On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 05:27:01PM +1200, David Mann wrote:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 4:23 AM, John Francis wrote:
One or other of the Smart Undelete utilities is your friend.
Even now, after the fact, you may be lucky enough to be able to
recover the deleted file, but you're far better off if
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Adam Maas wrote:
Bob W wrote:
People do keep them as pets, however. My eldest daughter had one.
She called him Trotsky. The apple doesn't fall far...
Indeed. I was rather alarmed in another thread to learn that your cat
is called Patch.
I like the photo a lot but, alas, I don't think that the bird is
very attractive!
Keith McG
Jay Taylor wrote:
Here's a shot taken a couple months back with the *istDS with the
FA*300 f4.5 stacked with the F1.7X Adapter. This combo gives me a
510mm focal length and is not too shabby
On 7/7/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
No Paul, there's not a lot of empty space on top. Their ID and information
papers take up some of the top part of the frame, which is, imo as the
photographer, is an important part of their story. Otherwise they're just
a couple of cats in
On 7/7/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
What you can see tells you what you need to know.
Arrogant bollocks!!!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
I didn't look at the photo, so I can't comment on it.
But I do get bothered by people telling me what they think I need
to know.
Keith McG
Cotty wrote:
On 7/7/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
What you can see tells you what you need to know.
Arrogant bollocks!!!
--
It was a cat photo; that's enough for me!
I think all pet photos should carry a warning in the subject
line: [pet].
That way I could bin them more easily!
I have no doubt that some of them are excellent photos but they
simply do not interest me.
Keith McG
Cotty wrote:
On 7/7/06, Shel
There is something sinister and frightening about that bird -- in focus
or out.
Don
Keith McGuinness wrote:
I like the photo a lot but, alas, I don't think that the bird is
very attractive!
Keith McG
Jay Taylor wrote:
Here's a shot taken a couple months back with the *istDS with the
Actually, it is a very good question.
I believe many people (consumers) only take pictures, when ever there's a
family event to remember - a birthday or some sort of family get together.
And they only photograph people they know. So, when I'm photographing
strangers, they start to wonder why.
I
Jens Bladt wrote:
Actually, it is a very good question.
I believe many people (consumers) only take pictures, when ever there's a
family event to remember - a birthday or some sort of family get together.
And they only photograph people they know. So, when I'm photographing
strangers, they
I was doing panoramas near my home town, by the sea. In a small recreational
area at a boat club, there was an Arab family (from Palestine and Lebanon)
enjoying the nice weather and eachothers company.
All the men came to me and asked me why I was photographing. They behaved as
if they believed, I
WOW, amazing photograph, Jay. I wish I could get shots like this ;-)
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Don
Williams
Sendt: 8. juli 2006 09:09
Til:
[...]
Once a famous photographer, who died suddenly, left behind
thousands of
photographs showing a white cup.
The journalists started to wonder why. They began
speculations abuot weather
the photographer had gone mad or perhaps was looking for
some mystery - a
message form the
Bill,
Your post made it.
Can you read this return?
Sent via list direct too.
Regards, Bob S.
On 7/8/06, Bill Lawlor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
testWVL I have not received list trafic since July 3.
Bill Lawlor
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Boris Liberman wrote:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/multi-02a.jpg (200kb!)
Mark, there is great amount of minute detail on this shot. Usually
digital has problems past certain level of resolution combined with
certain size of (big) enlargement. When I visited Jostein two years ago
we
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Pretty darn cool. I'd like to see a 25x50 inch print... :-)
At 240ppi it works out to 23 x 45 inches :)
I'm tempted...
--
Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Well those are no good. NOT! ;-) Regards, Bob S.
On 7/8/06, David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 7, 2006, at 8:03 PM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, David Mann wrote:
I decided in the end to keep the thumbnails entirely hidden until the
viewer clicks a
I can't say that I disagree.
As I have said - I'm not an artist - art is not my ambition.
Still some journalistic photographs may very well be regarded as art. Like
my favorite example American Girl in Italy, by Ruth Orkin.
It's so brilliant I initially thought it was staged. It isn't, it's a snap
On Jul 7, 2006, at 10:16 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/brothers.html
DS w/K24/2.8
I usually don't look at these kinds of pictures very deeply. Not that
I dislike pets or cats or dogs, only that such photos of people's
pets only occasionally do much for me.
On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:39 AM, Jens Bladt wrote:
I was doing panoramas near my home town, by the sea. In a small
recreational
area at a boat club, there was an Arab family (from Palestine and
Lebanon)
enjoying the nice weather and eachothers company.
All the men came to me and asked me why
On Jul 7, 2006, at 10:25 PM, David Mann wrote:
OK, here's a set I threw together a while ago.
http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/photodb/galleries/view.php?g=30
I just uploaded the background textures, which I must have forgotten
to do when I restructured the site recently.
That's a nice
Marnie,
Off the top of my head here are some thoughts from my 6 week camping trip
3 years ago...
Rechargeable flashlights and other accessories *seem* like a good idea,
but they don't seem to last as long as when they're powered by regular
batteries. They also don't seem to give much warning
Jens,
I think Godfrey is right, about the panorama too! It reminds me of
the painting Sunday in the Park by George Seurat.
The portraits are very revealing. Much more so than the excellent
work you showed of the town folk for your slide presentation. I got
the feeling that these people were a
this photo I cannot decide if I like or not
I have spent a lot of time with Picasa messing with it, and have never
been satisfied with what I came up with. For this version I hit I'm
Feeling Lucky and decided to wait for comments before spending more
time on it.
I like it because shows the
Thank you for the comments.
Mark- I would like to see your No Swimming, but I did not find it
on your site
Paul Stenquist- I agree that this shot is muddy, as you say. And
since I am relatively new to this, you must pardon my silly questions.
Is the muddiness due to the BW conversion that I
Hi,
A couple of things. The tonality is muddy and flat. At first glance it
seems that a little more contrast would be helpful. A couple of
questions/comments: have you ever seen exhibition quality BW silver
prints? If not, hie the to a museum or gallery and see what they look like
and the
Yes, that's a very striking photo. When I first saw it years ago I
thought it was not staged, but in fact I think it was staged. Here is
something about the staging:
http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/articles/mraz/mraz04.html
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I like. Don't ask me why though.
Dave :-)
On 7/8/06, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this photo I cannot decide if I like or not
I have spent a lot of time with Picasa messing with it, and have never
been satisfied with what I came up with. For this version I hit I'm
Feeling
I'll play with the crop some more. Your suggestion seems a little tight
for me, but I can see that it can definitely benefit from some tightening
up. Thanks!
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/brothers.html
I usually don't look at these
The arm in the foreground obscures too much of the people in the
background for the picture to be 100% successful, otherwise it is very
good.
I agree with Shel about the black background and blue text. I think
you should spell consistently (and correctly) too (avocado, no
avacado)
--
Cheers,
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Hello mike,
The one aspect of this shot that is interesting is that the
environment is rather unusual and so the bad lighting and snapshot
look to it actually bring this out even more. Certainly as an image
goes, this is sub par, but it may be a good indication of who
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Russell Kerstetter wrote:
this photo I cannot decide if I like or not
I have spent a lot of time with Picasa messing with it, and have never
been satisfied with what I came up with. For this version I hit I'm
Feeling Lucky and decided to wait for comments before
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt
Subject: RE: OT: Why do you take pictures?
The lesson I learned was, that lots of people don't look at the
photographs
as such. They look at the people IN the photographs. Photographs as such
are
not at all interesting - to most people. A
Would appreciate y'all taking a look and sending along your
reaction/repulsion.
Taken 10 years ago on a foggy AM at Crater Lake, OR.
I've always felt a little guilty about the donut shadow. Should I?
Mamiya 6, 75mm lens on T-Max 100.
Seeking comments.
Jack
I would think the muddiness is a function of the conversion. There
are many conversion methods that work well. If you're working in
PhotoShop, try using the channel mixer for a start. Just cick on
monochrome and work with the three channels to get a pleasing effect.
Click on the monochrome
Beautiful shot.
-Adam
Jack Davis wrote:
Would appreciate y'all taking a look and sending along your
reaction/repulsion.
Taken 10 years ago on a foggy AM at Crater Lake, OR.
I've always felt a little guilty about the donut shadow. Should I?
Mamiya 6, 75mm lens on T-Max 100.
Seeking comments.
On Jul 8, 2006, at 1:09 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I think it's great. Technically, it wonts for quite a bit, but the
characterization is excellent.
Godfrey
On Jul 7, 2006, at 2:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.michaelhamilton.ca/images/chris.jpg
I know it shows the person,
I like the photo, but don't understand the shadow.
How do you get such? Looks wierd.
Regards, Bob S.
On 7/8/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would appreciate y'all taking a look and sending along your
reaction/repulsion.
Taken 10 years ago on a foggy AM at Crater Lake, OR.
I've
William, I hope you are reading this :-)
I once suggested to my photolab that the rose I had shot (neg) looked
too yellow compared to reality. They suggested that I mark my
mail-forms do not warm colours and so I have been doing over the
past 4 years.
I know that photolabs add yellow to warm
Yep, that sun shadow thing is a great distraction. Adds nothing to the
photo, imo, and takes away from some subtle details in the background.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Jack Davis
Taken 10 years ago on a foggy AM at Crater Lake, OR.
I've always felt a little guilty about the donut
- Original Message -
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Subject: Do not warm colours
William, I hope you are reading this :-)
I once suggested to my photolab that the rose I had shot (neg) looked
too yellow compared to reality. They suggested that I mark my
mail-forms do not warm colours
Gawd yes! (remembering slide shows of certain friends' vacations) There
was ~always~ one or the other standing rigidly in front of some tourist
attraction or scene. And the narrative, with every slide, would be This
is Cathy standing in front of ... Here's Ron in front of ... as if we,
the
Thanks, Shel. Guess I knew that all along.
Jack
--- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, that sun shadow thing is a great distraction. Adds nothing to
the
photo, imo, and takes away from some subtle details in the
background.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Jack Davis
Hi,
I like the rough, gritty style. My only nit is that I'd like to see a
little more of what's lower, maybe the entire TV set - not because I need
or want the information, just that it may offer a somewhat better balance
to the photo. Maybe - just maybe - open the shadow and darker areas just
That was the question. The sun is in the center of the shadow, but
essentially invisible.
I saw this weird shadow in my mind with my first look at the
developed image. Finally had to put it there with the burn tool.
That's the reason for the (slight) guilt feeling.
It's surprising how many look
Russell Kerstetter wrote:
this photo I cannot decide if I like or not
http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/pic05.html
I like it. It looks like something Frank Theriault would do if he shot
color!
(That's a compliment, by the way...)
--
Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
What I am wondering is if (with a Frontier minilab in this case) it is
trivial to not warm colours.
Yes.
Any lab that can't or won't is a place to be avoided.
--
Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
Have a twinge of guilt about this image, also.
Any idea why? (assuming you feel like playing)
All comments appreciated.
Jack
http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=123
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
Doug Brewer wrote:
I agree with Godfrey on this one. At times we get so caught up in the
technical aspects that we fail to appreciate the photos. This is one
of those rare photos that manage to overcome the technical rules to
show us the subject properly. In fact, it could be argued that
From: Jerome Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also invest in a good mattress. Some opt for the foam / rubber pads which
are okay... but I was gone for so long that I opted for an air mattress
(my tent was that big). It was comfortable, but the extreme changes in
temperature a few nights made it
But so few people make a good meatloaf these days anyway...
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Gawd yes! (remembering slide shows of certain friends' vacations) There
was ~always~ one or the other standing rigidly in front of some tourist
attraction or scene. And the narrative, with every slide, would be
Jens Bladt wrote:
All the children and women wanted me to take their pictures, which I
eventually did. They didn't come out very well, though as I wasn't really
equipped to do portraits. I on had the RTF flash (D and DL), which I'm not
familiar with at all. I used a FA* 2.0 24mm and a FA 1.8
JErome -
I very much enjoyed browsing your trip --
I wish the pics each had captions re where you took them
easier to say which photos I liked best for one thing :)
As I'm an ardent road trip gal, and have traveled those
routes as well, it
really was enjoyable...
It is a big project -- I
Many thanks, William and Mark.
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
The lesson I learned was, that lots of people don't look at the photographs
as such. They look at the people IN the photographs. Photographs as such are
not at all interesting - to most people. A good photograph is a photograph
that shows a relative or a friend the way the he or she wants to
Yes - originally it was a black white photograph of a Victorian
industrial coking and smelting plant in operation, but you've tweaked
it with Photoshop into a colourful picture of a flower.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
A fascinating photograph in today's Guardian of Mozart's widow:
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1815753,00.html
I had no idea they had digital cameras back then.
Cheers,
Bobageno
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Close. LOL
J
--- Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes - originally it was a black white photograph of a Victorian
industrial coking and smelting plant in operation, but you've tweaked
it with Photoshop into a colourful picture of a flower.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
JErome -
I very much enjoyed browsing your trip --
Thanks, Ann. I'm glad you enjoyed.
I wish the pics each had captions re where you took them
easier to say which photos I liked best for one thing :)
I *just* created the just see photos link about a week ago, so those
don't have captions
Somebody has recently painted some spectacular graffiti on about 100m
of wall on one of the wharves near my house. I photographed the full
length of it today, and might do a panorama. Here's an excerpt
http://www.web-options.com/P7080771.jpg
You can see the shadow of my magnificent head in it,
Happened into the local Micro Center electronics store and found they
had one Canon Pro-1 camera left. It's an in-case demo unit. If Ann or
anyone else would like it, I found they would let me have it for $610
plus tax.
---
I was curious ... they had the Konica Minolta 7D, Olympus E500,
Alright Ann, here it is in BW.
http://www.mindspring.com/~megazip/PESO_--_untitledvi%5Bbw%5D.html
Same technical data as before if anyone wants details about the
conversion I'll post separately.
As usual yadda, yadda, yadda...
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
I'm not sure I
As noted elsewhere, the cast may have resulted from two or more light
sources (daylight, tungsten, fluorescent). Also, I sometimes work on
photos very late at night, when my eyes are tired, and I may miss some
subtleties. A color cast can come from a lot of sources actually, I
don't know
Jerome,
I enjoyed the photos on a quick browse, some are spectacular!
I see you learned to listen to those inner voices the hard way.
You shoulda paid the $200 for stiches though...
Regards, Bob S.
On 7/8/06, Jerome Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JErome -
I very much enjoyed browsing your
I like it better BW than color
russell
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I do not have internet at home, so I do all my trolling at work, and I
am frequently asked when looking at PESO's why I am looking at a
picture of a dead tree, or a barn or whatever.
Also, when I got my DL, one fo the first questions I was asked: Can
it also do video?
And right after that I was
oh, and to answer the question i don't know, maybe because it's
fun to create, and i can't paint either.
russell
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Still one of my favorite mountain shots
I can see why Mark. I love the simplicity!
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: Moon Over Bluff Mountain
http://www.robertstech.com/peso.htm
Taken three years ago. Still one of my favorite
An additional reply comment after re-reading your reaction post.
The subtle pines images seen at the lower right were the only
background available. Saw nothing of the lake, island or rim. Just
dense fog for 'prox 24 hrs.
The point that nothing was sacrificed I thought worth making.
To me, the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Russell Kerstetter
Sent: 08 July 2006 22:01
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Why do you take pictures?
I do not have internet at home, so I do all my trolling at work, and
I
am
From: Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/07/08 Sat PM 09:01:21 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: Why do you take pictures?
I do not have internet at home, so I do all my trolling at work, and I
am frequently asked when looking at PESO's why I
Super job Mark. Its like i'm right there.:-)
Oh, didi i mention I liked your presentation very much.
Dave
On Jul 7, 2006, at 5:19 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Final image is
about 10,000 x 5000 pixels.
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/multi-02a.jpg
Here is another web album on Picassa of the farmer's market this morning.
I took about 30 pictures in raw and have spent too much time converting them.
First I did 30 raw into jpegs, then highlight reduction on the jpegs.
Uploaded from full 4 meg jpegs to a reduced size by Picassa.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/7/2006 6:38:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
writes:
I'll enjoy your trip from the shots you bring back - well,
I'll check the lottery tonight
though - who knows? :)
ann
Actually, it's going to be multiple trips,
FYI, Aug issue of Pop Photo has very positive review of the Pentax
10~17mm f/3.5-4.5 DA fisheye zoom written by Herbert Kepler.
As might be expected, older 17~28mm f/3.5-4.5 F fisheye, also,
approvingly referenced for comparison.
Pg 48
Jack
__
Do
$1,000/pound. What rubbish.
On that basis an airfare for a human being would be $150,000.
I do wish people would think before making such crazy assertions.
John
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 00:51:09 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, Shel's accurate on this one, they come over by the
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis
Subject: 10-17mm Review
FYI, Aug issue of Pop Photo has very positive review of the Pentax
10~17mm f/3.5-4.5 DA fisheye zoom written by Herbert Kepler.
As might be expected, older 17~28mm f/3.5-4.5 F fisheye, also,
approvingly referenced for
Nice. I want some of those Chanterelles. A few peppers to go with
them as well, please.
Paul
On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:21 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Here is another web album on Picassa of the farmer's market this
morning.
I took about 30 pictures in raw and have spent too much time
converting
Since it's a fisheye, one would expect that. No?
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:01 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis
Subject: 10-17mm Review
FYI, Aug issue of Pop Photo has very positive review of the Pentax
10~17mm f/3.5-4.5 DA fisheye zoom written by Herbert
Bob,
Do your work in the raw converter, not on converted JPEGs. When you get
the hang of RAW you'll be able to reduce the time you spend on making
conversions substantially. Get The Book.
Bob, yesterday I converted something like 30+ pics using a new and an
established preset in the ACR
I can see better results in terms of details in the highlights,
but this is starting to be work not fun. :-(
Comments and sugestions would be appreciated.
Ummm...film?
:^)
(Ducks and runs...)
__
PDML Pentax-Digital Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
--
I'll second that. RAW conversion becomes almost an automatic with
some practice. And you shouldn't have to reduce highlights after
conversion. Unless you're really short of storage space, you should
be converting your RAW files to tiffs, not jpegs.
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Shel Belinkoff
Nothing comes up for me tried it three times.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Bob Sullivan
Here is another web album on Picassa of the farmer's market this morning.
http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/FarmerSMarket02
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: 10-17mm Review
Since it's a fisheye, one would expect that. No?
Some, but this is really bad...
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
My feelings exactly - excellent shot, but ugly bird. I was thinking
these birds were nicer looking - perhaps only at a distance.
--
Bruce
Friday, July 7, 2006, 11:34:04 PM, you wrote:
KM I like the photo a lot but, alas, I don't think that the bird is
KM very attractive!
KM Keith McG
KM
That's interesting. The DA 12-24, which is a rectilinear, shows
minimal barrel distortion.
Paul
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:22 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: 10-17mm Review
Since it's a fisheye, one would expect that. No?
Some, but this
I would think the muddiness is a function of the conversion.
that's what i thought. Earlier this afternoon, I recalled someone
made a comment about a different PESO with a BW conversion, that it
reminded him a photo that used to be color. I think that applies to
this one as well. Also, I am
It's a major thing with him that Pentax makes (seems they're the only
maker) a zoom fisheye. Gets off on the idea that it affords one the
option of 'tuning' the image distortion, to some extent.
Jack
--- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis
Hello Russell,
I think the real issue for me is that arm right up front, getting in
the way of some of the picture. If you can do something about that,
it might be worth working on. To just leave it there, I think weakens
the picture too much.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Saturday, July 8, 2006,
I'm not an expert in the area of BW filtration, but I believe a green
filter will lighten foliage but darken skin tones. That could be part
of your problem. Shoot without a filter until you get yoru bearings
on a standard conversion. The less you have to deal with at first,
the better.
Jerome Reyes wrote:
meanwhile -- wehre were you exactly when you too the last
two of a mountain on the thumbnail page.
I think the one over the lake is Reinier, right?
Yes, that's Rainier (as far as I know). The one with the clouds...
Okay, just so everyone will be able to sleep tonight, I'm going to
divulge the answer.
It's a positive print of a color negative. Probably Kodak Ektar 100.
Simply noticed on a light box.
Has confused a couple of lab scanners in its time.
Sold a few.
Jack
--- Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jens Bladt wrote:
I can't say that I disagree.
As I have said - I'm not an artist - art is not my ambition.
Still some journalistic photographs may very well be regarded as art. Like
my favorite example American Girl in Italy, by Ruth Orkin.
It's so brilliant I initially thought it was
Hello Jack,
The tree looks very interesting. The shadow thing doesn't even look
real to me - very odd looking. I think it has a major negative impact
on what otherwise might be a great photograph.
--
Bruce
Saturday, July 8, 2006, 7:33:45 AM, you wrote:
JD Would appreciate y'all taking a
Since Panorama maker will only accommodate a maximum of four
images per row...
Mark IIRC, I've stitched six images in one row in Panorama Maker.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: 50 Megapixels of GFM
Here's another multi-image
P.S. I think you mean surfing or maybe browsing, not trolling..
yes i suppose you are correct
to me trolling has two connotations: a troll, but also poking about
hoping to find something interesting, like when fishing
but according to the wikipedia, there is only the one
Somtimes people react very differently to the sam event.
I saw this a an outdoor consert, where the band wasw playing Steven Reich
compostions:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/185094507/
Regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by
Okay, so you'll get some sleep tonight, I'll tell you this is a
positive print of a color negative.
I clicked on the wrong subject in my first attempt to reveal the
answer. Guess it was due to me excitement.
Jack
--- Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have a twinge of guilt about this image,
I do shoot filterless, I meant that was the filter used in the conversion
i think that it helped to highlight the bird. which i suppose needing
to highlight the bird is more evidence that Picasa isn't my best
choice for BW conversions
russell
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Never mind!
J
--- Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, just so everyone will be able to sleep tonight, I'm going to
divulge the answer.
It's a positive print of a color negative. Probably Kodak Ektar 100.
Simply noticed on a light box.
Has confused a couple of lab scanners in its
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
