Decisions...

[J. C. O'Connell]

yes an adjustment of the starting temp equal to plus half the
total delta T would be the way to go. But since I used
constant agitaion and they recommended that would give
higher contrast ( I read that as more development) I decided
to go with 85 deg starting temp. and it worked so well I
never risked messing with my process procedures. It could
be the drift is minor, I don’t really know. I guess I 
will do some tests just to be sure nothing really crazy is going
on

the process instructions with the chemistry did not specify
constant or intermittant agitation ( BAD OMMISSION !) so I just assumed
with
a 10 minute time intermittant agitaion would be fine since
I remembered that intermittant was OK with BW fixing...

JCO

-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 11:55 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions...



- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions...



> One of the beauties of using 85 deg processing is that since it is 
> only about 12 degrees above room temperture, there is much less drift 
> in the process temp vs. time in an untempered process. With 100 deg 
> processing the drift would be much more of a problem.

A good point to bring into the discussion is more on temperature 
drift.
Back in the dark ages, if we wanted to hit a median temperature of 
(eg:)85ºF, we would measure how much the temperature of an untempered 
tank drifts down during the development cycle, halve that number and 
increase the starting temp by that amount.

In practice, if the drift over 6.5 minutes is 8ºf, then the tank 
temperature to start would be raised to 89ºF.
This completely obviates the need for any temperature control, 
providing the temperature drift is reasonable.


> The only "trick" is I built the intermittant agitation
> timer myself which is a timed relay to turn motor on only
> 5 seconds out of every 30 seconds. But I think you could
> do second step with constant agitation too with same results so 
> intermittant roller timer really isnt necessary...

You can use constant agititation during blix and wash as well.

William Robb 

RE: Decisions...Decisions...

[J. C. O'Connell]

old habits die hard. I always used intermittant
agitation before I automated for fix with BW
so I didn't want to change when I went to roller
motor. I switched from manual to roller with BW
about 10 years ago.

I swear I read somewhere that you could "overfix"
BW film and that was another reason I didn't want
to change to constant agitation for Fix.

with long times (8-10 minutes) I trust the intermittant
agitation. I would never use it for any process w/ shorter
times than that as you might get uneven results

Besides, why listen to the motor/tank spinning all the time if
you don't have to? Silence is golden..

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 1:26 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions...


 JCO wrote:

I use intermittent agitation for fix with BW and Bleach-fix with C41. I
NEVER use intermittent agitation with any developer ( BW or C41 )
process, constant agitation seems to be most consistent for this
critical step.

As both B&W fix and C-41 bleach fix and stabilizer are  process to 
completion (within reason of course) why are you using intermittent
instead 
of continuous agitation?

I'm viewing this thread with interest as I have room in the basement for
a 
darkroom. But since I prefer MF and LF B&W to 35mm I'm tempted to find a

used Epson 1280 or 90 and convert it to a strictly B&W machine. It would
be 
cheaper then buying a MF or LF camera and I enjoy working in Photoshop.

Butch 

RE: Decisions...Decisions...

[J. C. O'Connell]

I havent done that but I seriously doubt it would
be needed becase when I scan the arista-developed negs they don’t
need any corrections compared to 1-hr lab-developed 
C41 negs.

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 1:31 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions...


One more question

Has anyone who has used the Arista 85°F chemistry had any negatives
printed 
by a one hour lab. If so, did they have to make any additional color 
corrections to get it to print correctly?

Butch 

RE: Decisions...Decisions...

[Butch Black]

One more question
Has anyone who has used the Arista 85°F chemistry had any negatives printed 
by a one hour lab. If so, did they have to make any additional color 
corrections to get it to print correctly?

Butch 

RE: Decisions...Decisions...

[Butch Black]

JCO wrote:
I use intermittent agitation for fix with BW and Bleach-fix
with C41. I NEVER use intermittent agitation with any developer ( BW or
C41 )
process, constant agitation seems to be most consistent for this
critical step.
As both B&W fix and C-41 bleach fix and stabilizer are  process to 
completion (within reason of course) why are you using intermittent instead 
of continuous agitation?

I'm viewing this thread with interest as I have room in the basement for a 
darkroom. But since I prefer MF and LF B&W to 35mm I'm tempted to find a 
used Epson 1280 or 90 and convert it to a strictly B&W machine. It would be 
cheaper then buying a MF or LF camera and I enjoy working in Photoshop.

Butch 

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions...


One of the beauties of using 85 deg processing is that since
it is only about 12 degrees above room temperture, there
is much less drift in the process temp vs. time in an
untempered process. With 100 deg processing the drift
would be much more of a problem.
A good point to bring into the discussion is more on temperature 
drift.
Back in the dark ages, if we wanted to hit a median temperature of 
(eg:)85ºF, we would measure how much the temperature of an untempered 
tank drifts down during the development cycle, halve that number and 
increase the starting temp by that amount.

In practice, if the drift over 6.5 minutes is 8ºf, then the tank 
temperature to start would be raised to 89ºF.
This completely obviates the need for any temperature control, 
providing the temperature drift is reasonable.


The only "trick" is I built the intermittant agitation
timer myself which is a timed relay to turn motor on only
5 seconds out of every 30 seconds. But I think you could
do second step with constant agitation too with same results
so intermittant roller timer really isnt necessary...
You can use constant agititation during blix and wash as well.
William Robb 

RE: Decisions...Decisions...

[J. C. O'Connell]

My process is simple . I just put first two bottles
in a hot water filled sink for  a few minutes until
I get a reading of 85 F in the developer (step one).
I then drain sink, start 6.5 min. constant development. My room temp
is always around 72 F so everthing remains consistant.

After I reach 1/2 capacity of the used chemistry I change
my development time to 7.0 minutes, that's it.

One of the beauties of using 85 deg processing is that since
it is only about 12 degrees above room temperture, there
is much less drift in the process temp vs. time in an
untempered process. With 100 deg processing the drift
would be much more of a problem. Second nice thing 
that WR mentioned is the dev time is 6.5 minutes which
is much easier to time consistantly than 3:15 and less
error prone. It is as easy as black and white. yes you
have to prewarm the first two bottles to 85 deg F but
that is simple in a sink of hot water.

I see no point in not using at least my dirt cheap rotary system. I use
plastic
patterson film tank (35mm/120) and a beseler drum roller.
You can both on ebay for under $50 TOTAL. sure beats tedious
manual agitation. In order to use the tank on the roller,
(roller wasn’t designed for a tank) 
I have propped up the roller approx. 1" on one side so the
roller&tank is at an angle instead of horizontal. The high
side is for the top side of the tank obviously. 

The only "trick" is I built the intermittant agitation
timer myself which is a timed relay to turn motor on only
5 seconds out of every 30 seconds. But I think you could
do second step with constant agitation too with same results
so intermittant roller timer really isnt necessary...
I use intermittant agitation for fix with BW and Bleach-fix
with C41. I NEVER use intermittant agitation with any developer ( BW or
C41 ) 
process, constant agitation seems to be most consistant for this
critical step.

JCO


-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 10:23 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions...



- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions...


> When you (or JCO) get a moment, can you provide a brief rundown on
> what's
> needed.  No rush ...

A rotary processor is nice, but if you can do bare bones processing, 
a stainless tank will do fine.
The standard C-41 process runs at 38ºC and has a development time of 
3:15, which is hot and short for a dump and refill process, so I 
would definitely look into one of the low temp long time chemistry 
sets. The Arista that JCO mentioned seems about ideal.
85ºF is well within the range of a low tech waterbath approach to 
chemical tempering, You could probably do it with a sink of warm 
water, and spike it with hot when the temp starts to fall off.
Development time and temp is pretty critical, but after that, it 
isn't so important. You can bleach/fix at just about any temp as long 
as you extend the times out to compensate, the same applies to the 
wash. Just don't pour cold into a warm tank, the film will 
reticulate.

William Robb 

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions...


When you (or JCO) get a moment, can you provide a brief rundown on 
what's
needed.  No rush ...
A rotary processor is nice, but if you can do bare bones processing, 
a stainless tank will do fine.
The standard C-41 process runs at 38ºC and has a development time of 
3:15, which is hot and short for a dump and refill process, so I 
would definitely look into one of the low temp long time chemistry 
sets. The Arista that JCO mentioned seems about ideal.
85ºF is well within the range of a low tech waterbath approach to 
chemical tempering, You could probably do it with a sink of warm 
water, and spike it with hot when the temp starts to fall off.
Development time and temp is pretty critical, but after that, it 
isn't so important. You can bleach/fix at just about any temp as long 
as you extend the times out to compensate, the same applies to the 
wash. Just don't pour cold into a warm tank, the film will 
reticulate.

William Robb 

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From:
Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions...


William Robb

There are still no dedicated B&W inkjet printers? You'd think 
someone (Epson,
Canon, etc.) would jump on that sooner or later. Or have an all 
black
cartridge (with shades of gray) that can be loaded in where the 
color cartridge is
usually goes.
It's more complicated than just replacing an inkset.
You are still limited to the gamut of the inkset, and the resolution 
of the image file, both from a pixel count and from a bit depth POV.

William Robb 

RE: Decisions...Decisions...

[J. C. O'Connell]

BW 35mm film is still superior to 6MP APS 
digital by a substantial margin so I don't understand what
this argument is all about. Most people would consider
fine grain color FF film about the equal of 6MP APS digital, but
BW film is substantially sharper and finer grained than
color film so a 6MP APS digital is not going to be able
to compete with the best FF BW 35mm film (and lenses). This is the
current "interpolated"
6MP APS digitals I am reffering to, a true 6MP monochrome
digital would be another comparison altogether but I would
think even that in APS size would be hard pressed to beat the
best BW FF 35mm Films
JCO
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 4:49 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions...


I went for a drive to Kinmount to shoot the old sawmill Saturday. I took
the istD and the PZ-1 with Tri-X 
400 and the 6x7 (empty but with some different rolls just in case) and
the SP  for slide should i want.

Shot about 30 or so istD pictures,one roll of Tri-x and nothing from the
others. I wanted to use the 6x7 
but i could not get the angle i wanted(my way of saying i was a chicken
as i did not want to walkout 
on a tiny ice and snow covered dam as the water raged underneath
it.) plus it was really cold - 15, and dull.(it was nice and sunny
when i set out on my 3 hour tour,yes a 3 hour
tour)

As Cotty say's below.He can but does not want to. I just cannot drop
traditional B&W just yet.

Dave 

> I used my Leica iiif once.
When I did my first 
shoot with the digital, 
> I took my 6x7 along, but it never came out of its case.
> Paul
> 
> On Jan 16, 2005, at 5:56 AM, Cotty wrote:
> 
> > On 15/1/05, Dave Kennedy, discombobulated, unleashed:
> >
> >> That's 2 comments suggesting I sell the film. Wow. I would find 
> >> that difficult making the jump from film to digital "cold turkey". 
> >> hmmm
> >
> > You'd be surprised.
> >
> > I wonder how many DSLR owners have picked up a film camera and 
> > actually used it since acquiring the digital? It's not that I can't 
> > - but I just don't want to.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >   Cotty
> >
> >
> > ___/\__
> > ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> > _
> >
> >
> 

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[brooksdj]

I went for a drive to Kinmount to shoot the old sawmill Saturday. I took the 
istD and the
PZ-1 with Tri-X 
400 and the 6x7 (empty but with some different rolls just in case) and the SP  
for slide
should i want.

Shot about 30 or so istD pictures,one roll of Tri-x and nothing from the 
others. I wanted
to use the 6x7 
but i could not get the angle i wanted(my way of saying i was a chicken as i 
did not want
to walkout 
on a tiny ice and snow covered dam as the water raged underneath it.) plus 
it was
really cold -
15, and dull.(it was nice and sunny when i set out on my 3 hour tour,yes a 3 
hour
tour)

As Cotty say's below.He can but does not want to. I just cannot drop 
traditional B&W just
yet.

Dave 

> I used my Leica iiif once. When I did 
my first 
shoot with the digital, 
> I took my 6x7 along, but it never came out of its case.
> Paul
> 
> On Jan 16, 2005, at 5:56 AM, Cotty wrote:
> 
> > On 15/1/05, Dave Kennedy, discombobulated, unleashed:
> >
> >> That's 2 comments suggesting I sell the film. Wow. I would find that
> >> difficult making the jump from film to digital "cold turkey". hmmm
> >
> > You'd be surprised.
> >
> > I wonder how many DSLR owners have picked up a film camera and actually
> > used it since acquiring the digital? It's not that I can't - but I just
> > don't want to.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >   Cotty
> >
> >
> > ___/\__
> > ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> > _
> >
> >
> 

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Paul Stenquist]

Thanks Frantisek. And I will make every effort to be civil as well:-). 
As I mentioned in another post, this discussion is somewhat pointless, 
because it's based mainly on conjecture. The only real evidence that 
can be offered in regard to film vs. digital is the type of who is 
using what argument I tried to make. Comparing one print to another 
will always be somewhat meaningless. It depends too much on personal 
taste, and most such experiments lack the controls necessary to be 
meaningful.

On Jan 17, 2005, at 6:17 AM, Frantisek wrote:
Cotty...
C> Paul is not on a crusade, he is taking part in a debate in its own 
thread
C> on the PDML and is merely putting his point of view across. As 
such, he
C> is using his vocabulary as he sees best, and is imparting 
information. He
C> is doing nothing wrong.
And Paul... wrote:
P> I'm not crusading for anything. Just reporting what I see. I intend 
to continue shooting
P> film. I enjoy my darkroom, and I find the film process quite 
fascinating. However, I
P> dispute the contention of others, that high quality digital BW is 
impossible and that
[...]

Paul, I am sorry then. I didn't intend it to be "personal attack", but 
of
course thus it may be interpreted. What's written is written. As I
interpreted your words before to have a bit of crusading. Or disputing
the contentions of others too strongly. Ok, I am not free of that
"sin" either, so I will better shut up...

:)
Good light!
   fra

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Frantisek]

Cotty...
C> Paul is not on a crusade, he is taking part in a debate in its own thread
C> on the PDML and is merely putting his point of view across. As such, he
C> is using his vocabulary as he sees best, and is imparting information. He
C> is doing nothing wrong.
And Paul... wrote:
P> I'm not crusading for anything. Just reporting what I see. I intend to 
continue shooting
P> film. I enjoy my darkroom, and I find the film process quite fascinating. 
However, I
P> dispute the contention of others, that high quality digital BW is impossible 
and that
[...]

Paul, I am sorry then. I didn't intend it to be "personal attack", but of
course thus it may be interpreted. What's written is written. As I
interpreted your words before to have a bit of crusading. Or disputing
the contentions of others too strongly. Ok, I am not free of that
"sin" either, so I will better shut up...

:)

Good light!
   fra

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > pcn> Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for
> > pcn> both BW and color. Most feel their digital prints are better than
> > pcn> the silver prints they produced in years past. In any case, it's
> > pcn> obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and some
> > pcn> fine art photographers.
>
> I'm not crusading for anything. Just reporting what I see.

That's what I read in Paul's post as well. Although it contradicts
what I hear, it is a fair statement.

Kostas

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Cotty]

On 16/1/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:

>So you equate grain, or rather, the lack of it, an indicator of quality ...
>correct?

No, not really. Grain was the wrong word to use, I hereby retract it. I
find film (col neg that is) gives a 'spongy' feel to prints, I really
don't know how to describe it properly. Digital shots seem 'cleaner',
more representative of the scene... somebody help. What do I mean??




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Bob W]

Hi,

Monday, January 17, 2005, 5:06:57 AM, Amita wrote:

>> HP has that. And Epsons can be converted. Still you can not 
>> get the contrast 
>> range that you can with a good silver print. 

> I just heard about a company called Lyson that sells a package of black
> inks, software and print drivers for making homemade inkjet prints. I don't
> know how good it is though. http://www.lyson.com

they have a good reputation. A lot of fine art photographers here in
the UK use them.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

RE: Decisions...Decisions...

[Shel Belinkoff]

I never thought about, always believing it was too complicated.  Might give
it a try ... thanks for the info.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 1/16/2005 9:23:09 AM
> Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions...
>
> why not do C41 at home too? Its quick, cheap, easy, and wont get
> mishandled. I have been doing my own for about a year now
> and would do any labs again. I used to think is was hard, I was
> wrong. I do 85 deg. F so all you have to do is warm up the
> bottles for a few mins befor processing. Results are excellent.
> JCO

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Shel Belinkoff]

When you (or JCO) get a moment, can you provide a brief rundown on what's
needed.  No rush ...

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Most people don't realize how simple C-41 processing is.
> Are you using a two step or a three step process?
>
> William Robb

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Shel Belinkoff]

So you equate grain, or rather, the lack of it, an indicator of quality ...
correct?

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
> >Why?  Do you find that shooting digital affords better final quality
> >prints?
>
> Yes. I needed a print from some 200 ISO colour neg recently, so I scanned
> it and printed it off and frankly I was shocked at the *grain*  !! 
> Digital originals are so much smoother.

RE: Decisions...Decisions...

[Amita Guha]

> HP has that. And Epsons can be converted. Still you can not 
> get the contrast 
> range that you can with a good silver print. 

I just heard about a company called Lyson that sells a package of black
inks, software and print drivers for making homemade inkjet prints. I don't
know how good it is though. http://www.lyson.com

Amita

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Shel Belinkoff]

There are ... bit that doesn't mean there will be comparable tonality and
depth to the printed images.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There are still no dedicated B&W inkjet printers? You'd think someone
(Epson, 
> Canon, etc.) would jump on that sooner or later. Or have an all black 
> cartridge (with shades of gray) that can be loaded in where the color
cartridge is 
> usually goes. 
>
> Marnie aka Doe 

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Graywolf]

HP has that. And Epsons can be converted. Still you can not get the contrast 
range that you can with a good silver print. And when that becomes possible they 
will still have to be able to beat a platinum print which are a bit better than 
silver.

However, the point has been made that most pro output is used in print media 
which digital is definitely up to. If you want a silver print that will 
reproduce well as a quality halftone you need to make it slightly less contrasty 
than the best you can make for direct viewing.

For that matter in my personal opinion digital is not yet quite up to the best 
quality chemical/optical custom color print either. But understand, no one who 
is trying to get the very best quality is going to use a small format (35mm or 
digital) original either. When you are using 4x5 or larger originals the grain 
argument becomes specious.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:41:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of these years, I am sure the technology will be in place to make 
a black and white print to match my standard of quality.

William Robb

There are still no dedicated B&W inkjet printers? You'd think someone (Epson, 
Canon, etc.) would jump on that sooner or later. Or have an all black 
cartridge (with shades of gray) that can be loaded in where the color cartridge is 
usually goes. 

Marnie aka Doe 



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:41:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of these years, I am sure the technology will be in place to make 
a black and white print to match my standard of quality.

William Robb

There are still no dedicated B&W inkjet printers? You'd think someone (Epson, 
Canon, etc.) would jump on that sooner or later. Or have an all black 
cartridge (with shades of gray) that can be loaded in where the color cartridge 
is 
usually goes. 

Marnie aka Doe 

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions...


One of these years when you learn how to make a presentation
quality B&W print using digital machinery, you'll reflect back
on how foolish the whole debate is. If you ever do, that is.
One of these years, I am sure the technology will be in place to make 
a black and white print to match my standard of quality.

William Robb

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions...


So, when someone tells me that they are doing GREAT B&W work with a
digital
workflow, I want to see it, and put it next to a print of a known
quality.
I just have not seen the depth of tone, the deepest blacks, the
most subtle
gradations, the finest of detail, in digi prints.  Are such prints
out
there?  maybe.  But I've not seen 'em.  Show me an Adams quality
print, or
a WES quality print, done digitally, and I'll shut up, eat my
words, sell
my film gear, and buy a new Hasselblad medium format digital
camera.
That day may come, I expect it will come.
At the moment, too many megapixels, and too much bit depth is 
required for the technology to deliver.

My benchmark at the moment is a print I made myself from a 4x5 FP-4
negative onto Zone VI Brilliant.
William Robb

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Cotty]

On 16/1/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Paul, why don't you stop your crusade, and let those who like film,
>just use it in peace? You are just spreading memes... Is it so important
>to you
>that you convert the others to digital? Each to his own.

Paul is not on a crusade, he is taking part in a debate in its own thread
on the PDML and is merely putting his point of view across. As such, he
is using his vocabulary as he sees best, and is imparting information. He
is doing nothing wrong.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[pnstenquist]

Yes, that's all well and good. And two years ago, I would have made the same 
arguments. But today I can't find ANYONE who's livelihood depends on 
photography who's not shooting digital. I'm sure there are some out there. But 
of the hundreds of portfolios I've reviewed this year, I haven't seen one. You 
can expound endlessly on the art of Adams and Weston and the beauty of large 
format silver prints. But when you talk about what's the most reliable path to 
good work for the average photographer, it isn't film. If you haven't seen 
great BW digital prints, you really haven't been getting out to the galleries. 
The evidence is on the wall.


> Hi Bill ...
> 
> I was wondering when someone was going to make that point.  Being a "pro"
> doesn't always mean anything more than being able to sell your work, to
> have a market for it.  Those who say that it must be good because it's done
> by a pro are laboring under a misconception.  That's not to say a lot of
> pros don't do good, or even great, work.  It depends, I think, on their
> field and where their work is marketed.  A pro newspaper photographer has
> an entirely different agenda than a pro advertising photographer or a pro
> fine arts photog, and so on.
> Because a pro uses a digital camera for his or her work doesn't mean it's
> the right piece of gear for a pro in a different field or for the serious
> and skilled amateur.  There are lots of pros out there using film, but
> their market doesn't dictate a need for digital.  
> 
> As for quality, I do believe there are absolute benchmarks for it, but what
> is acceptable, or even good or great quality, in one field may not cut it
> in another.  When I talk about quality B&W work I am describing exhibition
> quality prints made to a very high - perhaps even the highest - standard,
> which is not often seen these days.
> 
> I know a very well known pro - you'd know him and his work in a heartbeat -
> who was made famous by his photographs as were his subjects.  He has many
> well known magazine covers and stories to his credit.  His work, from the
> POV of quality prints, is at best mediocre.  He was great at making a
> personal connection with his subjects, getting acceptable quality work to
> the magazine on time, and coming up with interesting and sometimes intimate
> images.  They were not high quality images, though.  One of his most well
> known covers was 60% blown out highlights, but that worked for the magazine
> because that's where they put the copy.  OTOH, you won't find that image
> hung next to a Weston print (any Weston) or an Ansel Adams print, just as
> you probably wouldn't find their prints hanging in the pop culture section
> of the museum.
> 
> So, when someone tells me that they are doing GREAT B&W work with a digital
> workflow, I want to see it, and put it next to a print of a known quality. 
> I just have not seen the depth of tone, the deepest blacks, the most subtle
> gradations, the finest of detail, in digi prints.  Are such prints out
> there?  maybe.  But I've not seen 'em.  Show me an Adams quality print, or
> a WES quality print, done digitally, and I'll shut up, eat my words, sell
> my film gear, and buy a new Hasselblad medium format digital camera.
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > Probably because the work is good enough to keep the clients happy.
> > Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, quite often the pro boys 
> > aren't doing the best work out there. It's the knowedgable and 
> > skilled amateurs who are the benchmarks.
> >
> > William Robb 
> >
> 
> 

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[pnstenquist]

I'm not crusading for anything. Just reporting what I see. I intend to continue 
shooting film. I enjoy my darkroom, and I find the film process quite 
fascinating. However, I dispute the contention of others, that high quality 
digital BW is impossible and that results that are the equal of traditional BW 
techniques are not possible. I've simply seen evidence to the contrary.
  I'm surprised that you have decided to  turn what had been a polite 
discussion into a personal attack, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised because 
I have seen that from you before. I will not contribute to this thread again. 
Paul Stenquist


> pcn> Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for
> pcn> both BW and color. Most feel their digital prints are better than
> pcn> the silver prints they produced in years past. In any case, it's
> pcn> obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and some
> pcn> fine art photographers.
> 
> Paul, is this some kind of your crusade or what? Most pros I have spoken too
> are just plain lazy and without time to make silver prints... simply.
> A lot of pros don't recognize a good silver print. After all, their
> output is high gloss paper magazine... A lot of pros don't recognize a
> good print as well. These are just examples.
> 
> Paul, why don't you stop your crusade, and let those who like film,
> just use it in peace? You are just spreading memes... Is it so important to 
> you
> that you convert the others to digital? Each to his own.
> 
> Good light!
>fra
> 

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Frantisek]

pcn> Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for
pcn> both BW and color. Most feel their digital prints are better than
pcn> the silver prints they produced in years past. In any case, it's
pcn> obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and some
pcn> fine art photographers.

Paul, is this some kind of your crusade or what? Most pros I have spoken too
are just plain lazy and without time to make silver prints... simply.
A lot of pros don't recognize a good silver print. After all, their
output is high gloss paper magazine... A lot of pros don't recognize a
good print as well. These are just examples.

Paul, why don't you stop your crusade, and let those who like film,
just use it in peace? You are just spreading memes... Is it so important to you
that you convert the others to digital? Each to his own.

Good light!
   fra

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[pnstenquist]

That's a strange argument. You mean there are a lot of amateurs who are turning 
down 10K a day paychecks just to preserve their amateur status? Are they 
something like the olympic athletes of photography. truomg to preserve their 
amateur status by not acceptin money for their work? If they're really setting 
the standards, why wouldn't they capitalize on it? Are they all that pure?

I dont' give a rat's ass what kind of technology is used to make a picture. If 
glass plates worked best, I would shoot with those. And as you know, just a 
couple of years ago, I was certain that film was still the way to go. But I'm 
not so blind that I can ignore the evidence.


> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions...
> 
> 
> > Hmm,
> > Makes me wonder why the pros are printing their BW digital.
> 
> Probably because the work is good enough to keep the clients happy.
> Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, quite often the pro boys 
> aren't doing the best work out there. It's the knowedgable and 
> skilled amateurs who are the benchmarks.
> 
> William Robb 
> 
> 

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

As usual, this discussion devolves back to a statement of
belief. Believe what you want, Shel. It's a waste of time for me
or anyone else to debate it. I'm sure if I sent you a print you
would tell me it was a piece of crap too, since it's quality is
all a matter of your belief. I won't waste my time with that, I
have better things to do.

One of these years when you learn how to make a presentation
quality B&W print using digital machinery, you'll reflect back
on how foolish the whole debate is. If you ever do, that is. 

Godfrey

--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... As for quality, I do believe there are absolute benchmarks
for
> it, ... 



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com 

Re: Decisions...Decisions...

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Bill ...

I was wondering when someone was going to make that point.  Being a "pro"
doesn't always mean anything more than being able to sell your work, to
have a market for it.  Those who say that it must be good because it's done
by a pro are laboring under a misconception.  That's not to say a lot of
pros don't do good, or even great, work.  It depends, I think, on their
field and where their work is marketed.  A pro newspaper photographer has
an entirely different agenda than a pro advertising photographer or a pro
fine arts photog, and so on.
Because a pro uses a digital camera for his or her work doesn't mean it's
the right piece of gear for a pro in a different field or for the serious
and skilled amateur.  There are lots of pros out there using film, but
their market doesn't dictate a need for digital.  

As for quality, I do believe there are absolute benchmarks for it, but what
is acceptable, or even good or great quality, in one field may not cut it
in another.  When I talk about quality B&W work I am describing exhibition
quality prints made to a very high - perhaps even the highest - standard,
which is not often seen these days.

I know a very well known pro - you'd know him and his work in a heartbeat -
who was made famous by his photographs as were his subjects.  He has many
well known magazine covers and stories to his credit.  His work, from the
POV of quality prints, is at best mediocre.  He was great at making a
personal connection with his subjects, getting acceptable quality work to
the magazine on time, and coming up with interesting and sometimes intimate
images.  They were not high quality images, though.  One of his most well
known covers was 60% blown out highlights, but that worked for the magazine
because that's where they put the copy.  OTOH, you won't find that image
hung next to a Weston print (any Weston) or an Ansel Adams print, just as
you probably wouldn't find their prints hanging in the pop culture section
of the museum.

So, when someone tells me that they are doing GREAT B&W work with a digital
workflow, I want to see it, and put it next to a print of a known quality. 
I just have not seen the depth of tone, the deepest blacks, the most subtle
gradations, the finest of detail, in digi prints.  Are such prints out
there?  maybe.  But I've not seen 'em.  Show me an Adams quality print, or
a WES quality print, done digitally, and I'll shut up, eat my words, sell
my film gear, and buy a new Hasselblad medium format digital camera.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Probably because the work is good enough to keep the clients happy.
> Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, quite often the pro boys 
> aren't doing the best work out there. It's the knowedgable and 
> skilled amateurs who are the benchmarks.
>
> William Robb 
>