> I cannot understand why this happens:
>
> 3 x 2.057 = .943 difference
> 4 x 2.742 = 1.258 difference
> 5 x 3.428 = 1.572 difference
> 6 x 4.113 = 1.887 difference
> 7 x 4.799 = 2.201 difference
> 8 x 5.484 = 2.516 difference
> 9 x 6.17 = 2.830 difference
> 10 x 6.855 = 3.145 difference
> 11 x
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: EOS Photo size weirdness (was 8 x 12 photo paper)
>
>
>
> At 10:26 AM 3/24/2004, you wrote:
> >In other
> >words, if a photo is sized at a height of
- Original Message -
From: "Lars Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: EOS Photo size weirdness (was 8 x 12 photo paper)
> > > >3 x 2.057 = .943 difference
> > > >4 x 2.742 = 1.258 difference
> > > >5 x 3.428 = 1.572 di
Not an answer to your question, just one of my own. I was told, when I
wanted to get a 380EX for my D30, that it wouldn't work, only the 420
and
550 EX flashes would work, fully, on the Canon EOS digitals. Do you
have
any issues with your 380 and your 10D?
None I've found, from shooting and rea
At 10:26 AM 3/24/2004, you wrote:
In other
words, if a photo is sized at a height of 6 inches, and the width comes out
to 4 inches (rounding numbers)... that is a difference of 2 inches. So why
does not a photo sized at 20 inches height have a width of 18 inches, (two
inch difference), instead o
> > >3 x 2.057 = .943 difference
> > >4 x 2.742 = 1.258 difference
> > >5 x 3.428 = 1.572 difference
> > >6 x 4.113 = 1.887 difference
> > >7 x 4.799 = 2.201 difference
> > >8 x 5.484 = 2.516 difference
> > >9 x 6.17 = 2.830 difference
> > >10 x 6.855 = 3.145 difference
> > >11 x 7.541 = 3.459 di
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Parrott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: EOS Photo size weirdness (was 8 x 12 photo paper)
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Henning Wulff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTEC
- Original Message -
From: "Henning Wulff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: EOS Photo size weirdness (was 8 x 12 photo paper)
> At 10:35 AM -0600 3/24/04, Steve Parrott wrote:
> >I'm hoping someone can clue me in on what ha
At 10:35 AM -0600 3/24/04, Steve Parrott wrote:
I'm hoping someone can clue me in on what happens to photo ratio sizes as
you increase photo size. This has always puzzled me. WHY does the width /
height ratio change instead of remaining the same regardless of size?
Here are examples of what I mean
I'll go back to my original recommendation (before I set everyone off
with the 8x10 recommendation).
Art supply and hobby shops used to have rolls of tape that were very
fine 1/16" (1.5mm) wide. They were used for pin striping car models and
other things. I think they'd be useful, but they w
I'm hoping someone can clue me in on what happens to photo ratio sizes as
you increase photo size. This has always puzzled me. WHY does the width /
height ratio change instead of remaining the same regardless of size?
Here are examples of what I mean. These are the exact size numbers that come
up
Malcolm Stewart wrote:
Hi Peter,
I wondered how long you'd stay on the list with all the unwanted(?) and
unwarranted advice about paper size economics etc!
I've put markings on a microscope slide cover slip (clear glass, 0.17mm
thick,
19mm diam.). I used a diamond tipped marker (designed for
Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
> ANyone want to answer the original post?
Well, if you insist...
I engraved a screen using a needle from a pair of compasses in a handle. You
have to be very careful to apply only a small and constant amount of
pressure. BTW, I wore latex examination gloves to
Group,
The results or methodology are not on the web, but here's a link to the
article abstract...
http://www.colorfoto.de/d/37324
By paying a small fee you can download the article, too.
Regards, Jarkko
*
***
***
* For list inst
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Big Mike
>> I'm probably expecting too much or just have no idea what I'm
>> doing. Well, I
>> admit I don't really know what I'm doing but ...
>>
>> I've got two 550EX flash units that I would like to use as
>>[...]
>> shoe adapter
>>and when one flash fires
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Cotty
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: EOS Do I Really Need IS ?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I run a D60 and will be buying an EF 70-200 2.8 soon to replace my Smegma
> 70-200 2.
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 Jarkko Laukkanen wrote:
> Group,
>
> Have you read any of the new ColorFoto
> digital photo quality lens tests?
>
> Looks very interesting, although they found
> some notable surprises, too. The highly
> honored EF 200/2.8 L II was found to be
> far below being "a quality len
Jarkko Laukkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>Group,
>
>Have you read any of the new ColorFoto digital photo quality lens tests?
>
>Looks very interesting, although they found some notable surprises, too. The
>highly honored EF 200/2.8 L II was found to be far below being "a quality
>len
- Original Message -
>From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:29 AM
>Subject: Anyone ever made lines on a EOS screen?
>
>ANyone want to answer the original post?
Hi Peter,
I wondered how long you'd stay on the
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi,
>
> I'm getting spam sent to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Anyone else?
yep WallStreet or something like that
All the time, but only from this list. :-(
/henrik
*
***
**
I would suggest you check out Konica's paper. It is insanely good.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mr. Bill
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 5:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: EOS 8 x 12 photo paper
[snip]
Also does anyone join me in
21 matches
Mail list logo
