Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doug Brewer wrote: >> In many ways, the "bits and bytes" talk is analogous to the talk of >> dark room techniques and equipment. It's about the getting and >> extracting "latent image". >Not really, Doug ... Oh yes it is. You have a better chance of making the most of what you've captured - whether it's on film or digital - if you have a thorough understanding of what's going on inside. That "inside" covers film emulsions, development chemicals, CCD chips and computer file formats. No, you don't *have* to know about this stuff to create good images, but it never hurts to have extra arrows in your quiver, so to speak. Galen Rowell was diligent in this regard and it paid off many times. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Subject Lines (was ME-F vs ME Super)
"Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It's caused by living on an island - island fever. They can only drive >around in circles. Makes them dizzy. I thought they were cranky just because they're so old. Having been born in the Cretaceous period, you know. >From: "Bucky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Why would you think people from Crete don't know how to change the subject >> line? ;-) >> >> > From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > 3.You are cretans and don't know how to change the subject line? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 16/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Here's a few tips: > >1. I modified the lens cuz I wanted to be able to post to the PUG without >shooting on film, and seeing as I digitally defected a year ago, it >seemed a reasonable way... > >2. I like posting to the PUG cuz this list is a nice place to hang out >(and surprise surprise, I still have Pentax gear)... > >3. I have absolutely no mechanical or electronics training - I bumble >about doing the things I do because there's a need. I can't afford >expensive lenses, so modifying one was cheaper! A case of 'needs must'. > >4. There is no number 4. > >5. Actually I detest all this modifying - if I won the lottery you >wouldn't see another modification from me again! > >6. But having done something, might as well make it available for >somebody else if it helps them - it's good karma. > >7. Like the mods, I *had* to learn Photoshop because I looked at my first >inkjet prints and nearly cried. A lottery win would see a full-time PS >operator doing all my dirty work! > >8. We have 4 working Macs in our house, and aside from one, they were all >either used or repaired cheap. This way I can have 4 computers for the >price of one big new one. I can't solder them when they go wrong, but I >can swap out the parts - they're only Meccano (Erector) Sets, after all. >Needs must. > >9. (See number 4). > >10. I'm not a brainy guy. I don't have a degree. I have 4 'O' Levels: >Maths, English, Drama, Photography. So I can add up, write it down, >pretend, and take a snap. That's it. > >11. Patience with your fellow man/woman is a virtue, and breeds respect. > >12. A little humour goes a long way. > >13. Er, that's it. You left out "No pooftas" -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Motorcycles (was Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston)
"Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I believe Jay Leno (Tonight Show host) has a motorcycle built around a >helicopter turbine engine. They run about $250,000 > >http://motorcyclecity.com/turbine.htm You can't top the Australians when it comes to building amazing custom motorcycles. There is one 2000cc v-twin made by lopping the front two cylinders off a Rolls-Royce Merlin aircraft engine! And another made by taking the cylinders and heads from two Yamaha FZR400s and grafting them onto a custom crank and crankcase to make an 800cc V-8. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Test - New to the list
"Winston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >"Winston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>Thanks! It's exciting already! I'm waiting for my 24/2 AL and battery >>>pack for my *ist from B&H. Couldn't wait to put it to the test. I'm >>>going to Bali next week Yeehaaa!!! > >>Welcome aboard! So tell us: Who are you, where you, etc. Got any photos >>online that you can show off? Any personal idiosyncracies that we can >>make fun of? ;-) > >>BTW: You're going to love that 24mm f/2.0! > >Too bad I have no web sites. My country has nothing to offer - except >Bali. I live in Jakarta with my humble family. Make some money from >running an IT distribution business. That's all. Wanted to buy *ist D >but could only afford the analog one :) I shoot mostly Nikon/Mamiya in >the last 9 yrs, 4 yrs ago started Pentax system. My gear: *ist with >43/1.9, MZ-3 with 77/1.8. Also got a 300/4.5, and 70-200/4-5.6. That's >why I need that 24/2 badly! I'm not satisfied with any of Nikon's 24. >But Nikon has excellent 28s though (MF). I don't know about the 70-200 but all the rest of your lenses are truly superb! Hope we get to see some of your photos in the Pentax User's Gallery (PUG for short). If you haven't had a look yet, it's at http://pug.komkon.org/ -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Test - New to the list
"Winston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I don't know about other Pentax lenses too, but lately I found out that >I like Pentax's color rendition and sharpness better than Nikon's. >Comparing 77/1.8 with Nikkor AF 85/1.8 (one of Nikon's sharpest) shows >that 77 offers more 'separation' between focused object and background >(3D look). Yes, the Limited lenses are famous for that. >Seems like Pentax has more resolution to resolve. Of course >Nikon system is very extensive and I still do a lot of macro/product >shots that still is the forte of Nikon. > >I will try to borrow a film scanner and scan some of my Pentax images >later. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: New Sigma 17-35//2.8-4
Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >on 18.11.03 15:20, Mark Roberts at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Y-ha! The 82mm filter was what made me reluctant to buy one of these >> in the past (not that I can afford one now...) >Now filter size is the same like in FA* 200/2.8, 24/2 and 80-200/2.8 :-) Yep. And the same as my FA*80-200/2.8 and also my Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 ;) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Origin of K mount name
Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Did the Kmount get its name from the K series cameras? >>>> KX, K2, K2DMD. > >>> I don't know. The K mount was introduced with the KM, the KX, >>> and the K2. But, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" > >> Well there was a Pentax "K" that was a screw mount camera, wasn't >> it? > >True, enough - I think it was the third Pentax body (not counting >the pre-Pentax Asahiflex bodies), after the AP and the S. However, >I never really thought there was ever any connection between the K >(circa 1960, perhaps) and the K-mount bodies and lenses (1975). Well, I long wondered why the K2 was so named until I learned of the existence of the K. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Sad news
...in a way. I've found a buyer for my mint condition K2 and 50mm f/1.4 (sob!) Really hate to see them go but I need to put money aside for an *ist-D and a friend of mine would like to buy the camera (so at least I know it's going to a good home). Next on the block to finance my transition from analog to digital will be, appropriately enough, a vinyl record album: I have one of Mobile Fidelity's extra-expensive, limited edition (only 5000 made) "UHQR" records. It's the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper. It'll go up on eBay in a week or so where they fetched about $500.00 last time I checked. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Origin of K mount name
Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Well, I long wondered why the K2 was so named until I learned of >> the existence of the K. > >Well, Mark, I still don't follow your logic. Sure, there was a >screwmount Pentax K, but so wasn't there also a Pentax S, too, etc. >Why would Pentax have singled out the Pentax K (and not, say, the >Pentax S) for the name for the K-mount and the first K bodies? Well, that *is* my point, actually. I'm wondering why they picked the letter K rather than something else. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Accidentally erased your memory card?
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> Well, Rob, you're an expert in such matters, but ma and pa and the kids down the >> street, they ain't, and of course there are some fumble-fingered operators on >> this list as well. But you're correct in that, if you do everything right, and >> there are no glitches, and you back up and copy files before deleting them, you >> should never need Photo Rescue or any such similar program. I bet you bite the >> erasers off all your pencils ... > >Har, my pencils don't have erasers...never make mistakes :-) > >Getting back to the think of it though, I've seen many many films ruined by Ma, >Pa or the kids opening the back of the film cam before the roll was rewound. Ma or Pa? Ha! I've seen experienced photographers do it. Quite easy to do when you have several camera bodies in use and you're in a hurry to switch rolls of film in...which one was it? Oh no, not that one! Don't ask me how I know... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Digital/Film body pricing (was: A conversation with Noritsu.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Rob, > >I think you're right. It's similar to laptop computers, where $2,000 was the >entry level price point in the USA for 5 years, from the 486 chip era to the >Celeron introduction. Only recently have prices fallen. > >Honestly, the P&S digitals will be all that the mass market really wants or >needs. Digital SLR's will be $1,500 for a long time. And the price of a good >film SLR will go up, and film will be here for a long time... some folks just >don't have computers so they will never go digital. I know people who shoot only digital who have no computer. And people who have a computer but have the local photo lab print their digital photos. People in this category will grow at a tremendous rate. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Digital/Film body pricing (was: A conversation with Noritsu.)
"Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >IF DSLR prices don't come down much more than $800 or so, then the >low-end SLR market could be taken over by the ZLR style camera. >HOWEVER, DSLR's could come down if the makers decide to make money on >the lenses and not the bodies. If good ZLR's are available, that's the >only real difference with the DSLR's I'm sure DSLR's will hit the $500.00 price point within a couple of years. But there are plenty of consumers out there who won't spend more than a couple of hundred dollars on a camera *and* who want interchangeable lenses (even if they only ever use the cheap zoom that came with their camera). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Question about slide-show or screen saver software
BTW: I've updated my page of photo software links: http://www.robertstech.com/pixel/software.htm There's now a cheap ($20.00) screen-saver/slideshow app called Amaze and several nice freeware apps of various sorts. My favorite is PTFB (Push The Freakin' Button), which automatically clicks those annoying Yes/No or OK dialog box buttons for you in almost any Windows application. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Digital/Film body pricing (was: A conversation with Noritsu.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I knew I would get at least one person who still >loves their vinyl. >> Vic > >I still have quite a few, including the Beatles. The hard thing was finding a >turn table about ten years ago when I bought an all-in-one stereo system >(turn table, mini-tape deck, radio). It's low-end and not great, but I am real >dubious I could even find a decent turn table now. ??? http://www.linn.co.uk/spec_sound/products.cfm?range=Turntable -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Vs: A conversation with Noritsu.
"Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Lähettäjä: Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>the CD came out just before 1980. it was very expensive at first and just >>for show. i attended some of the Sony seminars when they were first coming >>out. you couldn't buy anything at a "record store" until about 1982 though. > >I have thought that it is a Philips patent. Sony and Philips developed the format together. The electronic format of the data stream is still called SPDIF (Sony Philips Digital Interface Format). A few were on the market in late 1982, but it wasn't until 1983 that they really showed up in the stores. I worked in the audio business at the time. The first ones on the market sounded excruciatingly bad. It wasn't until the so-called "one-bit" digital-to-analog converters appeared in the late 80's that I got a CD player myself. The early discs were horrible, too. A lot of the classic analog recordings that were remastered for CD in the 80's were re-remastered in the 90's when analog-to-digital converters had improved significantly. What the transition from analog audio to digital audio has in common with the changeover from film to digital photography is that it has been based primarily on *convenience* and gee-whiz techo-appeal at first. Quality has come along as the technology has improved. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Digital/Film body pricing (was: A conversation with Noritsu.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: >>??? >>http://www.linn.co.uk/spec_sound/products.cfm?range=Turntable > >Well, I bought the cheapo turn table before the Net -- about or over ten >years ago. Or my appearance on it. ;-) > >That's the uk. Must be something US-wise. Probably is. Spoke too soon. Well here's their list of dealers in the U.S. http://www.linn.co.uk/buy_linn/find_retailer_get_retailers.cfm?continent=1&country=18 You'll find the high end marked is full of places that sell turntables. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Question about slide-show or screen saver software
Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Most of the text on that site is irreadable (like that newly coined >word?) by my Netscape Communicator browser and 17" monitor, and Mac OS 9.2.1. I just checked it in MSIE and Mozilla (on Windows, admittedly) and it seems fine. Anyway, I never use fixed font sizes so you can easily scale the text size up or down in your browser (all my pages are designed to be adaptable for people with visual impairments and other disabilities, wherever possible). >> BTW: I've updated my page of photo software links: >> http://www.robertstech.com/pixel/software.htm >> >> There's now a cheap ($20.00) screen-saver/slideshow app called Amaze and >> several nice freeware apps of various sorts. My favorite is PTFB (Push >> The Freakin' Button), which automatically clicks those annoying Yes/No >> or OK dialog box buttons for you in almost any Windows application. >> >> -- >> Mark Roberts >> Photography and writing >> www.robertstech.com -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Sad news
"Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Next on the block to finance my transition from analog to digital will >> be, appropriately enough, a vinyl record album: I have one of Mobile >> Fidelity's extra-expensive, limited edition (only 5000 made) "UHQR" >> records. It's the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper. It'll go up on eBay in a week or >> so where they fetched about $500.00 last time I checked. > >i should see what my Dark Side of the Moon UHQR would fetch. it's only in >good condition. there is one very annoying tick just before the alarms go >off in Time. I saw a Dark Side of the Moon UHQR go for about $400.00 a couple of weeks ago and about $500.00 about a year ago. Two units isn't a very large statistical sample so I wouldn't read much into the price difference. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Sad news
jmb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark, > >> I've found a buyer for my mint condition K2 and 50mm f/1.4 (sob!) > >Hope it found a good home! > >> Next on the block to finance my transition from analog to digital will >> be, appropriately enough, a vinyl record album: I have one of Mobile >> Fidelity's extra-expensive, limited edition (only 5000 made) "UHQR" >> records. It's the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper. It'll go up on eBay in a week or >> so where they fetched about $500.00 last time I checked. > >WOW! Weren't they originally about $100? Wholesale cost was $75.00 so I expect they retailed for more than $100.00 - or at least they were *supposed* to! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Sad news
"David Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: > >> I've found a buyer for my mint condition K2 and 50mm f/1.4 (sob!) >> Really hate to see them go but I need to put money aside for an *ist-D and >> a friend of mine would like to buy the camera (so at least I know it's >> going to a good home). > >Oh, how could you?!? > >I have decided that when I (eventually) go digital, my K2 is the one film >body I will keep. The LX feels better but the K2 works better. Well it is going to a good hope. A friend of mine who likes Pentax cameras and wants a classic, manual focus camera with manual exposure capability. Besides, I do have another K2 - it's the one I bought from Mike Johnston a couple of years ago. It isn't in nearly as nice condition cosmetically as the one I'm selling but It works perfectly. The one I'm selling is my "collector's* item. It's so mint you could put it on a store shelf and pass it off as new (and that includes the K-series 50/1.4). I'll miss having it, but part of the reason I didn't use it much was that it was too beautiful to risk taking out in the real world. What's the point of owning a camera you're afraid of using?! ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Question about slide-show or screen saver software
Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark, it may be the colors that are the problem, not the font size >In Netscape there is a lot of royal blue on black - looks pretty but hard to >read. Which version of Netscape? I just tried viewing it even with style sheets turned off and don't get the royal blue on black problem. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Question about slide-show or screen saver software
Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ann Sanfedele wrote: >> >> Mark Roberts wrote: >> >> > Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > > Most of the text on that site is irreadable (like that newly coined >> > > word?) by my Netscape Communicator browser and 17" monitor, and >> > > Mac OS 9.2.1. >> > >> > I just checked it in MSIE and Mozilla (on Windows, admittedly) and it >> > seems fine. Anyway, I never use fixed font sizes so you can easily scale >> > the text size up or down in your browser (all my pages are designed to >> > be adaptable for people with visual impairments and other disabilities, >> > wherever possible). >> >> Mark, it may be the colors that are the problem, not the font size >> In Netscape there is a lot of royal blue on black - looks pretty but hard to >> read. > >While I've experienced that contrast phenomenon, in this case it was a >matter of the text body fonts displaying so small, maybe 2 point at the >largest, and looking broken up. . . >I've got my browser set to "use page-specified fonts, including Dynamic fonts." >I thought that would cover all bases, but apparently not. . . Well I don't have any page-specified fonts at all: they're all specified in the style sheet (and non-CSS browsers should just use their own default fonts). I think I'll have to drag out the old Mac we have around here and connect it to the router to see how things look. I think we have a pretty old version of Netscape (version 4.something) on it so that should help, too. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: is this legal?
Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >http://oem-box.biz/?id=seashore&at=bequeath&href=thump >Adobe Photoshop 7 for $59.95? This web site is hosted on a home computer on a North Carolina Roadrunner cable connection, which is in violation of Roadrunner's service agreement, I believe. But I wouldn't be surprised if the owner of the computer doesn't even know the web site is there: his computer has probably been compromised with a trojan or worm and hacked into by whoever is really behind "oem-box.biz". The domains oem-box.biz and oem-cd.biz (the "contact us" email address) are registered in Russia, but the owner probably isn't within 2000 miles of Russia - he's almost certainly in the U.S. There's no phone or physical mailing address on the web page. They want your credit card number. Do you really think it's a good idea to give it to them? I've sent a note to Roadrunner. With luck they may tell the owner of the PC in North Carolina that he's been rooted and get him to fix his computer. Maybe. Don't know if this is a scam to sell pirated software or just a scam to get credit card numbers... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Sad news
"Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Gee, Mark, you're selling an LP to finance a DSLR? Doesn't that make >you the root of all evil, or something of that ilk? ;-p The irony is not lost on me ;) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: is this legal?
Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>http://oem-box.biz/?id=seashore&at=bequeath&href=thump >>Adobe Photoshop 7 for $59.95? > >This web site is hosted on a home computer on a North Carolina >Roadrunner cable connection, which is in violation of Roadrunner's >service agreement, I believe. But I wouldn't be surprised if the owner >of the computer doesn't even know the web site is there: his computer >has probably been compromised with a trojan or worm and hacked into by >whoever is really behind "oem-box.biz". The domains oem-box.biz and >oem-cd.biz (the "contact us" email address) are registered in Russia, >but the owner probably isn't within 2000 miles of Russia - he's almost >certainly in the U.S. I just did a little more digging and discovered that oem-cd.biz is hosted on wanadoo.fr (France Telecom). This is probably the scammer's home base as Wanadoo is very friendly to spammers and other types of Internet con artists. As for the country where the scammer is *physically* located... Who knows? U.S. would still be my guess. Probably Boca Raton, Florida (which seems to be a haven for Internet scumbags of all types, for some reason). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Question about slide-show or screen saver software
Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: > >> Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >Mark, it may be the colors that are the problem, not the font size >> >In Netscape there is a lot of royal blue on black - looks pretty but hard to >> >read. >> >> Which version of Netscape? I just tried viewing it even with style >> sheets turned off and don't get the royal blue on black problem. > >I have document specified fonts accepted, but dynamic fonts are disabled >and style sheets are disabled, I'm using Netscape 4.6. Why do you have style sheets disabled? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: How hard is it to change a K-mount/
"John Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The subject says it all, but here's why! I just got a Pentax A70-210/4 zoom >in excellent condition (for A$110), except for the mount, which has some >rough patches where various people have abused it. What are the pitfalls >(and is it practical) in taking off the lens mount and replacing it with one >from, say, an old M50/1.7? It's very easy to do: Only 5 screws. But if you use the mount from an M50/1.7 (or any other K/M lens) you'll lose matrix metering due to the lack of aperture contacts. With a bit of modification you can work around that, though. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
England Wins!
Just had to post this before Cotty ;-) This is what he was blathering about, for those who don't know: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/3228728.stm -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PayPal Beware - seller tracking number mandatory for your safety
"Leonard Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >See my response to Ann San and Paul. I don't see what all the hubbub is >about, Bub. Sellers aren't put to any extra expense here. The buyer still >pays all. The number of eBay scammers has been increasing rapidly. The >buyer needs a little protection. Now that you know what you have to do, you >have a choice to make. I'm with Len here. This new Pay Pal policy doesn't make me do anything I haven't been doing already and it's what I expect of anyone selling me anything. I'm glad to see they're requiring this now (though a little sad that it's *necessary* for them to do so.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: I'm off
Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Doug wrote: > >"I'm out of here, gang." > >While the cat's away the mice will play. > >Now's your chance. Start the flame war you always had in mind. Gripe >about Pentax all you want. Blame Doug for the problems at Mail-Archive.com. Doug Brewer turned me into a newt! (I got better.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Lithium Bat for LX
Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The owner's manual says to use two 1.5 v alkaline (A76) or silver oxide >(EPX76) mini-batteries. >I can find no prohibition against the use of lithium batteries. Probably because lithium batteries didn't exist when the manual was written? Lithiums have, I believe, much higher surge current capacity, so they could potentially damage inductive devices like motors when they try to draw a lot of current on start-up. Many manufacturers warned against the use of lithiums when they first appeared but many non-approved devices actually worked well with them. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Kodak and the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I think this may be one of the signs of the apocalypse: Kodak's current advertising slogan (or one of them) is "Print, share and enjoy", just a hair's breadth away from that of the diabolical Nutrimatic Drinks machine from H2G2. ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: An observation re Pentax for sale
"Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >it seems the ones that shoot the least complain the most. Ooh, *there's* one for my collection of PDML quotations! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Where is Grandfather Mountain and why should we go there?
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 27/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > >>The PDML listmeister, Doug Brewer, is always there, along with several >>other list regulars such as myself, Bill Owens, Tom Van Veen, Steve >>DesJardins, Graywolf, Jerome Reyes, Cesar Matamoros and various lurkers. >>Most of us camp out at the mountain, but there are decent hotels within >>a 15 minute drive. > >Hey Mark, > >You planning on a bivouac up on the top again for a dawn snap? Absolutely. The last effort proved to be more of a wilderness adventure than a photographic expedition. I'm hoping for better weather in 2004. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Who else?
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 27/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > >>>Egad, what's Cotty drinking tonight >> >>Dunno, but I'm having a very nice cabernet at the moment. > >Hey we've got some cabernets in the kitchen. They're full of plates. Wow, a traditional large format photographer! And I thought you'd gone all digital! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: An observation re Pentax for sale
"Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >i've been getting the distinct feeling for the past couple of months, the >ones that are shooting are the ones talking about shooting and photography, >and the ones that aren't, are talking about everything else. You ain't seen nuthin! Head over to the rec.photo newsgroups to see this phenomenon in full force! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: What is an MX worth?
graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >What someone is willing to pay for it. Going price right now for a clean user is > $100-150. Obviously NIB to a collector is worth more (grin). "User" condition MX's go for well under $100.00 these days. $150.00 on eBay should get you a *very* nice example. Of course, prices may be going up for shopping season (I hope so, really, because I want to sell some things). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: PayPal alternative
graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >There are probably a million people using PayPal. Very few of them have had >problems. Most of the stuff mention here on the list lately has be costs on the >seller's side. Those are actually what PayPal has to deal with fromt the credit >card companies and are passing along to PayPal users. > >I have never had a problem with PayPal as either a seller, or a buyer. I have had dozens of Pay Pal transactions as a buyer and the overwhelming majority of my eBay sales have been via Pay Pal. Never the slightest problem ever. But... The thing that annoys be greatly is that with eBay now owning Pay Pal, they're basically collecting double commissions on every item that's sold on eBay and paid for via Pay Pal. I realize that there's some additional overhead involved with processing the transaction through Pay Pal, but I'm sure it's very little now that the two entities are merged. I'm considering no longer accepting Pay Pal on eBay auctions simply because I think eBay is gouging sellers enough already. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: USB 2 and Firewire
"John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> For those making the move to digital, USB 2 and/or Firewire capability >> is a definite "must" for their computer. > >I'd certainly agree it's a good idea (for a start it lets you use >external disk drives, so that eventual upgrade will be easier). >But if you've already got a computer with just USB 1 there's no >compelling need to upgrade immediately. Depends how much value you place on your time, I suppose. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Never buy batteries again!
"Leon Altoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >An interesting article about an alternative to batteries. > >http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/26/1069825836764.html Tres cool! A portable diesel-engined generator! >From film to digital to internal combustion! (BTW: That article was wrong about the batteries for portable military radios not being rechargeable. I expect they're using the PRC-117F almost exclusively over there by now, but even its predecessor used rechargeable batteries.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: FS: 67 Lens
Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Here's the next one: > >165/2.8 portrait lens. In EX+ condition. Includes original front and >rear caps. G. If I weren't saving my pennies for an *ist-D I'd snap that up in a moment to use on my 645 :( -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: where are you ? and digital vs film
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 29/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > >>> At 71 I guess I'm close to being the most ancient. >>> >> >>Gotta beat 73. . . To me, that's the late middle's. . . > >Sheesh, I'm still only 12. "Boys start to imitate men at age 12. And continue to do so for the rest of their lives" - Mark Twain (Paraphrased because I don't remember the exact quote) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: How many musicians? was Re: where are you ? and digital vs film
"Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >This brings a question to my feeble mind. How many musicians do we have >here on the list? I know there are a few guitarists, and, if I'm not >mistaken, a conductor. I play trombone in our local community concert band, >and have been a member there for 11 years. Bass guitar here. Got a Yamaha fretless and a Vantage (old) fretted bass. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: How many musicians? was Re: where are you ? and digital vs film
"David Madsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Two bassists posts back to back, at least in the order that my server sent >them to me. I have been listening to Jonas Hellborg's "The Word" a little >lately. Very good album for bass enthusiasts. Wow! I'd forgotten about him! I don't have any of his recordings but I saw him with John McLaughlin once and he blew me away! I once saw Jaco Pastorius, sadly towards the end of his life when mental illness was overcoming him completely. He was so incoherent that the club ended up refunding everyone who came to both his shows that night. :( >I am normally an Ozzy kind >of guy, but I enjoy good music in most of it's forms. As I mentioned >previously, I have been drumming for 25 years, I also play piano and guitar, >and I enjoy songwriting. I have done some recording and have had radio >play, but have not released anything - yet. I've done lots of recording - I'm probably more of a studio guy than a live performer in terms of ability, but I love doing live gigs. Music here: http://www.robertstech.com/music.htm -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Another lens I can't afford for my 645
"Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/hartblei45.shtml >> >> 45mm shift/tilt lens! >> >Impressing. >I would have loved to trade it for the pentax A-45/2.8, which I'm not all >together happy with. Really? I have one of those and love it. I want to get the A-35/3.5, though. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Panorama project
I'm still fine tuning it, but here's how my latest panorama project looks at the moment: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/pghsmall.jpg 5 slides combined into one shot. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Panorama project
Thanks for the comments. Questions answered below. >Where is the location? It's Point State Park, here in Pittsburgh. I was just 10 meters or so from the junction where the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers join to form the Ohio river. >Hand stitch or via stitching program? "Hand" stitched in Photoshop. Took quite a bit of manipulation, partly because I used the 43mm Limited, which has a bit of barrel distortion, and partly because the waves and ripples in the river wouldn't hold still while I rotated the camera for each succeeding photo! By the way: At 360 ppi output resolution, the print size is 7 inches by 48 inches! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: first digital image scare or where are my pictures?
"Christian Skofteland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> I don't know if that was exactly what my problem was, but once I had >> something similar happen and photorescue was able to pull them off the >> card. >> >> What card is it? > >It's a lexar 12x 512MB card but it is NOT the "Professional" variety that >comes with ImageRescue. I have one of those too, and with its reader it's >supposed to be able to pull the images. But it doesn't work with the other >type of Lexar card... > >so far so good with some freeware I found on the web. What was the freeware and where can it be found? I'd like to add it to my page of digital photo software links. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: FA 31 mm 1.8 limited
"Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Joseph Tainter > >> > I use mine a lot and am always impressed by the image quality. On the >> > *ist D it makes a wonderful "normal" lens. > > does it stike anyone else as strange that a >$1000 lens is > necessary w/ an ~$1500 camera to replicate what can be > shot w/ a quality 50mm lens and most any used pre-digital > Pentax body and good film?? Nope, not at all. You need higher resolution lenses because the smaller sensor size requires greater magnification than full-frame to achieve the same print size. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Panorama project
"Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> "Hand" stitched in Photoshop. Took quite a bit of manipulation, partly >> because I used the 43mm Limited, which has a bit of barrel distortion, >> and partly because the waves and ripples in the river wouldn't hold >> still while I rotated the camera for each succeeding photo! > >use a long exposure, 2 seconds or more. the water then is flat from your >point of view. Yeah, I thought of that but I don't like that "look". -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: FA 31 mm 1.8 limited
Pat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Speaking of wide angle primes, I was out trying to shoot holiday lighting in >the downtown area. I started around dusk & lingered until it got totally dark. >A tripod would have helped, but not possible. The best I could do was a SMC-F >50mm/1.7 for low light vs a Tokina 20-35mm zoom less well suited for low light, >but better among the buildings. > >I got to thinking about a wide angle prime. Either a 28mm/2.8 or a 35mm/2, >preferably F or FA series. Any opinions from the list? I think the FA28/2.8AL is Pentax's most underrated lens. It's a very nice 28 indeed. About the only criticism I've heard is a bit of light fall-off when wide open (I've never used mine wide open so I can't say). I love mine on my film cameras - should work a treat on an *ist-D! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: PayPal alternative
"Peter Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> That's fine, but I object to the same company charging me two commission >> fees as if they're two companies. They're not. >> >Have you ever bought a supermarket's own brand baked beans? Yes. And they're much less expensive than the name brand beans - precisely because of the consolidation of the two parts of the business. You've illustrated exactly the point I was trying to make (although more clearly than I was able to). >The supermarket is making a profit on both the sale and manufacture of the >beans, whereas if you buy a brand name, the profits are split between the >two companies. Right. This is basically what's happened with the merger of eBay and Pay Pal, only PayBay (or whatever we'll call the merged entity) isn't "passing the savings along to you", as they say in the advertising business. Now there's no reason why they *have* to pass along the economies of scale to their customers. There's no rule or law that says they're required to. But there's no rule that says I have to like it either :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: Whines (was: Re: How many musicians?)
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A few years ago I used to religiously follow UK supermarke twine guru
>Malcolm Gluck's advice in the Guardian newspaper ('Superplonk'). Accused
>of always recommending wine, he was challenged to do just the opposite
>and highlight wine that should be missed at every opportunity. The two
>columns he wrote, I cut out and have adorned our kitchen notice board for
>years. I present them here:
>
>[NOTE: written about 1992 or so - and taken tongue in cheek. And yes, we
>Brits get hammered as well - smile!]
>Regard all self-proclaiming organic wines with intense
>suspicion.
I been told that there are some reputable California vineyards
(Kendall-Jackson being one) that produce all their wine entirely
organically... and put no indication of the fact on their labels or
anywhere in their advertising precisely because they believe it will
scare people off!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Re: IR Mark on Lens
"Larry Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm thinking of getting a FA 28 mm 2.8 lens. Does it and other FA lens have >the IR focus point on the lens? >I do a lot of IR work. Yes. The FA28/2.8AL does indeed have an IR focusing mark. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Comments on the *ist-D
Mike Johnston's latest column mentions it. Excerpt: "And of course, you could use the Pentax SMCP-FA 31mm Limited on the *ist D, which might be reason enough to check it out right there. This camera with the 31mm Limited would be killer. Pentax also makes one of the best 24mms on the planet, so Pentax really has you covered in terms of spectacularly good moderate-wide normals." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-10-30.shtml -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: My website down (?) - Was: Re: Pentax 28-105mm FA powerzoom
Stan Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think my ISP has rung in a change of service terms on me, and is starting >to charge for bandwidth. This month, for the first time ever, I have been >getting warnings every day or two that I was going to run out of bandwidth >before I run out of month. Unless of course I buy more bandwidth. When I >tried to log on to check the usage logs, they wouldn't let me log on until I >clicked Accept on the revised terms-and-conditions. So I decided to not log >on and to wait and see what happens. Tanya, I suspect that your experience >is not unique to you, that the site is "down" until the next usage month or >until I pay more or until I move it to another ISP. I hate to change >addresses, I have my wife's site hosted by the same company, but I don't >like being held hostage either and will probably make a change. Stay tuned. The company that hosts my domain for me is quite affordable and has no bandwidth surcharges. Email me privately if you are interested. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: [OT] Nikon announced D70
Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03120301nikond70.asp >Things are getting interesting - another DSLR body with MSRP below 1000$. I notice that this body is "announced", rather than made available for sale. Nikon says they are "working on" this new budget priced digital SLR. I'll be surprised if it hits the shelves before next summer. They're clearly floating this early in hopes of slowing the exodus from Nikon to Canon. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Not Again :-(
"Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The NWS is forecasting the possibility of an ice storm in our area tonight >and tomorrow morning. Last year about this time we had an ice storm and >went without power for 5 days. I've already got the generator hooked up and >ready to go. Hmm. Lisa and I are coming to see our friends in Winston-Salem this weekend. Could you be sure to have that stuff all cleaned up for us by the time we get there, Bill? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: *istD - Hmmmmm
Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >As Ansel noted, how an image is rendered depends on three primary factors - >acutance (edge definition), resolution (the ability to render fine detail) >and grain (noise). The ideal photographic system would be high acutance, >high resolution and low noise. > >My working hypothesis is that while digital has lower resolution than film, >it has higher acutance and lower noise. Good film has superior resolution, >but seemingly lower acutance and higher noise levels. > >For a lot of subjects, the trade offs that come with digital work better >than those in film. It depends on the visual cues in the image that the >viewer picks up. My *ist-D came too late for me to do any bug macros, but I >expect that it will produce close ups of insects as good or better than the >best film. I say this in part because I've been able to get excellent >closeups using a 3.3 megapixel digtal up to this point. For that kind of >work, higher acutance (at the cost of resolution) works. If you think about >the visual cues that define a bug, it generally is about edges. I expect >the *ist-D to really rock with snowflakes this winter - because snowflakes >are nothing but edges. > >On the flip side, things that are visually defined more by textures than >edges seem to suffer in digital. I haven't tested it (hope to soon) but >things like a forest floor covered with dried leaves I expect will do >better with film. With my old CP990, that sort of stuff broke up and >started to look weird if I tried to enlarge the image. Film seemed to hold >up much better, and a larger format of film would have been much better >still. When you look closely at how something like that is recorded on >film, it's a whole bunch of gradients and no real hard edges. That's where >resolution really becomes important - and the complexity of the visual >pattern also minimizes the impact of the grain in film. Great summary of the characteristics of film and digital, Mark! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Laptop suggestions
Cameron Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >For photography, graphics, video, and music production, all pros use a >Mac. Not any more. I recently toured the photo labs at the Rochester Institute of Technology and they're about a 60/40 ratio of PC/Mac now, and they pretty much reflect the way things are in the industry (they don't have much choice). The universities I've checked out here in Pittsburgh are about 80/20. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Faces to names...
"Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ok, so I just had this idea, inspired by Cesar's PDML pics Why don't we >have a thread dedicated to posting pics of ourselves and our equipment so >that we can put "faces to names".. > >The first one is just me... > >http://www.tanyamayer.com/mum2.jpg My god, do you have a license for those earrings??? Here's me with MZ-S and Sigma 300/2.8: http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/images/sigma300.jpg -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: *istD - Hmmmmm
"Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >let me know when you have some FA 200 f4 macro shots. i am thinking about >that lens for my macro too. i am also interested in your opinions on >alternatives. also on the FA 100 f2.8 macro I have one or two shots taken with the *ist-D and the F-100/2.8 macro (optically identical to the FA version) from this past August. I shot them as full-res TIFFs since the Pentax RAW software wasn't available at that time. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: [OT] Nikon announced D70
Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I wonder why Minolta hasn't come with DSLR yet? Interesting question. They haven't even "announced" that they're "working on" one yet. If I were a Minolta user I'd be very worried. (Actually, I'd probably be a former-Minolta-user by now.) I suppose they might be planning to spring a surprise on everyone at PMA in February, but I really can't see how keeping such a thing secret could possibly help them. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Laptop suggestions
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 3 Dec 2003 at 18:11, Cameron Hood wrote: > >> PS: Don't listen to all the whiners out there - pro's use a Mac. >> Period. > >And pro's use Canons and L lenses... LOL! Perfect analogy! >Can we get back to less offensive political, racial and religious debates >please... Seconded. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax 28-105mm FA powerzoom
"Dave Miers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Um, in general I think it's ok to use a flash that's convering a wider angle >then the lens, it's the other way around that would cause a visible defect >such as vignetting Absolutely. I do it all the time with outdoor fill flash. I've used an 18mm lens with my AF400FTZ set to the 105mm setting (one and a half stops down from ambient) to pick out details in the main subject while leaving everything else in the frame alone. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax 28-105mm FA powerzoom
Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >"Dave Miers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Um, in general I think it's ok to use a flash that's convering a wider angle >>then the lens, it's the other way around that would cause a visible defect >>such as vignetting > >Absolutely. I do it all the time with outdoor fill flash. I've used an >18mm lens with my AF400FTZ set to the 105mm setting (one and a half >stops down from ambient) to pick out details in the main subject while >leaving everything else in the frame alone. Sorry about that bizarre post. Not quite awake here yet ;) What I meant to point out is that you *can* use flash coverage that's narrower than the field of view of the lens in some special instances. It's almost always OK to use flash coverage that's wider than the FOV of the lens (as long as you're sure the flash is powerful enough - remember the flash has less effective power as you spread its coverage out). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: down in the darkroom
Jon Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >until digital can be done more conveniently and _without_ a computer, This "until" is already here. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: down in the darkroom
"Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >There are >large parts of the world though where computing is not ubiquitous and I >think film will survive there for quite a while. At least until computer print setups are cheaper than minilabs... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: down in the darkroom
"Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jon Glass wrote: > >> until digital can be done more conveniently and _without_ a computer > > ... and Mark Roberts wrote: >> This "until" is already here. > > Right - there are cute little stand-alone printers out there > that you just plug the camera into and pop out 4x6 prints. Some of the newer inkjets up to letter size have this capability, too. That's part of what the new Print Image Management system is for. > As I mentioned in another post, I have in hand a Casio QV-R40 > which I am checking out for a friend as a replacement for his > Olympus Stylus P&S. I am thinking it is a perfect substitue. > It has basicly a one button push for "ready to go" and a very > quick (they say fastest digital P&S) response time. It seems > on a par w/ my Pentax Zoom90wr in that respect. It's sub $300 > at MallWart, to boot. The default settings are just right for > his intentions - it will be the rare shot indeed where much > will need to be changed. > > To us "real photograhers" here on the PDML, it leaves much to > be desired - but for someone who just wants to have some 4x6 > prints of friends, parties, and fun trips afield it will beat > the blankity blank out of film and processing financially in > no time at all - not to mention the instant gratification > factor. Digital will soon be much simpler for the casual vacation shooter to work with. Not there yet but it won't be long. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Re[2]: down in the darkroom
Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DT> DagT wrote: >DT> In large parts of the world even a minilab i far out of reach. >DT> Electricity too > >Sounds like for those parts of the world, that they are not much of a >market for any kind of photography - film or digital. Film requires some kind of lab >facilities and expendable income to purchase cameras, film and >processing. They don't sound like major consumers to me. Indeed, these parts of the world, when they do get electricity and photo labs, will probably go straight to digital minilabs and never have film processing at all. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: GFM Attendees (updated)
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 7/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > >>In any case it seems there will be some out-of-towners in DC before GFM so >>I'm sure we can all get together at tv's place for Indian food... > >I'm arriving at Dulles on the Thursday at 6pm. By the time I get around >to Tom's it'll be nearly 8pm ? and I'll be ravenous - especially for >Indian food :-) > >Count me in. Hey, perhaps I'll detour through DC on my way! ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Mad Lenses on *ist D
Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 02:57 PM 12/8/03, throwing caution to the wind, Cotty wrote: > >>Okay, here's a poser for you *ist D users. What's the maddest lens you've >>had on your Pentax DSLR? >> >>Gotta be the A*135mm f/1.8 ? Anyone tried that? >> >>Anyone using the brilliant A*85mm f/1.4? >> >>Anyone tried the 600 f/4? >> >>Anyone mad as a hatter out there? > > >At GFM, we'll be running the istd on a Tak 1000/8... It's a portrait lens for shy people. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: GFM Attendees (updated)
Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >One word of warning. If you come here you mustn't throw boomerangs in >Kew Gardens. I did that earlier this year and nearly took some poor >woman's head off. She was hiding behind a eucalyptus (honest) and the >boomerang just seemed to seek her out. I never did get it back. So you're tho one who looks like Rolf Harris, then? :-P -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Step Away From The Film!
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >645 is a fine format, and the Pentax is one of the betterones. >For myself, I didn't like 645 because of the way the negative sits in the >film carrier. >If you do portraits, it's great, but for landscapes it's a bit sucky. ??? Could you elaborate? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: WEBSITE freak out - HELP!!!!!
"Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:14:19 -0500, Juey Chong Ong wrote: > >> e.g. a font size of 10px is going to look smaller on a 96ppi >> display than a 72ppi display. > >This is one of my pet peeves and the easiest way except for using Flash >to get me to go away. On my 19" display at 1600 x 1200, a 10 pixel >font requires a magnifying glass. Some jerks specify six and eight >pixel fonts. I assume they don't want my custom and move on. > >> I suggest that you specify font size in points rather than pixels. > >I fully concur. Or even the relative size names like "normal", >"smaller", "small", "larger", "large", "x-large", etc. The best way is to not set font size in either points *or* pixels: Use relative font sizes, either with "size=xx%" in style sheets or with +/- settings in the "FONT" tag (font size=-1 or font size=+2, for example). That way all your site's visitors can set the page to look the way they like. (This is especially important for visually impaired users.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Mad Lenses on *ist D
"David Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Cotty wrote: > >> Okay, here's a poser for you *ist D users. What's the maddest lens you've >> had on your Pentax DSLR? > >Ummm, I haven't. ;) > >If I had one, I'd be very keen to use the 15mm. Ah yes, I tried the *ist_D with my K15/3.5 at GFM in August. Nice combo! >Then the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. A digital camera that is good at macro is >something I dream to own. I also took some macro shots using the F100/2.8 macro. Yes, macro shots with digital are lots of fun :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: 645 verticality (was: Step Away From The Film!)
Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>645 is a fine format, and the Pentax is one of the betterones. >>For myself, I didn't like 645 because of the way the negative sits in the >>film carrier. >>If you do portraits, it's great, but for landscapes it's a bit sucky. >> >>William Robb > >Wow! I thought the film was moving the other way to get horizontal >shots. Personnally, I like horizontal portraits, as it is the way >our eyes "picture" what they see. > >So how do you handle the 645 for landscape, grip up or down? With the Pentax 645, standard position (grip to the right, viewfinder on top) you get horizontal framing. For "portrait" orientation you have to turn the camera on its side (but it has an extra tripod socket on its side for when you're doing a lot of portraits - very neat feature). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: GFM Attendees (updated)
"frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >You should move to Canada for a couple of years, just to experience some >~real~ cold. > >Last winter (a cold one by Toronto standards) we had several weeks where the >morning temp was around -25, with a wind chill of around -40C. The daily >highs were around -15C. > >One winter in Montreal (the winter of 1981-82, to be exact, because my ex >was preggers with our oldest) the temp didn't go ~above~ 0 F (what's that, >around -20C?) for the entire month of January. Average night time low was >about -40, plus wind chill. > >Now ~that's~ cold... A few years ago there was a discussion in the rec.running newsgroup about "the coldest weather you've ever run in". I was going to boast about the -15F run I'd done that winter until I read the posts from runners in Alaska and northern Canada. -30, -40, etc. In Rochester, NY we imported our cold from Canada. And Canada sent us only the watered-down version of their "cold". ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: FILM DEAD ?
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 9 Dec 2003 at 12:31, Tonghang Zhou wrote: > >> Dropped by a local photo store last weekend and saw people >> flocking at the new Leicas, 23 hundred a piece on sale at 10% >> off. Judging by the enthusiam at such shameful prices, it's >> hard to believe film is dead. > >These cameras will most probably never have a film loaded :-) If my local stores are anything to go by, there won't be film available to load into them before long. Well, good film, at least. There'll *always* be Kodak Max 400. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Bizarre eBay offering
"mike.wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Did any of us get this? > >A Katana would have been more appropriate > >http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2969470695&category=4702 I don't know that I'd fell safe buying something like than on eBay. Probably stolen goods that he's fencing... :-P -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: Swastikas ( was Re: OT:Weird place names-was: GFM Attendees (updated)
The Straight Dope on swastikas: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_156.html :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Bizarre eBay offering
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 9 Dec 2003 at 15:09, mike.wilson wrote: > >> Did any of us get this? >> >> A Katana would have been more appropriate >> >> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2969470695&category=4702 > >Finally a pointed Pentax promotion... Who says Pentax doesn't make any cutting edge products?! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: DA16-45: No aperture rings any more?
"Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have heard of a number of people deciding against the MZ-S and buying >old Z1Ps instead on the basis that the MZ-S is not a sensible future >path. And despite my love of the camera and dislike of the Z1, I have >to admit they are right. However, the Z1 does not support the new flash >system properly, and has outdated AF. So there is no sensible film body >for the enthusiast to invest in right now other than the budget models. This seems a pretty accurate assessment to me. I loved the aperture control on the camera body with the PZ-1p (I was one of the people who complained loudly about the MZ-S not having this feature) but found it difficult to use the PZ-1p in conjunction with the MZ-S because I couldn't just leave my lenses in the "A" position all the time. I'll have the same difficulty using the *ist-D and the MZ-S at the same time. It would be nice to use the PZ-1p instead of the MZ-S... except for the poorer autofocus, metering and general ergonomics. >Pentax are now starting to completely kill sales of their current (film) >flagship(s). Now *that's* an exaggeration on two fronts! Firstly because the MZ-S is still a great camera in its own right and secondly because what's killing all film camera sales is digital in general, not any compatibility issues between various digital and film cameras. >They need to do something to redress this pretty damn quick I don't think they *need* to... and I'm quite sure they aren't going to! >either replace it with a new or improved model Very, very unlikely. >or give VERY clear and well publicised assurances that the aperture rings >on the lens will be supported on full frame lenses of the future. Not a snowball's chance. >We can perhaps excuse 1 or 2 budget FAJs from this assurance, and Reduced >coverage lenses, but we need to know what the long term plan is. No camera manufacturer ever announces their long term plans in any detail. Well, very rarely, anyway: When that guy from Nikon revealed to Pop Photo they planned to make a full-frame DSLR he got called on the carpet by his bosses pretty damn quick and told to retract the statement. We can't count on anyone making mistakes like that in the future. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Film is not dead :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> At least high-speed. In latest issue of , then at >> iso1600 Superia was much better, having >> significantly smaller grain than noise in both cameras. >> As we can see, no technology is perfect and so film has still some serious >> advantages over digital :-) > >I use the 1600 at some indoor horse venues.It actuall makes a half decent 8x10. I dont >think i'd go bigger though. Wait until next year's digital cameras. Or perhaps the year after. Not much longer, though. The writing is on the wall. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Links page for digital tools
Thanks for the recommendations but they aren't much use to me without URLS for the web pages. Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Here's a subjective short list. All are photoshop >plugs unless otherwise noted. I've used all of these, >and others as well. These are my pick: > >Color correction: >Pictographics EditLab (has memory colors for foliage, skin, sky) >Pictographics iCorrect (slightly fewer features than EditLab, and cheaper) >Digital Light&Color ColorMechanic: change some colors without changing others. > >iCorrect and ColorMechanic would form a very nice color >correction package. EditLab does a few things that iCorrect won't, but those >extras, for the most part, can be done with standard Photoshop adjustments. > > >Noise/Grain: > >Absoft NeatImage (fiddly and slow but good) >Visual Infinity GrainSurgery (faster than NeatImage, not as good, but often good >enuff) > >If I had to own only one of these, I'd take Grain Surgery. >Reason: Speed and predictability. > >Sharpening: >--- >Nik NikSharpener: A no-brainer, reasonably fast, use on a layer and adjust to taste. >Photo Wiz FocalBlade: For custom sharpening. Sees occasional use in my hands. >Fixer Labs FocusFixer: Slow, but very good at putting a slight edge on. > >The lastest rage in sharpening seems to be tri-fold: >a) slightly sharpen the scan. Focus Fixer can do this very well. >b) creative sharpening of selected regions: FocalBlade is well suited. >c) final sharpening once size, resolution, and output is known. Nik here. > >If I had to own only one of these, it would be Nik Sharpener. >Reason: Speed and predictability, aimed at final output. > >Ressing up: >--- >Extensis SmartScale: Much faster than Genuine Fractals, seemingly as good. > Note: Luminous Landscape pans this plug. One of the complaints is that > it installs itself as a menu item. There's a reason for that. You can > run smartscale with no open image. Photoshop inactivates all items in the > filter menu with no opened files. >Genuine Fractals: Need to create a custom file first. > >If I had to own one of these, SmartScale would be the choice. Reason: >Speed, no separate file creation, requires less post-rez sharpening than >Photoshop Bicubic. > >Masking (composites, etc) > >Extensis MaskPro >Corel Knockout >Human Software Automask >I've used these only once. I've built exactly two composite >images, both fireworks displays. Can't remember which of these I used >at the time. I'm not a composite kind of guy. Fashion and advertising >photographers seem to use such extraction masks a lot. > >Occasionally useful: > >Applied Science Fiction SHO: shadow control >Applied Science Fiction ROC: Restoration of color. Hit or miss, but the hits are >nifty. >Nik ColorEfex: misc. enhancements aimed at photography. Filter simulations, etc. >AutoFx Autoeye: Occasionally does a better job of color correction than other things. > > >Worthless except to the graphics artist: > >Kai anything, Andromeda anything, AlienSkin anything, Flaming Pear anything. >Note that there's some cool stuff from these companies, and I have some of it, >but I don't keep such stuff installed. > >Many people say that you can do almost anything in photoshop. That >may be true, but often requires several steps, and therefore an >absensce of WYSIWYG. Good plugs are, imho, faster and more >intuitive. The only actions I run regularly are those I created for >dust and scratch mitigation or for contrast masking. > >My two cents. Sorry for the late response. I'm way behind in keeping >up with the list. > >-Lon > > >Mark Roberts wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >>>Does anyone think there'd be use for a page listing some more useful tools for >>>the digital darkroom, perhaps organized by freeware/shareware/buyem and by >>>application type? You know, stand alone apps, PS plug-ins, etc. >> >> >> I've got one up. Not a lot there yet but it's growing: >> http://www.robertstech.com/pixel/software.htm > -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: FILM DEAD ?
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: >If my local stores are anything to go by, there won't be film available >to load into them before long. Well, good film, at least. There'll >*always* be Kodak Max 400. > >Gosh, where do you live? Pittsburgh. Only two really serious photo shops here. The one near me has cut back on film *drastically* - from three film fridges to one. And that one's only 1/3 full. And it's mostly color neg for the wedding photographers (those who still shoot film, anyway). For professional slide film I'm pretty much resigned to using mail order. A few weeks ago I was in Winston-Salem, NC and the only real (non-Ritz-or-similar-chain) photo shop I could find had *no* slide film at all except ONE (yes, 1) roll of Ektachrome 160 Tungsten and a couple of 120 rolls (also Tungsten). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT:Weird place names-was: GFM Attendees (updated)
Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Thursday, December 11, 2003, 4:34:47 AM, you wrote: >>> >>> even though it's fictional, I've always liked that >>> Dewey, Cheatum & Howe bunch from CarTalk > >> Then, of course, there were Lord Gnome's solicitors: > >> Sue, Grabbit & Runne > >there is a dentist (non-fictional) here in Greenwich called Mr. Payne. In Rochester, one could get a vasectomy from a (non-fictional) urologist named Dr. Stopp. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Way OT:Global warming-was:GFM Attendees (updated)
"frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Tom, > >I'll leave my personal beliefs and politics out of it (many of you can guess >where I stand anyway ) > >But, Global Warming (see, I've capitalized it this time, to signify it's >importance ) is not "much ado about nothing". > >That the earth's climate has warmed up since we've been keeping records is >indisputable. It's also been established that it began right after the beginning of the industrial revolution. Nah. Probably just a coincidence... :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: DA16-45: No aperture rings any more?
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >- Original Message - >From: "Nick" > >> One possibility is the release of an APS film SLR to complement the >digital range. It could use the DA lenses after all. > >Not likely, all the film manufacturers are getting out of APS film. >OTOH, this could make Pentax look seriously at the concept. >It would fit their marketing strategy. Hey, why not just expose an APS-sized negative on 35mm film? Just think of all the extra room you'd have for data imprinting on the film! You could have shutter speed, aperture, exposure mode & compensation, metering mode, focal length, time, date, film ISO (if the DX code is overridden), latitude, longitude & altitude (the camera would of course have built-in GPS), outside temperature, sign of the zodiac, birthstone... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Mad Lenses on *ist D
Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I gave the A* 400 f2.8 and 1.7x AF adapter a whirl one day last week, >shooting at the birds around my feeders. For random pot shots at birds, not >even trying to get close, I'm very impressed with the image quality. Can't >wait to do some serious birding with it. > >Some sample from the half hour I spent near the feeder: > >http://www.markcassino.com/temp/b001.jpg >http://www.markcassino.com/temp/b002.jpg >http://www.markcassino.com/temp/b003.jpg >http://www.markcassino.com/temp/b004.jpg What ISO setting? I tried getting some hummingbirds last summer and found it maddening because I only had ISO 100 film on hand. It would have been nice to just instantly switch to ISO 800. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: other brands:was ditching Pentax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Severasl of the list people didi not wait for Pentax to release the starkits and >bought >Canon. Any particular reasons folks. Cost,lens availablity, just hate Nikon:-)??? The selection of Image Stabilization lenses and the upgrade path to a full-frame digital body seem to be the two major reasons. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT:Weird place names-was: GFM Attendees (updated)
"Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> the joke here (for those of you not up on your American Civil War history) >> is that Robert E. Lee was a famous Confederate (rebel) commander and >> Michigan was, of course, on the side of the Union army. Still makes me smile >> every time Mr. Lee's birthday comes up and I get to take that day off as a >> state holiday. > >Are referring to the war of Northern aggression? :-) What? You guys got attacked by Canada??? I had no idea! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: horizon on *ist-D
"Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Shooting landscapes in the Blue Ridge Mountains can drive you >crazy trying to get the horizon level. There is no "flat" horizon. Lots of places are like that. Many times I've "leveled" a horizon in Photoshop only to find out later that I had the camera level when I took the shot; it was the *horizon* that wasn't level. Which brings up a philosophical question: Do you try to get the horizon so that it *looks* right or the way you really know *is* right (but looks funny in the final print)? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Re 2: Bizarre eBay offering
Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2969470695&category=4702 > >Drat...no aperture ring. Well lenses without aperture rings have advantages and disadvantages. Kind of a double-edged sword... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT:Weird place names-was: GFM Attendees (updated)
"frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >We don't attack. We lull our victims into a state of false security, then >infiltrate. > >Our operatives are hockey players, comedians, newscasters. Hey, you left out musicians! I'm just burning a CD from an LP-to-DAT transfer of an album by a long-gone (as far as I know) Canadian band called FM. Heard of them? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT:Weird place names-was: GFM Attendees (updated)
"frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >FM. Could they be a sort of prog rock band out of Toronto in the 70's? >That's the best I can do right now. That's them :-) Three-piece band; drummer, keyboard/bassist and electric mandolin & violin. Amazing musicians. Saw 'em live several times. they kept going until the mid 1980s. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: horizon on *ist-D
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >- Original Message - >From: "Mark Roberts" > >> Which brings up a philosophical question: Do you try to get the horizon >> so that it *looks* right or the way you really know *is* right (but >> looks funny in the final print)? > >I want em to look right. >To do anything else smacks of foundview. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: GFM and a CRAPPY weekend...
"Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >GFM - well, BAD news guys and gals! So...we're all coming down to your place then? ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Cameron this will tickle you
"Leon Altoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've already forwarded it to work to show the people there who are >always showing Powerpoint Presentations!!! And expecting me to do it >too. I assume Lincoln's Gettysburg Powerpoint Presentation has already made it to the list? http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/ -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
