Possible great deal!
Well, I would love to get this myself as it strikes me as another can't-miss deal. Unfortunately, I'm strapped and already put the money I could used toward my M-50/2. But, I figured someone on the list might be interested. http://www.upillar.com/listings/185137-new-ununsed-pentax-a3000-body-and-several-pentax-lenses *Several* Pentax lenses, and an A3000 body (supposedly never used) for $75.00 (sob!) -- Walt -- 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: Possible great deal!
And another: http://www.upillar.com/listings/155196-pentax-mg-slr-camera-and-lenses Pentax MG SLR Camera comes with Pentax 50mm lens, 70-210mm Telephoto lens, 2X Teleconverter, and red filter for the 50mm lens. The camera is in perfect working condition. Will ship; buyer pays actual shipping via USPS. (sob!) On 11/29/2010 12:02 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Well, I would love to get this myself as it strikes me as another can't-miss deal. Unfortunately, I'm strapped and already put the money I could used toward my M-50/2. But, I figured someone on the list might be interested. http://www.upillar.com/listings/185137-new-ununsed-pentax-a3000-body-and-several-pentax-lenses *Several* Pentax lenses, and an A3000 body (supposedly never used) for $75.00 (sob!) -- Walt -- 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: Possible great deal!
And yet another: (sob!!!) OK ... this'll be my last one, so as not to annoy. http://www.upillar.com/listings/120905-pentax-k1000-bundle Pentax K-1000 Camera and lots of accessories. The camera body has NO scratches or dents. Very little wear on exterior. First $100 CASH only, takes all this home. 1- K-1000 camera body 1- 500mm lens mirror lens 1:8.0 Quantaray w/case. This lens has filters with it also. Original cost $232.00. I have the receipt. 1- 135mm lens 1:2.8f lens JC Penney. 1- 50mm lens 1:2 Pentax. 1- 2x tele converter lens w/case. 1- strobe PC Penney. Just installed new batteries. 1- clear filter for the 135mm or 50mm lens. 1- original (OEM) neck strap, never used. (did anyone ever use these?) 1- original Asahi Pentax K-1000 users manual, in very good condition 1- camera bag, green/brown. On 11/29/2010 12:02 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Well, I would love to get this myself as it strikes me as another can't-miss deal. Unfortunately, I'm strapped and already put the money I could used toward my M-50/2. But, I figured someone on the list might be interested. http://www.upillar.com/listings/185137-new-ununsed-pentax-a3000-body-and-several-pentax-lenses *Several* Pentax lenses, and an A3000 body (supposedly never used) for $75.00 (sob!) -- Walt -- 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: PESO: 'Topsy Turvey'
Boy, does that bring back some childhood memories. I pretty much grew up on naval bases and got to see those guys fairly regularly. It's one of the more thrilling spectacles I've ever seen. And, a great shot of the action besides. It certainly makes me wish I'd been there. -- Walt On 11/29/2010 6:40 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Taken over the East Bay at Traverse City, Michigan during the Blue Angel's practice for their Cherry Festival show over the July 4th holiday.. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12022380 K20D, 300mm f4.5 FA - 1/1000, f7.1, 400 ISO - handheld Comments appreciated Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller -- 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: PESO: Wrecked car
Cool find, Nick. Just so you'll know, I went and bought a roll of film today, and a battery for the exposure meter. All they had was Fuji Superia X-tra 400 (it was a Dollar General Store). I'll shoot through it, get it processed at Sam's Club, and see how I like it. Then, I'll probably go to the local camera shop to see if they have any good b/w film, shoot it and get it processed. Then, in all likelihood, I'll get a damned film scanner. Then, you'll be getting a subpoena from my lawyer to appear as a witness on my behalf in bankruptcy court. Thanks. Walt On 11/29/2010 10:49 PM, Nick David Wright wrote: http://blog.nickdavidwright.net/2010/11/wrecked-car.html I was so surprised to find this negative in my archive (i.e.- shoebox). This was taken with a Pentax K1000, sometime in the summer 1999 right when I began to get really serious about photography. I don't remember which lens it was, though I highly suspect it was either the Sears 135/2.8 or the Sears 80-200/4. Kodak Gold 100 film. Too bad no (non-photo) stores carry 100 speed film anymore. I guess I should just be thankful I can find film locally at all. Oh, by the way, since getting the scanner I have completely scrapped everything that was on my blog before. So please excuse any mess. -- 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.
What's the going rate?
Hi all, I just got an email from the senior editor of a publishing house (Hachette Book Group in NY) stating some interest in possibly using some of the photos I took at the local political rallies at the end of October. She wrote asking for copies of three particular images, with the possibility of using others and asked how much it would cost to use them in an upcoming book. Given the fact that I'm a babe in the woods when it comes to this sort of thing, I thought I'd pick the brains of those of you who've had some experience in this arena. I've already put in a call to an attorney friend to see if he had any guidance on dealing with this (he was in conference and is supposed to call me back). Now, I just need to know how to get a fair price out of my work. They she said she's not certain that they'd use them, but would like to consider them. I certainly don't want to give them any reason not to use them by overshooting on the price, but at the same time, I don't want to take less than I can get from what appears to be a fairly large publishing house. So, what should I do? I don't know if it makes any difference, but the shots are being considered for a book being (ghost?) written by (for?) a newly elected senator about the grassroots movement that got him elected. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated on this. Thanks! Walt -- 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: What's the going rate?
Thank, Paul. I've responded to them accordingly. Now, all I need is some good ol' PDML finger-crossing action. -- Walt On 11/30/2010 4:39 PM, P N Stenquist wrote: I would estimate that $50 per shot would be the max for book usage. Very few pay more for a part-page photo. Many pay less. In any case, specify usage as first North American rights. That way you retain ownership and can sell them again if someone else sees them and wants to use them. Paul On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Hi all, I just got an email from the senior editor of a publishing house (Hachette Book Group in NY) stating some interest in possibly using some of the photos I took at the local political rallies at the end of October. She wrote asking for copies of three particular images, with the possibility of using others and asked how much it would cost to use them in an upcoming book. Given the fact that I'm a babe in the woods when it comes to this sort of thing, I thought I'd pick the brains of those of you who've had some experience in this arena. I've already put in a call to an attorney friend to see if he had any guidance on dealing with this (he was in conference and is supposed to call me back). Now, I just need to know how to get a fair price out of my work. They she said she's not certain that they'd use them, but would like to consider them. I certainly don't want to give them any reason not to use them by overshooting on the price, but at the same time, I don't want to take less than I can get from what appears to be a fairly large publishing house. So, what should I do? I don't know if it makes any difference, but the shots are being considered for a book being (ghost?) written by (for?) a newly elected senator about the grassroots movement that got him elected. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated on this. Thanks! Walt -- 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: What's the going rate?
Thanks for all the advice, y'all. I went ahead with the price Paul suggested for the simple fact that the images they mentioned weren't all that unique and similar ones could be found if needed. They were simple pictures of signs being held up by rally attendees that didn't require any particular skill to take or process. I figured the biggest part of the reason they accepted them was because I happened to be one of the first people to approach them for submissions. (I spotted a mention of the impending publication of the book in a news article the day after it appeared in the local press and got in touch with them right away.) I figured, if I shot too high, there were plenty of other sources they could go to and get them cheaper. They did mention the possibility of using other photos as well, so I also wanted to leave that door open. There are some photos in my collection from those rallies that I'm fairly proud of, and I may negotiate a higher price on those if they should ask to use them. At this point, though, my goal is to fend off starvation and get something published. I figure, at $50 a pop, at least the latter of the two will stand a fairly decent chance of happening for me, and hold open the opportunity to achieve the former. Thanks again, everyone. I'll let y'all know what comes of it as soon as I know myself. -- Walt -- 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: What's the going rate?
Thanks, Godfrey. That's something I'll definitely have to file away for future reference. But, I suspect the type of photographs you've sold for books would be of a different sort than the ones they've expressed interest in -- which is to say that the images themselves were of a compelling nature. The ones they've asked about aren't visually compelling, or anything. It's just that they happen to fit the particular theme that they're working. I can't help wondering if that makes a considerable difference in the price they'd fetch. In other words, I suspect the images you sold to publishing houses last year would cause the person reading the book to say, Wow! What a nice photo! Whereas, the images Hachette has asked for would cause the reader to say, Hmm ... interesting sign that guy's holding there. -- Walt On 11/30/2010 7:43 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Last four book publication licenses (2010 records) I was paid for were $225, $250, $230, and $215 (full page, one language, non-exclusive use, typically one geo market). Book covers have gone for $300-450 per. All per photo, typically with single edition press run stipulations (one of them was for all press runs for 10 years from date of license, renewable). Every prospective client will try to get the work for their publication for as little as possible, for attribution if they can get away with it. First things I ask any prospective client: - Do you use a published rate schedule for your photo purchases? - What is your budget for the photos to use in this publication project? - Do you have an in-house contract template for the usage license that I can review? Asking those questions puts the relationship on a business footing from which you can work profitably. Rates run all over the place, but any credible publisher worth working with will appreciate a professional attitude and respond accordingly. -- 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: What's the going rate?
That's an interesting distinction in that the shots they're interested in would probably best fit in the news/journalism genre, even though they're being used in a book. There is definitely a timeliness to them, but no relative rarity at all. In fact, they could undoubtedly get on the internet and find countless similar shots -- albeit taken with less attention to composition, white balance, focus, etc., and on pocket-sized point shoots. -- Walt On 12/1/2010 9:25 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Never worry about the aesthetic quality of a photograph when a prospective client is interested in it. That does not influence the price. What influences the price is what the photo editor wants for the project, whether the story editor and author concur with that, and how much money they have to spend on the project and the photographs. News photographs are a little different in that some photos are more valuable than others as a factor of the event, their rarity, timeliness, etc. I've only sold a little into the news/journalism marketplace (would like to do more work in that area ... it's fun and challenging). On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, Godfrey. That's something I'll definitely have to file away for future reference. But, I suspect the type of photographs you've sold for books would be of a different sort than the ones they've expressed interest in -- which is to say that the images themselves were of a compelling nature. The ones they've asked about aren't visually compelling, or anything. It's just that they happen to fit the particular theme that they're working. I can't help wondering if that makes a considerable difference in the price they'd fetch. In other words, I suspect the images you sold to publishing houses last year would cause the person reading the book to say, Wow! What a nice photo! Whereas, the images Hachette has asked for would cause the reader to say, Hmm ... interesting sign that guy's holding there. -- Walt On 11/30/2010 7:43 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Last four book publication licenses (2010 records) I was paid for were $225, $250, $230, and $215 (full page, one language, non-exclusive use, typically one geo market). Book covers have gone for $300-450 per. All per photo, typically with single edition press run stipulations (one of them was for all press runs for 10 years from date of license, renewable). Every prospective client will try to get the work for their publication for as little as possible, for attribution if they can get away with it. First things I ask any prospective client: - Do you use a published rate schedule for your photo purchases? - What is your budget for the photos to use in this publication project? - Do you have an in-house contract template for the usage license that I can review? Asking those questions puts the relationship on a business footing from which you can work profitably. Rates run all over the place, but any credible publisher worth working with will appreciate a professional attitude and respond accordingly. -- 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: What's the going rate?
Oh, yeah. Given the prices on textbooks, I'd say the production budget is a fairly secondary consideration. You probably should have started out in the high six figures. -- Walt On 12/1/2010 8:46 AM, Charles Robinson wrote: On Nov 30, 2010, at 18:57, paul stenquist wrote: The ASMP is a scam. The dues are $335 a year, for which one gets basically nothing, other than unrealistic price scales and advice. Been there, done that. Asking for $300 could very well be a deal killer here. I wouldn't be surprised if the book publisher is hoping to get the pics for free or for a token amount. If he can get $150 for the three pics, he'll be doing very well. Credit will depend on the pubs style and guidelines. They either do or they don't provide a credit. It's generally not negotiable. Most magazines credit photos; many book publishers do not. Don't know why. Last time I sold a picture for one-time use in a textbook, it was for Rights: Non-Exclusive, One-Time, English Language Distribution: World20,000 Print and eBook and I asked for (and got) $175. Then they wanted to use it in another book almost a year later... and I got $175 again. So (This was with McGraw-Hill, who does have a budget for sure.) -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- 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: What's the going rate?
I feel pretty comfortable at $50-per. I don't think it's enough to scare them off even if it is higher than they're willing to pay. And, hey ... you never know. They could develop a conscience and negotiate upward! ;-) On 12/1/2010 8:58 AM, David J Brooks wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:57 PM, paul stenquistpnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Asking for $300 could very well be a deal killer here. I wouldn't be surprised if the book publisher is hoping to get the pics for free or for a token amount. If he can get $150 for the three pics, he'll be doing very well. Walt. I sold four pictures to our Chamber of Commerce last year, when they decided to up grade their map of Whitchurch-Stouffville. I asked for $50 each and we settled for 30 each. I was happy, they were happy, and Ronald McDonald was happymeal. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: What's the going rate?
Hmm ... $335 a year. At the moment, it's a bit beyond my range. I think I'd be better off putting that money toward a car for the time being. But, now I know what happened to Annie Leibovitz. -- Walt On 12/1/2010 9:18 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: paul stenquist wrote: On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:46 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: paul stenquist The ASMP is a scam. The dues are $335 a year, for which one gets basically nothing, other than unrealistic price scales and advice. Been there, done that. You may not think it's worth the money, but that doesn't make it a scam. Most of the working pros I know consider it a scam. I don't think any of the NY Times photographers are ASMP members. I agree that its membership is overpriced, but ASMP does some very worthwhile things. Their copyright education materials, available free even to non-members, are excellent (http://asmp.org/content/registration-counts) and their DP Bestflow workflow and archiving initiative - sponsored by the Library of Congress should be required reading for all pros and anyone who has any notion of possibly going pro (http://www.dpbestflow.org/) and that's also free. But $335 per year for general membership is a bit much. I can't even justify the $225 annual fee for Affiliate membership that I could get as someone who teaches this stuff. -- 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: Outta here for a while . . .
Great to hear, Stan! Hope the recovery goes smoothly, and your first follow-up is the only one. See if you can parlay this ordeal into the royal treatment for a couple of days, or so. -- Walt On 12/1/2010 8:08 PM, Stan Halpin wrote: Thanks Miserere and all. I am back, sorta. My operation Monday turned into a bit of a saga. The procedure before mine was delayed for 4 hours as they worked to bring temperature/humidity within specs in the OR. And the one before mine took 5 hours. So it was 4:30 p.m. or so before they got started on me. I was then in the hospital for another 40+ hours of discomfort before being released today. Am now at my brother's where I will stay for another week or so, with the first (only?) follow-up visit scheduled for next Monday. This is really all quite miraculous considering the recovery time required prior to laprascopic robo-surgery, but that doesn't make me feel all that much more comfortable. I won't know more about the cancer until I get the biopsy results next week, but the surgeon says everything went smoothly, no issues, no surprises. stan On Nov 28, 2010, at 8:02 PM, Miserere wrote: Say hi to Danny Devito, and get back soon, Stan. Here's the good wishes I took back the other week: GOOD WISHES! On 27/11/2010, Stan Halpins...@stans-photography.info wrote: Leaving for Cleveland tomorrow (Sunday) a.m., my rescheduled surgery will be Monday morning. The Clinic has extensive wifi, but I don't think I'll take my laptop in with me. Try to be good while I am gone! stan -- 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. -- —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- 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: Now this is why I wanted my own scanner
OK ... now that you've gotten me to try my hand at film photography, I need a scanner. Well, I have one now ... sort of. I've managed to inherit an HP Scanjet G3110, which does have a transparency carrier. Problem is, everything I've read about it says it's not very good at scanning negatives. Apparently, the scans come out pretty dark, owing to the fact that it's a flatbed scanner. My question is, is it even worth my time to hook this thing up to my PC? Or, do you suppose that the scans will be so bad that it'll end up costing me money to replace the window I'll eventually throw it through? Is there anything that can be done to maximize the performance of the thing? I mean, I highly doubt I'd ever use it for anything other than scanning negatives, so is there something I can do in the setup to actually turn it into a relatively decent performer in that regard? Thanks, Walt On 11/28/2010 11:00 AM, Nick David Wright wrote: Got this film back from Walgreens a couple weeks back. I was really excited to see a photo I'd made of my little town's Baptist Church. I was disappointed when the scan came back really bad: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pedalingprose/5106011280/ I pulled the neg out this morning to scan for myself and was happy to find the photo much more like I'd imagined it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pedalingprose/5214398131/ I'm a happy camper. -- 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: Now this is why I wanted my own scanner
Thanks for that info, Nick! Very helpful. I've found out that my local camera shop carries a decent variety of b/w film supplies and develops for a pretty reasonable price. Maybe at some point, I'll get into developing my own film -- starting out with one of those cans. Thanks again. -- Walt On 12/1/2010 9:04 PM, Nick David Wright wrote: Well, Macworld rated that scanner's quality as very good: http://www.macworld.com/reviews/product/405131/review/scanjet_g3110.html You really ought to give it a try. I'd almost bet the negative reviews come from people who don't take the time to learn what they're supposed to do. Scanning film is a good deal different than digital photography. ~Nick On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: OK ... now that you've gotten me to try my hand at film photography, I need a scanner. Well, I have one now ... sort of. I've managed to inherit an HP Scanjet G3110, which does have a transparency carrier. Problem is, everything I've read about it says it's not very good at scanning negatives. Apparently, the scans come out pretty dark, owing to the fact that it's a flatbed scanner. My question is, is it even worth my time to hook this thing up to my PC? Or, do you suppose that the scans will be so bad that it'll end up costing me money to replace the window I'll eventually throw it through? Is there anything that can be done to maximize the performance of the thing? I mean, I highly doubt I'd ever use it for anything other than scanning negatives, so is there something I can do in the setup to actually turn it into a relatively decent performer in that regard? Thanks, Walt On 11/28/2010 11:00 AM, Nick David Wright wrote: Got this film back from Walgreens a couple weeks back. I was really excited to see a photo I'd made of my little town's Baptist Church. I was disappointed when the scan came back really bad: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pedalingprose/5106011280/ I pulled the neg out this morning to scan for myself and was happy to find the photo much more like I'd imagined it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pedalingprose/5214398131/ I'm a happy camper. -- 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: Boris PESO #57 - Happy Hannukah
Happy Hannukah to you as well, Boris -- along with any other list members celebrating. -- Walt On 12/2/2010 1:34 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! http://pentax-ways.blogspot.com/2010/12/peso-2010-57-happy-hannukah.html Have a great year end holiday season, everyone! Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Teleconverters?
I've used my Promaster 7-element 2X teleconverter with my 50-200mm kit lens to shoot birds and gotten *decent* results as long as the birds cooperated and as long as I stayed away from the farthest reaches of the lens. Of course, the maximum aperture on the 50-200 is f/4, so I couldn't reasonably expect anything more than just decent. I'm sure the Pentax has better optics, so you may have better luck than I have -- most assuredly if you have a wider-aperture zoom. -- Walt On 12/2/2010 10:12 AM, P N Stenquist wrote: On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Eric Weir wrote: On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:23 AM, P N Stenquist wrote: The A 2X teleconverters are very good optically. Of course because you're adding glass, a lens plus converter can never match the performance of the lens alone, but the A 2X converters are among the best I've seen. Note that I said converters, because there are two. The A2X-L can only be used with certain long telephoto lenses. It has a long snout and can't be attached to other Pentax lenses. The A2X-S fits all Pentax lenses. I use the A2X-S once in a while with an A400/5.6. It yields good results. My photo of a dragonfly that's on the opening page of the Pentax Gallery and in their Premier Collection was shot with this combination on an *istD. Thanks, Paul. It's the 2X-S.Looks like the price is going to turn out to be reasonable. And *my* camera is a *ist DS. Can you use a teleconvertor with a zoom? Sure. I haven't done use it with a zoom, but I don't see why not. Now that you mention it, I'll have to give it a try with my DA* 60-250. Might be a good combo for wildlife. Of course, it would be manual focus only. Paul -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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: My book is up on blurb
On 12/2/2010 1:37 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Ken Waller wrote: From: Mark Robertsm...@robertstech.com Cotty wrote: But you're right on the money with regards to the puns. he's shilling... Bob said pensively. When it comes to puns, no quarter is asked or given, and I'm not one to buck the trend. that makes cents. Euronly likely to upset people if you're too franc, and that gets on people's thrupennies. You just have to pound it home don't you. Nothing could be farthing from the truth. I guess the list will just have to PESO we can move on to another pun. You must be a loonie. (Deutsch) Mark! -- 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: Teleconverters?
Speaking of which, do TC's have as noticeable an impact on IQ when used on film bodies as they do on DSLRs? -- Walt On 12/2/2010 4:28 PM, Miserere wrote: On 2 December 2010 15:53, J.C. O'Connellhifis...@gate.net wrote: FWIW, I have refrained from using TCs because of the simple fact there is a slight loss in resolution and contrast(added flare). Somehow prime lenses don't feel right with TCs added on. I stopped using TCs because they're obsolete in the digital world of today's high-pixel-count cameras. It's true, Pentax said so. —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- 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: Teleconverters?
Duly noted, and much appreciated. -- Walt On 12/2/2010 4:39 PM, Jack Davis wrote: Yes! Jack --- On Thu, 12/2/10, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: From: Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Teleconverters? To: Pentax-Discuss Mail Listpdml@pdml.net Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 2:36 PM Speaking of which, do TC's have as noticeable an impact on IQ when used on film bodies as they do on DSLRs? -- Walt On 12/2/2010 4:28 PM, Miserere wrote: On 2 December 2010 15:53, J.C. O'Connellhifis...@gate.net wrote: FWIW, I have refrained from using TCs because of the simple fact there is a slight loss in resolution and contrast(added flare). Somehow prime lenses don't feel right with TCs added on. I stopped using TCs because they're obsolete in the digital world of today's high-pixel-count cameras. It's true, Pentax said so. —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- 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.
Semi-OT request: Resources for
Hi all, Being not particularly mathematically inclined (to put it very charitably), I was wondering if any of you could point me toward a sort of online idiot's guide to understanding and calculating exposure values, depth of field, and other basics along those lines. I figure having at least a loose grasp on details of that nature might be helpful as I dip a toe into the world of analog. I've posted an entry on my photo blog concerning some of the basics that I'm already familiar with, and plan to chart my progress as I go along. Granted, what I've written is geared toward people who know even less about photography than I do (as hard to conceive as that may be), but it can be found here: http://waltgilbert.posterous.com/putting-myself-through-the-old-school It's a first baby step on a long journey, but I'd like to document it as I go along, and share it with anyone who might be interested. So, essentially, I do understand the stuff they probably teach you in the first week of Introduction to Photography 101 -- but largely on an intuitive, practical level. Are there any resources on the web where a simpleton can go to familiarize himself with those principles on a more technical level? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. -- Walt -- 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: Semi-OT request: Resources for
Thanks, Ecke ... that will be helpful down the road, no doubt. I guess what I'm looking for is a combination of both. Nothing overly scientific -- like down to the atomic level, or anything. Maybe if I can explain the way I've grasped the concept of the effect of aperture size on depth of field: I see it as analogous to pouring sand through a funnel. If you use a funnel with a larger spout, the sand is going to pile up on the surface underneath it. Whereas, if you use a funnel with a narrow spout, the sand will spread out on the surface beneath it. That's how I view light passing through a larger or smaller aperture as it relates to the focus -- which, as far as I know, is completely false. If I could find something that gives a technical explanation, perhaps formulas, and then an analogy to help it all sink in, it would help me a great deal. I mostly don't want to sound like an complete idiot when I go about explaining what I'm doing. :-) Thanks again, Walt On 12/2/2010 6:24 PM, eckinator wrote: Roman posted this link a while ago and I find it quite useful for doing the math. Is it that or are you interested in the underlying logic? http://roman.blakout.net/?dof HTH Ecke 2010/12/3 Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com: Hi all, Being not particularly mathematically inclined (to put it very charitably), I was wondering if any of you could point me toward a sort of online idiot's guide to understanding and calculating exposure values, depth of field, and other basics along those lines. I figure having at least a loose grasp on details of that nature might be helpful as I dip a toe into the world of analog. I've posted an entry on my photo blog concerning some of the basics that I'm already familiar with, and plan to chart my progress as I go along. Granted, what I've written is geared toward people who know even less about photography than I do (as hard to conceive as that may be), but it can be found here: http://waltgilbert.posterous.com/putting-myself-through-the-old-school It's a first baby step on a long journey, but I'd like to document it as I go along, and share it with anyone who might be interested. So, essentially, I do understand the stuff they probably teach you in the first week of Introduction to Photography 101 -- but largely on an intuitive, practical level. Are there any resources on the web where a simpleton can go to familiarize himself with those principles on a more technical level? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. -- Walt -- 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: Semi-OT request: Resources for
On 12/2/2010 6:52 PM, eckinator wrote: I'm at a bit of a loss for a better imagebut the general idea is that closing the aperture cuts out the stray rays so to say Hmm ... it alleviates photon overcrowding, in a sense. dang... tell them that after a while it becomes intuitive knowledge and you're too deeply involved in your art to explain it to an outsider That's what I'll tell people when I'm drinking, if nothing else. Thanks again, Ecke! -- Walt -- 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: Semi-OT request: Resources for
Thanks, Paul. I'll put those on my Christmas wish list, beginning with The Camera and see what I get. -- Walt On 12/2/2010 7:22 PM, paul stenquist wrote: For a full film education in technical terms, purchase the three Ansel Adams books: :The Camera, The Negative, and The Print. Much of what you've inquired about here will be covered in that first volume. But the other two will gi you a complete understanding of film and processing. Some of it is only directly applicable to sheet film, but all of it is extremely valuable in terms of understanding the technology of photography. Much of it will benefit you in digital photography as well. The principles of light and exposure are the same, even though the medium is different. Paul On Dec 2, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Hi all, Being not particularly mathematically inclined (to put it very charitably), I was wondering if any of you could point me toward a sort of online idiot's guide to understanding and calculating exposure values, depth of field, and other basics along those lines. I figure having at least a loose grasp on details of that nature might be helpful as I dip a toe into the world of analog. I've posted an entry on my photo blog concerning some of the basics that I'm already familiar with, and plan to chart my progress as I go along. Granted, what I've written is geared toward people who know even less about photography than I do (as hard to conceive as that may be), but it can be found here: http://waltgilbert.posterous.com/putting-myself-through-the-old-school It's a first baby step on a long journey, but I'd like to document it as I go along, and share it with anyone who might be interested. So, essentially, I do understand the stuff they probably teach you in the first week of Introduction to Photography 101 -- but largely on an intuitive, practical level. Are there any resources on the web where a simpleton can go to familiarize himself with those principles on a more technical level? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. -- Walt -- 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: Semi-OT request: Resources for
Thanks for that info, Godders. I just about betcha five bucks the local used book store has a copy of Basic Photography on the cheap, and have already bookmarked the photo.net page. I'll send them an email telling them to go to hell as soon as I finish reading it all. ;-) -- Walt On 12/2/2010 7:24 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Another resource that comes to mind is to drop by a used bookstore and hunt up a copy of the old classic Basic Photography published by Focal Press in the 1960s. Invaluable information at whatever level of depth you can tolerate. On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgigdigio...@gmail.com wrote: Although I no longer go there due to the management stupidity and censorship that I got fed up with, http://photo.net/learn/making-photographs/ does a reasonable job of the primary concepts of photography. On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Being not particularly mathematically inclined (to put it very charitably), I was wondering if any of you could point me toward a sort of online idiot's guide to understanding and calculating exposure values, depth of field, and other basics along those lines. I figure having at least a loose grasp on details of that nature might be helpful as I dip a toe into the world of analog. I've posted an entry on my photo blog concerning some of the basics that I'm already familiar with, and plan to chart my progress as I go along. Granted, what I've written is geared toward people who know even less about photography than I do (as hard to conceive as that may be), but it can be found here: http://waltgilbert.posterous.com/putting-myself-through-the-old-school It's a first baby step on a long journey, but I'd like to document it as I go along, and share it with anyone who might be interested. So, essentially, I do understand the stuff they probably teach you in the first week of Introduction to Photography 101 -- but largely on an intuitive, practical level. Are there any resources on the web where a simpleton can go to familiarize himself with those principles on a more technical level? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. -- Walt -- 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. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO and GESO, always keep a camera handy
Great shots, and great story, Larry! And, I now have a ready explanation for when people inevitably ask me, Why are you always carrying a camera around? -- Walt On 12/2/2010 7:50 PM, Larry Colen wrote: I don't *only* photograph mushrooms. Yesterday as I was leaving Costco I noticed the light on the trees in the Costco parking lot in contrast with the tower at Granite Rock Construction across the street. Safety before all else: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5227340089/in/set-72157625391839485/ I had lunch today with a friend who claimed not to be photogenic. I pulled my camera out of my fanny pack and snapped this to prove her wrong: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5227961798/ Her house has quite a few interesting features (besides her), such as the front gate, and a wedgewood stove. This are some of the shots I got: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157625391902071/ As I was taking photos of the gate, I commented that I'd love to do some figure photography of her in front of it. She asked how about now?. I grabbed my camera bag out of my car, while she changed into her bathrobe. Every so often, I really enjoy being a photographer. By the way, none of the figure photos are in the above set, sorry. -- 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: Sorry Aussies, it's ours!
This sort of reminds me of the ongoing dispute here in the US between Kentucky and Illinois. Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky, but spent most of his life and political career in Illinois. Illinois claims to be the Land of Lincoln ... but, we still have his old log cabin birthplace here in Kentucky. Oddly enough, Kentucky was also the birthplace of the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, during the Civil War, and never officially seceded from, nor joined, the Union. Thus concludes today's Moment of Pedantry -- with your host, Walt Gilbert. -- Walt On 12/3/2010 1:46 AM, David Mann wrote: On Dec 3, 2010, at 6:28 PM, Phil Northeast wrote: My Macquarie describes the dish and who it was named after, but there is no attribution of origin. Must have been playing it safe if they didn't know for sure. Or maybe they have some expat kiwis on their staff and couldn't settle the argument :) I don't really care who invented it, it's just delicious. But it's a real pain to make so I only have it a couple of times a year. And now that I know how to make zabaglione, I have a good use for the leftover egg yolks (and the bottle of Marsala of course). BTW it's not a pavlova without sliced kiwifruit on top... Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re-emerging, announcing enablement
Hi all, In my absence from the list -- which, to the extent it was noticed, must have been greatly appreciated -- I've managed to procure a few goodies for a not-bad price, I think, but thought I'd get the opinions of folks more knowledgeable than myself. I actually got a whole bunch of stuff -- filters, hoods, and one useless lens which I haven't the foggiest notion what it might be other than an 80-200/4.5 macro with a bent bayonet. Beyond that, however, I got the following: Tokina SZ-X 28-200 3.5-5.3 Pentax SMC FA 28-80 3.5-4.7 Sigma 24-70 3.5-5.6 UC . . . and last but not least: SMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50 All lenses are in fair to excellent condition, except for the M-50/1.4, which appears to have never been attached to anything. The threads don't even appear to have ever had a filter screwed into them. There is something odd about the lens, that I thought I'd ask about, though nothing performance-wise. It's just that the printing around the front element is ever-so-slightly different from what I've seen in images of the same lens around the web. The imprint says: ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN -- Pentax SMC M-50/1.4 -- 1093350 The other lenses I've seen have mm appended after the 50 -- except for those labeled SMC TAKUMAR, instead of SMC PENTAX. Is this indicative of anything significant at all? I'm in absolute love with the lens, whatever the case. It took some effort to convince myself to take it off the K-x in order to try out the other lenses. But, I finally did (and regretted it, as they all pale considerably). Whatever the case, I think I got a pretty damned good deal on it all, considering I'm out a grand total of $200.00 US collectively. I figure I came out OK by way of enablement for that kind of dough. Best, Walt -- 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: Reporting in from Chicago with pics
Wow, Christine! I was fortunate enough to fall just south of the line of weather. I can't even imagine what a mess you folks are going to be dealing with up there! I tell you one thing, though . . . I'm sure glad I don't work in Allstate homeowners claims anymore. My old co-workers are going to be very busy for quite a while. I feel for everyone who's going to be dealing with the fallout from this storm. Best wishes to you and all your friends and family! -- Walt On 2/2/2011 5:31 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: My favorites are the slightly blurred shoveler and the snow on the fir tree. A great set overall. On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Christine Aguilacagu...@earthlink.net wrote: Hi Everyone: We survived! Darrel I are fine as is my family. I was able to get a gallery together that covers the last 23 hours--from 3pm yesterday until 2 pm today. We have another snow day tomorrow. We really can't get anywhere. There are captions underneath each pic with time. I discovered that my K7 is an hour ahead--forgot to make it fall back when we changed the clock in the fall. We're really quite tired. The snow shoveling takes it out of you. Everyone stay safe. I wish our east coast folks the best. Paul Sorenson--sure hope you power is back on. Big cheers from the city of big snow, Christine http://www.caguila.com/caguila/blizzard2011/index.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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: Re-emerging, announcing enablement
Oops! I botched some cut n' pasting when I was editing the original message for clarity -- as is typical. Mine actually says: 1093350 ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPANSMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50 Sorry for the confusion. -- Walt On 2/2/2011 5:36 PM, steve harley wrote: On 2011-02-02 16:24 , Walter Gilbert wrote: It's just that the printing around the front element is ever-so-slightly different from what I've seen in images of the same lens around the web. The imprint says: ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN -- Pentax SMC M-50/1.4 -- 1093350 don't know what it means but mine reads literally 6619065 ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN smc PENTAX-M 1:1.4 50mm -- 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: Re-emerging, announcing enablement
Thanks, Bob! Very nice to know! I take it the W stands for Websleuth. -- Walt On 2/2/2011 5:56 PM, Bob W wrote: It's not an M lens, it's a K: http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/normal/K50f1.4.html Still very nice. B -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Walter Gilbert Sent: 02 February 2011 23:42 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Re-emerging, announcing enablement Oops! I botched some cut n' pasting when I was editing the original message for clarity -- as is typical. Mine actually says: 1093350 ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPANSMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50 Sorry for the confusion. -- Walt On 2/2/2011 5:36 PM, steve harley wrote: On 2011-02-02 16:24 , Walter Gilbert wrote: It's just that the printing around the front element is ever-so-slightly different from what I've seen in images of the same lens around the web. The imprint says: ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN -- Pentax SMC M-50/1.4 -- 1093350 don't know what it means but mine reads literally 6619065 ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN smc PENTAX-M 1:1.4 50mm -- 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: Re-emerging, announcing enablement
Looks like Bob solved the mystery. The greatest thing is that the guy I got the 50/1.4 from acted like he has scads and scads of old Pentax glass around. Apparently, after serving in WWII, he was deployed to Japan as part of the occupying force, and stayed there for quite a while afterward. He talked to me for a good hour about the island where Asahi got the sand for use in the manufacture of the lenses, and actually got to know some of the family of the guy who founded Asahi Optical. He was a really interesting guy. It's funny how I came about getting the lens, too. Seems the guy I was talking to is letting his son run the shop these days, and that's who I usually deal with. But, he just happened to be in the shop when I stopped in to check on possibly buying one of the new 35/2.4 -- which they didn't have in stock. I'd asked the son previously if they had any old used prime lenses, and he denied that they had anything like that. I then asked him if they had any kind of primes at all, and he said (and I quote) What do you mean by a 'prime' lens? I shudder to think what's going to happen to this poor man's business when he passes away and leaves it entirely in the hands of this son. For some reason, I don't think he was happy with his dad for telling me they had such lenses in the back -- which I assume is because he doesn't have the slightest idea of what they're good for, or how much to charge for them ... or anything about them at all, for that matter. All I can say is I plan to go back very soon and inquire as to whether or not they might have an old M 50/1.2 lying around. The guy mentioned for sure that they had some 135/2.8's and 135/3.5's, as well as some pancake lenses. And, so, I may have just died and gone to Pentax heaven. :-) -- Walt On 2/2/2011 5:49 PM, Stan Halpin wrote: See here: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/normal/M50f1.4.html You can, just, see that on the example Boz uses, it has the standard way of showing the standard information on the lens - i.e., it shows a 50MM at the end. His site may say more about the difference in nomenclature. I might suggest two different manufacturing sites, two different production runs, etc. but it would be pure speculation. As they say on the Antiques Roadshow, don't polish it or refinish it! You may have something quite valuable to a collector. stan On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Hi all, In my absence from the list -- which, to the extent it was noticed, must have been greatly appreciated -- I've managed to procure a few goodies for a not-bad price, I think, but thought I'd get the opinions of folks more knowledgeable than myself. I actually got a whole bunch of stuff -- filters, hoods, and one useless lens which I haven't the foggiest notion what it might be other than an 80-200/4.5 macro with a bent bayonet. Beyond that, however, I got the following: Tokina SZ-X 28-200 3.5-5.3 Pentax SMC FA 28-80 3.5-4.7 Sigma 24-70 3.5-5.6 UC . . . and last but not least: SMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50 All lenses are in fair to excellent condition, except for the M-50/1.4, which appears to have never been attached to anything. The threads don't even appear to have ever had a filter screwed into them. There is something odd about the lens, that I thought I'd ask about, though nothing performance-wise. It's just that the printing around the front element is ever-so-slightly different from what I've seen in images of the same lens around the web. The imprint says: ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN -- Pentax SMC M-50/1.4 -- 1093350 The other lenses I've seen have mm appended after the 50 -- except for those labeled SMC TAKUMAR, instead of SMC PENTAX. Is this indicative of anything significant at all? I'm in absolute love with the lens, whatever the case. It took some effort to convince myself to take it off the K-x in order to try out the other lenses. But, I finally did (and regretted it, as they all pale considerably). Whatever the case, I think I got a pretty damned good deal on it all, considering I'm out a grand total of $200.00 US collectively. I figure I came out OK by way of enablement for that kind of dough. Best, Walt -- 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: Re-emerging, announcing enablement
Actually a K 50/1.2 -- as, apparently, they didn't make an M 1.2. ;-) On 2/2/2011 7:02 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: All I can say is I plan to go back very soon and inquire as to whether or not they might have an old M 50/1.2 lying around. -- 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: Re-emerging, announcing enablement
Thanks, Christine. :-) Believe it or not, I've actually been taking pictures like crazy lately, but it's all been political candidates and whatnot -- you know, kindling for flame wars. So, I've been concentrating on that and creating running an associated blog. And that's why I haven't been participating as much in the list of late. But, now I seem to have things somewhat in-hand. Hence, my ability to seek enablement and post news of my recent acquisitions. Speaking of which . . . I took some shots of the useless lens, I got along with the others. I was actually able to pull out the bayonet and straighten it so that it actually works now. It could use some cleaning up, and it's by no means a pretty lens. But, it is functional. I thought I'd post the shots here to see if anyone might recognize it. As I mentioned before, it's an 80-200/4.5 - 5.6 with a minimum aperture of 22, made in Japan -- apparently on 6/20/1983 according to the little sticker by the Lens made in Japan stamp. http://i54.tinypic.com/r9elc7.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/2upteys.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/24l0lzs.jpg http://i51.tinypic.com/f4rce1.jpg Does this thing look familiar at all to anyone? There's absolutely no writing around the front element -- just some exposed threads around the outer diameter. It's a push-pull type zoom, with the letters P K stamped in green on the aperture ring. -- Walt On 2/2/2011 7:28 PM, Christine Aguila wrote: Sounds like good enablement. Now go take some pictures! :-) Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:24 PM Subject: Re-emerging, announcing enablement Hi all, In my absence from the list -- which, to the extent it was noticed, must have been greatly appreciated -- I've managed to procure a few goodies for a not-bad price, I think, but thought I'd get the opinions of folks more knowledgeable than myself. I actually got a whole bunch of stuff -- filters, hoods, and one useless lens which I haven't the foggiest notion what it might be other than an 80-200/4.5 macro with a bent bayonet. Beyond that, however, I got the following: Tokina SZ-X 28-200 3.5-5.3 Pentax SMC FA 28-80 3.5-4.7 Sigma 24-70 3.5-5.6 UC . . . and last but not least: SMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50 All lenses are in fair to excellent condition, except for the M-50/1.4, which appears to have never been attached to anything. The threads don't even appear to have ever had a filter screwed into them. There is something odd about the lens, that I thought I'd ask about, though nothing performance-wise. It's just that the printing around the front element is ever-so-slightly different from what I've seen in images of the same lens around the web. The imprint says: ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN -- Pentax SMC M-50/1.4 -- 1093350 The other lenses I've seen have mm appended after the 50 -- except for those labeled SMC TAKUMAR, instead of SMC PENTAX. Is this indicative of anything significant at all? I'm in absolute love with the lens, whatever the case. It took some effort to convince myself to take it off the K-x in order to try out the other lenses. But, I finally did (and regretted it, as they all pale considerably). Whatever the case, I think I got a pretty damned good deal on it all, considering I'm out a grand total of $200.00 US collectively. I figure I came out OK by way of enablement for that kind of dough. Best, Walt -- 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: Re-emerging, announcing enablement
I think I've determined that it's an old Vivitar. On 2/2/2011 8:06 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Does this thing look familiar at all to anyone? -- 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: I guess that was a milestone
Happened to me at Walmart ... and then the lady said, You must have some camera! Not sure how to reconcile that. -- Walt On 2/2/2011 8:42 PM, David Parsons wrote: It's happened to me at Ritz and Walgreens a couple of times. I take it as a compliment that they think my photography is that good. It's probably more likely that I'm using backdrops though. Only pros use backdrops. :) On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Larry Colenl...@red4est.com wrote: I just got a call from Costco about some photos I just had printed, that they would need a signed release from the photographer before they could give me the photos that had been taken by a professional. When I informed them that I was the photographer, they said it was no problem then. -- 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. -- 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: I guess that was a milestone
Ha! Indeed. Can you imagine how nice Eric Clapton's guitars must be? On 2/2/2011 9:25 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: Think of it like cooking with really nice pans. . . -- 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: Re-emerging, announcing enablement
Thanks, Boris. :-) I'm looking forward to getting out and doing some shooting ASAP. I just haven't had many opportunities to do any fun shooting. Perhaps this weekend. -- Walt On 2/2/2011 11:46 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: On 2/3/2011 3:28 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: Sounds like good enablement. Now go take some pictures! :-) Cheers, Christine I'd second, third and fourth that. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Re-emerging, announcing enablement
The last shot was just a view of the markings on the same lens that was in the other shots -- which is the Vivitar 80-200/4.5. I have to say, of all the lenses I got for the $200, the one I like least is the Pentax 28-80. I'm really disappointed in what I've gotten from it based on just a few test shots. It's not very sharp at all to my eye, but I'm hoping it'll perform better when I take it out for some real world-type shooting. And the Sigma isn't much better. I have to say I've been pleasantly surprised with the Tokina and the Vivitar, though. They both are much sharper than I'd expected, which is nice since I essentially considered them to be the bad that you have to take with the good. Still, I'm getting closer to having a good complement of lenses across the focal range spectrum, usable on both my K1000 and my K-x. I don't have a true wide-angle or fisheye yet, but maybe someday soon. -- Walt On 2/3/2011 12:10 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: Can't say I recognize the last lens. Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:06 PM Subject: Re: Re-emerging, announcing enablement Thanks, Christine. :-) Believe it or not, I've actually been taking pictures like crazy lately, but it's all been political candidates and whatnot -- you know, kindling for flame wars. So, I've been concentrating on that and creating running an associated blog. And that's why I haven't been participating as much in the list of late. But, now I seem to have things somewhat in-hand. Hence, my ability to seek enablement and post news of my recent acquisitions. Speaking of which . . . I took some shots of the useless lens, I got along with the others. I was actually able to pull out the bayonet and straighten it so that it actually works now. It could use some cleaning up, and it's by no means a pretty lens. But, it is functional. I thought I'd post the shots here to see if anyone might recognize it. As I mentioned before, it's an 80-200/4.5 - 5.6 with a minimum aperture of 22, made in Japan -- apparently on 6/20/1983 according to the little sticker by the Lens made in Japan stamp. http://i54.tinypic.com/r9elc7.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/2upteys.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/24l0lzs.jpg http://i51.tinypic.com/f4rce1.jpg Does this thing look familiar at all to anyone? There's absolutely no writing around the front element -- just some exposed threads around the outer diameter. It's a push-pull type zoom, with the letters P K stamped in green on the aperture ring. -- Walt On 2/2/2011 7:28 PM, Christine Aguila wrote: Sounds like good enablement. Now go take some pictures! :-) Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:24 PM Subject: Re-emerging, announcing enablement Hi all, In my absence from the list -- which, to the extent it was noticed, must have been greatly appreciated -- I've managed to procure a few goodies for a not-bad price, I think, but thought I'd get the opinions of folks more knowledgeable than myself. I actually got a whole bunch of stuff -- filters, hoods, and one useless lens which I haven't the foggiest notion what it might be other than an 80-200/4.5 macro with a bent bayonet. Beyond that, however, I got the following: Tokina SZ-X 28-200 3.5-5.3 Pentax SMC FA 28-80 3.5-4.7 Sigma 24-70 3.5-5.6 UC . . . and last but not least: SMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50 All lenses are in fair to excellent condition, except for the M-50/1.4, which appears to have never been attached to anything. The threads don't even appear to have ever had a filter screwed into them. There is something odd about the lens, that I thought I'd ask about, though nothing performance-wise. It's just that the printing around the front element is ever-so-slightly different from what I've seen in images of the same lens around the web. The imprint says: ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN -- Pentax SMC M-50/1.4 -- 1093350 The other lenses I've seen have mm appended after the 50 -- except for those labeled SMC TAKUMAR, instead of SMC PENTAX. Is this indicative of anything significant at all? I'm in absolute love with the lens, whatever the case. It took some effort to convince myself to take it off the K-x in order to try out the other lenses. But, I finally did (and regretted it, as they all pale considerably). Whatever the case, I think I got a pretty damned good deal on it all, considering I'm out a grand total of $200.00 US collectively. I figure I came out OK by way of enablement for that kind of dough. Best, Walt -- 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
Re: Re-emerging, announcing enablement
I probably should have been more clear in my description as I didn't mean to imply that he literally brought all the lenses over from Japan. What I was really trying to say was that he's been in the photography business going back that far -- though I don't know just how long he did stay over there after the war. I doubt it was quite that long, but he gave the impression that it was a not-insignificant period of time. He even talked for a while about an attempt by the people at Sony to buy lenses from Asahi Optical, but that the guy who created Asahi resisted it for a long time due to some bad blood between himself and one of the people behind Sony's efforts. Apparently, for a long time he thought Sony was going to try and buy him out completely, and for reasons attributable to Japanese business culture, he refused to even talk to them. I wish I could remember more of the details. It was fascinating to listen to the guy talk about it, but he jumped from one tangent to the next, and it was hard to keep track of it all. I'm looking forward to going back to talk to the guy again, though. -- Walt On 2/4/2011 2:21 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: Walter Gilbert The greatest thing is that the guy I got the 50/1.4 from acted like he has scads and scads of old Pentax glass around. Apparently, after serving in WWII, he was deployed to Japan as part of the occupying force, and stayed there for quite a while afterward. It would have been *QUITE* a while. Pentax introduced the K-mount in 1975 - 20 years after the war was over. 8-D - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3421 - Release Date: 02/03/11 -- 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: PESO: Snowdrops
I like that shot a lot. Nice. -- Walt On 2/5/2011 2:23 PM, Toine wrote: Spring is knocking on my door: http://www.repiuk.nl/index.php/blog-mainmenu-97/159-snowdrops K20D SMC F28/2.8 (which is a little gem) Toine -- 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: PESO - Inot the Mist
I didn't analyze it quite so deeply, but after reading Darren's elucidation, I have to agree. My first impression upon looking at it was that it's a very arresting shot. I've definitely seen worse ones -- especially taken by myself. I would definitely consider it a keeper. -- Walt On 2/5/2011 8:15 PM, frank theriault wrote: On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Darren Addypixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: I'm going to disagree on the multiple centers of interest, and here's why. The dark areas form a nice triangle in the composition. If you draw lines bisecting the triangle's angles, they overlap directly on the woman in the middle. To me, center of interest does not mean your eye locks on one spot, and one spot only. It should be directed to explore the frame, but keep coming back to one thing. The hooded woman does add an element of mystery/mood. I think this is a terrific shot and is one I would be proud to have taken. Thanks, Darren! cheers, frank -- 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: PESO - Knox College, University of Toronto
Another very nice shot, Frank! I love the geometry of it, as well as the isolated blues amid the greys. I wish you'd stick to black and white and leave the color stuff to those of us for whom it's a primary focus, dammit. -- Walt On 2/5/2011 8:19 PM, frank theriault wrote: The University of Toronto is Canada's largest. Along with the university proper, it's composed of several smaller colleges (most if not all of them church colleges, or at least former church colleges). Knox College is (obviously) the Presbyterian college at U of T. The church colleges feature lovely older architecture. Knox College is no exception: http://knarfdummyblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/knox-college-university-of-toronto.html This one's specifically for Christine, as Subway Jesus bothered her a bit. Hopefully this is a bit more comfortable, Christine. ;-) Hope you all enjoy. Comments welcome. cheers, frank -- 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.
Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11
Hi all, I thought I'd take the Pentaxes out after a little overnight snowfall and risk drawing the ire of those who have seen quite enough snow for the year thank-you-very-much. I fumbled the focusing on the K 50/1.4 on quite a few of the shots I took, unfortunately. It's going to take some practice, obviously. But, I do love the lens and am really, really looking forward to getting to know it better. I just figured I ought to post something since I've been away from the group for a while. Before you click, though, be warned: *Images contain vignetting.* Any thoughts, criticisms, or lavish gifts will be much appreciated. http://www.flickr.com/photos/walt_gilbert/sets/72157625874952441/ I also took the K1000 and my 135/2.5 out with some Kodak Plus-X 125 and filled a roll. I hope to get them developed soon and will scan the negatives afterward. I'll share those with the group if any of them come out worth a tinker's damn. Thanks in advance for looking! -- Walt -- 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: Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11
Thanks for the tip, Bruce. It is much appreciated. I'd forgotten that I had changed my settings over to JPEG while I was taking snapshots during the Super Bowl gathering I went to last night. I have a horrible habit of treating my camera like a point-and-shoot sometimes, and being somewhat hurried by the chill in the air probably contributed to my lack of diligence. With any luck, the snow will still be around tomorrow and I can take another shot at those images. This was actually my first attempt at shooting in snow, so I was happy that any of them turned out at all. Thanks again for the pointers! -- Walt On 2/7/2011 6:58 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Nice ones, Walt. I especially like barn-front (5426125455) and that curious dog (5426727734). Tech issue: in the doggy shot I'm seeing artifacts of the sort caused by curves adjustments on 8-bit images; stuff like stair-step transitions in all-white scenes where the pixels are up in the 240-254 range. Look at the snow behind the dog toward the top of the image. And I wonder if your exposure was maybe a bit too hot in the barn shot. Did you take a look at the histogram in PS when you were editing that one? It's got a look I see in my own images when the whites have clipped (too close to 255) and then vignetting is applied. You tend to get a kind of dirty grey look in those areas. Shooting stuff in snow is really tricky -- quite the balancing act. This is one area where shooting raw *really* pays off, with more dynamic range and headroom. -bmw -- 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: So I'm innocently perousing Facebook
Ha! Small world, indeed! Nice to make your acquaintance, Collin. Don't believe a word our mutual acquaintance tells you about me, except the non-incriminating stuff. -- Walt On 2/7/2011 6:55 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: And a facebook friend links to some quite nice bw shots. Shot with a K50/1.4. So I find Walter G on Facebook. The world is just getting too small. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- 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: Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11
Thanks, Ann. :-) He was standing guard for the horse in that previous shot, so he had to come and check me out and make sure I wasn't up to no good. He was pretty friendly once he figured out I wasn't there to cause trouble, though. I shot those with the digital K-x. I have a K1000 that I'm using for film. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I may have goofed up seating the film in the camera. It's currently showing 26 shots on a 24-exposure roll. I've been looking for other film bodies on eBay, and have noticed that the KX brings a pretty high price compared to some of the others. Apparently, you're not the only one who really likes it. If I can find a good deal on one, I'll jump on it. Thanks for looking at my humble GESO, and the crop suggestion. I'll give that a whirl and see how it looks. I suspect you're correct. -- Walt On 2/7/2011 7:32 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: The others are nice enough - but I love this one... what a look you are getting! LOL http://www.flickr.com/photos/walt_gilbert/5426727734/in/set-72157625874952441/ suggestion... crop a bit off the top... leaving a smaller space above his rear end... By Pentax KX - do you mean the film KX or the Digital KX ?The original was my personal favorite - even more than the LX because it wasn't so fragile and worked without batteries just fine at all shutter speeds. I'm not tired of the snow... I'm tired of the mud its become, though. ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11
I hope you're right about the film advance. There were some shots in the roll that I'm really anxious to see. As for your dilemma with the KX -- being brand-spanking new to film photography, I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand why people are getting rid of their 35mm SLRs so cheaply. They're wonderful pieces of machinery that deserve to fetch a higher price than they're bringing. I guess I'm a sentimentalist about it, but if I ever learn how to take decent pictures with my K1000, it'll be a big source of pride for me. I don't think I'd ever sell it for what I paid for it. There may be millions of K1000's out there, but that doesn't make me like mine any less. That's probably a silly way to look at it, but I figure as long as they're still making film, it's not a complete waste of space. And I can't help thinking that capturing a great shot on film with a totally-manual SLR will be at least a little bit more satisfying than capturing the same shot in pixels, if only for the challenge. But, that's just how I roll. :-) -- Walt On 2/7/2011 8:20 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Walter Gilbert wrote: Thanks, Ann. :-) He was standing guard for the horse in that previous shot, so he had to come and check me out and make sure I wasn't up to no good. He was pretty friendly once he figured out I wasn't there to cause trouble, though. I shot those with the digital K-x. I have a K1000 that I'm using for film. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I may have goofed up seating the film in the camera. It's currently showing 26 shots on a 24-exposure roll. Thats probably ok Walter... they expect you to use a fair amount of lead... I've been looking for other film bodies on eBay, and have noticed that the KX brings a pretty high price compared to some of the others. Apparently, you're not the only one who really likes it. If I can find a good deal on one, I'll jump on it. Thanks for looking at my humble GESO, and the crop suggestion. I'll give that a whirl and see how it looks. I suspect you're correct. -- Walt Mine has issues - I have plans to send it to the guy who does estimates for free and sends the camera back to you free if he can't save it or if you decline to have it repaired. Im conflicted over whether I should get it fixed and keep it, get it fixed and sell it, or let it go for parts. ann On 2/7/2011 7:32 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: The others are nice enough - but I love this one... what a look you are getting! LOL http://www.flickr.com/photos/walt_gilbert/5426727734/in/set-72157625874952441/ suggestion... crop a bit off the top... leaving a smaller space above his rear end... By Pentax KX - do you mean the film KX or the Digital KX ?The original was my personal favorite - even more than the LX because it wasn't so fragile and worked without batteries just fine at all shutter speeds. I'm not tired of the snow... I'm tired of the mud its become, though. ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sensor Cleaning
I've used canned air a couple of times, though I'm a little more leery of it than Bill R., mainly because I'm a tad paranoid about the idea of a freak propellant discharge. Usually, I use one of those nasal bulb aspirators (http://is.gd/l6xxr3) with a small hole punched in the back and a pet nursing nipple (http://is.gd/qXOmmK) attached to the end, trimmed back just enough to allow air to pass through it without too much effort, but small enough to make sure a fairly concentrated stream of air passes through, and to prevent any dust other debris from getting inside the bulb. The bulb set me back about two bucks, and I had the nursing nipple left over from feeding a puppy that lost its mother. I almost hit the floor when I saw the price of the sticky-type cleaning wands at the camera shop -- $89.00 if I recall correctly. If my sensor ever gets that dirty, I'll just take it in and have the thing cleaned. My two-dollar air blaster hasn't failed me yet. -- Walt On 2/7/2011 9:46 PM, Glen Berry wrote: Whats your favorite way to clean the sensor in your Pentax DSLR? -- 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: Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11
Thanks, Jack! I know a lot of people just don't like vignetting as a general rule. I'm not crazy about it in most cases, but I do like using it from time to time -- but almost exclusively in b/w shots. I do try to use it sparingly -- as soft as possible. But, I can see where some find it distracting. Glad you enjoyed the images in spite of it. :-) Thanks for having a look. -- Walt On 2/8/2011 7:31 AM, Jack Davis wrote: Simply great exposure and rendering on all. Wonderful barn! The upper corner vignetting is a slightly distracting however. Jack --- On Mon, 2/7/11, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: From: Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com Subject: Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail Listpdml@pdml.net Date: Monday, February 7, 2011, 4:25 PM Hi all, I thought I'd take the Pentaxes out after a little overnight snowfall and risk drawing the ire of those who have seen quite enough snow for the year thank-you-very-much. I fumbled the focusing on the K 50/1.4 on quite a few of the shots I took, unfortunately. It's going to take some practice, obviously. But, I do love the lens and am really, really looking forward to getting to know it better. I just figured I ought to post something since I've been away from the group for a while. Before you click, though, be warned: *Images contain vignetting.* Any thoughts, criticisms, or lavish gifts will be much appreciated. http://www.flickr.com/photos/walt_gilbert/sets/72157625874952441/ I also took the K1000 and my 135/2.5 out with some Kodak Plus-X 125 and filled a roll. I hope to get them developed soon and will scan the negatives afterward. I'll share those with the group if any of them come out worth a tinker's damn. Thanks in advance for looking! -- Walt -- 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: Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11
Thanks, David! Glad you liked the barn shots. It's a distinctive old hulk, to be sure. I actually considered using the RAW + JPG setting, but I only had a 2 Gig card in the camera at the time, and figured most of the shots were just going to be throw-aways. So, I figured I'd just take as many as I could, since I wasn't too concerned with composition. I was essentially just trying to capture my drunkard acquaintances looking goofy. Many thanks for the kind words. -- Walt On 2/8/2011 9:24 AM, David J Brooks wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the tip, Bruce. It is much appreciated. I'd forgotten that I had changed my settings over to JPEG while I was taking snapshots during the Super Bowl gathering I went to last night. I tend to get around that by shooting in Raw and Jpg mode. I use the Jpg's to upload via jalbum and then adjust the Raws for the photos i want. Dave BTW nice Geso, i enjoyed the old barn shots. Dave -- Walt On 2/7/2011 6:58 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Nice ones, Walt. I especially like barn-front (5426125455) and that curious dog (5426727734). Tech issue: in the doggy shot I'm seeing artifacts of the sort caused by curves adjustments on 8-bit images; stuff like stair-step transitions in all-white scenes where the pixels are up in the 240-254 range. Look at the snow behind the dog toward the top of the image. And I wonder if your exposure was maybe a bit too hot in the barn shot. Did you take a look at the histogram in PS when you were editing that one? It's got a look I see in my own images when the whites have clipped (too close to 255) and then vignetting is applied. You tend to get a kind of dirty grey look in those areas. Shooting stuff in snow is really tricky -- quite the balancing act. This is one area where shooting raw *really* pays off, with more dynamic range and headroom. -bmw -- 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: Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11
This time, it was indeed intentional. ;-) From the north-side angle of the barn shots, the sky was a very flat, bland mass of strato-cumulus cloud cover, so I figured a little bit of vignette would add a touch of drama and bring out the highlights in the barn lumber. I just went ahead and added it to the other shots for thematic continuity. -- Walt On 2/8/2011 10:30 AM, Jack Davis wrote: If it's intentional, no problem, Walter. :) Jack --- On Tue, 2/8/11, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: From: Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail Listpdml@pdml.net Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 8:26 AM Thanks, Jack! I know a lot of people just don't like vignetting as a general rule. I'm not crazy about it in most cases, but I do like using it from time to time -- but almost exclusively in b/w shots. I do try to use it sparingly -- as soft as possible. But, I can see where some find it distracting. Glad you enjoyed the images in spite of it. :-) Thanks for having a look. -- Walt On 2/8/2011 7:31 AM, Jack Davis wrote: Simply great exposure and rendering on all. Wonderful barn! The upper corner vignetting is a slightly distracting however. Jack --- On Mon, 2/7/11, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: From: Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com Subject: Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail Listpdml@pdml.net Date: Monday, February 7, 2011, 4:25 PM Hi all, I thought I'd take the Pentaxes out after a little overnight snowfall and risk drawing the ire of those who have seen quite enough snow for the year thank-you-very-much. I fumbled the focusing on the K 50/1.4 on quite a few of the shots I took, unfortunately. It's going to take some practice, obviously. But, I do love the lens and am really, really looking forward to getting to know it better. I just figured I ought to post something since I've been away from the group for a while. Before you click, though, be warned: *Images contain vignetting.* Any thoughts, criticisms, or lavish gifts will be much appreciated. http://www.flickr.com/photos/walt_gilbert/sets/72157625874952441/ I also took the K1000 and my 135/2.5 out with some Kodak Plus-X 125 and filled a roll. I hope to get them developed soon and will scan the negatives afterward. I'll share those with the group if any of them come out worth a tinker's damn. Thanks in advance for looking! -- Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11
I hadn't really thought about that, but you do have a point. :-) As Pee Wee Herman would say, I meant to do that. -- Walt On 2/8/2011 11:11 AM, Jack Davis wrote: It, also, suits the photo trend back when that barn was new. Jack -- 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: Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11
On 2/8/2011 11:01 AM, Don Guthrie wrote: Walt I love the contrast and look of these photos. Especially # 2 3 (dog barn) The 1st one with the horse caught my eye but it maybe need a tighter crop or maybe would look great in a 4 ft blow up Tramping around in the snow and cold is tiring the technical things sometimes suffer but the composition is the main thing Thank you, Don! I did a few different crops on that horse shot, but the focus is a bit soft and sharpening artifacts were painfully obvious when I tried to make it any better. I'll give it another shot, though, and see if I can do any better with another hamfisted attempt. Boy I thought I was the only one who suffered from the lets get to shooting syndrome. I am the fastest and most careless landscape shooter in the world. I once saw a Canadian goose on the lake close to shore and I ran down the hill firing the camera as I went. I fell down knocked myself out for a minute saw stars and all that. When I recovered I discovered it was not a goose but a decoy that had gotten loose. I shot 10 out of focus pictures just this week because I forgot I had moved focus off the shutter and onto the ok button on the back. What I lack in skill I makeup in speed and enthusiasm. Yikes! Glad you weren't hurt more seriously ... or the camera, for that matter! I can just imagine what it must have felt like to discover it was a decoy. I've managed to avoid that kind of mishap so far. But then again, I'm still under 10,000 shutter actuations on my K-x, so there'll obviously be plenty of opportunities in the future. I am one of the world's worst about it. Ted Beilby can attest to my shooting style from our outings when I was in Arkansas this past fall. The first day, I took half of my shots with shake-reduction turned off while shooting hand-held. I'm sure you can imagine how well some of those shots came out. It sure gives me a healthy respect for the old masters who had to do it all manually. Thanks for the kind words. I have a feeling I'm going to have a difficult time ever taking that 50/1.4 off the body. -- Walt -- 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: PESO: Yet Another Day at Gray Lodge W.A.
Wow, Jack! Love the red tail hawk shot! Both are very nicely done, but that hawk shot makes me want to filter your posts. -- Walt On 2/8/2011 10:27 AM, Jack Davis wrote: Yesterday: http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=566 http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=567 CC welcome Samw K20, DA 55~300, ISO 800, hand held -- 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: Mini-GESO: Snowy Day Photo Walk - 2/7/11
Agreed. PENTAX: The camera for those with champagne taste and a beer pocketbook. -- Walt On 2/8/2011 12:48 PM, David J Brooks wrote: PDML and beer. Its a natural pairing. -- 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: finding pictures or making pictures?
Late to the party and replying out of sequence, myself. Apologies for any confusion this may cause, but I was receiving the list in digest form for a while, until a few days ago. So, I wasn't able to pull up the original message in the thread. Whenever I go on a photo walk, I generally carry two lenses and that's it. My most recent one, I took two cameras with one lens each: the 50/1.4 on my K-x and my 135/2.5 on my K1000. Unfortunately, I didn't catch a single shot on my K1000 because the film had slipped the advance mechanism -- which really sucks because I thought I had some great shots. But, on the bright side, I was at least able to salvage the film itself. It seems it had slipped before any exposures were made. And I never have the foggiest notion of what I'll be shooting when I set out. I may burn up a couple hundred shots on the K-x just experimenting. I have gone out in the past looking for specific subject matter -- old, crumbling houses, foliage, sunsets, etc. But, invariably, I stumble upon things that interest me. I finally figured out after my first few outings that regardless of whether or not I find what I'm looking for, I never come home without at least a few shots that I like. And, more often than not, they're far better than the shots I took of the things I set out to find. I still want a do-over in Picher, OK -- where I went with Ted Beilby. That place is a photographic playground that was completely wasted on my inexperience and frantic pace. -- Walt While waiting for my backdrop to dry at the laundromat, I had fifteen minutes to kill, so I went for a short photo walk. On my way back, I realized that the fast majority of my photography is mostly finding photos rather than making photos where I set out with a particular idea planned out. I'm curious how often the people on this list work from even a rough plan, versus just going out and seeing what they find. -- 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.
Advice solicitation for analog shooting
So, I now have this K1000 and a decent array of lenses to use on it. Having finally figured out how to properly operate the camera after wasting one roll of Fuji Superia X-tra 400 due to the fact that I opened the back of the camera prematurely thinking I had it completely wound (didn't realize I had to press the button on the bottom plate), and nearly wasting a roll of Kodak Plus-X 125 by not properly affixing it to the advance mechanism (didn't securely set the notches onto the teeth), I think it's time I ask for a little guidance before I proceed any further. I have three different types of film and thought I'd ask the experienced film shooters if there's anything I can do to get better images out of them -- any quirks or characteristics I should be mindful of, or specific uses or conditions any of them particularly excel at. I have the following: 2 rolls Plus-X 125 3 rolls BW400CN 4 rolls UltraMax 400 What do I need to know from here? Thanks! Walt -- 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: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
I just happened to notice last night, after I sent this message, that the Plus-X wasn't C-41 process film. I think the shop where I bought it will process it, though. I still don't have a dark room or supplies -- nor a tank or dark bag -- to work with, so I'll have to have all my film processed for the time being. But, once I get to the point where I feel I can get enough good shots with film to justify the investment, I'll probably start doing my own development. BTW -- I did note that the date stamp on the Plus-X box is 01/2010. I assume that's the expiration date and not the date of manufacture. With that in mind, I can't help wondering if it's still worth shooting. The shop had it on a shelf, not refrigerated at all. I assume there's some leeway with the expiration dates, but a year sounds a bit much. Thanks for the pointers WRT the developing chemicals. I'll archive this email for use at a later date. -- Walt On 2/9/2011 12:55 AM, John Coyle wrote: Hi Walt - I used to use Plus-X extensively, and always developed it myself in Acutol or Microdol-X. Acutol gives very fine grain and high acutance (as the name implies) with lovely smooth tone gradation. Microdol-X is designed to give very sharp negatives, perhaps a little more grain and contrast than Acutol. I normally rated it at 200ASA, but it's worth testing a roll or two with your own gear to see what suits you best. To save film, you could expose half-dozen frames on a roll at 80, 125 and 200 ASA for each set , then develop the roll normally to see which works best. You can push Plus-X quite hard, but the quality begins to drop off at over 400ASA, I found. I never much liked 400CN, couldn't seem to get really black and white negs, always a little tinge of colour left. Haven't used UltraMax, so can't help you there! HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Walter Gilbert Sent: Wednesday, 9 February 2011 2:23 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Advice solicitation for analog shooting So, I now have this K1000 and a decent array of lenses to use on it. Having finally figured out how to properly operate the camera after wasting one roll of Fuji Superia X-tra 400 due to the fact that I opened the back of the camera prematurely thinking I had it completely wound (didn't realize I had to press the button on the bottom plate), and nearly wasting a roll of Kodak Plus-X 125 by not properly affixing it to the advance mechanism (didn't securely set the notches onto the teeth), I think it's time I ask for a little guidance before I proceed any further. I have three different types of film and thought I'd ask the experienced film shooters if there's anything I can do to get better images out of them -- any quirks or characteristics I should be mindful of, or specific uses or conditions any of them particularly excel at. I have the following: 2 rolls Plus-X 125 3 rolls BW400CN 4 rolls UltraMax 400 What do I need to know from here? Thanks! Walt -- 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: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
Thanks, John! I did notice that difference just after I sent this message last night. I do believe the camera shop where I bought the film will develop it -- for how much, I don't know. It may be all for naught, though, considering the film appears to be a year out-of-date. I'll give it a shot and see, though. Thanks for the heads-up, nonetheless! Best, Walt On 2/9/2011 1:29 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: Walter Gilbert So, I now have this K1000 and a decent array of lenses to use on it. Having finally figured out how to properly operate the camera after wasting one roll of Fuji Superia X-tra 400 due to the fact that I opened the back of the camera prematurely thinking I had it completely wound (didn't realize I had to press the button on the bottom plate), and nearly wasting a roll of Kodak Plus-X 125 by not properly affixing it to the advance mechanism (didn't securely set the notches onto the teeth), I think it's time I ask for a little guidance before I proceed any further. I have three different types of film and thought I'd ask the experienced film shooters if there's anything I can do to get better images out of them -- any quirks or characteristics I should be mindful of, or specific uses or conditions any of them particularly excel at. I have the following: 2 rolls Plus-X 125 3 rolls BW400CN 4 rolls UltraMax 400 What do I need to know from here? The Plus-X is a traditional BW film. The BW400CN UltraMax 400 are Process C-41 (color negative like from a one hour mini-lab). If you take the Plus-X to a mini-lab it will mess up the film. Same thing if you try to develop the other two using traditional BW chemistry. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3431 - Release Date: 02/08/11 -- 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: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
Good news. Thanks, Charles! -- Walt On 2/9/2011 4:39 PM, Charles Robinson wrote: On Feb 9, 2011, at 15:55, Walter Gilbert wrote: BTW -- I did note that the date stamp on the Plus-X box is 01/2010. I assume that's the expiration date and not the date of manufacture. With that in mind, I can't help wondering if it's still worth shooting. The shop had it on a shelf, not refrigerated at all. I assume there's some leeway with the expiration dates, but a year sounds a bit much. Not a lot of color-shift on Plus-X. I'll wager you'll be just fine. -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- 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: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
Thanks for the tips, David! As for prints from the 400CN, I'll probably just have negatives made, then scan them at home. Any prints will come from the digital scans, which I assume will help produce less-funky results. I've looked around Flickr at scans made from UltraMax and, from what I can tell, it produces some nice photos with pretty saturated colors, which is what I like when shooting color -- particularly birds and butterflies. I'm curious to see how much luck I'll have catching birds in-flight on film. I suspect I'll get a lot of disastrous results, but the odd success will be awfully gratifying. Thanks again! -- Walt On 2/9/2011 4:46 PM, David J Brooks wrote: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: , and nearly wasting a roll of Kodak Plus-X 125 by not properly affixing it to the advance mechanism (didn't securely set the notches onto the teeth), I think it's time I ask for a little guidance before I proceed any further. Walt. One trick i used in making sure the film had been grabbed by the teeth was to watch the the rewind knob. If it turned will i advanced the film lever, all was well. The other thing i did was after the film was loaded and i advance to the 0 mark, was to do a short rewind to pick up any slack in the film. Just needed to bring it back ever so lightly though. I have three different types of film and thought I'd ask the experienced film shooters if there's anything I can do to get better images out of them -- any quirks or characteristics I should be mindful of, or specific uses or conditions any of them particularly excel at. I have the following: 2 rolls Plus-X 125 Never used it. 3 rolls BW400CN Used it some what. The local lab would process it and print out my 4x6 proofs on colour paper. Got some funky images that way. 4 rolls UltraMax 400 Again, never used it. Dave What do I need to know from here? Thanks! Walt -- 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: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
Thanks for the exposure and print tips, Collin. I'll archive this email for future reference, too. I've got an ideal place to set up a dark room out in my shop if I ever get that seriously involved in film photography. It'll take some minor construction to keep light out control the temperature, but not a big project at all. Maybe by this fall I'll be ready to tackle it. -- Walt On 2/9/2011 4:49 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Good methods for dealing with roll film. Plus-X was my favorite Kodak film. But it should be shot at iso 80 or 100 and developed to spec. This will give it a little more punch. The tonality can otherwise be a bit boring. If you are printing yourself, print grade 3. That will add the contrast you need if you prefer to use a normal exposure. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -Original Message- From: David J Brooks [mailto:pentko...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 05:46 PM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: Re: Advice solicitation for analog shooting On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: , and nearly wasting a roll of Kodak Plus-X 125 by not properly affixing it to the advance mechanism (didn't securely set the notches onto the teeth), I think it's time I ask for a little guidance before I proceed any further. Walt. One trick i used in making sure the film had been grabbed by the teeth was to watch the the rewind knob. If it turned will i advanced the film lever, all was well. The other thing i did was after the film was loaded and i advance to the 0 mark, was to do a short rewind to pick up any slack in the film. Just needed to bring it back ever so lightly though. I have three different types of film and thought I'd ask the experienced film shooters if there's anything I can do to get better images out of them -- any quirks or characteristics I should be mindful of, or specific uses or conditions any of them particularly excel at. I have the following: 2 rolls Plus-X 125 Never used it. 3 rolls BW400CN Used it some what. The local lab would process it and print out my 4x6 proofs on colour paper. Got some funky images that way. 4 rolls UltraMax 400 Again, never used it. Dave What do I need to know from here? Thanks! Walt -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
Or a fry-cook at The Happy Gizzard. On 2/9/2011 4:57 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: What should those of us that made it to grade 7 do then If you've made it past the 6th grade then you should consider becoming a brain surgeon or a double-naught spy. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- 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: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
Thanks, John! I put all of my film in the freezer as soon as I got home, since I'm just not sure how often I'll use it. Whenever I get ready to use it, I'll pull it out and stick it in a zip lock bag with a little silica gel pouch overnight to keep any condensation from getting to it. The few shots I've taken so far, I've dead-centered the meter as closely as possible at 125 under pretty bright conditions (snowy). Hopefully they'll still look OK. -- Walt I really like Plus-X as a people film in medium format. I'm pretty sure I've got a couple of rolls of 35mm as well. I keep out of date film in a Tupperware container in the fridge, unless it's something I know I'm not going to get to soon, then it goes into the freezer. If you're not going to shoot the Plus-X film soon, go ahead and put it in the refrigerator until you're ready. It comes out of the fridge a day or so before shooting. But a year out of date at room temperature shouldn't be a problem, although if I were going to shoot it I'd over-expose it slightly. To do that on the K1000 I'd set the ISO dial to 100 and let the meter guide me based on that ISO. I've learned when to over/under expose compared to the meter indication in the viewfinder. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3431 - Release Date: 02/08/11 -- 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: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
Dammit! I knew I was forgetting something last time I left the camera shop! Been meaning to get one of those for a while. I've clearly got a lot to learn, and appreciate all the help everyone's giving me. Thanks, Paul. On 2/9/2011 8:34 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: If the scene you're shooting is primarily snow covered, you should overexpose by about two stops. At a centered meter reading, you'll get gray snow. The alternative is to take your meter reading from a gray card. Paul -- 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: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
Thanks for the explanation, Collin. When Paul said to overexpose, I was actually thinking it sounded counter-intuitive -- that you'd want to under-expose in a snowy situation. But, it makes sense now that you explained that the meter assumes a neutral grey. So, I'm assuming that in extra-low-light situations, I'd want to under-expose by a couple of stops in that case. Glad I found this out before getting too deep into the roll! -- Walt On 2/9/2011 8:40 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: No!!! Always overexpose snow by 2 stops. Why? Because an averaging meter expects a mid-gray tone. The result will be gray snow unless you open it up, either with the shutter, aperture, or both. You can also change to iso32. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- 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: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
Thanks, David/Collin/Paul. I think I understand, now. I was thinking that since the snow was so glaringly bright that it would throw the meter off irrespective of the actual subject -- assuming the subject isn't the snow itself. But, as I understand you all now, as long as there's a dark enough counterpoint to the snow within the frame, the metering will average out. My question in that case is, does the ratio of dark to light matter? Say, if you have a snowy field and a small black dog in that field, taking a photo of a distant grey object, is that enough to get the correct averaging? Or do I need to compensate for the dominance of the snowy field within the frame? In other words, does the meter average the difference between the darkest and the brightest objects in the frame, or the total amount of darkness and brightness in the frame? Thanks again, y'all. I do appreciate your patience. -- Walt On 2/9/2011 9:18 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Thanks for the explanation, Collin. When Paul said to overexpose, I was actually thinking it sounded counter-intuitive -- that you'd want to under-expose in a snowy situation. But, it makes sense now that you explained that the meter assumes a neutral grey. So, I'm assuming that in extra-low-light situations, I'd want to under-expose by a couple of stops in that case. No. It's not amount the amount of light. The reason you overexpose snow or anything else that fills your frame with white is simply because it's white and very reflective. Like Collin said, the meter assumes everything is 18% gray and reflects the amount of light that an 18% gray surface would reflect. So shooting a white subject in low light, you would still overexpose. Shooting something totally black, you would want to underexpose by about one stop, since black doesn't reflect much light.. Again, using the gray card and exposing to the meter reading is usually better in really tricky lighting situations. Another alternative is an incident meter, which measures the light source rather than the scene. As with the gray card, you don't have to correct for the reflectivity of the subject when shooting with an incident meter. Paul Glad I found this out before getting too deep into the roll! -- Walt On 2/9/2011 8:40 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: No!!! Always overexpose snow by 2 stops. Why? Because an averaging meter expects a mid-gray tone. The result will be gray snow unless you open it up, either with the shutter, aperture, or both. You can also change to iso32. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- 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: Pentax Photo Gallery 1st three in...
All great shots, Ann -- but that first one is just completely enchanting. Wonderful! -- Walt On 2/8/2011 11:55 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTISTsubSection=272221subSubSection=0language=EN all three bw from the early 80's and scanned from 8x10 prints. I have only a few more ready for review and 5 rejected. They rejected this one and the candy store. http://annsan.smugmug.com/On-the-Road-or-On-Foot/New-York-Snaps-2011/15389206_z3saz/1/1155318746_GTRuZ/Original ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
Excellent. Thanks again for all the help everyone's offered. It's been the photography 101 class I never got to take. I'll just have to burn through some film and make notes as I go. I can already tell that the $40 I spent on that K1000 will probably be the best investment I'll ever make in photographic equipment. -- Walt On 2/9/2011 10:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Most older SLR meters are center weighted, so something in the middle of the frame influences the meter reading more than on the edges. But generally speaking, you need a balance of dark and light to achieve the reflectivity of gray. The newest matrix meters compare what the camera sees to some preprogrammed situational data, and try to make a decision based on that. Generally, they don't require as much compensation for subjects that are not overly dominated by one extreme of reflectivity. For example, the meter in one of my old spotmatics requires about two stops of exposure compensation in a snow scene, but one stop is usually enough to get the K-5 in the ballpark. You have to work with your camera and learn how it reacts to different situations. Rules and guidelines are good, but there's no substitute for experience. Again when it comes to nailing exposures in difficult situations, the gray card or incident meter is the easy way out. Paul On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Thanks, David/Collin/Paul. I think I understand, now. I was thinking that since the snow was so glaringly bright that it would throw the meter off irrespective of the actual subject -- assuming the subject isn't the snow itself. But, as I understand you all now, as long as there's a dark enough counterpoint to the snow within the frame, the metering will average out. My question in that case is, does the ratio of dark to light matter? Say, if you have a snowy field and a small black dog in that field, taking a photo of a distant grey object, is that enough to get the correct averaging? Or do I need to compensate for the dominance of the snowy field within the frame? In other words, does the meter average the difference between the darkest and the brightest objects in the frame, or the total amount of darkness and brightness in the frame? Thanks again, y'all. I do appreciate your patience. -- Walt On 2/9/2011 9:18 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Thanks for the explanation, Collin. When Paul said to overexpose, I was actually thinking it sounded counter-intuitive -- that you'd want to under-expose in a snowy situation. But, it makes sense now that you explained that the meter assumes a neutral grey. So, I'm assuming that in extra-low-light situations, I'd want to under-expose by a couple of stops in that case. No. It's not amount the amount of light. The reason you overexpose snow or anything else that fills your frame with white is simply because it's white and very reflective. Like Collin said, the meter assumes everything is 18% gray and reflects the amount of light that an 18% gray surface would reflect. So shooting a white subject in low light, you would still overexpose. Shooting something totally black, you would want to underexpose by about one stop, since black doesn't reflect much light.. Again, using the gray card and exposing to the meter reading is usually better in really tricky lighting situations. Another alternative is an incident meter, which measures the light source rather than the scene. As with the gray card, you don't have to correct for the reflectivity of the subject when shooting with an incident meter. Paul Glad I found this out before getting too deep into the roll! -- Walt On 2/9/2011 8:40 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: No!!! Always overexpose snow by 2 stops. Why? Because an averaging meter expects a mid-gray tone. The result will be gray snow unless you open it up, either with the shutter, aperture, or both. You can also change to iso32. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO: Red Shoulder Hawks
Very cool, Bob! I've seen two large hawks near near my home within the past several months, but haven't even come close to getting a decent shot of one. It's getting a little frustrating, I must say. -- Walt On 2/9/2011 10:01 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Found these guys today, just standing around hunting bugs in the grass. https://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/Exports2011#5571902437893618818 K-5 and DA60-250/4 lens, lots of backlight corrected in Lightroom 3.2/ Regards, Bob S. -- 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: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
Thanks for the tips, John! I'll give those a try this evening and see what I come up with. -- Walt On 2/10/2011 9:31 AM, John Sessoms wrote: From: Walter Gilbert Thanks, David/Collin/Paul. I think I understand, now. I was thinking that since the snow was so glaringly bright that it would throw the meter off irrespective of the actual subject -- assuming the subject isn't the snow itself. But, as I understand you all now, as long as there's a dark enough counterpoint to the snow within the frame, the metering will average out. My question in that case is, does the ratio of dark to light matter? Say, if you have a snowy field and a small black dog in that field, taking a photo of a distant grey object, is that enough to get the correct averaging? Or do I need to compensate for the dominance of the snowy field within the frame? In other words, does the meter average the difference between the darkest and the brightest objects in the frame, or the total amount of darkness and brightness in the frame? Thanks again, y'all. I do appreciate your patience. If I remember correctly, you started this thread that you're shooting with a K1000? The K1000 meter averages the entire frame. No additional weight is given to the center. If the scene is mostly brighter than 18% gray, the meter recommendation will be under-exposed, you have to over-expose to compensate and get the correct exposure. If the scene is mostly darker, the meter recommendation is over-exposed, and you have to under-expose to compensate. Blue skies opposite the sun, sunlit grass and weathered asphalt paving are all reasonable approximations of 18% gray. If nothing else, fill the viewfinder with one of these and set your exposure, then re-frame the scene. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3433 - Release Date: 02/09/11 -- 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: Advice solicitation for analog shooting
Ha! The most reliable of all appendages. On 2/10/2011 1:25 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: David Parsons The palm of your hand is also reasonably close to 18% as well. Unless you have really dark hair. ;-D - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3433 - Release Date: 02/09/11 -- 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: PESO: Wing Shot
I guess I'm going to have to get a suit made out of chicken meat, or something. All I ever get are shots of the kind of birds that crap on cars. -- Walt On 2/12/2011 6:30 PM, Jack Davis wrote: Thanka, Steven! Nice comment. Jack --- On Sat, 2/12/11, Steven Desjardinsdrd1...@gmail.com wrote: From: Steven Desjardinsdrd1...@gmail.com Subject: Re: PESO: Wing Shot To: Pentax-Discuss Mail Listpdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, February 12, 2011, 4:20 PM Damn hawks never pose right. ;-) It's a very dramatic shot, even for an extreme crop. On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Christianpterali...@aim.com wrote: On 2/12/2011 3:07 PM, Jack Davis wrote: DA 55~300@300mm. Heavy crop. I notice that lightening the under wing and body shadows allowed a little haloing on the top of the wings. May re-do later. Comment of course! Jack http://photolightimaging.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=571 I think you meant: http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=571 which is much better than the 404 i got on the original link. ;-) -- Christian http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com http://birdofthemoment.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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. Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front -- 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: PESO: Wing Shot
Oh ... I ... uh. I just don't know what to say. At all. But, yeah ... that's about what I envisioned in a suit made of chicken meat. So, at least I know where to get one if I ever actually go through with it. Wow. -- Walt On 2/13/2011 4:14 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Or he could contact Pinar http://www.bigshinything.com/pinar-yolcacan Yup, that's me in that flapper dress :-) I keep forgetting to write Pinar to ask her if she made the dress for Gaga ann Bob W wrote: I guess I'm going to have to get a suit made out of chicken meat, or something. All I ever get are shots of the kind of birds that crap on cars. Ask Lady Gaga for the address of her couturier. Or her butcher. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/sep/24/lady-gaga-meat-dress-jerky 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: PESO: Wing Shot
Ann ... maybe you should explain to Pinar that when people speak of suffering for one's art, they're talking about the artist ... not everyone the artist knows! But, hey. As long as they spell your name right, huh? -- Walt On 2/13/2011 8:49 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Walter Gilbert wrote: Oh ... I ... uh. I just don't know what to say. At all. But, yeah ... that's about what I envisioned in a suit made of chicken meat. So, at least I know where to get one if I ever actually go through with it. Wow. -- Walt Oh it gets better -- or worse... I did want to be in Vogue when I was and 18year old model/actress but... http://www.vogue.it/en/talents/blog-from/2010/08/irene-pollini-giolai-23-august-2010 It was a dirty job, but someone had to do it ann On 2/13/2011 4:14 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Or he could contact Pinar http://www.bigshinything.com/pinar-yolcacan Yup, that's me in that flapper dress :-) I keep forgetting to write Pinar to ask her if she made the dress for Gaga ann Bob W wrote: I guess I'm going to have to get a suit made out of chicken meat, or something. All I ever get are shots of the kind of birds that crap on cars. Ask Lady Gaga for the address of her couturier. Or her butcher. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/sep/24/lady-gaga-meat-dress-jerky 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.
GESO: Photo walk on a warm February day
Hi all, We had an unseasonably warm day here in western Kentucky, so I thought I'd take the cameras out and see what I came up with. I filled up a roll of Plus-X 125 on the K1000 using my 135/2.5 and will have them developed soon. On my K-x, I used my K-50/1.4 -- everything shot at f/16 just to get a feel for it. I had mixed results, but all in all, was happy with the results. I'm still learning the lens, obviously -- but, when I get it right, I really love the results. Anyhoo ... here's the link: http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2011/02/16/photo-walk-on-a-warm-february-day-21611/ Comments, critiques and frequent flyer miles are much appreciated. -- Walt -- 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: GESO: Photo walk on a warm February day
Thanks, Jeffery! We've still got a ways to go before winter ends, but today was a nice prelude to spring. :-) Love what I'm seeing out of that K-r, BTW. The IQ looks wonderful! -- Walt On 2/16/2011 9:54 PM, Jeffery Johnson wrote: These are nice pictures and yeah it finally is starting to warm up. Thank goodness -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Walter Gilbert Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:39 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: GESO: Photo walk on a warm February day Hi all, We had an unseasonably warm day here in western Kentucky, so I thought I'd take the cameras out and see what I came up with. I filled up a roll of Plus-X 125 on the K1000 using my 135/2.5 and will have them developed soon. On my K-x, I used my K-50/1.4 -- everything shot at f/16 just to get a feel for it. I had mixed results, but all in all, was happy with the results. I'm still learning the lens, obviously -- but, when I get it right, I really love the results. Anyhoo ... here's the link: http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2011/02/16/photo-walk-on-a-warm-february-day-21 611/ Comments, critiques and frequent flyer miles are much appreciated. -- Walt -- 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: GESO: Photo walk on a warm February day
Thanks, John. I was a little disappointed with the sharpness and resolution on some of the shots, myself. Whenever I've managed to get the lens right -- and it's been more difficult than I expected -- it is amazingly sharp. But, it's a challenging lens for me. I haven't put in nearly enough practice with it. As for using channels -- I'm ashamed to admit I don't have the foggiest notion. Typically, I just use auto-leveling and a little cropping and sometimes a filter called BW Styler, which can be a bit heavy-handed. I need to learn more about using channels, curves and all manner of things when it comes to Photoshop. Thanks for the input! -- Walt On 2/17/2011 1:07 AM, John Coyle wrote: Hi Walt - some nice shots there, but I felt that some of them were softer than I would expect. 9423 is one example, but in others, like the two bw shots of the little hut, the resolution doesn't seem what I would expect. I believe that converting to monochrome is best done using only one channel, and I'm sure one of the gurus here will know which one! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Walter Gilbert Sent: Thursday, 17 February 2011 12:39 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: GESO: Photo walk on a warm February day Hi all, We had an unseasonably warm day here in western Kentucky, so I thought I'd take the cameras out and see what I came up with. I filled up a roll of Plus-X 125 on the K1000 using my 135/2.5 and will have them developed soon. On my K-x, I used my K-50/1.4 -- everything shot at f/16 just to get a feel for it. I had mixed results, but all in all, was happy with the results. I'm still learning the lens, obviously -- but, when I get it right, I really love the results. Anyhoo ... here's the link: http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2011/02/16/photo-walk-on-a-warm-february-day-21 611/ Comments, critiques and frequent flyer miles are much appreciated. -- Walt -- 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: GESO: Photo walk on a warm February day
Thanks, Paul. I wasn't sure if that might have been the cause, or just my less than stellar focusing. I have a suspicion my focusing played a good part in it. The lens is really challenging me in that I'm having a very, very difficult time getting consistent results from it. I don't know if that's attributable to a lack of experience, or what. But, I hardly ever see what I expect when I use it. I'm beginning to worry that something in the camera was knocked out of whack with my cat pushed off the dresser back a couple of months ago, but for the time being, I'm more inclined to blame myself. I haven't done enough shooting since then to be able to determine one way or the other. As spring rolls around and I'm able to get out and do more shooting with different lenses, I'll know. Thankfully, the camera shop in town is a certified Pentax service center, and with any luck, if there's anything wrong with the camera aside from the operator, it'll be a fairly easy fix. I'm really hoping it's just a matter of getting to know the lens, though. I know manual focusing can be challenging for even experienced photographers, let alone neophyte amateurs. So, I'm going to exercise patience and, for once, not blame the gear -- for the time being. -- Walt On 2/17/2011 4:35 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I suspect the reason for the softness is the f16 ap that was used. You get a lot of diffusion at f16 -- definitely not a recommended way to shoot unless maximum depth of field is required in a close focusing situation. But some nice subject matter here. Paul On Feb 17, 2011, at 2:07 AM, John Coyle wrote: Hi Walt - some nice shots there, but I felt that some of them were softer than I would expect. 9423 is one example, but in others, like the two bw shots of the little hut, the resolution doesn't seem what I would expect. I believe that converting to monochrome is best done using only one channel, and I'm sure one of the gurus here will know which one! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Walter Gilbert Sent: Thursday, 17 February 2011 12:39 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: GESO: Photo walk on a warm February day Hi all, We had an unseasonably warm day here in western Kentucky, so I thought I'd take the cameras out and see what I came up with. I filled up a roll of Plus-X 125 on the K1000 using my 135/2.5 and will have them developed soon. On my K-x, I used my K-50/1.4 -- everything shot at f/16 just to get a feel for it. I had mixed results, but all in all, was happy with the results. I'm still learning the lens, obviously -- but, when I get it right, I really love the results. Anyhoo ... here's the link: http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2011/02/16/photo-walk-on-a-warm-february-day-21 611/ Comments, critiques and frequent flyer miles are much appreciated. -- Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: GESO: Photo walk on a warm February day
I'm using an older version of full-blown Photoshop -- 7.0 to be exact -- and have been meaning to take in some tutorials on YouTube for a while, but just haven't gotten around to it. A lot of the reason I haven't gotten too deeply into the post-production end of it has to do with the lack of resources I have on my current computer. I need more storage space to hold all the files, and more memory to run the software well, to handle the larger-sized RAW files -- particularly using multiple layers of high resolution images. At the moment, my hands are a bit tied, but I'm slowly getting there. I have a larger hard drive to hook up, but I need to get a USB enclosure as it's a SATA drive, and I'm currently running a regular old ATA drive in my system, and the motherboard won't allow me to run both on the same system. I also need to get at least another 2 Gigs of RAM, but it's an older type of RAM (PC-3200 DDR) that isn't as cheap as it once was, back before I needed it, and I'm not sure that my system will be compatible with any newer types. So, it'll be slow going before I'm able to do as much with my images as I'd like, but with any luck, I'll have some manner of windfall before too long. There are some opportunities for me on the horizon. I'm just not in the position to bank on them yet. Thanks for the guidance -- I'll be sure to look into all of this stuff when I'm in a little better position to actually do it. -- Walt Are you using Elements or the full blown Photoshop? I don't really know Elements, but there are tons of free Photoshop tutorials on the web, many of them on YouTube. There two essential things to learn about Photoshop that are the basis for everything else. First, use Adjustment Layers for adjustments, corrections and filters. Placing them on their own layers allows you greater flexibility, and more importantly allows you to go back at any later time and completely undo something if you've come to regret it. You just delete the adjustment layer. You don't even have to delete it; turn the eye off and the layer becomes invisible. If an adjustment is only a little heavy-handed, decrease the layer transparency == decrease the effect. Second, always save your work as a .PSD file with all of the the layers to preserve your work in progress before flattening the image and creating a JPEG for output. You can save as TIFF, but Photoshop converts files to PSD while it's using them. Saving as TIFF just adds unnecessary complexity. You'll have the PSD file (with your layers) to come back to even after you've created a JPEG for output. Never save changes to a .PEF file in Photoshop. That way you always have your original straight out of the camera image as a starting point if you ever need to completely start over. Once you learn those two things, you've given yourself almost unlimited possibilities to do over anything you're not satisfied with. Do the best you can now and at some later date when you know more about using Photoshop, you can more easily come back to the image and do it better ... without having to reinvent the wheel. Note: Adobe Camera Raw does not save changes to the .PEF file, it saves your changes in a linked sidecar .XMP file. Getting back to your unaltered straight out of the camera original file is easy; just delete the .XMP file. ACR will create a new .XMP saving your new changes next time you open the .PEF file and either continue on to open it in Photoshop or click on Done. Clicking Cancel does not create a new .XMP file. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3448 - Release Date: 02/16/11 -- 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: GESO: Photo walk on a warm February day
Thank you, Frank! I was pretty smitten with the pickup, too. I wish I'd been able to get more angles on it, but it was parked right up against the side of a garage with a bunch of newer vehicles in the background. So, I was forced to do what I could to obscure all the other junk -- which meant excluding the rest of the truck body. -- Walt On 2/17/2011 2:57 PM, frank theriault wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, We had an unseasonably warm day here in western Kentucky, so I thought I'd take the cameras out and see what I came up with. I filled up a roll of Plus-X 125 on the K1000 using my 135/2.5 and will have them developed soon. On my K-x, I used my K-50/1.4 -- everything shot at f/16 just to get a feel for it. I had mixed results, but all in all, was happy with the results. I'm still learning the lens, obviously -- but, when I get it right, I really love the results. Anyhoo ... here's the link: http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2011/02/16/photo-walk-on-a-warm-february-day-21611/ Comments, critiques and frequent flyer miles are much appreciated. Lovely photos, all. I especially like the elevators and that old pickup. cheers, frank -- 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: GESO: Photo walk on a warm February day
Thanks, Ann. I've been trying to find a decent Wordpress plugin for image galleries, but it's been incredibly frustrating. Everything I've tried has had something about it I just don't like -- whether it's the way it composes the thumbnail page, the way it handles the photos themselves, or how difficult it is to get all the images uploaded and displayed. Nothing has gone right so far and I've just thrown in the towel and used the simplest gallery creator I could find. Every time I've uploaded images, by the time I'm finished, I can hear my pulse. Glad you enjoyed the content, though. :-) -- Walt On 2/17/2011 6:00 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Walt -- I liked the thumbnails, but I had a devil of a time navigating the page... I could figure out how to go to the next photo without going back to the index, all the files were too big without using the zoom out feature in Firefox... I just couldnt get a really good view. might be that when I made the images smaller the arrows to go to the next photo disappeared. I like the genre, for sure. ann Walter Gilbert wrote: Thank you, Frank! I was pretty smitten with the pickup, too. I wish I'd been able to get more angles on it, but it was parked right up against the side of a garage with a bunch of newer vehicles in the background. So, I was forced to do what I could to obscure all the other junk -- which meant excluding the rest of the truck body. -- Walt On 2/17/2011 2:57 PM, frank theriault wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, We had an unseasonably warm day here in western Kentucky, so I thought I'd take the cameras out and see what I came up with. I filled up a roll of Plus-X 125 on the K1000 using my 135/2.5 and will have them developed soon. On my K-x, I used my K-50/1.4 -- everything shot at f/16 just to get a feel for it. I had mixed results, but all in all, was happy with the results. I'm still learning the lens, obviously -- but, when I get it right, I really love the results. Anyhoo ... here's the link: http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2011/02/16/photo-walk-on-a-warm-february-day-21611/ Comments, critiques and frequent flyer miles are much appreciated. Lovely photos, all. I especially like the elevators and that old pickup. cheers, frank -- 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: OFF LIST: Re: GESO: Photo walk on a warm February day
Don't tell anyone on the list that I said this, but they are all *AWESOME!* -- Walt On 2/17/2011 10:23 AM, John Sessoms wrote: Where in Western Kentucky? My mom's family is from the area around Fredonia, KY. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3448 - Release Date: 02/16/11 -- 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: Geso - a trip to the zoo with the DA 55-300
Wow, Ann! I'd never even heard of the majority of those animals. Not a bad shot in the bunch, obviously -- but that Nicobar Pigeon was my favorite. I've never seen anything quite like it, and you captured the colors beautifully! -- Walt On 2/17/2011 5:32 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: http://annsan.smugmug.com/Works-in-Print/Works-In-Progress/More-Critters/15842756_6QmYN Just 8 photos - large thumbnails to start with :-) 2 different zoo's The Centrtal Park Zoo and the Queens Borough zoo (just the Pudu and the Thick-billed parrot) This week -- Monday Cetranl Park - Yesterday, the little Queens one. Sadly I thought I had nailed a shot of the lynx in Queens but not happy at all with what I came back with of him... not sure if it was auto focusing problems or just the lynx moving a bit too much. I seem to be able to hold the camera with the zoom on it pretty steady down to 1/90th . ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
K-x focusing problem - explanation found
Hi all, So, I've been getting a lot of soft images lately when using my K-x with the K-50/1.4 and wondering what I'm doing wrong. Well, I think I've figured it out. I took a good look at the viewfinder glass and discovered that it's not in good shape. I don't know if the sweat from using it this summer corroded it, or what, but I can see where the tinted coating appears to be gone except for around the very edges of the glass, and it's really murky where the coating is gone. It's very obviously going to have to be replaced. Funny thing is, I've been Googling my ass off trying to figure out what it's going to cost to replace it, and you'd think it was a state secret, or something! I can't even find a clear answer on what the name of the part is. What I'm talking about is the very outer glass in the eyepiece. I don't know if the whole viewfinder needs to be replaced, or just the piece of glass, or what to terminology for the part is in order to even look up the price. Can somebody help me out here? I'm really hoping this is something I'll be able to order and replace myself, rather than pay the guy at the camera shop an arm and a leg to do it for me. But, I don't even know what to look for! Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Walt -- 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: PESO - Shooter
Hey, Doug ... have you ever played against a guy named Eddie Moore out of Paducah, KY by any chance? -- Walt On 2/17/2011 11:24 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: On 2011-02-17 23:00, Paul Stenquist wrote: This is an eight week annual eight-ball tournament Ahhh, that puts a bit of a different complexion on it. As you know, the mind plays in those games as much as the hands, just like lots of other face-to-face competition. Lord only knows what, if anything, he might have been trying to do to the competition's head. :-) The two women are on the team that won the championship the last couple of years. Every round of the tournament is a three game set. Out of the three games, you have to use at least four different players, and two of them have to be women. The best teams have killer women of course. Fun stuff. Hmmm. That's an interesting dynamic. I've never shot in tournaments, just the pay your bet or get your ass kicked circuit. :-) -- 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: PESO - Shooter
Ah, OK! :-D Eddie used to hustle quite a bit, so I thought you might know him. He owned a bar called The Rack up until the early 90's and a lot of good players went through there. I used to play there some, and shot a decent game for a couple of years, but burned out. I've tried picking up a stick a couple of times since then, but I just don't enjoy it at all anymore. Anyhoo ... just thought I'd ask. -- Walt On 2/18/2011 12:07 AM, Doug Franklin wrote: On 2011-02-18 0:39, Walter Gilbert wrote: Hey, Doug ... have you ever played against a guy named Eddie Moore out of Paducah, KY by any chance? Oh, I doubt it. I haven't played in years, and even when I did it was on the bowling alley circuit (which ever bowling alley had the stupidest pool shooters or the, uh, most, uh, accommodating pool babes). -- 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: K-x focusing problem - explanation found
Thank for that info, Robert! It looks like the process of swapping it out might be a little more intensive than I'd hoped. I'll just have to learn to deal with it for the time being, I guess. But, if it gets bad enough, I'll just have to give in and take it into the shop. Maybe the guy there who sold me the 50/1.4 will be able to handle it with a little more confidence than I have. I sure as hell don't want the other guy at the shop trying it, though. The very thought gives me the heebie-jeebies. I'd sooner take it on myself. Thanks again! -- Walt On 2/19/2011 11:55 AM, Robert and Leigh Woerner wrote: I modified my PZ-1p viewfinder as the plastic one became foggy from lots of fine scratches. I disassembled the camera and cut a piece of multi-coated glass (from a lens filter) to replace the plastic one. It made a big difference in viewfinder quality. I think the instructions were available on a PDML user's website, maybe Alan Chan? I don't know if it is possible to do the same on a DSLR (well, I guess it is, but might be dicier). Of course, even if the K-X has multi-coated glass, it might degrade from chemicals in your sweat, or from some cleaning agent you have used. If only Pentax had a viewfinder as good as the one on a Nikon F100 film camera, now THAT'S one heckuva good viewfinder! Robert -- 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: K-x focusing problem - explanation found
Yikes, Larry! That is some frightful-looking damage! I'll let you know if I come up with something. So far, no luck. -- Walt On 2/18/2011 3:30 AM, Larry Colen wrote: On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Can somebody help me out here? I'm really hoping this is something I'll be able to order and replace myself, rather than pay the guy at the camera shop an arm and a leg to do it for me. But, I don't even know what to look for! Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'm curious about what you find. I ran into something similar with my K100: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157623241823983/ -- 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: PESO - Shooter
Great song. It's a jukebox mainstay down at the local Eagle's Club. :-) On 2/19/2011 3:10 PM, Larry Colen wrote: http://www.tagtele.com/videos/voir/36976 -- 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: Photo Annual 2011 - your thoughts
I really would love to submit something this year, but all the shots I've taken that I feel might be worthy of submission have been resized down without preserving the orginals -- in order to save limited hard drive space. :-\ It wasn't the smartest thing to do, obviously, but I didn't have a whole lot of choice at the time. I hope to have something worthy of submission in time for next year's edition. But, I'll just have to chalk this year up to learning experience. -- Walt On 2/18/2011 11:04 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Work continues apace on the 2011 book (and I'm bracing myself for the inevitable last-week rush of submissions soon to come). -- 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: Photo Annual 2011 - your thoughts
I know. ;-) I'm shopping for one as we speak -- looking around for good deals at Newegg.com and BensBargains.net. -- Walt On 2/19/2011 3:34 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Walter, For the cost of buying and developing 5 rolls of film, you can buy an external hard drive and save it all. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: I really would love to submit something this year, but all the shots I've taken that I feel might be worthy of submission have been resized down without preserving the orginals -- in order to save limited hard drive space. :-\ It wasn't the smartest thing to do, obviously, but I didn't have a whole lot of choice at the time. I hope to have something worthy of submission in time for next year's edition. But, I'll just have to chalk this year up to learning experience. -- Walt On 2/18/2011 11:04 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Work continues apace on the 2011 book (and I'm bracing myself for the inevitable last-week rush of submissions soon to come). -- 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: Photo Annual 2011 - your thoughts
FWIW -- I just bought a USB hard drive enclosure for a 500 GB hard drive my brother gave me, but I couldn't use because it's a SATA drive and my existing one is ATA, and my main board won't run both types at the same time. So, in about a week, my storage issues should be remedied for the foreseeable future. Now, all I need is another couple Gigs of RAM on the cheap, so I can handle the larger file sizes without crippling my poor, old, decrepit PC. -- Walt On 2/19/2011 3:34 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Walter, For the cost of buying and developing 5 rolls of film, you can buy an external hard drive and save it all. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: I really would love to submit something this year, but all the shots I've taken that I feel might be worthy of submission have been resized down without preserving the orginals -- in order to save limited hard drive space. :-\ It wasn't the smartest thing to do, obviously, but I didn't have a whole lot of choice at the time. I hope to have something worthy of submission in time for next year's edition. But, I'll just have to chalk this year up to learning experience. -- Walt On 2/18/2011 11:04 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Work continues apace on the 2011 book (and I'm bracing myself for the inevitable last-week rush of submissions soon to come). -- 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: Photo Annual 2011 - your thoughts
AND furthermore ... I just ordered 2GB of PC3200 DDR 400MHz SDRAM from Newegg.com for $54.00/free shipping. Could I afford to do it? Nope. But, it's something I've needed to do for a while, and it'll help speed up my workflow considerably. So, I reckon it's an investment. Gawd, I hate photography. -- Walt On 2/19/2011 3:34 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Walter, For the cost of buying and developing 5 rolls of film, you can buy an external hard drive and save it all. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Walter Gilbertldott...@gmail.com wrote: I really would love to submit something this year, but all the shots I've taken that I feel might be worthy of submission have been resized down without preserving the orginals -- in order to save limited hard drive space. :-\ It wasn't the smartest thing to do, obviously, but I didn't have a whole lot of choice at the time. I hope to have something worthy of submission in time for next year's edition. But, I'll just have to chalk this year up to learning experience. -- Walt On 2/18/2011 11:04 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Work continues apace on the 2011 book (and I'm bracing myself for the inevitable last-week rush of submissions soon to come). -- 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: Photo Annual 2011 - your thoughts
I tell ya, it never ends, does it? I believe I've maxed out my PC's memory capacity with the extra 2 GB. So, now it's just a matter of trying to hobble the ol' thing along until the hardware completely craps out, or a power surge takes out my main board. But, at least now, in the event of the ultimate catastrophe, I'll have everything backed up -- which is good, as I've been tempting fate for years now. -- Walt On 2/19/2011 5:23 PM, Jeffery Johnson wrote: LOL Walt I know the feeling about affording things. Heck I would enjoy at least two more good older lenses but that will have to wait. Not sure for certain but we probably have plenty of older ram around the house but with newer systems they don't work as well as newer ram. Jeffery -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Walter Gilbert Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 5:11 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Photo Annual 2011 - your thoughts AND furthermore ... I just ordered 2GB of PC3200 DDR 400MHz SDRAM from Newegg.com for $54.00/free shipping. Could I afford to do it? Nope. But, it's something I've needed to do for a while, and it'll help speed up my workflow considerably. So, I reckon it's an investment. Gawd, I hate photography. -- Walt -- 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: Photo Annual 2011 - your thoughts
Thanks, Larry. I'll have to keep an eye out in the future for deals on hard drives, for sure. Storage is getting unbelievably cheap. The enclosure I got -- which I believe is adaptable to SATA and SCSI drives -- supports up to 3TB. So, I should be good to go with it for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't mind having a Flickr Pro account, but I have a relatively slow internet connection, and the thought of uploading a significant number of full-sized jpgs. with it leaves me less than thrilled. I have FTP access to practically unlimited server space, though, so that's probably my best option as far as remote storage goes. As for the size of the files -- they're fairly small. My tendency was to re-size down to 1600 long-side as a fairly manageable file size for uploading, working with my limited computer resources, and a reasonable compromise for prints. I should be in much better shape for next year's album here in a couple of weeks, though. Thanks again for the info! -- Walt On 2/19/2011 5:18 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Every so often Fry's will have SATA drives for about $50/TB, you can buy an adapter that converts a SATA drive to a USB drive for about $20, so for $120 you get 2TB of external storage, and when you need more, you can buy another SATA drive when the price has dropped to $25/TB. On Feb 19, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: I really would love to submit something this year, but all the shots I've taken that I feel might be worthy of submission have been resized down without preserving the orginals -- in order to save limited hard drive space. :-\ It wasn't the smartest thing to do, obviously, but I didn't have a whole lot of choice at the time. For about $20/year you can get a pro flickr membership and get offsite storage for all the full size jpegs that you want. I hope to have something worthy of submission in time for next year's edition. But, I'll just have to chalk this year up to learning experience. How badly downsized? You could try sending Mark your three best and see what, if anything, he can do with them. -- Walt On 2/18/2011 11:04 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Work continues apace on the 2011 book (and I'm bracing myself for the inevitable last-week rush of submissions soon to come). -- 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. -- 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: Now there is a second photo of me out there
Well, at least it wasn't rosbif. -- Walt On 2/19/2011 5:20 PM, Cotty wrote: On 19/2/11, Paul Sorenson, discombobulated, unleashed: And...as a subscriber, I get this - This content is currently unavailable. The page you requested cannot be displayed right now. It may be temporarily unavailable, the link you clicked on may have expired, or you may not have permission to view this page. I get: Sod off you bloody limey. I mean, what an insult. It should be 'Limey'. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Galia and Boris PESO #4 - Almonds are blooming
How beautiful! I've never seen almond blossoms before. Great work -- both of you! -- Walt On 2/19/2011 11:27 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! The spring has come. Today we had first really warm day (like in +27C) and so we went for a walk and we took pictures /grin/... http://pentax-ways.blogspot.com/2011/02/peso-2011-04-almonds-are-blooming.html Have your brutal and honest say. Boris P.S. Specifically, the shot that I made - I wonder if the OOF rendering is pleasant. I did not do anything except tonal manipulation and so I wonder if my choice of aperture/focal length was right. P.P.S. I think Galia did great. Again. -- 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.
