Thanks, Markus.
So am I - interested, that is.
I'm sure it's not easy, doing nice shots with a manual focus, manual
exposure (sort of) and very heavy, third (or fourth) party lense. I guess
these cheap lenses will require F.11 to perform decently, this meens LOTS of
light ;-)
Don't miss my
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
[...]
Digital photography may well not be artistically rewarding for Kevin. I
sometimes feel the same way.
There's really no need to be judgemental and critical, Paul.
Shel
I suggest that Paul sometimes just needs to be Paul.
He succeeded. Again.
keith
Hello,
some new pics...
Warning...latex fetish pics:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=584966
Pentax lenses used in this session: K35/3.5, M50/1.7, A85/1.4.
Film: 1 roll of Ilford XP2.
I scanned post-processed those in a hurry, so there may be some things
that could have been done
I'm interested too.
Will be dificult for me to shoot much (living in plain center of the
city) but I'm very curious of what I could do with my stuff too ;)
--
Thibouille
--
*ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Wheaters wrote:
I am sure you will get basted and cooked over a slow fire for
that post,
Mmm. Tastes like chicken.
I have found that there are two camps out there at the moment.
One camp say that all that matters is the picture, how you
get there doesn't
matter, and digital
That´s the 645D. It is supposed to have a crop factor of 1.3
relative to the 6x4.5cm negative size.
DagT
Den 25. mar. 2006 kl. 23.26 skrev Jack Davis:
There are some who are propagating a 1.3 crop factor rumor. I'd
like to
believe it.
Jack
--- Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
Hi Kevin,
Your feelings about our art is a bit surprising, considering your
recent reviews of the digital medium format cameras. I thought you
were about to go all-in on digital.
But of course an investment of this magnitude makes you think twice
and more in any case, doesn't it?
I
Den 26. mar. 2006 kl. 03.57 skrev Paul Stenquist:
On Mar 25, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology.
b
But you did in your earlier post. You said, If you want to shoot
film, fine. I will certainly shoot with my
Hmmm...
Ther must be some birds in the city - doves, perhaps ;-)
Not to mention the birds can can watch go by ;-)
Regards
jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Thibouille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 26. marts 2006 11:18
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Kenneth Waller wrote:
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: The Pond
I set a new personal record for filter extravagance and bought an 77mm R72
for my DA 12-24/4. Shot a little pond this morning. It's at 12mm, f11, 4
second
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Bob W wrote:
Aaron got there before me and identified a 3rd camp:
I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished images. The
middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun.
Although I never thought the middle part was any fun at all, whether it's
Sure but it even more dificult to get an interesting picture: the bird
could be very nice but the background often a bit too... messy ? (and
I'm kind ;)
On 3/26/06, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm...
Ther must be some birds in the city - doves, perhaps ;-)
Not to mention the birds can
On 26 Mar 2006 at 7:37, Michel Carrère-Gée wrote:
Who know ?
Limited Edition, or modified lens ?
http://cgi.ebay.fr/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7601619202rd=1sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AITrd=1
LE, I doubt it. It looks just like a strip of waterproof anti-skid tape has
been added.
Rob
On 25 Mar 2006 at 13:39, Tim Øsleby wrote:
This was directly to the point Ralf.
I am convinced the manufacturers have been waiting for this. What surprises
me is that they thought we would believe this nonsense.
Too true, though if they are only assembling units from stocks of old leaded
On 26 Mar 2006 at 10:31, Bob W wrote:
Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once
the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next.
Hunters, after all, aren't cooks - Henri Cartier-Bresson
All else equal I'd bet that a cook would make a
Doubt it too.
I really think any Pentax limited or SE edition or whatever would be
written somewhere on the lens. Maybe like K1000 SE etc.. but there'd
be something written.
On 3/26/06, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Mar 2006 at 7:37, Michel Carrère-Gée wrote:
Who know ?
It is a limited edition. It has leatherette on the front end of the barrel.
Mine doesn't.
I guess the guy put it there himself. Perhaps to cover some scratch or dent.
That ought to make it very limited ;-)
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Thibouille
Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My problem is that photography has become more of a production line
than an art.
There's another thing that's nagging me about digital:
With analog, it takes very little money to produce a technical quality
that can't be distinguished from what you get
There's a light snow cover. I shot some without the central pier as
well using different camera positions. To me, the pier makes it more
than another pond picture.
Paul
On Mar 26, 2006, at 5:19 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Kenneth Waller wrote:
- Original Message
graywolf wrote:
While I am not doing any serious photography at
this time, I do agree
with you.
Light and chemicals is a different media than
light and pixels. I am
using digital for record shots, ebay shots, and
snapshots thus I get by
with a decent PS.
Film is what I enjoy, and
Very high quality analog equipment is certainly much more attainable
than comparable digital equipment at the present time. But this will
change as the digital market matures. Of course that will take time.
What matters more to me is that I can achieve very high quality color
printing at home
I havn't done a formal test with my lens, but so far it looks like that me
too, has to shoot at f:8 or more with my Tokina AT-X 150-500 f:5,6. I also
have a impression that I have to shoot at 15 meter or closer. Yesterday was
a very bright day, with snow, bright sun, and reflections from the sea.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:05 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
A little more curve-tweaking and you'll
clearly see the fringing and posterizing.
Maybe you just have to pretend you're shooting slides and not try to
save the thing in post.
-Aaron
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Colin J wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Digital is powerful and
versatile. But it's a chore. I didn't take up
photography to be tied to a computer. You might
be able to do much more with Photoshop than a
traditional enlarger, but where is the
satisfaction in
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I like to control the entire process.
Me too. Which is why it stinks that I find the process so godawful
boring.
-Aaron
Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you just have to pretend you're shooting slides and not try to
save the thing in post.
Won't help. I have to use colour negative film, exactly because of the
limited dynamic range of slide film.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG -
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZdpconsult.comQQhtZ-1
Lots of stuff to get rid of.
A bunch of oddball assorted lenses.
*** The MV-1 outfit is a bargain given the ME II winder attached.
And check out my son's *rare* speakers, of course.
Also have some stuff lying around the house.
These items
At 07:56 AM 3/26/2006, you wrote:
Ralf,
I'm in general agreement.
For those who enjoy and want the best out of film large format is a
relatively inexpensive venture.
(That is, compared to what I've seen in some 35 outfits.)
4x5 -- a. $150 for a good press camera to start with (Busch
Markus Maurer wrote:
Hi Pentaxians
searching the internet for opinions on different brands of fast film for
indoor shots like the coming anniversary event
for me I found this site which could be useful to others too:
http://www.photo.net/learn/concerts/mirarchi/concer_3.htm
any opinions on
Quoting William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At one time, if you didn't like something you saw in the viewfinder,
you either waited until it moved, or found another picture to take.
Now, you just take the picture and clone the offending bits out.
And you call yourself an artist for doing it.
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished picture.
isn't that the case always?
best,
mishka
My condolences on the loss of your beloved pet.
Butch
I used to have to make twenty or more BW prints for every magazine
article. It would frequently take me at least ten hours. It wasn't art.
It was hard, smelly, backgreaking work. Now I can turn out 20 digitals,
color or BW in a couple hours at the most. And the convenience of
digital means I
I don't find either process terribly boring -- darkroom or digital. But
I don't process other people's work, only my own. That is much more
rewarding than operating a lab. I tried doing custom BW printing at one
time many years ago. I got plenty of business in a hurry, but soon
learned that I
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Some people, and Kevin seems to be one of
them, prefer working with film and chemicals. It's not only the results
that matter, but how they're obtained, and the satisfaction one gets from
the process.
This is absolutely right. I still vastly prefer the darkroom to the
Tim Sherburne wrote:
Hi Paul... I can vouch for ArcSoft Panorama Maker. It's very simple,
gives good results, and relatively inexpensive. US$40, you can download
it right away, and it's available for Mac and Windows. There's a demo
that you can try out first.
http://www.arcsoft.com
I've done
i tried 20mm/2.5 and didn't particularly liked it, although, for thr money
it's hard to beat. It flares easily, large (82mm) and very heavy
(allmetal build),
and QC is so-so.
mine was quite sharp though.
best,
mishka.
On 3/25/06, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone has any experience with
No ... and that's been stated here several times in several ways.
Shel
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished
picture.
From: Mishka
isn't that the case always?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Mar 26, 2006, at 5:19 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Kenneth Waller wrote:
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: The Pond
I set a new personal record for filter extravagance
Ok, This has been mostly good natured so far but sheesh...whoda thunk this
was the result?
Cotty,
I think you're off your nut here. But that's just my opinion and we all
have one. I still like you though.
I do NOT think any good basketball fan would come out with nearly as good a
take if
Gevaert?
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
- Original Message -
From: Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: OT: cleaning house
snip
One roll of 620
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 25 Mar 2006 at 13:39, Tim Øsleby wrote:
This was directly to the point Ralf.
I am convinced the manufacturers have been waiting for this. What surprises
me is that they thought we would believe this nonsense.
Too true, though if they are only assembling units from
frank theriault wrote:
I must be counted in the this is photography camp. If it's done
properly, it can be great photography, maybe even art (oh no, don't
bring art into this! LOL).
Here's one of my favourite baseball photos, one of Jackie Robinson
taunting a catcher just before stealing home:
Don't know (remember) too much about film.
I know you don't need as fast film as you might think! Why? Well, most
concerts ar lit with spotlights etc. So, you must under expose by perhaps 2
stops in iorder to avoid, what I call pan-cake-faces (white faces with no
features).
Spot metering sucks
On 3/26/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll second everyone's recommendation of Panorama Maker. (I'd have
mentioned it earlier but I didn't realize it was available for Mac.)
I don't know what the frame limitation number is, but I do know it's
fewer than 20 ;-) I'm hoping they fix
David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark maybe consider having a look at PTGui if your using a Windows
box. It already accepts 16 bit input files (tiff) and outputs as 16
bit layered (or blended) tiff or psd file. Unfortunately it's not
available for Apple users
There's a Mac equivalent
So working with photography using digital process doesn't appeal to
you. Fine. Enjoy what does appeal to you, do photography.
Why write a big song and dance about it, with the implication that
something is wrong with digital? That's what I don't understand.
There's nothing wrong with film
It would be difficult to separate the process from the satisfaction of
producing a pleasing finished image. Anticipating the end product is
what drives the learning and doing process.
Jack
--- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No ... and that's been stated here several times in several
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Both camps are right. But I'm in the latter, well, mostly. I prefer
printing digitally. I prefer shooting with film.
When I had my darkroom set up, and shot BW film, I printed quite a few
pictures.
I like darkroom
Thnaks Mishka.
He was a very good boy.
bill
- Original Message -
From: Mishka
Subject: Re: Rollei
beautifull dog. you must be lucky to have a friend like that.
best,
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Bill, I think the danger lies in ease and productivity. If one goes
digital all the way through, one may become over-trigger-happy, if you
know what I mean.
I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting, to
Thanks Boris
bill
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: Rollei
Very sad news. You had a beautiful friend.
Thanks Bruce
bill
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: Re: Rollei
Bill,
A wonderful tribute that really brought some feeling of his
personality. My heartfelt condolences at this time.
Thanks Amita, he was a sweetheart.
bill
- Original Message -
From: Amita Guha
Subject: Re: Rollei
What a sweet-looking boy. I'm sorry for your loss.
Amita
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: RE: OT: New EC law forces Hasselblad to discontinue XPan camera
On 25 Mar 2006 at 13:39, Tim Øsleby wrote:
I am convinced the manufacturers have been waiting for this. What
surprises
me is that they thought we would believe this
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your
problem.
Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude.
William Robb
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:04 AM, William Robb wrote:
If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's
your problem.
Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude.
Does the word problem offend you for some reason? Problem == issue,
difficulty, stumbling block, obstacle,
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:08 AM, William Robb wrote:
Even if they weren't, there are manufacturing changes required to
switch from lead solder to silver solder. If Fuji didn't think they
were going to recoup the cost of change of manufacturing, then that
would have left Hasselblad with no
At 02:35 PM 3/23/2006, John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:08:35AM -0800, Juan Buhler wrote:
Nothing to do with the point, but it's funny how render times stay
constant as complexity grows :)
That was a point first expounded, AFAIK, by Turner Whitted.
There are three classes of
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:04 AM, William Robb wrote:
If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's
your problem.
Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude.
Art is art. How you create it is irrelevant.
Bob
At 02:08 PM 3/23/2006, Juan Buhler wrote:
Funny. All my renders, on the other hand, from silly shampoo TV ads in
Argentina in 1992, through Antz, Shrek, Shrek 2, Madagascar and the
stuff I'm doing now at Pixar take about the same time to render--in
the order of a few hours.
Hello Juan,
Can
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:04 AM, William Robb wrote:
If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your
problem.
Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude.
Does the word problem
On Mar 26, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
But I don't process other people's work, only my own. That is much
more rewarding than operating a lab. I tried doing custom BW printing
at one time many years ago. I got plenty of business in a hurry, but
soon learned that I didn't enjoy
- Original Message -
From: Bob Shell
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:04 AM, William Robb wrote:
If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's
your problem.
Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude.
Art is art. How you create
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:24 AM, William Robb wrote:
If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your
problem.
Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude.
Does the word problem offend you for some reason?
It does in the context and way you have chosen to write
Bob Shell wrote:
Art is art. How you create it is irrelevant.
Tracey Emin?
Malcolm
Aaron Reynolds:
Why is one a craft and one a science?
... because that is my perception.
They're both craft and science.
... and that is yours!
I was merely expressing my opinion. It differs
from yours. I respect yours but I don't agree
with it. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Bill, would it be better if the sentence read If you believe that there's
only art in chemical photography, that's your problem? In context,
that's what he's saying.
How about There can be art in digital
How about;
There can be art in digital photography, the same as there can be art in
chemical photography.
woops.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: William Robb
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Yesterday I was able to experience something truly unusual in film.
No, this is not film vs digital or anything stupid like that.
There is an Asian film festival happening in San Jose this weekend.
Yesterday, I was privileged to join the audience for a viewing of A
View from Topaz ... an
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Colin J wrote:
I was merely expressing my opinion. It differs
from yours. I respect yours but I don't agree
with it. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry for
you, because people should be able to hold
differing opinions about the same thing without
becoming
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:33 AM, William Robb wrote:
What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now
the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are
retarded.
I don't think anyone has said that, only the opposite -- that chemical
is the way to go and
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now
the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are
retarded.
I don't think anyone has said that, only the opposite -- that chemical
is the way to go and
I stand by my statement, and find my expansion to be the best
explanation of my words for those too literal minded to understand
the context:
The inability to see that there is an equal amount of art in digital
photography as there is in film photography is not intrinsic to the
At 07:52 PM 3/25/2006, Kevin Waterson wrote:
As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology.
Digital opens many doors that were previously only dreamed of, particularly
for those not adept in photographic arts.
Its just not what I want from photography. And like the painter
On 3/26/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Colin J wrote:
I was merely expressing my opinion. It differs
from yours. I respect yours but I don't agree
with it. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry for
you, because people should be able to hold
Snap the shutter and leave the rest to us, Kodak Brownie ad of 1903 or
so; and thus the snapshooter was born. In point of fact if you have no
interest in the middle part you are a snapshooter (although snapshooters
can produce interesting pictures), not a photographer. A photographer
does
Well said, Jostein. It is not what you do, it is how much you enjoy
doing it that counts.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Jostein wrote:
Hi Kevin,
Your feelings about our art is a bit
Thanks for looking and commenting, Kostas and all the others who have
replied.
No, the pier itself is the only access. The pond is actually part of a
stream. It's formed by the damming effect of some fallen trees. In the
summer I come here to shoot dragonflies. I'm going to have to do a
color
You are not even in the same conversation as the rest of us, Paul. We
have already stipulated that digital is preferred for commercial
production work. However we are talking about photography as a hobby.
By the way with a Kodak Versamat Processor you could have turned out
those 20 prints in
William Robb wrote:
I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting, to much difficulty in
production.
Since I read Real World Camera Raw... I've found that my time spent
on production has gone *way* down :)
I have one and enjoy its curvilinear distortion. I also have the
DA14, which I prefer for most of my ultrawide work, but the Zeni is a
very very good lens for something that costs $140 or less, new. Two
of my favorites so far:
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/25p.htm
That's fine. I'm in good company with other snapshooters, like HCB, Erwitt,
most of Magnum and the rest of photojournalism. I'll leave photography to
the very Minor Whites.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 March 2006 17:13
To:
graywolf wrote:
Snap the shutter and leave the rest to us, Kodak Brownie ad of 1903 or
so; and thus the snapshooter was born. In point of fact if you have no
interest in the middle part you are a snapshooter (although snapshooters
can produce interesting pictures)
Hell yes! HCB certainly did!
On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting, to much difficulty in
production.
Since I read Real World Camera Raw... I've found that my time spent
on production has gone *way* down :)
Have to agree .. Bruce's discussion of proper
A modern take on an old concept.
http://www.pbase.com/scooter41/image/57749415
William Robb
Well I kind of said that in response to the articles that implied that
anyone who preferred to do things the old way were assholes.
Somehow on this list I prefer the analog process always is reacted to
as if it was written Anyone who uses digital is stupid. I guess that
is because many here
That sounds great. I've heard something of the story about this film. It
is an amazing story, indeed. Do you know if the film will be shown
elsewhere?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Yesterday I was able to experience something truly unusual in film.
No, this is not
No argument with that.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Mark Roberts wrote:
graywolf wrote:
Snap the shutter and leave the rest to us, Kodak Brownie ad of 1903 or
so; and thus the
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:54, William Robb wrote:
A modern take on an old concept.
http://www.pbase.com/scooter41/image/57749415
I love it!
Wonder what he does when it rains?
-Charles
--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But beyond that consideration, I find that the vast majority
of my time in production is on deciding what I want to
present in a photograph,
Some people think the time for making that decision is just before you
Thanks for posting that, Bill. The list can use a little break from the
Bailing out thread. Some humor is good.
Some years ago I saw a cartoon that showed something similar LOL
Hmm, would this be what Weegee'd be doing today?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: William Robb
A modern
On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:56 AM, graywolf wrote:
Somehow on this list I prefer the analog process always is
reacted to as if it was written Anyone who uses digital is
stupid. I guess that is because many here have spent thousands of
dollars on digital and are a bit insecure about it.
A
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting, to much difficulty in
production.
Since I read Real World Camera Raw... I've found that my time spent
on production has gone *way* down :)
Have to agree .. Bruce's
Shoot! It was playing in Berkeley and I missed it. Damn!
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Shel Belinkoff
That sounds great. I've heard something of the story about this film. It
is an amazing story, indeed. Do you know if the film will be shown
elsewhere?
[Original Message]
William Robb wrote:
A modern take on an old concept.
http://www.pbase.com/scooter41/image/57749415
I saw a photo of someone doing the exact same thing at *least* three
years ago! And I know it isn't the same photo because this guy looks
different and is clearly using a much more recent printer.
I've read that the nodal point is usually somewhere near the aperature
blades of a lens. It seems to me, that with modest length lenses, doing
either vertical or horizontal panos would be kind of easy to do with a
two axis rail. The L-R axis could compensate for any off-lens-axis
tripod
I think yesterday at noon was it for A View from Topaz but you
might contact the folks at http://www.asianamericanfilmfestival.org/
to find out if it will be shown anywhere else sometime soon.
I feel quite fortunate in that one of my friends rang me just as I
arrived home at 11:30am
Only if they consider the results artistic. The art of creating
they're art.
Jack
--- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Bob Shell
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:04 AM, William Robb wrote:
If you can't see the art in
On Mar 26, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Bob W wrote:
But beyond that consideration, I find that the vast majority
of my time in production is on deciding what I want to
present in a photograph,
Some people think the time for making that decision is just before
you press
the shutter release.
Some
1 - 100 of 248 matches
Mail list logo
