Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Back from NY and processing about 250 or so pictures made with the LX1
as well as Pentax DS ... takes time! Some of these photos are proving
to be a lot of fun. Hope you like this one...
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/47.htm
Comments, critique, flames
But it's not a 43mb TIFF - it's a 6.5mb JPEG. How does a small JPEG turn
into a larger TIFF file containing more information? Once a file is a
JPEG, the information it contained as a TIFF or PSD is gone. Converting it
back to a TIFF won't help it - or will it? In Bob's case, all he shoots
are J
Hi Dave
I'm wondering if you really needed flash for these pics. The light looks
so harsh, and the shadows don't add much to the photos either.
Shel
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"
> [Original Message]
> From: Dave Brooks
> http://photobucket.com/albums/v408/divad_b/?action=
That could well be, Shel.
This morning I got a message from my ISP that they experienced some
problems with their SMTP server last night.
Sorry about that.
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 1:04 AM
Subject:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Simple, really.
>
> John
> ===
> But it took a lot of time and effort to put that explanation
> together. And all they did was laugh at one misspelled word.
>
> Pleebians.
Looks as though you had a great time. Lovely set of photos.
--
Cheers,
Bob
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Paul Schelter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 06 December 2005 06:30
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: GESO: East Africa
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>I've returned from my
On 6 Dec 2005 at 0:22, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> But it's not a 43mb TIFF - it's a 6.5mb JPEG. How does a small JPEG turn
> into a larger TIFF file containing more information? Once a file is a
> JPEG, the information it contained as a TIFF or PSD is gone.
This isn't always practically the case,
Ohh you also added a nice umbrella in the mirror, good choice!! lol
I liked the carpet color of the original, something that went lost in
the workflow... anyway, even if interiors doesn't excite me,
especially "nude" ones (without people, that is), I can imagine your
on a magazine. I'm talking ab
> > But it's not a 43mb TIFF - it's a 6.5mb JPEG. How does a
> small JPEG
> > turn into a larger TIFF file containing more information?
> Once a file
> > is a JPEG, the information it contained as a TIFF or PSD is gone.
Homeopathy?
Bob
On 5/12/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>This list is very bad.
>You are all bad people.
>Anyway, based on comments I have read, the A* 85/1.4 is a pretty decent
>lens.
>I managed to snag what appears to be a nice one off eBay. I had thought,
>right up until the last moment that I
On Dec 6, 2005, at 9:22 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
But it's not a 43mb TIFF - it's a 6.5mb JPEG. How does a small
JPEG turn
into a larger TIFF file containing more information?
When decompressed, the 6.5Mb JPEG with the stated pixel dimensions
would turn into 43Mb of data in memory. That'
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Jostein wrote:
It's been ages since I used Pine, but I think it encodes (escapes) the
non-ascii
letters in a peculiar way.
IIRC, there used to be all sorts of problems with mapping characters between
Windows and Pine in the
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, William Robb wrote:
You might consider switching to a colour film and having them print it as
monochromatic, or go to a monochromatic film such as Portra B&W. One
advantage is that Digital Ice is available, and dust will be less of an
issue.
Thanks for the suggestion. The
Epson Picturemate - anyone have one?
Like it?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
- Original Message -
From: "David Mann"
Subject: Re: Sewious Enablement
Just ordered my Merry Christmas to Me gift.
Santa will have an extra heavy bag this year, what with trying to slip
an Epson 4800 printer under the tree for me.
Now I just have to learn how to take pictures...
- Original Message -
From: "Cesar"
Subject: Re: Yet another enablement.
Ahhh but Bill you know that deep in your heart you are not innocent.
This goes beyond your commentary and remarks on Grandfather Mountain :-)
Had I been drinking?
I can't take responsibility for my mouth aft
I like the framing and composition of the first two as well. However, I
think in this case that the grain is too harsh and prominent. It
renders the flesh tones unpleasant. Since detail isn't critical here, a
little gaussian blur might make these much more attractive.
On Dec 6, 2005, at 12:43 A
When you can't print at the highest resolution the printer offers, you
usually have a paper/profile/software settings mismatch. When
everything is dialed in, you should be able to print best at the
highest res.
Paul
On Dec 6, 2005, at 1:51 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
I like the look of premium g
When you open a jpeg, most of the information from the original tiff is
restored along with all of the resolution. The 6.5mb jpeg will produce
the same resolution as the 43 meg tiff. Some information will be lost.
It will probably not be detectable to the human eye if the jpeg wasn't
saved repe
I should add that 43 megabyte is not very high resolution at 24 x 36.
What Shel cites here -- 180 met, 8 bit -- is much more appropriate for
a print of that size.
Paul
On Dec 6, 2005, at 3:22 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
But it's not a 43mb TIFF - it's a 6.5mb JPEG. How does a small JPEG
turn
i
Thanks Danilo. I changed the tonality to match the actual color of the
room. There was too much yellow in the original, which moved the carpet
color more toward green. I have to be accurate here. The umbrella is
now history :-).
Paul
On Dec 6, 2005, at 4:25 AM, danilo wrote:
Ohh you also adde
Paul Stenquist wrote:
When you open a jpeg, most of the information from the original tiff is
restored along with all of the resolution. The 6.5mb jpeg will produce
the same resolution as the 43 meg tiff. Some information will be lost.
It will probably not be detectable to the human eye if the
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Paul Schelter"
Subject: GESO: East Africa
Hi everyone,
I've returned from my trip to East africa, I managed to do just about
everything I wanted to - safaris, climbing Kilimanjaro, diving in
Zanzibar.
I'm trying to put together a bit of a web si
- Original Message -
From: "keith_w"
Subject: Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
It has been my understanding that if you only open a jpeg for viewing and
close it again, there will be NO degradation to the original image.
That it's only manipulating a jpeg image and *then* saving it th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:11:54 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way - DSLR's cost no more than a film scanner. If you choose a
Pentax, you may still use you "analog" lenses for the next 5-10 years.
Jens Bladt
===
Good advice. Scanni
Of course the initial compression causes some minor loss as well.
On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:17 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "keith_w"
Subject: Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
It has been my understanding that if you only open a jpeg for viewing
and close it again, th
On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:08 AM, keith_w wrote:
I must interject here...to see if I have been misunderstanding a
concept.
It has been my understanding that if you only open a jpeg for
viewing and close it again, there will be NO degradation to the
original image.
That it's only manipulating a
Another point about JPEG is that if you rotate a JPEG and resave you
will be losing information. There are some applications that can
rotate and save JPEGs with no loss. ACDSee is one example.
Bob
Unfortunatly, i think it was needed. Pretty dark room.
However i did not notice until after, that i was in CW mode and i used the pop
up, as i
forgot my Sigma.
I think that mat be why its harsh. I did try and lessen the light in PS but i
quess not
enough. It look not to
bad on the laptop screen
Hi Tom,
Lovely composition Peter. Like Bruce, I'd wish it to be a little more
sharp. Did you do any unsharp masking at all?
no, I didn't. Original slide is quite sharp, though. :-)
Thank you for your comment.
Bedo.
Hi Godfrey,
Lovely photo, excellent composition. It's the kind of photo that is
best seen in a large print; at this rendering size, it seems a touch soft.
thank you, it certainly does look better when projected using my slide
projector (about 60x40 inch) ;-)
BTW Do you see any improvement
Finally - for lovers of UW angles on DSLR:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120601sigma_10-20mm.asp
At last it will be available in K mount. For all these for whom DA 12-24 is
not wide enough :-)
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Best Regards
Sylwek
William Robb wrote:
At least this time, they may have a point.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=16139935
Their reasoning is a big pile of crap. If you want to stop people from
confusing two different kinds of battery, make them a different shape!
They admit what
How does the fact that Bob combined three smaller-sized JPEGs to make the
6.5mb panorama effect the picture. Essentially he was printing three 2.2mb
quality JPEGs, just all together, or is my reasoning flawed? And what does
stitching together three JPEG files do to the information contained in
th
But Bob used three smaller JPEGs stitched together to arrive at a total
figure of 6.5mb. That's not quite the same as a single file of 6.5mb, and,
as I asked before, it would seem that the effective amount of information
in the large, combined file is the equivalent of 2.2mb or so.
Shel
"You mee
Hi Gang.
I did a Google on this but came up empty. Boz's site just mentions the clamp
but no
details.
So.
Can someone fill me in on what the clamp knob does on the lens.
I know what the focus range knob does.(if it does what the Nikon lens does,
then yes.LOL)
Thanks for any assistance.
Dave
Dave,
Tightening it gives greater resistance for manual focusing. It should be loose
for auto focusing.
> Hi Gang.
>
> I did a Google on this but came up empty. Boz's site just mentions the clamp
> but
> no
> details.
>
> So.
>
> Can someone fill me in on what the clamp knob does on the le
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone fill me in on what the clamp knob does on the lens.
I don't have it, but have you tried http://www.pentaxusa.com/?
Regards,
Kostas
It just increase friction a bit.
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 10:20 AM
Subject: Clamp Knob on FA 100 Macro question
Hi Gang.
I did a Google on this but came up empty. Boz's site just mentions
the clamp but no
details
On 6 Dec 2005 at 6:17, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> How does the fact that Bob combined three smaller-sized JPEGs to make the
> 6.5mb panorama effect the picture. Essentially he was printing three 2.2mb
> quality JPEGs, just all together, or is my reasoning flawed? And what does
> stitching together
Doh! Of course! Shouldn't comment on photos in the
morning, afternoon, or evening, I guess...
>
> But, surely you mean the left 1/4? I wouldn't want
> to crop out any of the bike.
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
> --
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri
> Cartier-Bresson
>
>
Very intriguing, Godfrey, but maybe a little -too-
long an exposure. It took a while to realize that
those weren't just two black smudges on the floor--or
maybe that's just my slow brain.
Rick
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Back from NY and processing about 250 or so pictures
Yes it can apparently -- 90 degrees at a
time.
I found this by mistake. You need to
make a lot of mistakes to find out how
this program works. Of course you could
read the manual, which, despite being
written very well, is incomplete.
Don
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don spoke:
Raw Shooter
I received a pointer to this site recently. For those of us who often have
to retouch or adjust photos, this looks like a good place to visit to read
about retouching problems and their solutions, and to ask questions.
http://www.retouchpro.com/
Shel
>
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/12/06 Tue AM 11:46:20 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Yet another enablement.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Cesar"
> Subject: Re: Yet another enablement.
>
>
>
> >
> > Ahhh but Bill you know that deep in your heart you are
oh, man. can I be evil too?
William Robb wrote:
This list is very bad.
You are all bad people.
Anyway, based on comments I have read, the A* 85/1.4 is a pretty decent
lens.
I managed to snag what appears to be a nice one off eBay. I had thought,
right up until the last moment that I would get
Thanks Jostein, Tom and Kosta
Now to fid a flower.
GFM look out.
Dave
> It just increase friction a bit.
>
> Jostein
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 10:20 AM
> Subject: Clamp Knob o
When Velvia first came out, I tried a roll or two. As it happened, I
caught a scene that sold well.
Resolution was impressive, but the color tones, gosh.
I recall the agony of instruction to the pro-lab each time I needed a
print. "..and get rid of the burgundy/purple soil and rocks..etc. and
knoc
>
> From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/12/06 Tue PM 02:04:21 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Sony's at it again.
>
> William Robb wrote:
> > At least this time, they may have a point.
> > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=16139935
>
>
On Dec 6, 2005, at 5:50 AM, Peter Lacus wrote:
BTW Do you see any improvements in the color rendition in
comparison with my last PAW? This time I didn't change a bit on my
PC so it should be at least ColorSync managed
It's somewhat difficult to be specific, but this one looks pretty
Some of that stuff is appalling.
Don
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I received a pointer to this site recently. For those of us who often have
to retouch or adjust photos, this looks like a good place to visit to read
about retouching problems and their solutions, and to ask questions.
http://www.reto
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Jack Davis wrote:
When Velvia first came out, I tried a roll or two. As it happened, I
caught a scene that sold well.
Resolution was impressive, but the color tones, gosh.
I recall the agony of instruction to the pro-lab each time I needed a
print. "..and get rid of the burg
On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:10 AM, mike wilson wrote:
At least this time, they may have a point.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?
forum=1000&message=16139935
Their reasoning is a big pile of crap. If you want to stop people
from
confusing two different kinds of battery, make them a di
In a message dated 12/6/2005 4:39:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
True. Closing a JPEG does not alter it in any way. Saving it
recompresses the data, with commensurate loss.
However, if you always save JPEGs at the highest quality (12 in
Photoshop) the loss will be mi
What do you find appalling? The site covers many aspects of retouching,
adjustments, and manipulation, a lot of it applicable to the work many of
us do on our own photos. While some of the images may not be your "cup of
tea" you have to remember that Photoshop is used for may types of images,
fro
>
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/12/06 Tue PM 03:23:08 GMT
> To: PDML
> Subject: Re: Sony's at it again.
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:10 AM, mike wilson wrote:
>
> >>> At least this time, they may have a point.
> >>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?
> >>>
In a message dated 12/5/2005 2:37:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.misenet.sk/USA/AL.html
Bredo.
==
Nice shot! You got it from a good location to see down the canyon.
Marnie aka Doe
It's not 12 times. It's "12 level" jpeg quality. When you save a jpeg in
photoshop, the save screen allowes you to choose a quality number. "12" is the
maximum quality possible. It provides less compression than a lower number but
with commensurately less degradation.
Paul
> In a message dated
In a message dated 12/6/2005 7:39:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not 12 times. It's "12 level" jpeg quality. When you save a jpeg in
photoshop, the save screen allowes you to choose a quality number. "12" is the
maximum quality possible. It provides less compression
In a message dated 12/5/2005 1:10:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any critique welcome
http://mishka.site.co.il/gallery/albums/25November2005/Canonet_TriX400_14.jpg
--
Yours
Michael
=
Just me being weird -- I find the box high up on the wall distracting -- my
Over on the Adobe Photoshop User to User forum the question of image
degradation with JPEGs came up. One of the Photoshop wizards posted a test
that actually showed how many pixels changed or were lost each time a JPEG
was resaved. There were changes and loss of information with ~every~ save.
Bo
On 12/6/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Epson Picturemate - anyone have one?
>
yes
> Like it?
>
Yes
> Thanks.
>
>
You're welcome :-)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Cotty
>
cheers 2
W.
(err, don't really have much more to say about it :-). Anything
special you want to know? )
--
Wendy Beard
Ottawa
Can
In a message dated 12/5/2005 5:13:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/47.htm
Comments, critique, flames all appreciated.
enjoy
Godfrey
Nice. Rather like it. I've been told how this can be done, but haven't tried
it yet.
Th
On Dec 6, 2005, at 10:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/6/2005 4:39:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
True. Closing a JPEG does not alter it in any way. Saving it
recompresses the data, with commensurate loss.
However, if you always save JPEGs at the
In a message dated 12/6/2005 7:55:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think
the first resave loses the most information, and subsequent saves lose a
smaller percentage (based on the specific test shown on the User to User
forum).
The 12 figure is not the number of times an im
> In a message dated 12/5/2005 5:13:48
PM
Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/47.htm
>
> Comments, critique, flames all appreciated.
>
> enjoy
> Godfrey
>
> Nice. Rather like it. I've
In a message dated 12/6/2005 8:01:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I didn't say a word about saving twelve times. 12 is the number used
in Photoshop to designate the highest quality JPEG.
Bob
Been corrected on this twice now. :-) Make that three times.
Wrote a p
In a message dated 12/4/2005 8:49:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3925673
Comments always welcome. Thanks in advance.
cheers,
frank
==
Whoa, frank! That's a real "arty" photo. No criticisms.
I like it very much.
Marnie aka
Several flash users responded to my poll last week.
Every one but me seems to have success in M, Tv, Av, and Green modes.
Both with Pentax and Sigma flashes.
Looks like it's just me screwing up again/still.:-(
Thanks to those that answered.
Carry on.
Sir backing into a corner
In a message dated 11/29/2005 11:41:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3910767&size=lg
I when I left my house that morning, I had no idea that I'd be
catching this concert that afternoon; I was completely unprepared for
shooting low-lig
At those transfer rates, using an IPod would be very painful and not
usable for me - I have events where the card needs to be used again in
10-15 minutes. My CompactDrive transfers a gigabyte in a few minutes.
And it will transfer at least 10 gigabytes per battery charge.
Thanks for the report, i
In a message dated 12/4/2005 9:56:11 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Blue is my friend Linda's cat. He's an affectionate Maine Coon. One
afternoon he was especially friendly, and made himself at home in my lap
for a while. Grabbed this with the little Sony DSC-S85.
http://h
I didn't comment on this before but I agree whole heartedly with Paul.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I like the framing and composition of the first two as well. However,
I think in this case that the grain is too harsh and prominent. It
renders the flesh tones unpleasant. Since detail isn't critical
True.
keith_w wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
When you open a jpeg, most of the information from the original tiff
is restored along with all of the resolution. The 6.5mb jpeg will
produce the same resolution as the 43 meg tiff. Some information will
be lost. It will probably not be detectable
Apparently, some flashes working rather bad on the D (e.g. AF500FTZ) work
well on the DS.
The DS also works flawlessly with the AF400FTZ (not yet tried on the D).
Dario
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 12:24 PM
Subject: Results of my
In a message dated 11/28/2005 5:41:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.westerickson.net/gmb2005/
Let me know what you think!
--Mark
=
Interesting group of photos. Really like the first one, also like the cornice.
But I was very put off by the display tech
Thanks David, it was a great trip.
I didn't actually lay out the images, I just threw them all up in a
line.. just a place-holder for a few people who wanted to see the pics.
The text is just the start of my transcribing of my travel log.
jp
David Mann wrote:
On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:30 PM, Jo
In a message dated 11/24/2005 11:40:29 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just a couple of shots from today, from the traditional family get
together...
http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_drama.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_notdinner.html
==
We
> Hi Dave
>
> Thanks for your kind comments. I know you like cats, and, FWIW, I have one
> of your cat pics saved on my computer. It's the one of your little
> tortoise shell in amongst the branches of a Christmas tree and surrounded
> by some decorat
It depends can you afford to purchase the stovepipe hat and Snidely
Whiplash mustache?
Doug Brewer wrote:
oh, man. can I be evil too?
William Robb wrote:
This list is very bad.
You are all bad people.
Anyway, based on comments I have read, the A* 85/1.4 is a pretty
decent lens.
I managed t
In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:34:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/239824.
The single element lens was involved here... But no image manipulation
otherwise...
Have your say please!
Boris
It's an interesting optical illusion on
12 isn't the number of times, it refers to the "Quality", (at least in
Photoshop there are 12 distinct quality settings for saving jpegs).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/6/2005 4:39:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
True. Closing a JPEG does not alter it i
In a message dated 12/6/2005 8:54:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
12 isn't the number of times, it refers to the "Quality", (at least in
Photoshop there are 12 distinct quality settings for saving jpegs).
===
I wonder how many times I will be corrected before this disap
In a message dated 12/5/2005 1:07:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I decided it was about time to post another photo. I've been
scanning quite a bit of older stuff lately and this is one of the few
I thought was reasonably presentable :)
http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo
In a message dated 11/21/2005 2:12:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Our local swamp: http://leende.dse.nl/peso.htm
I hope you like it.
Jack
===
Doesn't do a thing for me, sorry. I think it could be improved with more
contrast, or darken highlights in PS though.
Marnie a
Until everyone who reads your post without reading the rest of the
thread logs in. It could be weeks the way some people read the list...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/6/2005 8:54:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
12 isn't the number of times, it refers t
> It depends can you afford to purchase the stovepipe hat and Snidely
> Whiplash mustache?
Fred
In a message dated 12/3/2005 11:21:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think she was getting exasperated or impatient waiting for the streetcar
:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3923592
Comments are always welcome. Thanks in advance.
cheers,
frank (who can now
Bob Shell wrote:
On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:08 AM, keith_w wrote:
I must interject here...to see if I have been misunderstanding a
concept.
It has been my understanding that if you only open a jpeg for viewing
and close it again, there will be NO degradation to the original image.
That it's o
In a message dated 12/6/2005 9:10:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Until everyone who reads your post without reading the rest of the
thread logs in. It could be weeks the way some people read the list...
===
I know. LOL.
Good thing I have a good ego.
Marnie aka Doe
I am not a pleebian, I am a fr man. And I'm off to work in my Lotus,
now.
You are Number 6.
Tom C. (who won't be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered)
On Dec 6, 2005, at 3:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/47.htm
Nice. Rather like it. I've been told how this can be done, but
haven't tried
it yet.
The pattern on the floor makes it.
Thanks Marnie, and the others who've responded.
Obviously i'm
In a message dated 12/3/2005 11:02:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have been reading this list since 9pm and have finally caught up. 300+
messages. Good night all.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/crosswalk.html
Just foolin' around with the istDS
Shel
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"
On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:37 AM, mike wilson wrote:
I probably wasn't being clear enough that I was writing about
repair parts, not "consumables".
Well, I have never needed a part for a Sony camera, but when I do I
always want the genuine parts from Sony anyway. Unless you're a
camera repair
The iPod is a music [video] player, not a standalone image storage
device except for the most casual use.
An Epson P2000 plays music, perfoms video and image presentation on a
nice big screen, allows preview inspection of both JPEG and RAW
format files, and will download 13-15 full 1G memor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Several flash users responded to my poll last week.
>Every one but me seems to have success in M, Tv, Av, and Green modes.
>Both with Pentax and Sigma flashes.
>
>Looks like it's just me screwing up again/still.:-(
>
>Thanks to those that answered.
Here's my 2 cents, Dav
Saving a jpeg as a tiff or psd eliminates any further loss of quality
during editing. But, yes, you have no more information than was in the
jpeg to start with. Normally those 16 bit image files only have 10 or 12
bits of information, but remember that is 4x or 16x the information
available in
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 07:33:17AM +, mike wilson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >In a message dated 12/5/2005 1:38:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >Simple, really.
> >
> >John
> >===
> >But it took a lot of time and effort to put that explanation togeth
Too the best of my knowledge that is correct, Keith.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
keith_w wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
When you open a jpeg, most of the information from the original tiff
is restored along with
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
