I like this version better, and I also notice some litter was removed as well.
On Monday 25 October 2004 05:06, William Robb wrote:
FJW>
FJW> - Original Message -
FJW> From: "Shel Belinkoff"
FJW> Subject: Re: PAW PESO - Girl on Bike
FJW>
FJW>
FJW> >I put up a second version. Curious t
Hej Jens,
that seems to be a problem of local dealers here, too - they are expensive
and clueless.
When I wanted to buy the *istD the local dealer wanted the list price of
1599,- Euros (or was it 1799,-? not sure), while a recommended online-shop
sold it to me for 1200,- Euros.
And when I asked
True, Sam.
I buy all new stuff in Germany - through the internet. VAT is only 17% - in
Denmark 25%. I do not have to pay Danish VAT because of EU-rules. I feel bad
about NOT supporting Danish deales, though. But the *ist D cost 30-60% more
in Denmark compared to Germany. So, I didn't feel I really
Well, for some the lenses don't eat up cash - they just buy a 28-300 Sigma
for 100,- Euros and maybe a wider zoom and are done with it.
For me I agree, I only own the *istD for a few months and already spent
three times the price on lenses - and I only just startet (DA14 will be the
next for su
Speaking of cost of an autofocus F 2.8 - f 70-200mm lens:
Pentax: SMC-FA ED IF 80-200 mm 2.8 (NO IS): 1800-1900 Euros
Sigma: 70-200mm F/2,8 APO EX (No IS) : 760-1000 Euros
Tokina AT-X 828 AF Pro (f=70-200mm F=2.8): 670 Euros
Carl Zeiss Contax Vario Sonnar 80-200mm F4 (non
Well, you always could take a long drive and buy the stuff in germany, not?
Or would there be a problem with taxes then?
Sam (Flensborg)
Not, bad. But after all, it's a 1000 USD lens!
In Denmark the list price is 1800 USD, in Germany it can be found for less
than 800 Euros (1000USD).
I guess it
frank theriault wrote:
> I'm glad that St. Louis got in, too. Larry Walker, good Canadian Boy
> and all. It'd be nice to see him win.
>
> I don't know who to cheer for, so I'll just cheer for good baseball,
> like we saw in the Championship Series - that's some of the best
> baseball I've seen i
Steve Desjardins wrote:
> Didn't know you were one of the faithful, Ann. Don't you live in NY?
>
> The WS oughta be fun. . .
>
It is fun! Hey, I'm from Chicago originally where I was a Cubs fan -
In the east I have been a MEts and Phillies fan in the past but the
main thing is to root against t
Beat that:
http://tinyurl.com/odu5
On 25 Oct 2004 at 17:32, David Mann wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2004, at 3:47 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> > LOL, mine currently comes down to the middle of my back ;-P
>
> Mine used to be about that long but I had it cut short a couple of
> years ago. I found it rather annoying when using a waist-leve
On Oct 25, 2004, at 3:47 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
LOL, mine currently comes down to the middle of my back ;-P
Mine used to be about that long but I had it cut short a couple of
years ago. I found it rather annoying when using a waist-level finder
and a wide-angle lens while the wind was blowing.
Hi!
Paul, I've never lived in the country where these cars were common. So
my opinion is not regular with that respect.
I like more the first shot because of the color. But I like the second
shot way more because of the license plate. To me, the second shot
really wins, though I'd like to see jus
Hi!
ft> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2782878
ft> Here's one I'm not sure of (for obvious reasons) I won't say anything
ft> more, but I'd be real interested to hear what y'all think.
Frank, I am sorry I am _very late_ for this one, but here are my
pixels.
For me, it just does not
Shoot Tri-X @ 100 and @ 200 and process accordingly.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: D. Glenn Arthur Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (Actually I wish I had a 100 BW that looked mostly like Tri-X.
What, did my documentary/artistic comments confuse you??
By documentary I meant something like dental photos or
autopsy photos. They need to be good technically but they arent
exactly artisitic to say the least.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Su
Shel observed:
> To "closely emulate" is not the same as ... the same ;-))
Or to put it another way:
"The difference between theory and practice is
very small, in theory.
The difference between theory and practice is
often large, in practice."
http://www3.sympatico.ca/vdonisa/hw3.html
;-)
Graywolf wrote:
> Well if your aperture is limited to f5.6 or smaller as with most consumer
> zooms, faster film is often better.
*nod* I load up fast film in daytime for slow lenses, or for long
lenses hand-held. But (probably obviously) those aren't the only
lenses I use.
> Given my choice
On 24 Oct 2004 at 22:38, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I comment on photos when appropriate such as when people
> ask for them, it doesn't happen as often here as the tech talk
> ( now with scanners and digital the tech is dominating for sure)
> but the tech and the art are not separate items, if you d
On 24 Oct 2004 at 21:56, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> They don't need to be accurate as long as they are consistant.
> IF the 1/1000 is actually 1/700 so what as long as you know
> what it is ( This is why I bought a $99 digital shutter timer).
> 1/700 is much better speed than 1/250 if you need spee
- Original Message -
From: "Ann Sanfedele"
Subject: Re: B&W developers and Tri-x ??
Haven't read the other posts on this -
Consider yourself lucky..
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: PAW PESO - Girl on Bike
I put up a second version. Curious to know if you think it looks
better.
I do like the second one, I think the extra punch suits the image.
It's a good picture, Shel.
William Robb
You cant be serious 125 years of continous product
development has made today's 2004 films/processes better in just
about every parameter you can imagine and much
faster film speed to boot. I bet todays best 400 color neg films
smokes the 100 speeds of the 60's let alone match it and
that is o
There's much to be said for shooting on overcast days, something
that's easy to do in San Francisco during the summer. Thanks for the nice
thought ;-))
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I enjoy the comfort this image emits. A nice collage
> of gray values.
John,
People are posting PAW and PESO photos daily, asking for comments,
suggestions, and criticism. Have you participated? Don't recall seeing
many, if any, posts from you.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I comment on photos when appropriate such as
I comment on photos when appropriate such as when people
ask for them, it doesn't happen as often here as the tech talk
( now with scanners and digital the tech is dominating for sure)
but the tech and the art are not separate items, if you do
not know the tech you cant create the art. Hell if you
A friend of mine built a robot out of Lego Mindstorms specifically to
do this sort of panorama.
Would trip the shutter, rotate x degrees, trip shutter, lather rinse repeat.
I'll have to see if I can dig up some of the Quicktime VR movies he made with it
(he did a full spherical panorama at one poi
no Kodak didn't state the grain was too similar, they stated the
overall performance of the film was too similar. You are being
very arrogant when you think you know more than the professional
engineers
at Kodak. I am not saying Kodak is god or anything or that big
companies don't make mistakes (re
I put up a second version. Curious to know if you think it looks better.
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/gobduo-t.html
There's a link at the bottom of the pic that allows switching between the
two versions for comparison.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Why do you continue to twist what I said around? I never said faster is
ALWAYS better.
I said in this case MOST and I stand by it. I know from years of
experience
of actually taking pictures that I could have benefitted from MORE film
speed way more
often than than the need for less. I would be a m
you can't be serious. last time i were there, they were on pretty much every
block. with sugar, with chocolate, with "greek salad" (which had very
little to do
with greek salad if you ask me)... not sure about cafes though -- i guess it's a
street food.
mishka
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:53:58 -0400
I think what kodak calls "performance" means overall accuracy when it
comes to film. That is not to say that accurate is always better
sometimes
if you want a certain effect then inaccurate is better, i.e. like a soft
focus
lens for a portrait vs. a razor sharp one. A grainy film vs. a grain
free f
The curse is not over until they win the World Series.
Sent via the KillerWebMail system at stanleypmlaw.com
Unfortunately, that is not the case.
-- Original Message --
From: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:16:41 +0100
>Hi,
>
>Sunday, October 24, 2004, 3:27:47 AM, Daniel wrote:
>
>
>> When I was in Paris, most of the
Wrong. Mickey D sells hamburgers, chicken, even fish and salads,
but not ham and cheese. That is french cafe fare.
-- Original Message --
From: Michel_Carr�re-G�e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:03:42 +0200
No. I love crepes, but they were difficult to find. The special
in most of the cafes was ham and cheese, grilled or otherwise.
-- Original Message --
From: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:31:17 -0400
>not
The candles are distracting.
;-)
They don't need to be accurate as long as they are consistant.
IF the 1/1000 is actually 1/700 so what as long as you know
what it is ( This is why I bought a $99 digital shutter timer).
1/700 is much better speed than 1/250 if you need speed.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [m
I agree, a wonderful shot, and illustrates FAR better than I could
what I like about PlusX and TriX.
I've always got rolls of both kicking around in the fridge, right now
in both 35mm and 120 format.
-Mat
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:28:24 -0500, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A beautiful
No, your super rare IS super rare. What I said
was the only time the slow film would be an
advantage is if you wanted to use wide apertures
on bright sunny days and shooting into lights.
all other situations could be handled with
ND fitlter that you are just too lazy to use. And
now a days almost e
William Robb mused:
>
>
>
>
> > On 24 Oct 2004 at 19:50, Dario Bonazza wrote:
> >
> >> I understand that focal length and shutter speed were not so
> >> obvious.
> >> The funny thing is that apparently nobody among those who usually
> >> say the
> >> *istD to be tack sharp (most *istD users o
I've picked up a few rolls of Acros 100 in 120 format to try in
my Ricohflex TLR.
After searching Google I think I'm going to rate it at EI:64,
develop in Rodinal 1:50 for 8:30 minutes at 68F.
Does anyone have any better suggestions for Acros in Rodinal ??
Thanks.
--
Shel,
I enjoy the comfort this image emits. A nice collage
of gray values.
Appears it was one of those giant soft box days.
Jack
--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Paul ... I'll wait until this evening when
> the computer room is
> darker to see how this pic compares with s
> As for the shots of Garth, I think they are very good people
> shots. I have done a fair amount of work with actors,
> models, and musicians and most agents want a comp card to
> have one fairly tight headshot with a white, or otherwise
> blank background, and a few shots of the actor/model
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'll be going to our Annual General Meeting for our equine zone this
> afternoon,and it just so
> happens its not very far from a camera store,and i need supplies.
>
> I need more film developer,not enough of the Tmax to do two rolls, and i thought i
> might
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:42:11 -0400, cbwaters wrote:
> CW
> was thinking today in the shower that he hasn't shot any motorsports in
> about a year :(
The ARRC is in two weeks at Road Atlanta, come on out. Scott and I
will be working corners for that one.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:20:02 -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Which do you prefer. (I'm really hoping to get some
> feedback here. In other words: Help!!)
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2816809
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2816802
Paul, I prefer '802, but that's
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:43:37 +0200, Jens Bladt wrote:
> It's probably the FA 100-300mm, that everybody says is quite a dog!?
I don't know about the FA, but I've not been pleased with the F
100-300/4.5-5.6.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
I'm in trouble now ... you've implied a "wholesome" content to one of my
photos. There goes my rep ...
Thanks for the comments about the tonality, which is what I was really
looking for.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Lasse Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As for B&W tonality I like this pi
I've only seen one other speced like that, up at Harrah's a few years ago.
It was a tan one. However, I'm not sure if it was a Dodge or a Plymouth,
but in any case, it was the 2-door sedan, not the hard top.
I'd agree that you're over thinking the situation. I bet we've read as
many automotive
Thanks Shel. I agree that the long lens shot defines the car's
personality much better.. I've been worrying about the obviously
different light. I couldn't get the really long lens shots to look like
the others in terms of color and contrast. That was due in part to the
changing light, but also
A beautiful shot Paul, the tones and composition are wonderful.
Just ordered some Plus X and Tri X today after following this discussion.
Never loaded the 5n's with BW, ought to be fun.
don
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2
There y'go Bill, basing your decision the RMS information (Reclining Main
Seat).
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, which car performs better? Which is the better choice?
>
> Depends on if the front passenger seat folds flat for having
> sex..
> H
http://www.graywolfphoto.com/pentax/pdml-faq.html
Posted every Sunday (if I remember).
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: RE: B&W developers and Tri-x ??
Hey, I've got a 1964 Buick Wildcat and a neat little sports coupe.
The
Buick is slow and ponderous, but offers better passenger
accommodations, a
quieter, smoother ride, and lots of room to have sex in
- Original Message -
From: "Henri Toivonen"
Subject: Re: B&W developers and Tri-x ??
I think you're being unfair to JC now, he has mentioned several
times that if the films compared were equal in every other way than
ISO speed the faster would be generally preferred.
I don't. He starte
I love Plux-X for photographing women. It has a smoothnes and subtlety
that is perfect for figure or fashion photography. I posted my favorite
Plus-X image, but I will accompany it with a warning: THIS WOMAN IS
NAKED! Please don't look if that offends you. But this is one photo
where I didn't w
On 24 Oct 2004 at 19:50, Dario Bonazza wrote:
I understand that focal length and shutter speed were not so
obvious.
The funny thing is that apparently nobody among those who usually
say the
*istD to be tack sharp (most *istD users out there) thought it to
be capable of
such result ;-)
Those of
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: B&W developers and Tri-x ??
It has already happened probably hundreds of times over the last
100+ years!
Examples please, stating specifically which samples, and including
full information regarding grain structure, colour respons
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: B&W developers and Tri-x ??
I never said TMAX400 was exact same as PLUSX, I said
kodak claimed it was too similar and the tmax 400
had the advantage of three times the speed. I also
stated that they were NOT doing the same thing w
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: Re: Samples from today's shoot with the FA 80-320
It's probably the FA 100-300mm, that everybody says is quite a
dog!?
Do you want me to post the EXIF data?
I can if you like.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: B&W developers and Tri-x ??
Nope, I shoot mostly LF and they all look pretty
good and virtually the same with respect to grain or lack thereof.
I shot HP5+ for many years on 4x5. It's a nice film and in the sizes
I print, shows no
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: B&W developers and Tri-x ??
Yeah I don't really understand sixth grade DOF basics after 30
years of
owning an SLR and I always shoot F22 because it's the "best" one!
I mean I just love it when I get those highly detailed distract
After stripped and reassembled on myself, I have to say I much prefer
electronic shutter for much better accuracy & reliability. The MX is a real
joy to use, except for slides... :-(
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Same here. My choice would be an updated MX with
mirror lock-up and ISO r
As for B&W tonality I like this picture very much.
An even distribution of tones, no burned out high lights or clogged black shadows.
It's like my preferences for bread - no sugar or syrup, no spectacular spices, just
the good taste of pure wheat, rye, oat etc. Very good.
Always nice to see a hap
Hi,
Monday, October 25, 2004, 12:01:06 AM, Paul wrote:
> Thanks Ken,
> Perhaps I'll have a go at replacing the sky.
Now that's what I call ambition!
--
Cheers,
Bob
Applies to me as well. Btw, I think the 2nd shoot was cropped a little too
tight, particular too little space on the top. Maybe it's the 400mm effect,
it looks a little uncomfortable, to me anyway. :-)
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I simply think that the reflections which you as a pho
Thanks Paul ... I'll wait until this evening when the computer room is
darker to see how this pic compares with some others without the duotone.
I think it's time for some blackout curtains
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Very nice. Good composition to
Thanks Ken,
Perhaps I'll have a go at replacing the sky. I have plenty of sky
plates that I've shot for stock.
Paul
On Oct 24, 2004, at 6:39 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Like em both Paul.
The side shot is a good catalog type and is my favorite, although I
could do
without the blank sky.
The second
Paul,
I like both shots quite a bit. The first one is great in presenting the
view against a lovely background, and defines the car beautifully in a very
straightforward manner. The second shot, however, captures the soul of the
beast, conveys a sense of power. The car looks like it's ready to
Same here. My choice would be an updated MX with
mirror lock-up and ISO range up to 6400.
Jason Poh
--- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Boy, I have to agree with Graywolf here. If Pentax
> were to make one
> last film body, for me, it would be a brand new,
> black MX - just like
> th
Thanks Lasse. Your comments are appreciated.
Paul
On Oct 24, 2004, at 6:37 PM, Lasse Karlsson wrote:
From a later post I understand that you're asking advice therendering
of color and contrast.
Well, to start with, both are very good car shots.
When looking at the shadow side of the front shot it
To "closely emulate" is not the same as ... the same ;-)) And is everyone
going to want to develop their TMAX in the same manner that Kodak suggests
in order to "closely emulate" PX? Ridiculous ...
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Apparently KODAK cla
If one wants to shoot with most any Leica rangefinder (and I say most any
because, off the top of my head, I don't recall if the M7 has a higher top
shutter speed, and if it does it's probably only a stop), the shutter speed
is limited to 1/1000 sec. There is no alternative. So now what you're
sa
Having used Pan-X and TMAX 100, I can assure you that there is a
substantive difference between the two. One must, first of all, define
"performance." What Kodak "claims" and what is reality are often two
different things. And, as has been stated time and again, speed is not
always an advantage.
And they also have VERY different density curves when developed in the
same developer (my preferred soup is D-76 1:1, just to keep things on
topic).
In my experience at least, I tend to prefer the curve and texture that
PlusX gives for people pictures, while TMax works better for "place"
or "thing"
True for the MX as well, except the speed between 1/30s & 1/60s. But then
again, the mechanical shutter is not that accurate there might not be any
practical meaning to do so.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a
*single*
Not, bad. But after all, it's a 1000 USD lens!
In Denmark the list price is 1800 USD, in Germany it can be found for less
than 800 Euros (1000USD).
I guess it ought to be very sharp.
The Tokina version is a little less expensive than the Sigma (Germany). The
Pentax version 2.8/80-200mm is very exp
Nor in most cases any actual experience with what he is talking about. Which is
sad because when he does talk about something he actually knows he provides good
and useful information. However not knowing whether he is talking unfounded
theory or practical experience means the people who could m
The lowest price in Japan I have found is 63000 yen for the silver, but they
don't do overseas. It costs about the same in HK & Taiwan. B&H has it in
stock again after a long wait, so you might want to snap one up if you can
live with the silver.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Rumor say
Like em both Paul.
The side shot is a good catalog type and is my favorite, although I could do
without the blank sky.
The second shot "shortens" the vehicle and doesn't interest me as much as
the first.
Man there sure was a lot of shiney stuff on the older cars.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Mess
Well if your aperture is limited to f5.6 or smaller as with most consumer zooms,
faster film is often better. Given my choice I mostly use 100 speed film. But
sometimes I really want something around 25 ASA, and often 400. However I use
film faster than 400 less than I would 25 if I could get it
On 24 Oct 2004 at 19:50, Dario Bonazza wrote:
> I understand that focal length and shutter speed were not so obvious.
> The funny thing is that apparently nobody among those who usually say the
> *istD to be tack sharp (most *istD users out there) thought it to be capable of
> such result ;-) It i
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2004 at 23:25, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> >
> > > shutter speed" on some cameras. The Leica is limited to 1/1000 second, and
> > > numerous Leica shooters prefer not to go there, many of the o
>From a later post I understand that you're asking advice therendering of color and
>contrast.
Well, to start with, both are very good car shots.
When looking at the shadow side of the front shot it struck me that the rendition of
the color is quite a bit different from in the profile shot. Since
On 24 Oct 2004 at 23:25, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > shutter speed" on some cameras. The Leica is limited to 1/1000 second, and
> > numerous Leica shooters prefer not to go there, many of the older Pentax
>
> Why is that?
Much higher % speed i
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> shutter speed" on some cameras. The Leica is limited to 1/1000 second, and
> numerous Leica shooters prefer not to go there, many of the older Pentax
Why is that?
> bodies are limited in the same or similar manner. The fastest shutter
> speed on any
Yes, but that's beside the point .
On Oct 24, 2004, at 5:54 PM, Cotty wrote:
You're nuts!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/5004det.jpg
Dario
> No, no, it is an unresized crop from a head shot, 3008x2008 pixel image
> (shown very tiny at the center, because I don't have permission to publish
> the image).
>
> Dario
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On 24/10/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Thanks Cotty. That makes it perfectly clear :-). In truth, I'm more
>concerned about color and contrast. I have a lot of shots from every
>angle. (I shot 200 frames.)
They're both excellent. You're nuts!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
||
Thanks Cotty. That makes it perfectly clear :-). In truth, I'm more
concerned about color and contrast. I have a lot of shots from every
angle. (I shot 200 frames.)
Paul
On Oct 24, 2004, at 5:44 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 24/10/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
I had to shoot a car this m
Hi,
Sunday, October 24, 2004, 10:19:08 PM, J. wrote:
> A single MULTICOATED ND filter is
> virtually benign and I would venture
> to say that you would be hard pressed
> to see ANY visible difference in the
> negs unless you wanted to throw in another
> super rare "what if" like shooting right
>
Thanks for the feedback. I have a lot of other shots, and I could steer
them in either direction in regard to color and contrast. I'm leaning
toward shot one myself, but I appreciate other opinions.
Thanks.
Paul
On Oct 24, 2004, at 5:42 PM, cbwaters wrote:
Paul,
Despite the cool license plate on
On 24/10/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I had to shoot a car this morning. It was a "64 Dodge with a 393 and a
>4-speed manual trans. One of only three made with that engine and
>transmission combination. It's a survivor, with only 18,000 miles on
>the odometer, so it's worth
Paul,
Despite the cool license plate on the front in shot two, I like the look of
shot one better. Something about the car, posed in front of those trees on
some country lane looks timeless. It could benefit from some better light
but hell, ya works with whatcha gots, eh?
Nice car.
CW
was thi
Sigma EX 70-200/2.8.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:06 PM
Subject: RE: Samples from today's shoot with the FA 80-320
> So, which lens is it?
>
> Jens Bladt
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://h
No, no, it is an unresized crop from a head shot, 3008x2008 pixel image
(shown very tiny at the center, because I don't have permission to publish
the image).
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 10:49 PM
Hi,
Mark Roberts wrote:
mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2815854
This is an awful quality picture from a damaged and badly exposed
negative - just about the only one I have of myself from that era. I
think it is actually January 1974, the thing
the lens is on the soft side, especially at the long end.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Samples from today's shoot with the FA 80-320
> Could be. It's hand held at 1/9
On 24/10/04, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>The latest homework assignment I've done for my digital imaging class: A
>360 degree panorama. It's Frick Park in Pittsburgh. 21 ist-D images
>stitched together. (At 360 ppi it comes out to 8 inches by 70 inches!)
>http://www.robertstech.com/
1 - 100 of 273 matches
Mail list logo
