Re: Max
what a cutie! On 8/8/20 11:30 PM, Bill wrote: Oops. Try this link instead. https://www.flickr.com/photos/11819824@N03/50204078268/in/dateposted-public/ bill -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
Larry Colen wrote: On Aug 28, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Bob W wrote: From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Larry Colen yes. If it was up to me I'd replace all the primes with more easily divisible numbers. It would save us all a lot of trouble. Now that you mention it, I realize why one of my lenses is 31mm, that doesn't however explain 77 rather than 79mm, or 50 rather than 51. rounding error I thought rounding error was how you got aspherical lenses. You're over thinking this. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
Bob W wrote: -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Joseph McAllister Something to consider next time the max dimensions are reviewed. Good Lord, Bob, you do need a hobby. Perhaps I should take up photography. To simple. Thank you, however, for setting it up so I can say "I agree". We must not resample except on the inter-pixel space lest we skew and smear color interpolations. -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
"rounding error I thought rounding error was how you got aspherical lenses." www.instantrimshot.com >> rounding error > > I thought rounding error was how you got aspherical lenses. On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > On Aug 28, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Bob W wrote: > >>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of >>> Larry Colen >> >> yes. If it was up to me I'd replace all the primes with more easily divisible numbers. It would save us all a lot of trouble. >>> >>> Now that you mention it, I realize why one of my lenses is 31mm, that >>> doesn't however explain 77 rather than 79mm, or 50 rather than 51. >>> >> >> rounding error > > I thought rounding error was how you got aspherical lenses. >> > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
On Aug 28, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Bob W wrote: >> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of >> Larry Colen > > >>> yes. If it was up to me I'd replace all the primes with more easily >>> divisible numbers. It would save us all a lot of trouble. >> >> Now that you mention it, I realize why one of my lenses is 31mm, that >> doesn't however explain 77 rather than 79mm, or 50 rather than 51. >> > > rounding error I thought rounding error was how you got aspherical lenses. > -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > Larry Colen > > yes. If it was up to me I'd replace all the primes with more easily > > divisible numbers. It would save us all a lot of trouble. > > Now that you mention it, I realize why one of my lenses is 31mm, that > doesn't however explain 77 rather than 79mm, or 50 rather than 51. > rounding error B -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
On Aug 28, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Bob W wrote: >> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of >> Steven Desjardins >> >> It's a lovely hobby. >> >> I am equally impressed by your numeristics. > > Thanks, but I've really like coin-collecting. > >> I also like numbers like >> 720 because I can do the math in my head more easily. >> > yes. If it was up to me I'd replace all the primes with more easily > divisible numbers. It would save us all a lot of trouble. Now that you mention it, I realize why one of my lenses is 31mm, that doesn't however explain 77 rather than 79mm, or 50 rather than 51. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
> >> I am equally impressed by your numeristics. > > > > Thanks, but I've really like coin-collecting. > > .but - I - really like coin collecting. >or .but I've really - liked - coin collecting. > > Joseph McAllister "but I've never really liked coin-collecting". Or proof-reading, come to that. B -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
On Aug 28, 2011, at 07:14 , Bob W wrote: >> I am equally impressed by your numeristics. > > Thanks, but I've really like coin-collecting. …but - I - really like coin collecting… or …but I've really - liked - coin collecting… Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com http://gallery.me.com/jomac -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
I've been resizing to 800 on long end, because that barely fits on the screen if you have a lot of status bars on your browser. Now I may rethink that. But I concur with the rest, hey, there's a lot of opportunity out there for taking "pretty pictures." Heh. Marnie ;-) Unless you want to start a copyright thread. In a message dated 8/28/2011 12:11:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, p...@web-options.com writes: Purely by coincidence, when I was googling something work-related last week I found a website which pointed out that 960 is one of those magic numbers like 720 which subdivides into zillions of different whole numbers, namely: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 30, 32, 40, 48, 60, 64, 80, 96, 120, 160, 192, 240, 320 and 480. This gives you plenty of options for different dimensions and cropping, while retaining that important consistency. Something to consider next time the max dimensions are reviewed. B -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
960 = (2*2*2*2*2*2)*3*5 = (2^6)*3*5 so it's divisible by 2, 3, 5, and lots of powers of 2. Prime decomposition from elementary Number Theory. Regards, Bob S. On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Bob W wrote: >> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of >> Brian Walters > >> The main requirements are: >> >> * Max. pixel dimensions: 800 x 800 pixels > > Godfrey mentioned a few weeks ago that pictures on my website seemed quite > small at 600x400. I orignally chose this when the PUG was limited to 700px > on the long since because it covers the 35mm ratios easily, whereas 700 > doesn't quite. > > I replied to Godfrey that my normal maximum for the long edge now is 720px > because it subdivides nicely and means that every picture can have the same > size long edge, which is good for consistency on the website. For example > 4/3rds is 720x540, normal 35mm dimensions are 720x480. > > The maximum of 800 has the same problem (perhaps too strong a word) as 700 > in that for some aspect ratios setting the long side to 800px means that the > short edge ends up as a fraction so you have to let your resizing software > choose which pixels to remove. For example, 35mm dimensions become > 800x533.3... So the biggest you can actually have without this monkeying > about is 798, whereas for 4/3rds you'd get the whole lot in 800. > > This means that the website is likely to have different maximum dimensions > on each page, which makes for a jerky and inconsistent appearance in the > page transitions. > > Purely by coincidence, when I was googling something work-related last week > I found a website which pointed out that 960 is one of those magic numbers > like 720 which subdivides into zillions of different whole numbers, namely: > 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 30, 32, 40, 48, 60, 64, 80, 96, > 120, 160, 192, 240, 320 and 480. This gives you plenty of options for > different dimensions and cropping, while retaining that important > consistency. > > Something to consider next time the max dimensions are reviewed. > > B > >> * Max file size: 300k >> * Third party equipment is acceptable provided either the camera body >> or >> lens used is Pentax. >> >> Also - as not all browsers are colour space aware, if you embed a >> colour >> space in the image, it should be sRGB to ensure the image looks right >> on >> line. I usually check the colour space of submitted images but I've >> been known to forget. > > > > -- > 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 07:54:04AM -0400, Steven Desjardins wrote: > It's a lovely hobby. > > I am equally impressed by your numeristics. I also like numbers like > 720 because I can do the math in my head more easily. It still comes a bit of a surprise to me that this isn't "obvious" - I've been thinking that way so long that I sometimes forget that not everybody thinks that way. The ancient Babylonians (who had no everyday concept of fractions) used a base 60 representation for just that reason; you can divide 60 by all the common small numbers (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) with no remainder. [You see remnants of the Babylonians today in measuring time and angles] Basically, any size that is a multiple of 60 would work reasonably well. That would cover most of the usual aspect ratios. The most noticeable omission would be the 16:9 aspect ration of HDTV (and many widescreen computer monitors), but even that can be achieved by a multiple of 240. That means that maximum dimensions of 720 or 960 are convenient choices. -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > David J Brooks > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Bob W wrote: > > > 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, > > Who do we appreciate > _whom_ do we appreciate! B -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > Steven Desjardins > > It's a lovely hobby. > > I am equally impressed by your numeristics. Thanks, but I've really like coin-collecting. > I also like numbers like > 720 because I can do the math in my head more easily. > yes. If it was up to me I'd replace all the primes with more easily divisible numbers. It would save us all a lot of trouble. B -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Bob W wrote: > 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, Who do we appreciate Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
It's a lovely hobby. I am equally impressed by your numeristics. I also like numbers like 720 because I can do the math in my head more easily. On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Bob W wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of >> Joseph McAllister >> > >> > Something to consider next time the max dimensions are reviewed. >> >> Good Lord, Bob, you do need a hobby. > > Perhaps I should take up photography. > > > >> Thank you, however, for setting >> it up so I can say "I agree". >> >> We must not resample except on the inter-pixel space lest we skew and >> smear color interpolations. >> > > > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
On Aug 28, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Bob W wrote: >> > > Purely by coincidence, when I was googling something work-related last week > I found a website which pointed out that 960 is one of those magic numbers > like 720 which subdivides into zillions of different whole numbers, namely: > 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 30, 32, 40, 48, 60, 64, 80, 96, > 120, 160, 192, 240, 320 and 480. This gives you plenty of options for > different dimensions and cropping, while retaining that important > consistency. Interesting, that must be where 1440 and 1920 as screen dimensions come from. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
> Bloody hell, Bob! Isn't it summer over there? Shouldn't you be > outdoors doing summer-y things? Perhaps it's raining. > "Is it still raining? I hadn't noticed". It's been a long wet summer. -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
> -Original Message- > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > Joseph McAllister > > > Something to consider next time the max dimensions are reviewed. > > Good Lord, Bob, you do need a hobby. Perhaps I should take up photography. > Thank you, however, for setting > it up so I can say "I agree". > > We must not resample except on the inter-pixel space lest we skew and > smear color interpolations. > -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
Bloody hell, Bob! Isn't it summer over there? Shouldn't you be outdoors doing summer-y things? Perhaps it's raining. However - thanks for the insight. I've placed this discussion in my 'hold' folder for future reference and/or to pass on to the next PUG-meister should he/she be brave enough to raise the image dimensions issue again. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 08:11 +0100, "Bob W" wrote: > > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > > Brian Walters > > > The main requirements are: > > > > * Max. pixel dimensions: 800 x 800 pixels > > Godfrey mentioned a few weeks ago that pictures on my website seemed > quite > small at 600x400. I orignally chose this when the PUG was limited to > 700px > on the long since because it covers the 35mm ratios easily, whereas 700 > doesn't quite. > > I replied to Godfrey that my normal maximum for the long edge now is > 720px > because it subdivides nicely and means that every picture can have the > same > size long edge, which is good for consistency on the website. For example > 4/3rds is 720x540, normal 35mm dimensions are 720x480. > > The maximum of 800 has the same problem (perhaps too strong a word) as > 700 > in that for some aspect ratios setting the long side to 800px means that > the > short edge ends up as a fraction so you have to let your resizing > software > choose which pixels to remove. For example, 35mm dimensions become > 800x533.3... So the biggest you can actually have without this > monkeying > about is 798, whereas for 4/3rds you'd get the whole lot in 800. > > This means that the website is likely to have different maximum > dimensions > on each page, which makes for a jerky and inconsistent appearance in the > page transitions. > > Purely by coincidence, when I was googling something work-related last > week > I found a website which pointed out that 960 is one of those magic > numbers > like 720 which subdivides into zillions of different whole numbers, > namely: > 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 30, 32, 40, 48, 60, 64, 80, 96, > 120, 160, 192, 240, 320 and 480. This gives you plenty of options for > different dimensions and cropping, while retaining that important > consistency. > > Something to consider next time the max dimensions are reviewed. > > B > -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service. -- 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: Max pixel dimensions (was RE: September PUG - Just a bit of Prodding....
On Aug 28, 2011, at 00:11 , Bob W wrote: >> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of >> Brian Walters > >> The main requirements are: >> >> * Max. pixel dimensions: 800 x 800 pixels > > Godfrey mentioned a few weeks ago that pictures on my website seemed quite > small at 600x400. I orignally chose this when the PUG was limited to 700px > on the long since because it covers the 35mm ratios easily, whereas 700 > doesn't quite. > > - SNIP - > Purely by coincidence, when I was googling something work-related last week > I found a website which pointed out that 960 is one of those magic numbers > like 720 which subdivides into zillions of different whole numbers, namely: > 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 30, 32, 40, 48, 60, 64, 80, 96, > 120, 160, 192, 240, 320 and 480. This gives you plenty of options for > different dimensions and cropping, while retaining that important > consistency. > > Something to consider next time the max dimensions are reviewed. Good Lord, Bob, you do need a hobby. Thank you, however, for setting it up so I can say "I agree". We must not resample except on the inter-pixel space lest we skew and smear color interpolations. Joseph McAllister Lots of gear, not much time http://gallery.me.com/jomac -- 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: Max size SD card *istDL
> Yes, if you've upgraded the firmware, and, in fact it will take a > 4GB card if you use the latest firmware. > > However, you won't be able to take advantage of the extra speed > offered by the SDX3 60X - 80X is about the max that the DL can > use, and, iirc, the SDX3 is a 133X card. Thanks Shel, the SDX3 will come into it's own when I get a K10 in '07 (I hope) couldn't resist the temptation. *ist DL + 28-55 + Sigma 100-300 + AF-360FGZ bargain price ;-) Regards, John -- Original Message --- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:33:18 -0800 Subject: RE: Max size SD card *istDL > Yes, if you've upgraded the firmware, and, in fact it will take a > 4GB card if you use the latest firmware. > > However, you won't be able to take advantage of the extra speed > offered by the SDX3 60X - 80X is about the max that the DL can > use, and, iirc, the SDX3 is a 133X card. > > Shel > > > [Original Message] > > From: John Whittingham > > Can anyone tell me the maximum size for the SD card in the *istDL please? > > Will it take Sandisk Extreme III SD 2Gb? > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom > it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. If you have received an email in error please notify > Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it > from your systems. > > Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email > attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be > free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. > > Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for > inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for > the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not > necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held > responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. > > --- End of Original Message --- The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Max size SD card *istDL
Yes, if you've upgraded the firmware, and, in fact it will take a 4GB card if you use the latest firmware. However, you won't be able to take advantage of the extra speed offered by the SDX3 60X - 80X is about the max that the DL can use, and, iirc, the SDX3 is a 133X card. Shel > [Original Message] > From: John Whittingham > Can anyone tell me the maximum size for the SD card in the *istDL please? > Will it take Sandisk Extreme III SD 2Gb? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Max size SD card *istDL
John Whittingham wrote: > Can anyone tell me the maximum size for the SD card in the *istDL please? > Will it take Sandisk Extreme III SD 2Gb? Yes, capacity wise. Don't know about any other parameter. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Max size SD card *istDL
> As it came from the factory it will use a 2 gig card. If you > download the latest firmware now available, it will handle the 4 gig > cards, and maybe even the 8 gig that just came out. Thanks Walter, just got myself a Pentax *istDL to keep me going until the K10D arrives in the UK. Thought I'd buy a card that would work in both cameras. John -- Original Message --- From: "Walter Hamler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:06:51 -0500 Subject: Max size SD card *istDL > As it came from the factory it will use a 2 gig card. If you > download the latest firmware now available, it will handle the 4 gig > cards, and maybe even the 8 gig that just came out. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom > it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. If you have received an email in error please notify > Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it > from your systems. > > Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email > attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be > free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. > > Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for > inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for > the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not > necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held > responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. > > --- End of Original Message --- The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
- Original Message - From: "Lon Williamson" Subject: Re: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D > Well, what about vertical shots, where the camera > has to be flopped, vs the lens mount rotated? I would > assume vertical shots are trickier to keep sharp on > long lenses w/out tripod mounts. If the camera/lens combo is mounted with the rotational axis (thats where the camera meets the tripod) close to the same plane as the moving parts (shutter/ mirror), then there is no distance advantage for any vibration to operate on the camera system. Move the rotational axis away from that plane (like to a lens mount) and suddenly the rotation that the moving parts are trying to impart has some space to work with, and whammo!, more vibration problems. The only tripods I have found really good for taming vibration are made of wood. William Robb
Re: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
I wrote: > > . Mounting the camera to the tripod will give you a lot more > > vibration than mounting the lens tripod collar. William Robb replied: > Wrongo me boy. Sorry. The mechanics of the situation are against you. Uh. Yes. Guess my thoughts were a little behind my typing. Sorry. Jostein
Re: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
- Original Message - From: "Jostein" Subject: Re: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D > . Mounting the camera to the tripod will give you a lot more vibration than mounting the lens tripod collar. > Wrongo me boy. Sorry. The mechanics of the situation are against you. William Robb
Re: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
Mounting the camera to the tripod will give you a lot more vibration than mounting the lens tripod collar. I have the same conclusion as William. Mounting through the lens collar induces more vibration that through the camera. The balancing theory is a myth imho, for not so heavy lenses like F*300/4.5 at least. Did some tests with my F*300/4.5 and the difference was obvious. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
Oh, at some point someone brought up the pentax 300 f4.5 as an example of a lens meant to be used without a tripod collar, and I was just saying that people have complained extensively about the lack of a tripod collar. Although its apparently a fine lens otherwise. -el gringo Not sure who wrote this, but... I think it was a Tamron lens, not a Pentax at the start of this thread, and a 300mm f/ 5.6, which isn't an overly big or heavy lens.
RE: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
Well, I'll believe you, but it seems unusual to me. If I pick up a metal rod, and hold it by the end, it will ring more than if it I hold it at more balanced position. But, I can also see how the lens tripod mount would act as a fulcrum producing a see saw vibration... Well, I only posted what I did based on other peoples experience, guess that means I should do these things for myself to make sure. -el gringo -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 8:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D Not sure who wrote this, but... I think it was a Tamron lens, not a Pentax at the start of this thread, and a 300mm f/ 5.6, which isn't an overly big or heavy lens. > > >Pentax may have thought is was fine, but many users find the lack of tripod > >collar a major oversight. I think structurally, the camera should be ok, > >but you will probably have some vibration issues to sort out. Tripod collars are all very well and good in terms of transfering the load from camera to lens. Not a bad thing where a heavy lens is involved. They do, howerver, promote shutter and mirror induced vibration. The compromise is that while you are putting less strain on your camera body, you are going to have more problem with camera shake. William Robb
Re: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
> I've just picked up an old (but looks as good as new) Tamron SP 300mm f5.6 > (Adaptall 2 mount), for use on my *ist D. I'm surprised at how small and > light this lens is, and I'm thinking of adding it to my general > walking-around kit. But that would be easier without its relatively large, > removeable tripod mount. Congrats on the purchase. :-) At about 600 grams, I'd say the *istD mount will endure the weight quite well. However, if you plan to use it on a tripod, the balance is almost as important as the weight. Mounting the camera to the tripod will give you a lot more vibration than mounting the lens tripod collar. It's somewhat a contradiction of terms to have a walk-around kit ready for a tripod, but I know exactly what you mean...:-) I don't know how that particular collar is removed, but is it an alternative leave the collar attached to the tripod, and release the lens from the collar rather than from the tripod? cheers, Jostein
RE: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
I would use a tripod collar if you have one as it was designed for it. The bigger question in my mind is your reasoning about using it as a walking around lens. The shutter speeds required for this lens handheld for most people are going to be a minimum of 1/500 sec. That's really fast film and/or really good lighting available. IMHO any lens focal length longer then 200mm belongs on a tripod. Just my 2 cents Dave > -Original Message- > From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 1:17 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D > > > That was what I thought as well, until I did some test. I took a > few sets of > pictures (Z-1p, F*300/4.5, Arca Swiss B1 ballhead, Gitzo G1349 > tripod) with > and without the lens tripod collar at every aperture. To my > surprise, both > sets of slides with and without the 2s mirror-prefire turned out > to be less > sharp than without using the lens tripod collar (cable released > was used). > To confirm this finding, I then tried it on tripod again and > looking though > the viewfinder. When using the lens tripod collar, the lens/camera kept > bouncing slightly for quite awhile and is visible though the viewfinder. > Without the lens tripod collar, the vibration quickly settled. I have not > used the lens tripod collar with my F*300/4.5 since. Perhaps I should > purchase the FA* if I had this knowledge few years ago. But it is > true that > for a setup like this without the tripod collar, the choice of > tripod head > is vital. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > >Pentax may have thought is was fine, but many users find the > lack of tripod > >collar a major oversight. I think structurally, the camera should be ok, > >but you will probably have some vibration issues to sort out. > > _ > Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. > Get 2months > FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1 > 034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines >
RE: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
That was what I thought as well, until I did some test. I took a few sets of pictures (Z-1p, F*300/4.5, Arca Swiss B1 ballhead, Gitzo G1349 tripod) with and without the lens tripod collar at every aperture. To my surprise, both sets of slides with and without the 2s mirror-prefire turned out to be less sharp than without using the lens tripod collar (cable released was used). To confirm this finding, I then tried it on tripod again and looking though the viewfinder. When using the lens tripod collar, the lens/camera kept bouncing slightly for quite awhile and is visible though the viewfinder. Without the lens tripod collar, the vibration quickly settled. I have not used the lens tripod collar with my F*300/4.5 since. Perhaps I should purchase the FA* if I had this knowledge few years ago. But it is true that for a setup like this without the tripod collar, the choice of tripod head is vital. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Pentax may have thought is was fine, but many users find the lack of tripod collar a major oversight. I think structurally, the camera should be ok, but you will probably have some vibration issues to sort out. _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
- Original Message - From: "Greg Lovern" Subject: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D > I've just picked up an old (but looks as good as new) Tamron SP 300mm f5.6 > (Adaptall 2 mount), for use on my *ist D. I'm surprised at how small and > light this lens is, and I'm thinking of adding it to my general > walking-around kit. But that would be easier without its relatively large, > removeable tripod mount. > > The lens is too heavy to weigh with our kitchen scale, but using our > digital bathroom scale (weighing myself both with and without the lens, > and subtracting one from the other to get the weight of the lens), it > seems to weigh about 21 ounces (~595g) (including the Adaptall 2 mount, > but not including the tripod mount), give or take about 2 ounces (~56g). > The length is about 169mm including the Adaptall 2 mount. > > Is that too much weight and length to put on the *ist D, with the *ist D > mounted on a tripod? I should think that the camera would be fine with this weight, though perhaps not with the battery pack attached. You are better off not using a lens mount for attaching to a tripod if you can use the camera mount. I have what must be a similar lens, I also have a Tamron 300mm if/5.6 Adaptall (no tripod collar though). I wouldn't hesitate to mount it to the istD and put the rig on a tripod using the camera mount. William Robb
RE: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
Pentax may have thought is was fine, but many users find the lack of tripod collar a major oversight. I think structurally, the camera should be ok, but you will probably have some vibration issues to sort out. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 12:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D 0.6kg is perfectly fine considered the FA*300/4.5 does not have tripod collar as well so Pentax must figure it was fine. I remember reading somewhere many years ago that lenses weighted 1kg was fine w/o tripod collar. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan >I've just picked up an old (but looks as good as new) Tamron SP 300mm f5.6 >(Adaptall 2 mount), for use on my *ist D. I'm surprised at how small and >light this lens is, and I'm thinking of adding it to my general >walking-around kit. But that would be easier without its relatively large, >removeable tripod mount. > >The lens is too heavy to weigh with our kitchen scale, but using our >digital bathroom scale (weighing myself both with and without the lens, >and subtracting one from the other to get the weight of the lens), it >seems to weigh about 21 ounces (~595g) (including the Adaptall 2 mount, >but not including the tripod mount), give or take about 2 ounces (~56g). >The length is about 169mm including the Adaptall 2 mount. > >Is that too much weight and length to put on the *ist D, with the *ist D >mounted on a tripod? > >This lens seems barely heavier than my Tamron 90/2.5 macro (also too heavy >for our kitchen scale), which doesn't have a tripod mount, but then the >300 is more than twice as long as the 90, which I realize would make a >difference in stressing the camera's lens mount. _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
0.6kg is perfectly fine considered the FA*300/4.5 does not have tripod collar as well so Pentax must figure it was fine. I remember reading somewhere many years ago that lenses weighted 1kg was fine w/o tripod collar. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I've just picked up an old (but looks as good as new) Tamron SP 300mm f5.6 (Adaptall 2 mount), for use on my *ist D. I'm surprised at how small and light this lens is, and I'm thinking of adding it to my general walking-around kit. But that would be easier without its relatively large, removeable tripod mount. The lens is too heavy to weigh with our kitchen scale, but using our digital bathroom scale (weighing myself both with and without the lens, and subtracting one from the other to get the weight of the lens), it seems to weigh about 21 ounces (~595g) (including the Adaptall 2 mount, but not including the tripod mount), give or take about 2 ounces (~56g). The length is about 169mm including the Adaptall 2 mount. Is that too much weight and length to put on the *ist D, with the *ist D mounted on a tripod? This lens seems barely heavier than my Tamron 90/2.5 macro (also too heavy for our kitchen scale), which doesn't have a tripod mount, but then the 300 is more than twice as long as the 90, which I realize would make a difference in stressing the camera's lens mount. _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply
heehee, bring it on, baby! lol tan. -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 15 May 2004 8:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply Tan, Now Interpol is going to be knocking at Attila's door, as well as yours, for disseminating that important secret information without the specific permission of Max or his employer!! You guys are in trouble now! cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer >From: "TMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply >Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 23:23:54 +1000 > > >LOL! I wonder if Max's ears are burning... > _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply
Tan, Now Interpol is going to be knocking at Attila's door, as well as yours, for disseminating that important secret information without the specific permission of Max or his employer!! You guys are in trouble now! cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "TMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 23:23:54 +1000 LOL! I wonder if Max's ears are burning... _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply
LOL! I wonder if Max's ears are burning... tan. -Original Message- From: Boros Attila [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 14 May 2004 10:30 PM To: Henri Toivonen Subject: Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply Now I got mine. "If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error" Now I'm advised. At least they admit that this is an error. I have no clue who might be the "intended" recipient, but there supposed to be a person who is responsible for this mess. Preparing to get my hands on him . Oh, his anonymity is well protected as I see... how sweet "any dissemination, copying or use of this message or attachment is strictly forbidden" Holy cow! Now I've made it for myself :p Good to know we have a lawyer on this list:) "If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately" Well... I think I better wouldn't notify him. That would make no good. Besides, that's the freakin' sysadmin's job, and I ain't gonna do it for him, unless I got paid for it :p "delete the message" Consider it done! Attila PS.: OMG, how stupid those messages can be! I wonder how much they taught about it.
Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply
I order to get one, you need to submit an email to PDML in the time frame Max is on vacation again (or still on vacation?). I have had the pleasure a few times in the past. The first time it happened I sent him an email wishing him to enjoy his vacation, but I never got a reply :-( On Friday 14 May 2004 01:52, Lasse Karlsson wrote: FJW> Now I got one too!! FJW> And an original one at that, not even the forwarded one that I was at least hoping for. FJW> FJW> Thanks, Max, wherever you are! FJW> FJW> Lasse, quite content now. FJW> FJW> - Original Message - FJW> From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> FJW> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> FJW> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 2:32 AM FJW> Subject: Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply FJW> FJW> FJW> > I didn't! FJW> > Now, why is that? FJW> > If you guys got one, I want one too... FJW> > FJW> > Lasse FJW> > FJW> > From: "TMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> FJW> > > FJW> > > LOL! I got one too! FJW> > > FJW> > > tan. FJW> > > FJW> > > -Original Message- FJW> > > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] FJW> > > Sent: Friday, 14 May 2004 8:12 AM FJW> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FJW> > > Subject: OT: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply FJW> > > FJW> > > FJW> > > It's happening again! FJW> > > FJW> > > Aaaarrgghh!! FJW> > > FJW> > > -frank FJW> > FJW> > FJW> FJW> FJW> FJW> -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply
HT> I live right by the border of Sweden and Finland (on the Swedish side HT> thought) in a small town called Haparanda. Tornio is the name of the HT> town on the finnish side. So do you have Salmiaki too there ;-) ? I tasted them few weeks ago when some Finnish friends arrived here, and the "taste" is still the stuff of my nightmares Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply
- Original Message - From: "frank theriault" Subject: OT: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply > It's happening again! > If you have a spam filter, you can set it to automatically delete anything with that subject line. Or, do what I do, and just have anything from that email address consigned to the deleted file automatically. William Robb
Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply
Lasse Karlsson wrote: Hi Henri, welcome to the list! Yes, thank you, the weather has been (mostly) great for a couple of weeks and has really had a reviving effect on me. Been cleaning and (slightly) renovating my house, as well as some gardening (ripping out some weed) and doing some occasional shoot. I am almost overwhelmed by having this much light till this late in the evening. So, where in Finland (or Sweden?) do you live and I guess you are enjoying fine weather too? Thanks, Lasse Thanks Lasse! I live right by the border of Sweden and Finland (on the Swedish side thought) in a small town called Haparanda. Tornio is the name of the town on the finnish side. We have NOT had great weather, we got about a cm of SNOW yesterday! :-) But hey, thats what you get when you live a couple hundred kilometers south of the arctic circle. /Henri
Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply
From: "Henri Toivonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 2:32 AM Subject: Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply > Lasse Karlsson wrote: > > >I didn't! > >Now, why is that? > >If you guys got one, I want one too... > > > >Lasse > > > > > It takes a while, you'll get it soon. :-) > How's the weather down in Åland? > /Henri Hi Henri, welcome to the list! Yes, thank you, the weather has been (mostly) great for a couple of weeks and has really had a reviving effect on me. Been cleaning and (slightly) renovating my house, as well as some gardening (ripping out some weed) and doing some occasional shoot. I am almost overwhelmed by having this much light till this late in the evening. So, where in Finland (or Sweden?) do you live and I guess you are enjoying fine weather too? Thanks, Lasse
Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply
Now I got one too!! And an original one at that, not even the forwarded one that I was at least hoping for. Thanks, Max, wherever you are! Lasse, quite content now. - Original Message - From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 2:32 AM Subject: Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply > I didn't! > Now, why is that? > If you guys got one, I want one too... > > Lasse > > From: "TMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > LOL! I got one too! > > > > tan. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, 14 May 2004 8:12 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: OT: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply > > > > > > It's happening again! > > > > Aaaarrgghh!! > > > > -frank > >
RE: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply
And if you don't, I can always send you a little pressie that I also got today... an infection with W32.Gobot.A worm. just luuurvly... :-( tan. -Original Message- From: Henri Toivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 14 May 2004 9:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply Lasse Karlsson wrote: >I didn't! >Now, why is that? >If you guys got one, I want one too... > >Lasse > > It takes a while, you'll get it soon. :-) How's the weather down in Åland? /Henri
Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply
Lasse Karlsson wrote: I didn't! Now, why is that? If you guys got one, I want one too... Lasse It takes a while, you'll get it soon. :-) How's the weather down in Åland? /Henri
Re: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply
I didn't! Now, why is that? If you guys got one, I want one too... Lasse From: "TMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > LOL! I got one too! > > tan. > > -Original Message- > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 14 May 2004 8:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: OT: Max and his Out of Office AutoReply > > > It's happening again! > > Aaaarrgghh!! > > -frank
Re: Max. aperture labelling on FAJ lenses
Actually, f-stop varies with focal length at all aperture settings. So you only know the approximate f-stop at intermediate focal lengths. These lenses are pretty worthless with manual exposure, and manual, or on-the-strob-sensor flash. If you are using slide film. The varience is only 1 stop so negative film does pretty well regardless. Not having extensive experience with digital I am not sure how well it will work with them in manual mode. Once again you probably will not even notice it in automatic modes. Donald A. Morrison wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: - Original Message - From: "Donald A. Morrison" Subject: Max. aperture labelling on FAJ lenses Hello all, I notice that the max. aperture label printed on the barrel of the FAJ lenses contains more numbers than is usual, eg. the aperture of the FAJ 18-35 is indicated as 1:4(22) - 5.6(32). Can anyone tell me what the significance is of the bracketed 22 and 32? Minimum aperture at 35mm. William Robb So the minimum aperture varies with focal length as well as the maximum aperture? Sounds nasty. Many thanks, DAM. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
Re: Max. aperture labelling on FAJ lenses
- Original Message - From: "Donald A. Morrison" Subject: Max. aperture labelling on FAJ lenses > Hello all, > > I notice that the max. aperture label printed on the barrel of the FAJ lenses > contains more numbers than is usual, eg. the aperture of the FAJ 18-35 is > indicated as 1:4(22) - 5.6(32). > > Can anyone tell me what the significance is of the bracketed 22 and 32? And at 18mm. William Robb
Re: Max. aperture labelling on FAJ lenses
- Original Message - From: "Donald A. Morrison" Subject: Max. aperture labelling on FAJ lenses > Hello all, > > I notice that the max. aperture label printed on the barrel of the FAJ lenses > contains more numbers than is usual, eg. the aperture of the FAJ 18-35 is > indicated as 1:4(22) - 5.6(32). > > Can anyone tell me what the significance is of the bracketed 22 and 32? Minimum aperture at 35mm. William Robb
RE: Max. aperture labelling on FAJ lenses
obviously the minimum apertures at those focal lengths... JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Donald A. Morrison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 8:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Max. aperture labelling on FAJ lenses Hello all, I notice that the max. aperture label printed on the barrel of the FAJ lenses contains more numbers than is usual, eg. the aperture of the FAJ 18-35 is indicated as 1:4(22) - 5.6(32). Can anyone tell me what the significance is of the bracketed 22 and 32? Regards, DAM. -- Donald A Morrison
RE; Max 800
Hi, I have found the Fuji, both the superia and the pro NHZ better then the Kodak. I especially find that the Kodak once overexposed by more then maybe 2 stops becomes bulletproof and impossible to print well. Color crossover and contrast flattening being the major problems. I also remember when Max first came out and Kodak did not put the ASA part of the ISO speed anywhere on the packaging or cartridge, it was listed as MAX/30. So Kodak lost points in my book for being deceitful, or at least sneaky in that regards. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: Max. # of B/W film.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, William Robb wrote: > > What you called uprating is one of my pet peeves. The generic > term is actually "pushing" the film, and it causes a loss of > shadow detail and an increase in contrast. If you are shooting > in very flat light, it is not so bad, but often, the environment > that pushed film finds itself being used in is high contrast > stuff, such as night street photography. aah! Now I can see. If I uprate/push a 400 ASA B/W film to 1600 ASA, shall I be able to see grains appearing in the negetive/4 inch by 6 inch sized prints? I have never tried it, so I don't know. > I would use the developer once and discard it, on general > principles. Stay with the rule of thumb (for D-76, anyway) which > is minimum 100ml of stock solution per roll of film, and discard > after use. > > William Robb Yep! I won't do any kind of jugglery this time which may end to ruined negetives. Thanks for your advice. With kind regards, Ayash. - 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: Max. # of B/W film.
Hi Bob! After reading the comments/advice of you and many other PDMLers I have decided not to reuse 1:1 D76 for processing more number of films than indicated. Thanks for your advice. With kind regards, Ayash. On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Bob Rapp wrote: > D76 1:1 works very wellbut one shot only. Do not reuse and do not use in > rotary equipment that specify less solution that would be required to > completely cover the film when the tank is upright. > > Bob > - > 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 http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Max. # of B/W film.
- Original Message - From: Ayash Kanto Mukherjee Subject: Re: Max. # of B/W film. > > Can I use that stock solution further for say another roll of 36 exposure > film? From your reply, it seems that the answer is no. Correct. The developer would be exhausted after processing. > Sorry, I could not get the second sentence of your reply. Could you please > explain a bit further, if it is not annoying? What you called uprating is one of my pet peeves. The generic term is actually "pushing" the film, and it causes a loss of shadow detail and an increase in contrast. If you are shooting in very flat light, it is not so bad, but often, the environment that pushed film finds itself being used in is high contrast stuff, such as night street photography. > > I shall like to know one more thing. Suppose I am using films without > uprating and all the films are of identical speeds. Now there is a term > called "Batch Processing" where more than one films are developed in one > go. Now suppose that I have 4 rolls of films to be processed. Suppose I am > using a negetive developing tank which can accept 2 rolls > of film at once. In "Batch Processing", am I supposed to change the > developer solution with fresh solution after processing 2 rolls or > shall I continue using the same developer solution? I would use the developer once and discard it, on general principles. Stay with the rule of thumb (for D-76, anyway) which is minimum 100ml of stock solution per roll of film, and discard after use. William Robb - 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: Max. # of B/W film.
- Original Message - From: "Ayash Kanto Mukherjee" > Hallo Bob! > > From your reply it seems to me that there is no limit to the number of > films for batch processing. Do you mean that I can develop as many number of > films as I wish provided that the two films in my developing tank is > totally covered by the developer? Well, as far as I think, the developer > will get used up more and more as I go on using the same solution so a > time will come when the strength of the developer will not be enough to > carry on the chemical action. Or it may happen like this. I have to allow > longer time for developement if I am using the same solution for more > than four rolls. Please correct me, if I am incorrect? > > Let me frame the question in a more precise manner. Can I use the same > devoloper at 1:1 dilution for developing four rolls of black and white > film in a developing tank which accepts only two rolls at a time? Do you > suggest some other dilution or no dilution? > > Thanks for your comments. > > With kind regards, > Ayash. > D76 1:1 works very wellbut one shot only. Do not reuse and do not use in rotary equipment that specify less solution that would be required to completely cover the film when the tank is upright. Bob - 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: Max. # of B/W film.
> I shall like to know one more thing. Suppose I am using films without > uprating and all the films are of identical speeds. Now there is a term > called "Batch Processing" where more than one films are developed in one > go. Now suppose that I have 4 rolls of films to be processed. Suppose I am > using a negetive developing tank which can accept 2 rolls > of film at once. In "Batch Processing", am I supposed to change the > developer solution with fresh solution after processing 2 rolls or > shall I continue using the same developer solution? You might try looking up the info for the film/developer combination you're using on the manufacturer's web site. At my age, considering the frequency of "senior moments", I usually check the Kodak or Ilford website before processing to make sure I'm doing things right. :-) Bill KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Max. # of B/W film.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - > From: Ayash Kanto Mukherjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 5:34 AM > Subject: Max. # of B/W film. > > > > Hi all! > > > > I have currently shot 2 rolls of Black and white films (Kodak > Academy 200 > > ASA); one was uprated to 400 ASA and the other as such. > Presently, Ilford > > PAN 100 uprated to 200 ASA is in my camera. > > > > I have a 300 ml negetive developing tank in which two rolls of > film can be > > simultaneously developed. I shall like to know the maximum > number of B/W > > films that can be developed with one batch of developer. I > generally use > > Kodak D-76 developer at 1:1 dilution. > > You need at least 100ml of stock D-76 per 36 exposure/ 120 film. > Since you are "uprating" the film (there is no such thing, BTW), > you probably don't want to use the developer 1:1. > > William Robb Can I use that stock solution further for say another roll of 36 exposure film? From your reply, it seems that the answer is no. Sorry, I could not get the second sentence of your reply. Could you please explain a bit further, if it is not annoying? I shall like to know one more thing. Suppose I am using films without uprating and all the films are of identical speeds. Now there is a term called "Batch Processing" where more than one films are developed in one go. Now suppose that I have 4 rolls of films to be processed. Suppose I am using a negetive developing tank which can accept 2 rolls of film at once. In "Batch Processing", am I supposed to change the developer solution with fresh solution after processing 2 rolls or shall I continue using the same developer solution? With kind regards, Ayash. - 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: Max. # of B/W film.
- Original Message - From: Ayash Kanto Mukherjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 5:34 AM Subject: Max. # of B/W film. > Hi all! > > I have currently shot 2 rolls of Black and white films (Kodak Academy 200 > ASA); one was uprated to 400 ASA and the other as such. Presently, Ilford > PAN 100 uprated to 200 ASA is in my camera. > > I have a 300 ml negetive developing tank in which two rolls of film can be > simultaneously developed. I shall like to know the maximum number of B/W > films that can be developed with one batch of developer. I generally use > Kodak D-76 developer at 1:1 dilution. You need at least 100ml of stock D-76 per 36 exposure/ 120 film. Since you are "uprating" the film (there is no such thing, BTW), you probably don't want to use the developer 1:1. William Robb - 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: Max. # of B/W film.
Hallo Bob! >From your reply it seems to me that there is no limit to the number of films for batch processing. Do you mean that I can develop as many number of films as I wish provided that the two films in my developing tank is totally covered by the developer? Well, as far as I think, the developer will get used up more and more as I go on using the same solution so a time will come when the strength of the developer will not be enough to carry on the chemical action. Or it may happen like this. I have to allow longer time for developement if I am using the same solution for more than four rolls. Please correct me, if I am incorrect? Let me frame the question in a more precise manner. Can I use the same devoloper at 1:1 dilution for developing four rolls of black and white film in a developing tank which accepts only two rolls at a time? Do you suggest some other dilution or no dilution? Thanks for your comments. With kind regards, Ayash. On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Bob Rapp wrote: > > As long as the developer covers the film, you will not have any trouble. If > you are using a rotary processor (JOBO) use more developer. In the past, I > have developed up to 3 rolls in a 4 roll tank and the result is the same as > if I had done them one at a time. The important thing, during agitation, > more uniform results will be obtained if the developer completely uncovers > the film. Otherwise, the top roll may receive non-uniform development. FWIW. > > Bob > - > 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 http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Max. # of B/W film.
- Original Message - From: "Ayash Kanto Mukherjee" > Hi all! > > I have currently shot 2 rolls of Black and white films (Kodak Academy 200 > ASA); one was uprated to 400 ASA and the other as such. Presently, Ilford > PAN 100 uprated to 200 ASA is in my camera. > > I have a 300 ml negetive developing tank in which two rolls of film can be > simultaneously developed. I shall like to know the maximum number of B/W > films that can be developed with one batch of developer. I generally use > Kodak D-76 developer at 1:1 dilution. > > Thanks is advance. > > With kind regards, > Ayash. As long as the developer covers the film, you will not have any trouble. If you are using a rotary processor (JOBO) use more developer. In the past, I have developed up to 3 rolls in a 4 roll tank and the result is the same as if I had done them one at a time. The important thing, during agitation, more uniform results will be obtained if the developer completely uncovers the film. Otherwise, the top roll may receive non-uniform development. FWIW. Bob - 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: MAX demonstration on kodak.com
What a load of RUBBISH! You are exactly right. Why not just say that you should use the right film for the conditions? Not that this "new" film will solve your problems. I noticed the term "Depth of Focus" was used as opposed to "Depth of Field". Is this an acceptable term? If not, does there marketing department understand basic photography? Or was it a deliberate attempt not to use the normal terminology? And to beg the question... If a person with a camera didn't already know this, do you really think they would take the time to research the issue on Kodak's website? It reminds me of my phone company's long recorded introduction when you call their customer service number. It kindly lets you know that you can now report phone line troubles using their corporate web-site. Ha ha... My phone doesn't work so I guess I'll just log on using my analog modem and let them know... Tom C. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 11:03 AM Subject: OT: MAX demonstration on kodak.com has anyone seen this? Here's url: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/pictures.s html? This is just plain manipulative IMHO. Show someone an underexposed photo, and then one properly exposed. For anyone who can spell ISO and knows the difference between 100 and 400, this is just wrong. Kodak might not be intentionally "dumbing down america", but they sure are telling some creative lies to get a product off of the shelf. Brent (listed name here was formerly bigtoeno2 in case someone cares)
Re: MAX demonstration on kodak.com
I agree that it's educational (I saw the slide show and nothing else). But what was it educating? That you need MAX 400 to get these results? They never really talked ISO, they only said see "low speed film", now see MAX 400. It was as if MAX 400 was the solution. What does "low-speed" mean? What does 400 mean? What does MAX mean (probably nothing). Why not use 800 in these cases? Tom C. (disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing) :-) > Gotta disagree with you on this one Brent. Showing the > difference between the results you can expect with a slow film > and a faster film under identical circumstances is called > education. > FWIW, I use a similar dog and pony show to show people why they > should be using a faster film with their little point and shoot > cameras at the lab. > There are a lot of people out there who couldn't care less about > film speed. A lot of customers buy product based completely on > price point. They buy a 29 dollar camera because it's the > cheapest one hanging in the blister pack alley, then compliment > their foolishness with 100iso film, because it's the least > expensive. They aren't intentionally being dumb, no one has > bothered to educate them, and they haven't seen fit to educate > themselves on the subject. > William Robb - 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: MAX demonstration on kodak.com
- Original Message - From: Brent Subject: OT: MAX demonstration on kodak.com > has anyone seen this? Here's url: > http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatu res/pictures.s > > html? > This is just plain manipulative IMHO. Show someone an underexposed photo, and > then one properly exposed. For anyone who can spell ISO and knows the > difference between 100 and 400, this is just wrong. Kodak might not be > intentionally "dumbing down america", but they sure are telling some creative > lies to get a product off of the shelf. Kewl. I had to install something called Macromedia Flash to view that. Gotta disagree with you on this one Brent. Showing the difference between the results you can expect with a slow film and a faster film under identical circumstances is called education. FWIW, I use a similar dog and pony show to show people why they should be using a faster film with their little point and shoot cameras at the lab. There are a lot of people out there who couldn't care less about film speed. A lot of customers buy product based completely on price point. They buy a 29 dollar camera because it's the cheapest one hanging in the blister pack alley, then compliment their foolishness with 100iso film, because it's the least expensive. They aren't intentionally being dumb, no one has bothered to educate them, and they haven't seen fit to educate themselves on the subject. William Robb - 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: MAX demonstration on kodak.com
Not everyone is a master of the basics. Simple examples like these were what showed my daughter (just a snap shooter with no intentions of being anything else) why all her mall photos were washed out (no flash) or had dark backgrounds (flash) and that high speed film was what she needed. Now she thinks about what film she wants to use where. The examples are seriously basic, but frankly, you'll have to point out the "lie" to me, because I don't see it. Note that I removed the offensive html from the original post before replying. Regards, Bob... --- "In the carboniferous epoch we were promised perpetual peace. They swore if we gave up our weapons that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed they sold us, and delivered us, bound, to our foe. And the gods of the copybook headings said, 'Stick to the devil you know.' " --Rudyard Kipling From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has anyone seen this? Here's url: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/pictures.s html? This is just plain manipulative IMHO. Show someone an underexposed photo, and then one properly exposed. For anyone who can spell ISO and knows the difference between 100 and 400, this is just wrong. Kodak might not be intentionally "dumbing down america", but they sure are telling some creative lies to get a product off of the shelf. Brent (listed name here was formerly bigtoeno2 in case someone cares) - 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: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I like this! Let's try to do it, okay? "OT" for messages that deal with > > other aspects of photography or photographic equipment than Pentax, and > > "OL" for messages that have nothing to do with photography at all. That > > seems preferable to banning or censoring the messages, especially since > > some of them can be quite interesting. :) > > I honestly have to say that I disagree, Chris. That's ok... it happens to everyone at some point. :) > OT labels are certainly > appropriate for OT posts. However, for truly "off list" messages (regardless > of their quality in the realms of politics, philosophy, religion, or society) > , what is appropriate is that they ~not~ be posted at all to the PDML. There > are many, many other forums for non-photography thoughts to be expressed, > right? I agree with you on all counts there, Fred. OL messages should definitely not be posted to the PDML. However, unless someone is willing to step in and say "Don't post any more messages to this topic on the list," we'll still have this problem. And even that might not be enough; we probably need a moderator to ensure that no OL message ever makes it through. What I'm trying to do is recognize that there will be OL messages posted, and to suggest a labelling system that will at least allow the rest of us to recognize them and delete them if we prefer. Right now, the problem with the OT label is that both OT and OL messages are getting labelled as OT, which means that we have to keep reading the OL posts for fear of missing the good OT ones. If people could add "OL" to their subject line for OL messages, then we could still read the photography-related OT posts without haveing to suffer through the OL ones (except for the digest folks, of course, who suffer either way). Now the question becomes, "If the people who post OL messages are doing so even after knowing that they shouldn't, are they really going to take the time to add "OL" to the subject line?" Honestly, I don't know. I even suspect that they won't, at first. The only redeeming thing about the OL header is that I, personally, would feel much more comfortable about criticizing someone for not labelling a post as OL than I would about criticizing them for sending that post in the first place. I imagine that there have been times when most of us have posted, or wanted to post, OL messages to the list. Maybe something about what's happening in our personal lives, maybe something that's totally unrelated to photography but that the list might be able to help us out with, etc. Legitimate OL posts do exist, IMO, and I don't think that it would necessarily be a bad idea to have an OL label. Any thoughts on this? chris - 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: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
I agree with all you say, Doug. Seems to me that the answer is self-moderation. As I said earlier, most of the OT threads start off innocently enough, with some relevancy to Pentax or photography, but with this many contributors, it's easy to get off on wild tangents without realizing it. If we all use some common sense, these things can be nipped in the bud by, firstly, restraining oneself from responding when things go off the rails, and, secondly, by someone jumping in with a polite "this is too far off topic/is offensive/should be stopped", post. regards, frank Doug Brewer wrote: > That's a pretty big leap, there, Otis. Did I say anything about censorship? Any >member of the list is free to hold and describe any position on any issue. The >problem is that some members of the list feel it is their right to force everyone >else on the list to receive those descriptions, =none= of which have anything to do >with Pentax/photography. There are, as has been suggested, many many more suitable >lists, bulletin boards, etc where such messages are encouraged and expected. The >suggestion, with which I agree, is to send such messages to =those= places, or to >move them to a private exchange. > > Note that I am saying this not as the list admin, but as a participating member of >the list. As List Guy, I see my job as facilitating getting the messages from you to >the rest of the list. It is your job to monitor the content of your messages. > - 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: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
That's a pretty big leap, there, Otis. Did I say anything about censorship? Any member of the list is free to hold and describe any position on any issue. The problem is that some members of the list feel it is their right to force everyone else on the list to receive those descriptions, =none= of which have anything to do with Pentax/photography. There are, as has been suggested, many many more suitable lists, bulletin boards, etc where such messages are encouraged and expected. The suggestion, with which I agree, is to send such messages to =those= places, or to move them to a private exchange. Note that I am saying this not as the list admin, but as a participating member of the list. As List Guy, I see my job as facilitating getting the messages from you to the rest of the list. It is your job to monitor the content of your messages. Doug At 1:23 AM -05002/18/01, Otis Wright, Jr. caused thus to appear: >Although you correctly state the list mission, I suggest a little care about taking >the seasoning out of the soup. As for me, censorship is a no no --- right in there >with book burning > >Otis Wright > -- Douglas Forrest Brewer Ashwood Lake Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alphoto.com - 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: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
Although you correctly state the list mission, I suggest a little care about taking the seasoning out of the soup. As for me, censorship is a no no --- right in there with book burning Otis Wright Doug Brewer wrote: > Um, no thanks. That would mean I'd have to =read= all those messages. Doesn't take >me long to determine if a thread is worth my time. After that, I bail on it. > > Who would count the five posts per person? And if you only wrote one post on a >particular day, would your other four then roll over to the next day? Seems to me it >would be much easier to just not contribute to an "off list" thread than it would to >remember how many posts you've written over the course of a day. > > Let me quote something from a recent post I sent to the list: > > The PDML is about Pentax and Photography and Pentax Photography. It is > not about politics, abortion, religion, gun control, or other hot button > issues, except where they overlap with Pentax, Photography, and/or Pentax > Photography. Example: "Here is a link to a photo I took at the NRA > convention, where the President and the Pope were addressing a group of > women demonstrating for abortion rights. I took it with my Pentax camera and > Pentax lens. What do you think of the composition?" > > If there are those among you who disagree with this, please let me know. > > Doug > > At 1:00 AM +01002/18/01, Pål Jensen caused thus to appear: > > >It seems to me that this time fewer defend the "right" to post OT messages. With a >slight and friendly complaint (like we've seen now) most will comply. Anyway, now >that we have a participating list maintainer, he could (if he wanted to) take >measures if thing get out of hand. I believe everybody realize that too much OT ruin >the purpose and value of this forum. > > > >Pål > -- > Douglas Forrest Brewer > Ashwood Lake Photography > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.alphoto.com > - > 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 http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
Um, no thanks. That would mean I'd have to =read= all those messages. Doesn't take me long to determine if a thread is worth my time. After that, I bail on it. Who would count the five posts per person? And if you only wrote one post on a particular day, would your other four then roll over to the next day? Seems to me it would be much easier to just not contribute to an "off list" thread than it would to remember how many posts you've written over the course of a day. Let me quote something from a recent post I sent to the list: The PDML is about Pentax and Photography and Pentax Photography. It is not about politics, abortion, religion, gun control, or other hot button issues, except where they overlap with Pentax, Photography, and/or Pentax Photography. Example: "Here is a link to a photo I took at the NRA convention, where the President and the Pope were addressing a group of women demonstrating for abortion rights. I took it with my Pentax camera and Pentax lens. What do you think of the composition?" If there are those among you who disagree with this, please let me know. Doug At 1:00 AM +01002/18/01, Pål Jensen caused thus to appear: >It seems to me that this time fewer defend the "right" to post OT messages. With a >slight and friendly complaint (like we've seen now) most will comply. Anyway, now >that we have a participating list maintainer, he could (if he wanted to) take >measures if thing get out of hand. I believe everybody realize that too much OT ruin >the purpose and value of this forum. > >Pål -- Douglas Forrest Brewer Ashwood Lake Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alphoto.com - 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: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
Lasse Karlsson wrote: > > How about about we agreed on restricting us not to send more than, say 5 messages a >day? (The number up for discussion.) This would at least get rid of a lot of the very >chit-chat, one-two line postings. We would have to think economically, we wouldn't >have this m a n y rather meaningless messages to open just to delete them. The idea has some appeal -- but then I think of some members who should be exempt from any limit and others who should be limited more severely, and that would be difficult to handle. For example, one of a number I could name, I am interested in just about anything Mike Johnston wants to post. He almost always deals with things relevant to photography and/or Pentax, and his posts are always informative and useful. If he wants to post ten messages, great, I want to read them. On the other hand, there are some who should, perhaps, be restricted to one or two per day (or fewer?) since they do not have that much to offer. (Before anyone else says it I will -- me, for example.) We need a better solution. Bob - 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: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
Not saying OT posts are not good. Just that after a long day at work going through 150 messages is kind of much. Maybe I should filter for OT an create a directory for OT subjects and have a quick glance. This message has OT in its subject and I am still getting it into my inbox. I filtered for "OT:" reason is that I don't want to miss anything "HOT" from the members. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 12:02 AM Subject: Re: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc > In a message dated 2/17/2001 7:56:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Do what I do..any OT is filtered into my Trash folder. Saves lots of time, > > no need to delete, no need to read. > > But, Nicolas, you will then miss out on some useful general photography > threads, and you will also (because of the lack of "OT" labeling) still have > to put up with some irrelevant posts, too. It's a shame that your method, > though you seem to say that it works fine for you, should be necessary at all > in the first place. > > Fred > > - > 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 . > _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - 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: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
In a message dated 2/17/2001 8:12:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > As far as I recall, although I may be mistaken, OT-messages were defined as > messages not dealing specifically with Pentaxiana (cameras, lenses, > accessories, business) but with other photography related issues. In my > interpretation they would for instance include messages on processing, optics, > digital image manipulation, computer specs, software, general photography, > photographers, climate-issues, personal stories etc. A good description of valuable but OT posts, Lasse. > Labeling practice, both at Pentax and under current administration, seems to > indicate that a majority(?) of members do not regard the above topics as "off > topics", but rather as "on topics". I think you might be oversimplifying here, Lasse. I suspect that many OT posts are not labeled as such merely because many well-intentioned list members simply forget to add the OT label before sending. Fred - 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: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
Chris wrote: > On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Lasse Karlsson wrote: > > (My suggestion is that we, according to Fred's outline, establish the > > label OL as in "off list" for these messages.) > > I like this! Let's try to do it, okay? "OT" for messages that deal with > other aspects of photography or photographic equipment than Pentax, and > "OL" for messages that have nothing to do with photography at all. That > seems preferable to banning or censoring the messages, especially since > some of them can be quite interesting. :) > chris Well, actually I didn't mean to introduce the OL label for message headers, since OL by definition would indicate something that belongs off list. I was just thinking of using the label when in general discussing different types of messages. On the other hand, if someone does post an OL message to the list I guess it is better if it gets labeled OL and subsequently is more easily spotted by those who want to delete it... Lasse - 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 .
OT: Re: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
On 17 Feb 2001, at 19:31, Chris Brogden wrote: > On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Lasse Karlsson wrote: > > > (My suggestion is that we, according to Fred's outline, establish the > > label OL as in "off list" for these messages.) > > I like this! Let's try to do it, okay? "OT" for messages that deal with > other aspects of photography or photographic equipment than Pentax, and > "OL" for messages that have nothing to do with photography at all. That > seems preferable to banning or censoring the messages, especially since > some of them can be quite interesting. :) Firstly being a non-digest subscriber it is very easy to identify a thread which is of no interest and delete all instances of that subject, I suppose digest readers have difficulty with this, their loss. Secondly I wonder what the message volume would be if all the subscribers pumped out 5 replies a day, I bet it would be a damn site higher than it is now. Thirdly there have recently been Pentax related topics that deserved a little more BW ie MZ-S speculation and release, I am sure the list will settle down again until someone gets their hands on another MZ-S. Doug has stepped in to douse the fire a little on occasion, maybe he should act more as a moderator on very OT threads (political, nazi etc) and simply stamp on them? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 Fax +61-2-9554-9259 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
Pål wrote: Lasse wrote: > Is this a good idea or not? Pål wrote: Not. It seems to me that this time fewer defend the "right" to post OT messages. I write: There seems to be a confusion on the labels here. By the FAQ of PDML at Pentax there was an explicit "right" for us to post OT-messages. We were however adviced to label them such. As far as I recall, although I may be mistaken, OT-messages were defined as messages not dealing specifically with Pentaxiana (cameras, lenses, accessories, business) but with other photography related issues. In my interpretation they would for instance include messages on processing, optics, digital image manipulation, computer specs, software, general photography, photographers, climate-issues, personal stories etc. Labeling practice, both at Pentax and under current administration, seems to indicate that a majority(?) of members do not regard the above topics as "off topics", but rather as "on topics". What was adressed by Fred in the "There's OK...etc"-thread, were so called OL, "off list", messages. Those are messages with no photography content at all. (My suggestion is that we, according to Fred's outline, establish the label OL as in "off list" for these messages.) I assume that you Pål, by "OT-messages" are talking about these now so called OL-messages.(?) Pål wrote: With a slight and friendly complaint (like we've seen now) most will comply. I write: To judge from experience, I am not sure we will. :) Let's hope we do. Pål continued: Anyway, now that we have a participating list maintainer, he could (if he wanted to) take measures if thing get out of hand. I write: My guess is that Doug the least of all wants to exercise his moderator capacity. My idea was to help us all, and Doug, to eliminate the need for it. Pål wrote: I believe everybody realize that too much OT ruin the purpose and value of this forum. I write: I hope you are right, but although this has been "realized upon" many times in past, we are still facing this problem, which has been more or less permanent at least for the two years that I've been here. There are simply too many messages, and specifically too great a percentage of postings of almost no meaningful content. My suggestion of a maximum of 5 (or maybe 7-8) postings a day, would quite effectively deal with this problem. I don't think that members individually, or the list as a whole, would suffer much from such a self imposed, still rather loose, restriction of the number of messages. (Not a big deal for me, but I do think it would make the problem a lesser one.) Lasse - 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: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
Do what I do..any OT is filtered into my Trash folder. Saves lots of time, no need to delete, no need to read. - Original Message - From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 6:50 PM Subject: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc > Bob S. wrote: > > The list is becoming like a chat room with everyone chattering away. I find > > myself deleting whole threads and all messages from some babblers without > > even reading them. > > How about about we agreed on restricting us not to send more than, say 5 messages a day? (The number up for discussion.) This would at least get rid of a lot of the very chit-chat, one-two line postings. We would have to think economically, we wouldn't have this m a n y rather meaningless messages to open just to delete them. > What do you all think? (We wouldn't have to be rigid about it, just as a general guidline in order to make ourselves feel a little bad about littering the list too much.) > Is this a good idea or not? > > Lasse > > > - > 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 . > _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - 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: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
I'm too busy deleting to have time to read anything! Tom C. - Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 5:00 PM Subject: Re: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc > Lasse wrote: > > Is this a good idea or not? > > > Not. > It seems to me that this time fewer defend the "right" to post OT messages. With a slight and friendly complaint (like we've seen now) most will comply. Anyway, now that we have a participating list maintainer, he could (if he wanted to) take measures if thing get out of hand. I believe everybody realize that too much OT ruin the purpose and value of this forum. > > Pål > > - > 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 http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Max 5 posts a day? (Was: There's OK, Then There's OT etc
Lasse wrote: > Is this a good idea or not? Not. It seems to me that this time fewer defend the "right" to post OT messages. With a slight and friendly complaint (like we've seen now) most will comply. Anyway, now that we have a participating list maintainer, he could (if he wanted to) take measures if thing get out of hand. I believe everybody realize that too much OT ruin the purpose and value of this forum. Pål - 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 .
