Re: Portrait of a Frog
Nice to hear from you, Andre. Your English is quite good, and your stories are interesting. I hope you continue to contribute here. Your voice will be a welcome addition. Paul Stenquist Thanks for the welcome. I'll be able to manage the flow of PDML e-mails when I'm in town and hopefully answer a few questions when I feel competent. Answer... or ask! Bernd wrote: One thing I don't understand: What's about the subject -frog-? Frank wrote: Hi, Bernd, Frog is a derogatory term for a francophone. When I was a kid growing up in Montreal, we anglos would get beat up if we dared call any french speaking kids frogs (well, I did, anyway). Actually, I'm glad that Andre has a sense of humour about it. The word has never been sent at me this way as a child as I have never lived in Montreal where the two communities are in contact. I learned about the word while working in Alberta in the 70s. But it doesn't bear anything emotionnal. I sure can make fun of it. I do hope my bloke friends (bloke with the o as in stroke) can do the same. French-canadian's ancestors, in Europe, would eat frog legs and their neighbors across the Channel wouldn't at all, and gave a bad note to this disgusting behaviour. Probable origin of this use. Now, why do we call english-canadians blocks or block heads ? By the way, Andre, welcome to the list. I've seen you post a few times before, but thanks for the little bio. I figured you might be Quebecois, with a name like Langevin (pretty common French Canadian name). regards, frank Langevin indeed sounds french, probably means the one fron Anjou (maybe to distinguish two Boucher that were on the same boat 350 years ago). Neither common, not rare. About as common as Theriault. There are also many french names for people and towns in United States. Nicest one I've seen is Coeur d'Alene (Montana). In '77, in British Columbia, I found that name on my map just before crossing the border and told the officer, who noticed I has only 20$ in my pockets, I was going to meet some cousins in Coeur d'Alene. He did not believe me. I eventually did it somewhere else and, thanks to the kindness of people who picked me up, travelled 2 weeks (down to the Las Vagas military base!). I wasn't taking photos back then thought. William Robb wrote: As an aside, a French Canadian using the term fr*g to identify oneself is similar to the recent phenomonem in the US of people of African desent using the term n*gger as a self identifier. IE: it seems OK for the person to use the term to identify his or her self and others of his/her racial ancestry, but not OK for an outsider to go there. Sort of like that silly way some people get clubby and relate to everyone not of their peer group as civilians, except offensive. I find racial epithets to be disagreeable and offensive, whether used to identify oneself, or someone else. I understand your feelings. I've used the word in a childish way and you won't find anybody else around here doing what I've done. I'm an anthropologist at play... But people using these words (for the others) in real life, there are, of course. We're talking about a very common and fundamental behaviour, probably the basis of identity (to give a name to the group besides yours). True, there are situations where politeness, or polically correctness, impides their use. I really tried to make fun of me more than anything else here as I knew thare were quite a few canadians on the list. Now, don't ask me anything that relates to canadian politics, I'll probably answer that f/8 is your best stop... Pat White wrote: Eh, ben, un autre Quebecois! J'etais ne (excuse la manque de l'accent sur le e) en Irlande, et j'ai passe` (?) un quinzaine d'annees proche a la Ville de Quebec. Je suis rendu maintenant a Victoria. Eniwe, welcome to the list! Eniwe is anyway, as we say it in french... Curiously, french people from France use more english words than us but english has influenced deeper language structures here, like syntaxis. Still, there are 7 million people speaking (as their first language) french in America, most of them in Quebec. Quechua is the fourth most important linguistic group in America with over 10 million speakers (Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia). Do you have many shots of the Chateau and the Porte St-Louis? Most friday nights I cross the Porte St-Louis with my bike, and stop at a friend's house two blocks from Chateau Frontenac. Can you believe I have just never thought about taking them in photo... The question now is how can I take a different photo of those monuments... Better give it a try during winter. Sounds like you're doing some technical photography, but having fun with it. That's what it's about. Happy shooting! This technical or analytical trip is... just one trip. And some PDMLers are on that wagon, so I'll have fun with them. But what I really find trippant, as most of you, is picking
RE: Portrait of a Frog
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 03:42:43 -0400 From: andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Portrait of a Frog Since march, I kind of slip a comment here and there without having presented myself until now. (My english is kind of slippery too.) I live in Quebec City. I've been on Pentax since '83. .. [cut] Hello Andre, your story is quite interesting I think, and your English is better than mine and much better than my French. Seems there is a lot of experience waiting for being exchanged. One thing I don't understand: What's about the subject -frog-? Regards Bernd - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Portrait of a Frog
Hi, Bernd, Frog is a derogatory term for a francophone. When I was a kid growing up in Montreal, we anglos would get beat up if we dared call any french speaking kids frogs (well, I did, anyway) g. Actually, I'm glad that Andre has a sense of humour about it. By the way, Andre, welcome to the list. I've seen you post a few times before, but thanks for the little bio. I figured you might be Quebecois, with a name like Langevin (pretty common French Canadian name). regards, frank Familie Scheffler wrote: Hello Andre, your story is quite interesting I think, and your English is better than mine and much better than my French. Seems there is a lot of experience waiting for being exchanged. One thing I don't understand: What's about the subject -frog-? -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Portrait of a Frog
Thank you Frank for the explanation. That part of PDML is very exciting for me: the international facet. Increases the overarching sense for Mother Earth. Best regards Bernd Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 08:05:59 -0400 From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Portrait of a Frog Hi, Bernd, Frog is a derogatory term for a francophone. When I was a kid growing up in Montreal, we anglos would get beat up if we dared call any french speaking kids frogs (well, I did, anyway) g. Actually, I'm glad that Andre has a sense of humour about it. snip - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Portrait of a Frog
Eh, ben, un autre Quebecois! J'etais ne (excuse la manque de l'accent sur le e) en Irlande, et j'ai passe` (?) un quinzaine d'annees proche a la Ville de Quebec. Je suis rendu maintenant a Victoria. Eniwe, welcome to the list! Do you have many shots of the Chateau and the Porte St-Louis? I have one beside my desk. If I had a French keyboard, my French would look more sensible. Must say, your English is much better than my French. Sounds like you're doing some technical photography, but having fun with it. That's what it's about. Happy shooting! Pat White - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Portrait of a Frog
Since march, I kind of slip a comment here and there without having presented myself until now. (My english is kind of slippery too.) I live in Quebec City. I've been on Pentax since '83. I began with my father's Contaflex some years before and found myself, a young anthropology student, travelling with 2 Canonets in '82 when I met a hometown guy who recommended an MX as an eventual SLR, a small impressive camera, he could have said. From there my mind was set on this one. While in southern Mexico (good to feel warm weather in january...), a sudden currency devaluation cut all prices in two (for us). So I could afford the 2 most common non-normal M lenses (28mm 135mm) - found in a small town ! - knowing I would get a MX body as soon as possible. I went to New York at spring time to see museums and get a cheap MX. Prices were in display so I first went into that store where the price was the lowest and told the seller that I noted his price on the MX was surprisingly low. The guy went mad (thought I was implying something unclear about his merchandise) and almost kicked my ass to immediately get me out of his store. Welcome New York ! (Paris is almost as bad... not Len of course). I finally got a body for 130$ if I remember well. Found a new old stock M 50/1.4 in Quebec and I was set for a love story that would last and last until now... Who's got the time to read all that? I'll go faster and drop the romantic part. As I found SMC Takumar cheaper and easier to get, I switched to these and eventually acquired a bunch of them but in real nomadic life used most of the time a 28mm, a 55mm and a 100mm macro (the best lens I've ever had). Put on MXs, Spotmatics or a combination of both (always 2 bodies: chrome + BW). Today I do it with LXs and K lenses if in town (classic progression of focals: 24mm, 35mm, 50-55mm, 85m, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm) or M lenses if travelling (steeper progression: 28, 50, 100 mac, 200 ; thinking about trying super-lite hiking kit 20, 40, 85 + K6-2X + achromatic close-up lens + reverse ring + AF-200T off body + reflector, table tripod). I'm not a professionnal photographer. I've taken mostly Kodachrome and Kodak BW and mostly while travelling (Latin America). I'm beginning to feed some to a Coolscan print on an Epson 1200 with MIS inks and... (I feel wiziwiged...) I'm very very far from some Cibachromes I did one day. For the last three years I did mostly portraits of local live musicians on Tri-X. Having collected much documentation on Pentax stuff, I was able to collaborate with Boz for some time. I've read good parts of the Pentax (old) archives (I'd like so much to have a copy of it...) but stopped reading a year ago being too busy with depression. (I'm back on my feet, cameras on my back.) I have a good superficial knowledge of Pentax manual focus era equipment (not Asahiflex though) but would like to identify better the optical character of Asahi lenses I meet. I plan to do some real-life matches between a number of lenses (taking the same photo with 2 or more lenses, in a row). Bokeh is important to me, also color balance, contrast flare resistance and vignetting. I still don't know how to put JPEGs on the WEB to show some results... what a shame... For example, I compared an old Takumar 200/3.5 (I read that in the sixties, some Nikoners of that era had this lens modified to fit their F cameras because it was faster than Nikon's) with Pentax-M 200/4. I scan the slides at 2700dpi with color stable Coolscan (6 multi-pass with Vuescan) and check details. Have Pentax done better with the M lens, 20 years later ? I'd say yes and no... Optical performance (drawn from ONE light situation, one f-stop ; no bokeh comparison, no low-contrast shot or flare-prone situation etc.) is practically the same BUT! ...M-lens is much smaller and lighter. In a corner, I could see the M lens does have a little bit more contrast, maybe because of lower internal reflections due to SMC, I don't know. Color balance is identical. Some of you will laugh at this exercice. I do take photos mostly for fun and don't care about the optical character of a lens when i use it. But I think I might find something comparing lenses in real-life situations. I don't know what. Maybe nothing. Wow... that would be something! Andre - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Portrait of a Frog
Nice to hear from you, Andre. Your English is quite good, and your stories are interesting. I hope you continue to contribute here. Your voice will be a welcome addition. Paul Stenquist andre wrote: Since march, I kind of slip a comment here and there without having presented myself until now. (My english is kind of slippery too.) I live in Quebec City. I've been on Pentax since '83. I began with my father's Contaflex some years before and found myself, a young anthropology student, travelling with 2 Canonets in '82 when I met a hometown guy who recommended an MX as an eventual SLR, a small impressive camera, he could have said. From there my mind was set on this one. While in southern Mexico (good to feel warm weather in january...), a sudden currency devaluation cut all prices in two (for us). So I could afford the 2 most common non-normal M lenses (28mm 135mm) - found in a small town ! - knowing I would get a MX body as soon as possible. I went to New York at spring time to see museums and get a cheap MX. Prices were in display so I first went into that store where the price was the lowest and told the seller that I noted his price on the MX was surprisingly low. The guy went mad (thought I was implying something unclear about his merchandise) and almost kicked my ass to immediately get me out of his store. Welcome New York ! (Paris is almost as bad... not Len of course). I finally got a body for 130$ if I remember well. Found a new old stock M 50/1.4 in Quebec and I was set for a love story that would last and last until now... Who's got the time to read all that? I'll go faster and drop the romantic part. As I found SMC Takumar cheaper and easier to get, I switched to these and eventually acquired a bunch of them but in real nomadic life used most of the time a 28mm, a 55mm and a 100mm macro (the best lens I've ever had). Put on MXs, Spotmatics or a combination of both (always 2 bodies: chrome + BW). Today I do it with LXs and K lenses if in town (classic progression of focals: 24mm, 35mm, 50-55mm, 85m, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm) or M lenses if travelling (steeper progression: 28, 50, 100 mac, 200 ; thinking about trying super-lite hiking kit 20, 40, 85 + K6-2X + achromatic close-up lens + reverse ring + AF-200T off body + reflector, table tripod). I'm not a professionnal photographer. I've taken mostly Kodachrome and Kodak BW and mostly while travelling (Latin America). I'm beginning to feed some to a Coolscan print on an Epson 1200 with MIS inks and... (I feel wiziwiged...) I'm very very far from some Cibachromes I did one day. For the last three years I did mostly portraits of local live musicians on Tri-X. Having collected much documentation on Pentax stuff, I was able to collaborate with Boz for some time. I've read good parts of the Pentax (old) archives (I'd like so much to have a copy of it...) but stopped reading a year ago being too busy with depression. (I'm back on my feet, cameras on my back.) I have a good superficial knowledge of Pentax manual focus era equipment (not Asahiflex though) but would like to identify better the optical character of Asahi lenses I meet. I plan to do some real-life matches between a number of lenses (taking the same photo with 2 or more lenses, in a row). Bokeh is important to me, also color balance, contrast flare resistance and vignetting. I still don't know how to put JPEGs on the WEB to show some results... what a shame... For example, I compared an old Takumar 200/3.5 (I read that in the sixties, some Nikoners of that era had this lens modified to fit their F cameras because it was faster than Nikon's) with Pentax-M 200/4. I scan the slides at 2700dpi with color stable Coolscan (6 multi-pass with Vuescan) and check details. Have Pentax done better with the M lens, 20 years later ? I'd say yes and no... Optical performance (drawn from ONE light situation, one f-stop ; no bokeh comparison, no low-contrast shot or flare-prone situation etc.) is practically the same BUT! ...M-lens is much smaller and lighter. In a corner, I could see the M lens does have a little bit more contrast, maybe because of lower internal reflections due to SMC, I don't know. Color balance is identical. Some of you will laugh at this exercice. I do take photos mostly for fun and don't care about the optical character of a lens when i use it. But I think I might find something comparing lenses in real-life situations. I don't know what. Maybe nothing. Wow... that would be something! Andre - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at
