Argh!
Not mine, it came to me, my precious
DagT
Fra: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's put Cotty down for an A 85mm f1.4, bastardized to fit
a Canon DSLR...
Cotty wrote:
FA* 85mm f/1.4 for me. I love it! Most of the stuff I shoot are
portraits. Formal or informal,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's the deal, even though I shelled out $25 for the screwmount adaptor,
I don't often use the old screwmounts on the 5n. They are from a different
era. They really work well with the Spotmatic body. They work ok with the
5n, but they don't belong there. They
Did the list have a flame-out?
Will lenses such as the Pentax 80-320mm (which according to reports I
have read is slightly soft at the 200-320mm range) be improved with the
advent of the forthcoming Pentax digital SLR?
Digital cameras in general allow you to alter the sharpness, contrast
and saturation settings, and numerous
You did!? I'm sorry, I haven't noticed. It was hardly any news for
anyone.
Servus, Alin
Anthony wrote:
AF You can mock, but it's true. An example, within the last day I speculated
AF about a technological possibility, and it was clearly presented as
AF speculation. Within hours
No.
The dSLR's are more sensitiv to lens quality than film based kameras. Partially, of
course, because of the small sensor chips, as an unsharp photo will have to be blown
more up to obtain the same picture size. Of course it may be fixed to some degree
with USM, but there is a limit before
Thanks Matt
(I sold that 35mm lens to a guy, who never paid me... And I want it back -
even if I have to pay for it). I remember paying 270$ for it (new) in 1981.
Jens
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Matt Bevers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 9. juli 2003 22:28
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any of you guys playing?
I have an amusing mail that I can share with you off list. Entitled Bad Beat
City.
Cheers
Peter
Harold, the 80-320 at the long end is not much better in the center
than at the corners, and it doesn't improve a lot by stopping down
either. I think it's a nice lens just by this consistency of image
quality. However, I don't think that above 200 mm it'll fit the
sharpness
In a message dated 09/07/03 21:15:10 GMT Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To give those who may not be familiar with the glories of
civilisation, here is an illustration of the part Pimms plays in
English life: A couple of weeks ago I spent an evening watching the
sun go down behind
Bill wrote:
WR However, even though the camera feels like shit compared to the lens, I find
WR that sometimes I am using a K lens combined with the MZ-5, and am glad that
WR I can.
You get spot meter, focus trap coupled with excellent proven
optics. There is nothing wrong in pairing new with
Yes, I know it's not Friday.
Just in:
LX FA1, with LX dial Data. It has sticky mirror, slightly. Obvious signs of
use. With strap fasteners. Version 2. Prism very clean.
Since I don't have a spare back, if you want the LX Dial Data only, you will
have to supply a back in the deal.
As is the
Lon Williamson asked:
So that rewind lever is sweet, eh? I can always spot a Spottie
(so to speak) by that metal lever. Better than the K body levers?
Uh, the film advance lever. Yah. They got the curve just
right (at least for my hands), so you'd think it was designed
by Swedish ergonomics
Lon Williamson asked:
What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where
everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax
equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and
you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would
you take with you? You get only one.
I, personally, would take an
Hi, Michael!
Welcome on board.
[...]
Am I on the right track here? Please
tell me if I've gone astray anywhere here.
I haven't followed the discussion on this issue very
closely, but FWIW, I think your argument seem reasonable.
One thought occurred to me as I read; that if screwmount
lenses
Around midsummer last year there was a thread called your boat
that might rival the record.
(which of course can't stay forever, or what? :-))
Cheere:s
Jostein
-- Original Message --
From: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:
Even though it is a chunk of glass, the SMC-K 50mm f/1.2 balances really
well on the LX. I have never been disappointed with this lens; even when
shooting close to wide open. I also really like the great color rendition
and excellent bokeh. Not to mention how bright it is with a SC-69
A few of you have mentioned recently that you
belong to or once belonged to camera clubs.
What's it like?
Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SNIP praise for the MX
In the late 60's I came up with what I would
call my ideal camera. The MX when it came out was virtually that dream
camera, there are only a couple of things
I like this game, Devil's Advocate:
ok. Let's say I _have_ my tripod set up and you do not.
It's been 30 seconds since you've focused. The rare Phoenix Bird
(now that's _rare_) alights in a tree, staying for three seconds.
I get a shot. You'll be lucky to with the Canon.
Scott D wrote:
To play
jerome [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's put Cotty down for an A 85mm f1.4,
bastardized to fit a Canon DSLR...
which one? Cotty... or the lens? g
Wow Jerome! That one was worthy of Cotty himself!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
The M35/2 shows up on ebay occasionally, the M28/2 also (a fine lens, too).
There is an A35/2 and an A28/2 (truly rare).
You might also like the A20/2.8.
For wide and fast, consider the FA*24/2.0 - works very well as a manual
focus lens even though it's AF.
I meant film advance. Yet another senior moment.
I hear K bodies share many parts with Spotties. Overall
build quality must be about the same then?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lon Williamson asked:
So that rewind lever is sweet, eh? I can always spot a Spottie
(so to speak) by that metal lever.
Mark Roberts wrote:
[...]
The MX rocks! I love using it. Small and tough, it was also considered
light when it was first introduced, but comparing it to one of today's
plastic wonders makes that assertion laughable! I usually pack the MX
when taking a trip by bicycle or motorcycle...and
Sure didn't! Not here!
A ton of messages this morning.
keith whaley
Anthony Farr wrote:
Did the list have a flame-out?
Groovy looking kit!
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
Add a 43mm Limited and you've got a killer kit
http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/images/mx-43.jpg
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A few of you have mentioned recently that you
belong to or once belonged to camera clubs.
What's it like?
Lon, your question is too broadg.
Camera clubs are all over the place in their procedures, goals, and
activities. Our club meets twice each month,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] adds:
The M35/2 shows up on ebay occasionally, the M28/2 also (a fine lens,
too).
There is an A35/2 and an A28/2 (truly rare).
You might also like the A20/2.8.
For wide and fast, consider the FA*24/2.0 - works very well as a manual
focus lens even though it's AF.
As I wrote I switched
from Pimms to a Mexican beer (Tecate if you must know) and you can
blame any
errors on either or the combination of the two.
Modela Negra (sp?) is my favorite, but I've had some trouble getting it
in VA. Isn't it nice to know I read your thoughtful analysis and my
brain lit
Hi all,
I've read a lot of the posts over the last few days and deleted a lot
more and have come to a few conclusions:
1. The *ist-D is the digital equivalent of the MX.
The Australian Distributor of Pentax (http://www.crkennedy.com.au ) lists
four major features of the *ist-D, and one of
I forgot to mention that about a dozen of us shoot black and white at least
part of the time.
Ed
_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
1. Ruggedized, especially the film advance, and the meter circuits (proven
weak points).
2. Better sealing, actually a lot better sealing.
3. Adjustable viewfinder diopter, this is an add on due to age (mine).
That would make it perfect from my point of view, but I notice that many
folks would
Oh yes, let me add one more thing, a centralized tripod socket on the
winder and motordrive.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the MX is a jewel of a camera too. At one point I had 4; now
Damn this list. I spend so much time reading it, I'm now dreaming about
it. Somehow Pimms worked its way into my dream last night. I dreamt that
Pimms was nothing more than a brand of shoestring potatoes.
Scott from Texas who has never heard of Pimms until now.
Steve Desjardins wrote:
As I
Let's say you don't have the tripod set up. You are wandering through
the woods and see a deer very close to you in some low light. The camera
hangs from your neck with a tele prime on it. There is no way to account
for the low light and get a good pic without risking shake. There is no
way to
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Lon Williamson wrote:
What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where
everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax
equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and
you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would
you take with you? You get only one.
645
At 11:27 AM 7/9/2003 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have had 2 samples of these lens, which is the
only zoom lens I have at the moment, they couldn't
be both bad I suppose, but I always find them
lacking the snap of my prime lenses.
I have a 28-105 f4 - 5.6 as well. I used it last spring as my
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Gasha wrote:
What is the best way to scan these negs? I can use some kind of flatbed
scanner with transparency adapter. HP ?? Epson ??
I had a Umax Astra 4450, a flatbed scanner with a light up lid. You had to
lay the negs onto the glass, which lead to newton rings. It also
I belong to a stereo photography club. Most the members use old Realist or
Kodak stereo cameras. There are monthly competitions. We exhibit around
the area (Portland, OR) to show people another aspect of photography. The
club will exhibit at the Oregon State Fair in late August.
Jim A.
I have used the Epson 1640 SU Photo under Mac OSX 10.2 with USB and Twain 5 for
scanning 6x6 slides, and had no such problems. It worked great, at least for web
publishing.
I do remember I had some problems the first time convincing the scanner to skip the
all automatic scanning. I've
Fra: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A few of you have mentioned recently that you
belong to or once belonged to camera clubs.
What's it like?
It may be anything from extremely frustrating with very rigid views on anything
related to photography, like exposure and composition, to
From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Cheerleading Part Deaux
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:58:33 -0400
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:17:56 -0500, Len Paris wrote:
FA* 85mm f/1.4 for me. I love it! Most of the stuff I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why someone would buy a picture of
their horses butt i'll never
knowg
According to half the spam I get, there's seems to be a market for it.
tv
ROTFLMAO
Good one Tom.
We both went shooting, and you're all setup, with an IS lens on the
tripod, and you can quickly detach it to use it handheld if you want.
I'm still in the SUV, looking for the PS that I left in the glove box.
While you're looking through the viewfinder, a grizzly bear comes and
taps you on the
Anyone that has seen some statistics on the
viewing media for images
taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
images viewed:
a) on computer monitors
b) as home made inkjet prints
c) as lab prints
cheers,
caveman
I have found for me, that the Epson Twain driver makes it's own
decision as to what the full frame should be. Usually not quite where
I would crop. I have since quit using and just use the Silverfast
software supplied with the unit.
Bruce
Wednesday, July 9, 2003, 8:17:46 PM, you wrote:
While there, anybody knows if the N*k*n blimp case would fit an LX
(or an MX with motor)?
Andre. Since CS15 was designed for F3 + MD4, yes it would accept either. The
MX might be a little lost in there. The only problem I can think of is that
there is a little flap on the back which lifts
The grizzly's wife, with your PS? :-)
Alex Sarbu
- Original Message -
From: Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:56 PM
Subject: Hypothetical scenarios (Re: On cheerleading)
We both went shooting, and you're all setup, with an IS lens on the
Nothing like our organization, but I have judged for a couple of clubs like
you describe.
Ed
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Camera Clubs - worrth it?
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:21:21 EDT
Only in my experience;
a little like this list,
Hi, David,
Welcome aboard!
Go here and follow instructions to unsub from the mail list, and subscribe to
the digest:
http://www.pdml.net/dbrewer/p2.html
cheers,
frank
David M Collins wrote:
Can someone give me directions to subscribing to list in digest format?
snip.
--
I don't believe
Caveman asks and [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes my speculations in brackets :
Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images
taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
images viewed:
a) on computer monitors
b) as home made inkjet prints
c)
The grizzly.
--- Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We both went shooting, and you're all setup, with an
IS lens on the
tripod, and you can quickly detach it to use it
handheld if you want.
I'm still in the SUV, looking for the PS that I
left in the glove box.
While you're looking
MZ-S with FA 50 1.4. Oddly, 2nd place would the 20-35 f4.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The correct answer was:
The forensic photographer.
cheers,
caveman
Michael Bergstrom wrote:
The grizzly.
Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images
taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
images viewed:
a) on computer monitors
b) as home made inkjet prints
c) as lab prints
cheers,
caveman
No idea. I'll ask my friends who use digital (not a
Or try THIS one:
I'm shooting vintage Pentax equipment, and you've got EOS everything.
The girls are climbing all over me because MY stuff is so classic.
(Yeah, right.)
A bear comes out of the woods.
Who cares who gets the shot?
Caveman wrote:
We both went shooting, and you're all setup,
Lately, it would be 77/1.8 Ltd. Very good in low light, excellent at F4
and higher. I love the look of the photographs it produces.
Before, it was 24/2.
Matjaz
i think the number of people who print from a digital camera is a lot less than 10% of
the images. i would think that 1% is a high number, and most of that small fraction
would be on inkjet printers.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images
taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
images viewed:
a) on computer monitors
b) as home made inkjet prints
c) as lab prints
cheers,
caveman
In fact, it would be kind of fun to do an unofficial
Some 50mm macro.
Thanks, Cotty .
I'm off to get some now. Didn't make it yesterday... g
keith
Cotty wrote:
Ya know, Cotty, in all the times I've visited the UK, I've never had a Pimms!
I guess it's because I thought it was a soft drink, and for me soft
drinks are last choice for social drinking.
Does it
If I had any primes which I don't, a 100mm macro.
Which I am thinking of getting and pairing to a MX. Since Macro seems to work
better manual focus anyway. Well, serious, macro.
Marnie aka Doe :-) My macro stuff has been fairly frivolous so far.
The MX wasn't a pro body
Actually the MX was marketed as a professional system back in the 70's
although I think the MX was not built tough enough to qualify.
The economics of chip production at present dictate that a larger sensor is
a more expensive sensor, regardless of pixel count.
The price
But that is one lens, in particular, where there seems to be a lot of
sample variation.
So to Pentax every lens that I have come accross since last October...
regards,
Alan Chan
_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months
2. A small body will need small lenses (a new
M-series).
If Pentax is prepared to produce k-mount lenses
with a reduced
image circle
(FA-D anyone?) then there shouldn't be a reason
why they can't be
just as
light as the Olydak lenses. Would I buy a lens
that I can only use
on a
small
While I hope that a few people have decided to become MX/SMC
user/collectors, it's more likely that someone thinks they can sell it all
for more money than they paid, probably on eBay...
- THaller
I think that could be, and I also think it's quite possible as more and more
people get into
Marnie aka Doe :-) My macro stuff has been fairly frivolous so far.
Enjoy photography frivolity, but never admit it g.
Ed
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
Not for news bureau use maybe, but for studio/location work it was fine
(this not a guess, but actual experience).
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 2:04 PM
Would you like me to try to find a #33919 LX blimp case when I in Japan?
Yikes! The old retail of these was over $200!
If it isn't expensive, it isn't professional. :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail
Well, I know the MX preceded the LX (were they ever marketed concurrently?
I don't think so, and I'm too lazy to look), but the MX would have made a
great all-mechanical back up to the LX for a PJ or someone in the field.
Much as it was claimed that many who used whatever big Nikon F was current,
What I meant was the top bottm plates were made to thin and prone to
impact damage. The FA-1 top has similar problem. Canon F-1 or Nikon
F/F2/F3/FM/FM2 do not suffer the same.
regards,
Alan Chan
Well, I know the MX preceded the LX (were they ever marketed concurrently?
I don't think so, and
The local lab I've been patronising for the last year
hsa been very satisfactory, but I'm curious about one
thing. I had sporadically used C-41 black and white
film, mainly for the cost effectiveness of being able
to have it processed and printed anywhere. After I
settled on my current lab
Hi!
I suppose it would be acceptable if I drew your attention away from
recent flame wars and insult exchanges.
Having to use my manual focus lenses on ZX-L and having to mount my
SMC FA 50/1.7 on my ME Super keeps my mind working around the focus
issue.
Once upon a time, I read somewhere on
Yes, they were both sold for a few years (3-4), though I don't know if the
MX was actually still being manufactured after the LX came out.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Hi, Michael,
For what it's worth, the custom lab that does my bw here in Toronto
charges the same amount to process c41 as it does traditional bw - $6
Cdn per roll for negs only. I never asked him why that would be, I just
took it at face value, and I bring my C41 to a good minilab at a local
Just curious if anyone has this enlager or used it at one
time.I have a
concern about the condenser.
I was checking the enlarger out this weekend to make sure all the pieces are still
intact
etc.
when i started to play with the
Yeah, they are messing with you. Should cost the same
as C-41 color: it does at my lab.
Michael Bergstrom wrote:
The local lab I've been patronising for the last year
hsa been very satisfactory, but I'm curious about one
thing. I had sporadically used C-41 black and white
film, mainly for the
These might help understanding:
http://www-isl.stanford.edu/~abbas/group/papers_and_pub/2002_JOSAA_OE.pdf
http://wwwhk.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/digital/ccd/papersArticles/PhotographyWithAn11-megapixel35mmFormatCCD.pdf
Mark Roberts wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from what I have
And sip some Pimms. [I like mine unmixed, over a couple
of ice cubes, thank you very much.]
Your a hard man, Halpin!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Hi Michael;
It is possible that they are either using a monochrome C-41 paper or are
printing on conventional BW paper. I would compare the back of a C-41 BW
print to one of their color prints. If the logo (if any) and the
backprinting are the same then it is almost certain that they're printing
Hi,
Thursday, July 10, 2003, 9:58:44 PM, you wrote:
I always thought that one needs the absolute top tech to get those wildlife
shots. IS, USM, whatever. Then I realised that I hadn't really tried to
stalk animals. So this spring and summer I have been doing my first attempts
at real species
Finger trouble, please ignore this thread completely.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Let's put Cotty down for an A 85mm f1.4,
bastardized to fit a Canon DSLR...
which one? Cotty... or the lens? g
Wow Jerome! That one was worthy of Cotty himself!
I hereby deputize Jerome to crack the *occasional* quip in my esteemed
absence ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) |
Jostein,
Thank you for the welcome!
One thought occurred to me as I read; that if
screwmount
lenses gives right exposure because of lacking the
aperture
coupler, why not just clip it off the M- and K-
lenses to
make it work?
I thought of that too. I can imagine the headlines:
New
please ignore this thread completely.
Nope! Can't do, sorry. It was just too damn hilarious!!
ROTFL.
Nice shot, Jostein!
Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis put on longer lenses,
autofocus, etc. The technological solution is only part of the equation -
you'll get better shots by getting close simply because you are not
shooting through so much air, with the attendant effects
Not, necessarily. My lab will print the c-41 negs on BW paper (it
looks better) rather than color paper. That does cost just a bit
more. So they could be somewhat justified charging more.
Bruce
Thursday, July 10, 2003, 12:28:05 PM, you wrote:
LW Yeah, they are messing with you. Should
Once upon a time, I read somewhere on the net (probably the huge third
party lenses site) that modern AF systems are optimized for 50 lp/mm.
Hence, on that site they would conclude that if you have a fine lens,
AF would take away most of its qualities by lousy focusing. I thought
of it, and it
And, once again, I sort of misspoke. I understand
your comment about the inexact nature of the
mechanical aperture control. My real point on this is
that it makes little sense to disown certain pieces of
old technology now when eventually you must disown the
whole lot for the same ultimate
Well, here's my problem with autofocus:
http://www.pbase.com/image/18233117
Jeff took it with his Canon digital Elph (actually, quite a nice camera). The
first thing I noticed when I saw the photo, is that the camera bodies and such,
are fuzzy. What's in focus is the strap of my lovely little
Very busy day today out and about. Ken (the reporter) and I had a work
experience girl along for the ride called Nafita and here she is.
Goodness knows how she kept that lot on her shoulder for the few minutes
it took me to grab the stills camera, she's only five feet nothing and
the camera weighs
At least with manual focus you decide what to focus on. But you have heard
this argument from me before. Automation your can not control is worse than
no automation at all.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harold, the 80-320 at the long end is not much better in the center
than at the corners, and it doesn't improve a lot by stopping down
either. I think it's a nice lens just by this consistency of image
quality. However, I don't think that above 200 mm it'll fit the
sharpness
I think the only one of the scenarios you mentioned that really works
is edge sharpness improvements with small frame sensors.
Otherwise digital is very brutal about showing lens flaws.
When the Canon 1DS came out, lenses that seemed perfectly fine for
35mm all of a sudden sucked.
tv
Wot? It's stuck in the bottle, is it?
keith
Cotty wrote:
Finger trouble, please ignore this thread completely.
Cheers,
Cotty
I have been warned by some dSLR enthusiasts (among them the guy mentioned
here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0307/03070801nikkor1224review.asp)
that some of my lenses, especially zoom lenses, may not be good enough
to use on a digital SLR, even if they are quite good with my current
cameras.
On 10 Jul 2003 at 11:04, tom wrote:
I think the only one of the scenarios you mentioned that really works
is edge sharpness improvements with small frame sensors.
Otherwise digital is very brutal about showing lens flaws.
When the Canon 1DS came out, lenses that seemed perfectly fine for
Yeah, but we're just a couple of crusty old farts, Tom! vbg
-frank
T Rittenhouse wrote:
At least with manual focus you decide what to focus on. But you have heard
this argument from me before. Automation your can not control is worse than
no automation at all.
--
I don't believe in God,
She tagged along with you today?
You live a tough life, Cotty! vbg
cheers,
frank
Cotty wrote:
Very busy day today out and about. Ken (the reporter) and I had a work
experience girl along for the ride called Nafita and here she is.
Goodness knows how she kept that lot on her shoulder for
- Original Message -
From: Caveman
Subject: OT: Digital question
Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images
taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
images viewed:
a) on computer monitors
b) as home made inkjet prints
c) as lab
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
