Re: Opinions please
Here comes another vote from the Norwegian jury. -- MaritimTim 2009/5/25 Bob W : > A picture: > > http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg > > The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're > not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. > > Bob -- 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: Opinions please
> > Very good capture Bob. Agree white should not offer detail other than > any other colors or shades (didn't work so well this > transtation, but I > always get tired by this time of night). > > I keep trying to adjust the horizon, CCW just a little bit... > minor nit > indeed. One shot or did you bracket? > the buildings and road are not straight or level in any dimension. Plus I took it with a why dangle lens, so things are a bit distorted. I didn't bracket. I got one shot in just before this one, then he was gone from the good background. Bob -- 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: Opinions please
> Bob W wrote: > > A picture: > > > > http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg > > > > The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown > out, but they're > > not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > That is rather brilliant. I'd say, another surrealist shot in > the vein > of your girl in the park. > > D Thanks to everyone who opinionated - the picture was far better received than I expected it to be. Bob -- 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: Opinions please
Bob W wrote: A picture: http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. Bob That is rather brilliant. I'd say, another surrealist shot in the vein of your girl in the park. D -- der...@iinet.net.au http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- 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: Opinions please
This has red hair. Therefore the way his face came out is only natural... Or at least this is what I am thinking. On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Bob W wrote: > A picture: > > http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg > > The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're > not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. > > Bob > > > -- > 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. > -- Boris -- 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: Opinions please
What Godfrey said Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: Opinions please From: "Bob W" A picture: http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. I like it ... it looks like a figure in a diorama rather than a real child, makes that leap out of documentarian into abstrative perception. 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: Opinions please
I like it. I'm looking at it on my laptop, so much is lost. But it projects a mood that I'd describe as mysterious if not dark. The child appears almost as a mannequin, and his position in frame and tightly programmed look contribute to a somewhat unnatural feeling. Strange, interesting, compelling. Paul On May 25, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Bob W wrote: A picture: http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. Bob -- 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: Opinions please
He's a red-head. Like me at his age, he has no color to his skin. But there are freckles, I'd wager. Move in closer! On May 25, 2009, at 14:55 , Bob W wrote: A picture: http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian http://gallery.me.com/jomac http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html -- 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: Opinions please
Exposure looks fine to me. I like it. On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Bob W wrote: > A picture: > > http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg > > The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're > not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. > > Bob > > > -- > 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. > -- ~Nick David Wright http://www.nickdavidwright.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: Opinions please
On 25/5/09, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: >http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg > >The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're >not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. Looks fine to me, I can see plenty of detail. Nice pic. -- 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: Opinions please
From: "Bob W" A picture: http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. I like it ... it looks like a figure in a diorama rather than a real child, makes that leap out of documentarian into abstrative perception. 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: Opinions please
Very good capture Bob. Agree white should not offer detail other than any other colors or shades (didn't work so well this transtation, but I always get tired by this time of night). I keep trying to adjust the horizon, CCW just a little bit... minor nit indeed. One shot or did you bracket? LF Bob W escreveu: A picture: http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. Bob -- 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. -- Luiz Felipe luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/ -- 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: Opinions please
On Mon, 25 May 2009 22:55:07 +0100 Bob W wrote: > http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg > > The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but > they're not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. > > Bob would like a higher def version but... I like how the shot works to emphasize how wee the lad is. verticals and the window sill is even over his head. -- "Love" is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own... Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition.- Robert Heinlein -- 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: Opinions please
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Bob W wrote: > A picture: > > http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg > > The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're > not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white. Death, destruction, people with weapons - wait, that was another thread. Okay, keeping in mind that I have very low standards for myself, I'd be very happy with this one. You caught the child perfectly mid-stride (not an easy thing to do with scooters and skateboards and the like) and ~also~ in just the right position in the frame (between the doors and those black poles). The geometry in this is amazing. Whether the face is blown out or not, I guess I'd prefer a bit more detail in it, but that lack of detail isn't enough to turn take this good photo and turn it into a bad one. In other words (god I'm feeling inarticulate this evening!) I like it a lot. Now I must leave the office, go home and eat dinner. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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: Opinions please
graywolf wrote: > All photographs are ordinary. In the past 160 years everything has been done, > over, and over, and over again. So, they are all ordinary, but some are > interesting despite that. Definitely deserves a "Mark!". :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- 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: Opinions please
All photographs are ordinary. In the past 160 years everything has been done, over, and over, and over again. So, they are all ordinary, but some are interesting despite that. Graywolf Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com Blog:http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/ --- Boris Liberman wrote: > Bob, it is good but somehow ordinary... > > Boris > > > Bob W wrote: >> This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have >> photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo >> last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this >> composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts. >> >> I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and why. >> >> http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Bob >> >> > > -- 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: Opinions please
On Dec 11, 2007, at 17:11, Bob Blakely wrote: > Which one is the TARDIS and why isn't it blue? > (Digging into what I remember from 25 years ago...) The TARDIS is a Police box, not a phone booth (that's why). No idea what a police box is, though. Maybe Wikipedia could help there. Yes, it can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_box -Charles -- Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org -- 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: Opinions please
Which one is the TARDIS and why isn't it blue? Regards, Bob... - Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bob, it is good but somehow ordinary... > > Boris > > > Bob W wrote: >> This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have >> photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo >> last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this >> composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts. >> >> I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and why. >> >> http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg -- 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: Opinions please
Bob, it is good but somehow ordinary... Boris Bob W wrote: > This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have > photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo > last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this > composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts. > > I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and why. > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > -- > Thanks, > Bob > > -- 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: Opinions please
In a message dated 12/9/2007 1:14:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's a version with no people: http://www.web-options.com/_B296673.jpg As for the phone boxes, I think they are probably listed. Listing is something that one of the cultural quangos can do to things of architectural merit to prevent them being destroyed or ruined. BT tried a few years ago to do away with many of the old Gilbert Scott K2 & K6 phone boxes, and many of them were promptly listed because they do make a pleasant contribution to the streetscape and are very much part of Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_telephone_box -- Bob === Huh. I like it better without people. More haunting. Marnie aka Doe - Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. **Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000301) -- 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: Opinions please
Bob W wrote: >This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have >photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo >last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this >composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts. > >I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and why. > >http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > >-- >Thanks, > Bob > I'd like it a lot if the people were not in it... they don't add anything to it from a composition point of view and while it might work if each was talking on a cell phone as a different kind of photo, they aren't very intersting. A very personal opinion - I love the phone booths and the light ann > > > > -- 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: Opinions please
People would think I was an American tourist... -- Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Stan Halpin > Sent: 09 December 2007 16:52 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Opinions please > > I like the tighter composition, but I would rather have people in it > as well. And the two walkeers in the other version wouldn't fit in > this frame. I think what would be idea would be to have this > version, > but have one person in each phone booth, talking on their respective > phones, each looking out of the frame (i.e., the right hand one > looking to the right, the left hand one looking to the left.) So, > next time take some friends along or enlist a couple of passers-by... > > stan > > On Dec 9, 2007, at 3:36 AM, Cotty wrote: > > > On 09/12/07, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: > > > >> Here's a version with no people: > >> http://www.web-options.com/_B296673.jpg > > > > I like that a lot more. > > > > -- > > > > > > 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. > > > -- > 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: Opinions please
I like the tighter composition, but I would rather have people in it as well. And the two walkeers in the other version wouldn't fit in this frame. I think what would be idea would be to have this version, but have one person in each phone booth, talking on their respective phones, each looking out of the frame (i.e., the right hand one looking to the right, the left hand one looking to the left.) So, next time take some friends along or enlist a couple of passers-by... stan On Dec 9, 2007, at 3:36 AM, Cotty wrote: > On 09/12/07, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> Here's a version with no people: >> http://www.web-options.com/_B296673.jpg > > I like that a lot more. > > -- > > > 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. -- 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: Opinions please
On Dec 9, 2007, at 3:14, Bob W wrote: >>> http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > The 2 men make the picture more successful than previous attempts. > With noone in the frame it is too flat and static for me. Other > versions have people walking parallel with the picture plane, and lack > life or dynamism. The fact that these men break the picture plane give > it another dimension and some movement, which is heightened by them > being mid-stride, stepping off the pavement. Their obvious enjoyment > of each other's company gives it a nice human touch, I think. > > Here's a version with no people: > http://www.web-options.com/_B296673.jpg > I guess I'm just odd - I prefer the "static with no people" shot myself. -Charles -- Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org -- 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: Opinions please
I like both of these photos, Bob. Sans people, it presents more of a formal study. Quite different photos, really, and both good. Lots to look at and enjoy. Which do I like more? I don't think I can say without more context to pose the question. Godfrey On Dec 9, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Bob W wrote: >>> http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > Thanks to everyone for replying to this - I've been very surprised by > the size of the response. I think generally others have the same view > of it that I have. > > It's in a very funny spot, light-wise. It seems to be really difficult > to find a time when there is some sunlight on the scene. I happened to > get lucky with this one because I've never seen that dappled light > there before, and that's why I stopped to try again. > > I've photographed it before when the trees have been in full foliage. > They are figs, so the foliage is quite spectacular and tends to > overwhelm the composition. In particular they take away the graphic > lines of the windows, which I think are an important part of the > composition. They divide the space; the leftmost phone box continues > the line of the left window, the tree continues the line of the next > one, then the young man continues the line and finally the right-hand > phone box makes an equal division and an implied line upwards. So > cropping the windows would, in my view, weaken the composition. > > The 2 men make the picture more successful than previous attempts. > With noone in the frame it is too flat and static for me. Other > versions have people walking parallel with the picture plane, and lack > life or dynamism. The fact that these men break the picture plane give > it another dimension and some movement, which is heightened by them > being mid-stride, stepping off the pavement. Their obvious enjoyment > of each other's company gives it a nice human touch, I think. > > Here's a version with no people: > http://www.web-options.com/_B296673.jpg > > As for the phone boxes, I think they are probably listed. Listing is > something that one of the cultural quangos can do to things of > architectural merit to prevent them being destroyed or ruined. BT > tried a few years ago to do away with many of the old Gilbert Scott K2 > & K6 phone boxes, and many of them were promptly listed because they > do make a pleasant contribution to the streetscape and are very much > part of Britain. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_telephone_box > > -- > Bob > -- 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: Opinions please
I'm sure it will be no surprise, but I prefer the people-less version. I've never needed a living being, of any sort, included in a photo to give it "life". Especially when there is not even an implied connection. This is a (nicely leveled) strong image that allows a pleasing uninterrupted visual experience. Nicely rendered as well! Jack --- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > Thanks to everyone for replying to this - I've been very surprised by > the size of the response. I think generally others have the same view > of it that I have. > > It's in a very funny spot, light-wise. It seems to be really > difficult > to find a time when there is some sunlight on the scene. I happened > to > get lucky with this one because I've never seen that dappled light > there before, and that's why I stopped to try again. > > I've photographed it before when the trees have been in full foliage. > They are figs, so the foliage is quite spectacular and tends to > overwhelm the composition. In particular they take away the graphic > lines of the windows, which I think are an important part of the > composition. They divide the space; the leftmost phone box continues > the line of the left window, the tree continues the line of the next > one, then the young man continues the line and finally the right-hand > phone box makes an equal division and an implied line upwards. So > cropping the windows would, in my view, weaken the composition. > > The 2 men make the picture more successful than previous attempts. > With noone in the frame it is too flat and static for me. Other > versions have people walking parallel with the picture plane, and > lack > life or dynamism. The fact that these men break the picture plane > give > it another dimension and some movement, which is heightened by them > being mid-stride, stepping off the pavement. Their obvious enjoyment > of each other's company gives it a nice human touch, I think. > > Here's a version with no people: > http://www.web-options.com/_B296673.jpg > > As for the phone boxes, I think they are probably listed. Listing is > something that one of the cultural quangos can do to things of > architectural merit to prevent them being destroyed or ruined. BT > tried a few years ago to do away with many of the old Gilbert Scott > K2 > & K6 phone boxes, and many of them were promptly listed because they > do make a pleasant contribution to the streetscape and are very much > part of Britain. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_telephone_box > > -- > Bob > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of graywolf > > Sent: 08 December 2007 20:06 > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: Opinions please > > > > OK, I think that if it were my photo, I would crop it just > > below the top of the > > window sills. I might crop a bit off the left too, making the > > phone booths > > balanced and letting the people and the tree give it > > dynamics; although I would > > have to try that to know if I would really like it that way. > > > > Phone booths are pretty much a thing of the past over on this > > side of the > > Alantic. Sad, but then almost anyone can afford a prepaid > > cel-phone. Speaking of > > which, I have to remember to get a new card as my time is running > out. > > > > > -- > 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. > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping -- 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: Opinions please
Forgot to answer the q about the lens in my previous reply. The lens used was the Olympus 14-54, at 28mm. That's the equivalent of 56mm in 35mm terms. The converging verticals are probably the result of me framing it so that the line of the pavement was in the right place - it would leave the camera pointing slightly upwards. -- Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Alastair Robertson > Sent: 08 December 2007 22:31 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Opinions please > > I like this a lot. The two people match the two boxes well, and I > like the overarching tree and the patches of light which adds depth. > It looks level to me though with slight converging verticals > presumably a wide-angle lens was used? > > Alastair > > > > > > > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > > > -- 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: Opinions please
On 09/12/07, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: >Here's a version with no people: >http://www.web-options.com/_B296673.jpg I like that a lot more. -- 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: Opinions please
> > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg Thanks to everyone for replying to this - I've been very surprised by the size of the response. I think generally others have the same view of it that I have. It's in a very funny spot, light-wise. It seems to be really difficult to find a time when there is some sunlight on the scene. I happened to get lucky with this one because I've never seen that dappled light there before, and that's why I stopped to try again. I've photographed it before when the trees have been in full foliage. They are figs, so the foliage is quite spectacular and tends to overwhelm the composition. In particular they take away the graphic lines of the windows, which I think are an important part of the composition. They divide the space; the leftmost phone box continues the line of the left window, the tree continues the line of the next one, then the young man continues the line and finally the right-hand phone box makes an equal division and an implied line upwards. So cropping the windows would, in my view, weaken the composition. The 2 men make the picture more successful than previous attempts. With noone in the frame it is too flat and static for me. Other versions have people walking parallel with the picture plane, and lack life or dynamism. The fact that these men break the picture plane give it another dimension and some movement, which is heightened by them being mid-stride, stepping off the pavement. Their obvious enjoyment of each other's company gives it a nice human touch, I think. Here's a version with no people: http://www.web-options.com/_B296673.jpg As for the phone boxes, I think they are probably listed. Listing is something that one of the cultural quangos can do to things of architectural merit to prevent them being destroyed or ruined. BT tried a few years ago to do away with many of the old Gilbert Scott K2 & K6 phone boxes, and many of them were promptly listed because they do make a pleasant contribution to the streetscape and are very much part of Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_telephone_box -- Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of graywolf > Sent: 08 December 2007 20:06 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Opinions please > > OK, I think that if it were my photo, I would crop it just > below the top of the > window sills. I might crop a bit off the left too, making the > phone booths > balanced and letting the people and the tree give it > dynamics; although I would > have to try that to know if I would really like it that way. > > Phone booths are pretty much a thing of the past over on this > side of the > Alantic. Sad, but then almost anyone can afford a prepaid > cel-phone. Speaking of > which, I have to remember to get a new card as my time is running out. > -- 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: Opinions please
It has nice balance, color, tonality and sharpness. A good one. :-) Godfrey On Dec 8, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Bob W wrote: > This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have > photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo > last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this > composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts. > > I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and why. > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg -- 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: Opinions please
A lot to like here. The light is very nice. The rays of light splashing across the sidewalk and hitting the phone booth and beautiful are excellent. While there is balance to the composition, you didn't try to make it symmetrical. And it's far enough removed from symmetrical to make it apparent that you didn't try and fail. And the two smiling boys are a huge plus. They give live to the scene. Excellent photo. Paul On Dec 8, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Bob W wrote: > This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have > photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo > last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this > composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts. > > I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and why. > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > -- > Thanks, > Bob > > > -- > 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: Opinions please
I like this a lot. The two people match the two boxes well, and I like the overarching tree and the patches of light which adds depth. It looks level to me though with slight converging verticals presumably a wide-angle lens was used? Alastair On Dec 9, 2007 10:48 AM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I agree with Peter on this. Without the two men it would be a nice > scene but those two guys are obviously enjoying themselves and it adds a > great deal more interest to the image. > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney, Australia > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > http://www.blognow.com.au/peso1/ > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/brianwalters > > > > Quoting "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Since I don't remember seeing any of the others you may have been > > disappointed with, but I'd venture to guess that having the two > > young > > men walking through the scene in just about the right place helps > > quite > > a bit. > > > > Bob W wrote: > > > This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and > > have > > > photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this > > photo > > > last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why > > this > > > composition is (in my view) more successful than previous > > attempts. > > > > > > I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and > > why. > > > > > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Bob > > > > -- > Find out how you can get spam free email. > http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/3 > > > > -- > 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: Opinions please
I like it. And I asked my resident photo critic (aka wife) and she mostly likes it. 1. The red phone booths work well as the color contrast against an otherwise monochromatic scene. 2. Nice dynamics of the two guys walking and talking and seeming to enjoy themselves. 3. Nice framing of the two guys with the arch of the tree branches. 4. I don't think it would work as well with leaves on the tree or green grass on the ground. Unless you rendered it in B&W. 5. Which, by the way, would be interesting to see. My wife's comments - she would have preferred the two guys a bit closer together and slightly to the left. I thik she doesn't want anyone blocking the view of the phone booths. I actually think it gains this way - the phone booths are there as a significant element, but the eye quickly gets drawn to the people. If the right-hand booth were also unblocked, the booths would be too prominent. stan On Dec 8, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Bob W wrote: > This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have > photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo > last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this > composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts. > > I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and why. > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > -- > Thanks, > Bob > > > -- > 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: Opinions please
Yes, I agree with Peter on this. Without the two men it would be a nice scene but those two guys are obviously enjoying themselves and it adds a great deal more interest to the image. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ http://www.blognow.com.au/peso1/ http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/brianwalters Quoting "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Since I don't remember seeing any of the others you may have been > disappointed with, but I'd venture to guess that having the two > young > men walking through the scene in just about the right place helps > quite > a bit. > > Bob W wrote: > > This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and > have > > photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this > photo > > last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why > this > > composition is (in my view) more successful than previous > attempts. > > > > I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and > why. > > > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Bob > -- Find out how you can get spam free email. http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/3 -- 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: Opinions please
Nice crisp image, but it doesn't work for me, not sure why. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -Subject: Opinions please > This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have > photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo > last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this > composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts. > > I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and why. > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > -- > Thanks, > Bob . -- 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: Opinions please
It would have more contrast of color if taken in late spring. Some green with the bright red phone booths would look nice. That asside I like the shot anyway. > This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have > photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo > last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this > composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts. > > I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and why. > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > -- > Thanks, > Bob > > > -- > 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. -- Ben 'Polyhead' Smith KE7GAL -- 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: Opinions please
Since I don't remember seeing any of the others you may have been disappointed with, but I'd venture to guess that having the two young men walking through the scene in just about the right place helps quite a bit. Bob W wrote: > This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have > photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo > last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this > composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts. > > I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and why. > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > -- > Thanks, > Bob > > > -- The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team. -- P. J. O'Roarke -- 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: Opinions please
I like the graphic aspect of it, but the people aren't needed. I'd level it the little bit it needs. I may be a shot to put away for it's historic value. I understand those coin operated pay phones are no longer being produced in the US. Jack --- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have > photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo > last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this > composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts. > > I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and why. > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > -- > Thanks, > Bob > > > -- > 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. > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -- 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: Opinions please
OK, I think that if it were my photo, I would crop it just below the top of the window sills. I might crop a bit off the left too, making the phone booths balanced and letting the people and the tree give it dynamics; although I would have to try that to know if I would really like it that way. Phone booths are pretty much a thing of the past over on this side of the Alantic. Sad, but then almost anyone can afford a prepaid cel-phone. Speaking of which, I have to remember to get a new card as my time is running out. Graywolf Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com Blog:http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/ --- Bob W wrote: > This is a scene I've been familiar with for about 25 years, and have > photographed quite often - and been disappointed. I took this photo > last week, and quite like it. It's only occurred to me today why this > composition is (in my view) more successful than previous attempts. > > I'd be interested to hear what other people think about it, and why. > > http://www.web-options.com/_B296674.jpg > > -- > Thanks, > Bob > > -- 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: Opinions, please
Hi Luben I would love to see the results of your Tamron SP 17mm shooting later here... ;-) greetings Markus >(I have just recieved Tamron SP >>17/3.5 and I will give it a try tomorrow because I have to trade the >>adapter with a friend). >> >>Best regard >>luben
Re: Opinions, please
My bad, I was thinking of the Flektogon, the german lens naming scheme is still a little foreign to me. The 18 is just a little too wide for me on 35mm and not wide enough on Digital. Might keep an eye out for the SMC 20. -Adam luben karavelov wrote: Carl Zeiss Jena never made Distagon lens, they are made by western part of Zeiss. Easern part of Zeiss, located in Jena, made Flektogon 20/2.8 on M42 and Praktika B mount - nice lens, I have one and I am really happy with it. I think that Distagons are in Contax mount. How could you use one on Pentax K mount body like LX? Why don't you try SMC 20/2.8 (similar to Flekotgon design) or SMC 18/3.5 lens. For me the wide in never too wide (I have just recieved Tamron SP 17/3.5 and I will give it a try tomorrow because I have to trade the adapter with a friend). Best regard luben
Re: Opinions, please
Adam Maas wrote: > > LX + lens. Probably a 24 or 20, If the 20, I'm likely to grab a CZJ 20mm > Distagon. > > > -Adam > Carl Zeiss Jena never made Distagon lens, they are made by western part of Zeiss. Easern part of Zeiss, located in Jena, made Flektogon 20/2.8 on M42 and Praktika B mount - nice lens, I have one and I am really happy with it. I think that Distagons are in Contax mount. How could you use one on Pentax K mount body like LX? Why don't you try SMC 20/2.8 (similar to Flekotgon design) or SMC 18/3.5 lens. For me the wide in never too wide (I have just recieved Tamron SP 17/3.5 and I will give it a try tomorrow because I have to trade the adapter with a friend). Best regard luben -- "Computers are useless. They can only give answers." - Pablo Picasso
Re: Opinions, please
Adam Maas wrote: Ironically, I can justify the purchase of the LX but not an MX. The MX isn't sufficiently different from my little Ricoh (Better build, winder, but lower max shutter than the Ricoh). The LX has sufficient advantages to make it justifiable. But I really would like the DA14, of course, I could wait for the 12-24. Wait for the 12-24. You could order one now, and you will get it at the end of Nov or beg of Dec. rg
Re: Opinions, please
I can't speak to color issues - never ran a roll of color through the LX when making long exposures (and rarely did so when making normal exposures). However, the Tri-X / LX combination produced very good exposures in automatic mode in low light, with no thought to, or adjustment because of, reciprocity failure. Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > [Original Message] > From: Rob Studdert > I believe that the LX is one of the best ever low light cameras, the pity is of > course that it doesn't have a pixel array. The LX seems to get the exposure > pretty much in the ball park during long exposures as other have indicated. > > Reciprocity failure can be a pain to manage and should be more so if you are > using auto exposure with off the film metering as in the LX. The subject > colour, the scene illuminants and the surface colour of the film all effect > exposure times, however after much testing over many years I simply learned to > trust the camera and bracket when it all looked too hard, I made a lot of great > exposures that way. :-)
Re: Opinions, please
Ironically, I can justify the purchase of the LX but not an MX. The MX isn't sufficiently different from my little Ricoh (Better build, winder, but lower max shutter than the Ricoh). The LX has sufficient advantages to make it justifiable. But I really would like the DA14, of course, I could wait for the 12-24. Decisions, Decisions. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: The LX is an amazingly good camera for low light work. I've made perfect exposures in a room that was completely dark but for a flickering TV screen, the light from which was constantly changing. The LX, with the shutter open, just kept measuring the light until the proper exposure was made, times varied between around twenty to forty seconds. That evening I got 36 perfectly exposed shots. Portraits by TV light ... y'gotta love it! Add the new, brighter focusing screens and a fast lens, and you've got a real low-light shooter. The nice thing with the LX is that if the light changes during exposure, the metering system adjust while the exposure is being made. Although I prefer the MX for daily shooting, it doesn't hold a candle to the LX in low light situations. Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi < Hmm. Honestly, I'd go for an MX over an LX but then I always preferred the Nikon FM/FE over the F2-3 as well (except for the hp viewfinder). In truly low light, I never bother with the meter ... I use a Kodak Pocket Photo Guide with its table of available light exposure suggestions. :-) On Nov 8, 2005, at 7:31 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Couple of Reasons. The LX meters down to EV-6.5 (I shoot a lot of low-light stuff), offers aperture priority, a winder (I've been spoiled by my AF Nikons), solid build and TTL flash. It's also likely to still work in 5 years.
Re: Opinions, please
- Original Message - From: "Peter Fairweather" Subject: Re: Opinions, please I tend to make long exposures in RAW and sort in out in Photoshop. How does the LX cope with reciprocity failure? I've often wondered whether there is a digital sensor equivalent No camera can cope with reciprocity failure. The photographer has to come armed with soem technical knowledge if he is going to go outside the linear part of the film's exposure range. The LX meter is quite linear, relatively colour blind, and when working well, is amazingly accurate. William Robb
Re: Opinions, please
On 9 Nov 2005 at 9:15, Peter Fairweather wrote: > I tend to make long exposures in RAW and sort in out in Photoshop. How > does the LX cope with reciprocity failure? I've often wondered whether > there is a digital sensor equivalent I believe that the LX is one of the best ever low light cameras, the pity is of course that it doesn't have a pixel array. The LX seems to get the exposure pretty much in the ball park during long exposures as other have indicated. Reciprocity failure can be a pain to manage and should be more so if you are using auto exposure with off the film metering as in the LX. The subject colour, the scene illuminants and the surface colour of the film all effect exposure times, however after much testing over many years I simply learned to trust the camera and bracket when it all looked too hard, I made a lot of great exposures that way. :-) I think that without special equipment (cryo-cooling systems etc) sensor noise tends to start to swamp the wanted signal in digital sensors, film is still much better at longer exposures, it has pretty low self noise :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Opinions, please
Shel Belinkoff wrote: > The LX is an amazingly good camera for low light work. I've > made perfect exposures in a room that was completely dark but > for a flickering TV screen, the light from which was > constantly changing. The LX, with the shutter open, just > kept measuring the light until the proper exposure was made, > times varied between around twenty to forty seconds. That > evening I got 36 perfectly exposed shots. Portraits by TV > light ... y'gotta love it! > Add the new, brighter focusing screens and a fast lens, and > you've got a real low-light shooter. The nice thing with the > LX is that if the light changes during exposure, the metering > system adjust while the exposure is being made. > > Although I prefer the MX for daily shooting, it doesn't hold > a candle to the LX in low light situations. I very very rarely use a flash and this was a major plus point to LX ownership, in how well it handled low light situations. I would far sooner carry a tripod and use a remote shutter release and have long exposures, than use a flash. Malcolm
Re: Re: Opinions, please
> > From: Peter Fairweather <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/11/09 Wed AM 09:15:28 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Opinions, please > > I tend to make long exposures in RAW and sort in out in Photoshop. How > does the LX cope with reciprocity failure? I've often wondered whether > there is a digital sensor equivalent The equivalent is probably noise. Not quite the same thing. With the LX, you would have to test the situation and insert exposure compensation as required. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Opinions, please
I tend to make long exposures in RAW and sort in out in Photoshop. How does the LX cope with reciprocity failure? I've often wondered whether there is a digital sensor equivalent Peter On 11/9/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The LX is an amazingly good camera for low light work. I've made perfect > exposures in a room that was completely dark but for a flickering TV > screen, the light from which was constantly changing. The LX, with the > shutter open, just kept measuring the light until the proper exposure was > made, times varied between around twenty to forty seconds. That evening I > got 36 perfectly exposed shots. Portraits by TV light ... y'gotta love it! > Add the new, brighter focusing screens and a fast lens, and you've got a > real low-light shooter. The nice thing with the LX is that if the light > changes during exposure, the metering system adjust while the exposure is > being made. > > Although I prefer the MX for daily shooting, it doesn't hold a candle to > the LX in low light situations. > > Shel > "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi < > > > Hmm. Honestly, I'd go for an MX over an LX but then I always > > preferred the Nikon FM/FE over the F2-3 as well (except for the hp > > viewfinder). In truly low light, I never bother with the meter ... I > > use a Kodak Pocket Photo Guide with its table of available light > > exposure suggestions. :-) > > > > On Nov 8, 2005, at 7:31 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > > > > > Couple of Reasons. The LX meters down to EV-6.5 (I shoot a lot of > > > low-light stuff), offers aperture priority, a winder (I've been > > > spoiled by my AF Nikons), solid build and TTL flash. It's also > > > likely to still work in 5 years. > > >
Re: Opinions, please
The LX is an amazingly good camera for low light work. I've made perfect exposures in a room that was completely dark but for a flickering TV screen, the light from which was constantly changing. The LX, with the shutter open, just kept measuring the light until the proper exposure was made, times varied between around twenty to forty seconds. That evening I got 36 perfectly exposed shots. Portraits by TV light ... y'gotta love it! Add the new, brighter focusing screens and a fast lens, and you've got a real low-light shooter. The nice thing with the LX is that if the light changes during exposure, the metering system adjust while the exposure is being made. Although I prefer the MX for daily shooting, it doesn't hold a candle to the LX in low light situations. Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi < > Hmm. Honestly, I'd go for an MX over an LX but then I always > preferred the Nikon FM/FE over the F2-3 as well (except for the hp > viewfinder). In truly low light, I never bother with the meter ... I > use a Kodak Pocket Photo Guide with its table of available light > exposure suggestions. :-) > On Nov 8, 2005, at 7:31 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > > > Couple of Reasons. The LX meters down to EV-6.5 (I shoot a lot of > > low-light stuff), offers aperture priority, a winder (I've been > > spoiled by my AF Nikons), solid build and TTL flash. It's also > > likely to still work in 5 years.
Re: Opinions, please
Hmm. Honestly, I'd go for an MX over an LX but then I always preferred the Nikon FM/FE over the F2-3 as well (except for the hp viewfinder). In truly low light, I never bother with the meter ... I use a Kodak Pocket Photo Guide with its table of available light exposure suggestions. :-) But I really really like the DA14 on the DS. Godfrey On Nov 8, 2005, at 7:31 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Couple of Reasons. The LX meters down to EV-6.5 (I shoot a lot of low-light stuff), offers aperture priority, a winder (I've been spoiled by my AF Nikons), solid build and TTL flash. It's also likely to still work in 5 years. My current K mount film body is El Plastic Cosina (Aka the Ricoh KR-5sv). Sure it offers better flash sync than the LX at 1/125 and it's actually a good performer for the cost ($66CDN), but it's cheaply built, the metering is more of a suggestion than anything else, the mirror slap is incredible and it's just plasticky. I'd not be looking elsewhere if I had an MX or K1000. Ever since my Nikon FA died, I've been wanting a solid MF SLR anyways. -Adam Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: If you already have a good film body, why buy another? I like the DA14 a lot. Godfrey On Nov 8, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Adam Maas wrote: I'm going to have some disposable income next week, and am planning on some acquisitions. Possibilities include: 14mm DA for my *istD (Giving me an ultra-wide, right now my widest options are the 18-55 on the D and a 28mm on my little Ricoh KR-5sv) or LX + lens. Probably a 24 or 20, If the 20, I'm likely to grab a CZJ 20mm Distagon. And I'm also looking at maybe getting a 45-125/4 SMCP for the digital. It would be essentially a 70-185 on the D. Anybody tried this lens on a Digital? -Adam
Re: Opinions, please
Couple of Reasons. The LX meters down to EV-6.5 (I shoot a lot of low-light stuff), offers aperture priority, a winder (I've been spoiled by my AF Nikons), solid build and TTL flash. It's also likely to still work in 5 years. My current K mount film body is El Plastic Cosina (Aka the Ricoh KR-5sv). Sure it offers better flash sync than the LX at 1/125 and it's actually a good performer for the cost ($66CDN), but it's cheaply built, the metering is more of a suggestion than anything else, the mirror slap is incredible and it's just plasticky. I'd not be looking elsewhere if I had an MX or K1000. Ever since my Nikon FA died, I've been wanting a solid MF SLR anyways. -Adam Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: If you already have a good film body, why buy another? I like the DA14 a lot. Godfrey On Nov 8, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Adam Maas wrote: I'm going to have some disposable income next week, and am planning on some acquisitions. Possibilities include: 14mm DA for my *istD (Giving me an ultra-wide, right now my widest options are the 18-55 on the D and a 28mm on my little Ricoh KR-5sv) or LX + lens. Probably a 24 or 20, If the 20, I'm likely to grab a CZJ 20mm Distagon. And I'm also looking at maybe getting a 45-125/4 SMCP for the digital. It would be essentially a 70-185 on the D. Anybody tried this lens on a Digital? -Adam
Re: Opinions, please
If you already have a good film body, why buy another? I like the DA14 a lot. Godfrey On Nov 8, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Adam Maas wrote: I'm going to have some disposable income next week, and am planning on some acquisitions. Possibilities include: 14mm DA for my *istD (Giving me an ultra-wide, right now my widest options are the 18-55 on the D and a 28mm on my little Ricoh KR-5sv) or LX + lens. Probably a 24 or 20, If the 20, I'm likely to grab a CZJ 20mm Distagon. And I'm also looking at maybe getting a 45-125/4 SMCP for the digital. It would be essentially a 70-185 on the D. Anybody tried this lens on a Digital? -Adam
Re: Opinions, please
I still shoot B&W, stopped for a bit while the D was new, but I'm on my 2nd roll of Tri-X this week (Least I hope it's Tri-X, it's labelled Tri-X 24exp, but I'm up to exp33 and the rewind know indicates it's feeding, so no idea what's actually in the can) I'm also up to a nice number of lenses. I've got a 200mm f4 XR Rikenon, 135mm f2.8 Kenlock in M42, 50mm f2 SMC-M, 50mm f1.4 Super Takumar, 28mm f2.8 Formula 5 and the 18-55 SMC-DA. I need something wider than 28mm for digital and film and something in the 77-100mm gap, but for the latter I'm holding out for a 77 Limited. -Adam cbwaters wrote: the LX would be nice but, man...you shooting any film anymore? I probably can't justify having one with the pitiful lens collection I've got...I need more glass before I can buy another body. CW - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 8:51 PM Subject: Opinions, please I'm going to have some disposable income next week, and am planning on some acquisitions. Possibilities include: 14mm DA for my *istD (Giving me an ultra-wide, right now my widest options are the 18-55 on the D and a 28mm on my little Ricoh KR-5sv) or LX + lens. Probably a 24 or 20, If the 20, I'm likely to grab a CZJ 20mm Distagon. And I'm also looking at maybe getting a 45-125/4 SMCP for the digital. It would be essentially a 70-185 on the D. Anybody tried this lens on a Digital? -Adam -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 11/5/2005
Re: Opinions, please
the LX would be nice but, man...you shooting any film anymore? I probably can't justify having one with the pitiful lens collection I've got...I need more glass before I can buy another body. CW - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 8:51 PM Subject: Opinions, please I'm going to have some disposable income next week, and am planning on some acquisitions. Possibilities include: 14mm DA for my *istD (Giving me an ultra-wide, right now my widest options are the 18-55 on the D and a 28mm on my little Ricoh KR-5sv) or LX + lens. Probably a 24 or 20, If the 20, I'm likely to grab a CZJ 20mm Distagon. And I'm also looking at maybe getting a 45-125/4 SMCP for the digital. It would be essentially a 70-185 on the D. Anybody tried this lens on a Digital? -Adam -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 11/5/2005
Re: Opinions, please
Wendy; Try some Fuji Provia 100 or 400 (depending on what kind of speed you are looking for. I like Velvia but it's VERY slow. I've never tried photographing black subjects on a white background with the LX or MX but I'm sure it would be difficult to say the least. I'd be tempted to stop down for the black dog but then wouldn't that under-expose the white snow leaving me with grey snow? If I opened up for the snow would the dog look dark grey rather than rich black? That's why i was impressed with the Matrix metering. Very impressed indeed! Christian On Wednesday 23 January 2002 20:47, Wendy wrote: > > Hi Christian, > Thanks for your comments > > I actually used fuji superia 200 (got a money off voucher with the Shrek > DVD!) You're right, I should give slide film a try, that would give me a > better idea of how close the exposure is. > Trouble is, I wouldn't know which to choose as the last time I used slide > film, agfa was my film of choice and it's something I've never seen here or > even know if is available any more. > > I used the multi-segment metering mode and have to say, I am wildly > impressed. I'm used to the centre-weighted average of the MX and I'm pretty > sure the results would have been a lot different if I'd been using the MX. > > thanks, > Wendy - 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 .
