> instead of having a camera with Ilford 3200, I'll have it
> with Fuji Press and the other camera with Fuji NPZ to see if there is a
> subtle difference.
>
> herb
>
> Sun. Mar 26: Aaron Reynolds wrote
>
>
>>Now NPZ is a different animal -- lower con
You luddite.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Talking photography - dynamics
Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:30 pm
Size: 520 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>On Mar 28, 2006, at 4:54 PM, frank theriault wrote:
On Mar 28, 2006, at 4:54 PM, frank theriault wrote:
The only "rule" I recognize is that for real art, one must use film.
The corollary to that is that digital is without soul, and is clearly
the work of the Satan.
You and your soul-less flexible base film -- bah, I spit on your
plastic resin
On Mar 28, 2006, at 4:37 PM, frank theriault wrote:
Oo!
Good recovery!
"Rules?! There ARE no rules in a knife fight!"
-Aaron
I've never had a problem with B&H, though I've only bought from them in
person.
-Aaron
I found my own work to be pretty static. I tried to jazz it up, but it all
seemed forced.
So I embraced static as my style, went with it, became even more concious of
horizontal and vertical lines... and things sort of worked themselves out.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Boris Lib
On Mar 28, 2006, at 9:57 AM, frank theriault wrote:
It's meaningless to say one is better than the other without
including the all important "for what?".
Exactly!!
cheers,
frank the luddite (and proud of it)
It's my favourite argument: which is better, the hammer or the
screwdriver?
Frank, more than one person in this thread has said that the wet darkroom has
soul and the digital darkroom doesn't. I'd be as quick to jump on someone
arguing digital's inherent superiority as a process. 99% of what you see is
what the person brings to the process, not the process itself.
-A
Heh, "Are there any women who shoot MotoGP" -- I've only seen a female sports
photographer once, and she was part of the Japanese media contingent following
Hideki Matsui's consecutive games played streak.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Sor
e wrong for Kevin to feel the
way he does than it is for you to ~feel~ the way you do, regardless of
whether those feelings (yours or Kevin's) are rational, logical, fit within
the mainstream of this list, or are from outer space.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Aaron Reynolds <[EM
On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Actually, Aaron gets it completely. As do the others who've done
enough darkroom work to realize that , like processing pics on the
computer, it's just work. Both can be rewarding, both can be difficult
and tedious.
Yes, thank you.
-Aaron
On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:11 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Aaron, you, and others, don't get it. It's about personal perception
and
feeling, which doesn't have to conform to ~your~ logic.
Shel, I'm sorry that I feel insulted when people say "what you do is
not art, it is binary, it is product, it
On Mar 28, 2006, at 7:45 AM, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
And, I don't know about the majority of the general US public, but I
never encountered the term until it showed up in this thread. Not a
clue what it meant until translated.
I'm not in the U.S. and I'm not in I.T. and I didn't know what it mean
On Mar 28, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Leon Altoff wrote:
The dark room may not be an inherently magical place, but it is a
place of ritual more than any computer. What the darkroom lacks is an
undo button. One wrong step, one incorrect movement in the ritual and
you have to start again.
I don't kn
mbedded in resin"... right?
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Workflow (was: Bailing out.)
Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:19 am
Size: 810 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
This one time, at band camp, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Mar 28, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
allow me to finish
If you paint with light.. you use an enlarger.
The painting with light does not finish with the camera exposure.
Mudh more is done in the darkroom.
This is what digital removes. Yes, you can fiddle with pixels all you
On Mar 27, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Mat Maessen wrote:
576MB. As much as you can jam into the thing.
That should be alright, really. It would run Photoshop 7 without
trouble.
-Aaron
On Mar 27, 2006, at 2:35 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Aaron, if we get to meet, please remind me of what you just wrote. I
should be very interested to see you work.
As Frank and Dave "too bald" Chang-Sang can tell you, I behave oddly
when people are watching me take pictures.
If you're somew
Is it a reasonable expectation to find a bag that will meet my needs?
Are their any other bags that I missed? Any comments or suggestions
would be appreciated.
How big is the laptop? I have a nice bag that doesn't look much like a
camera bag from Kipling -- it has a slot in the front that
On Mar 27, 2006, at 9:26 PM, Mat Maessen wrote:
I'll have my laptop there, even though I'm not entering the
competition. Has a burner. Though if the idea of running Photoshop CS2
on a 500 MHz G3 with a 12" screen scares you, maybe there are better
choices... :-)
How much RAM do you have?
-Aa
On Mar 27, 2006, at 10:39 PM, William Robb wrote:
I don't know about that. I find most complaints are generated because
it looked good on the customers' screen, and I can't get a good print.
My own experience tells me that if I can't get a good print at home,
taking it to work isn't going to h
On Mar 27, 2006, at 9:50 PM, William Robb wrote:
I dunno. If I am giving out negatives, they are readily printable at
any photolab or I haven't done my job in the first place.
Why shold digital be held to a lower standard?
It's supposed to be better.
The uncorrected negatives are just like t
On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
According so some people, my copy of Photoshop has a "Not Wales"
filter!
Well, your ISP still doesn't love me. E-mail me off-list.
-Aaron
You have to use the de-heart, de-art or de-soul filters. Just opening it in
Photoshop isn't enough.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "Perry Pellechia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:04 pm
Size: 778 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Actually you
Doesn't "workflow" come from the corporate world?
I've only ever called it workflow here on the list while responding to someone
else who had called it workflow -- my digital darkroom actually was in my old
colour darkroom, still said COLOUR DARKROOM on the door (though I added an
Apple logo st
D]>
Subj: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:36 am
Size: 834 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On 3/27/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank, have you seen my prints? Are my big, beautiful prints
> "products" rather than photographs?
I did
On Mar 27, 2006, at 7:56 AM, frank theriault wrote:
"Products". That's what digital makes. "Products".
Frank, have you seen my prints? Are my big, beautiful prints
"products" rather than photographs?
-Aaron
On Mar 27, 2006, at 7:34 AM, K.Takeshita wrote:
I do not think this is what people are saying. Definitely not.
If you interpret this that the film enthusiasts making an
"anti-digital"
argument, then your view is completely skewed.
Ken, I personally objected to the comparison between "artis
On Mar 27, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Bob Shell wrote:
I'm a strong proponent of digital photography who still occasionally
dips his fingers in darkroom work. The work I produce digitally looks
just like the work I produce in the darkroom. In fact I have
challenged photographers to tell which is whi
On Mar 27, 2006, at 3:22 AM, Cornelius Nuzzlemuff III wrote:
At its rated 800 ISO I find it a bit underexposed.
I think you're probably hitting your head against NPZ's total dislike
of underexposure -- while many colour negative films will behave well
with a little bit, NPZ just won't take
On Mar 27, 2006, at 2:01 AM, herb greenslade wrote:
Most
recently a salesperson recommended the Fuji NPZ Pro and said that it
was a better film for pushing to 1600 ISO.
While I love NPZ 800, between Press 800 and NPZ 800, Press will take
the underexposure better. NPZ is a lot like NPH and
On Mar 27, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
It would take great amount of self-discipline to:
1. Do as much as possible with the camera.
2. Do only raw processing and then spend no more than 5 min per photo
in PS which would be roughly equal to whatever averaging the mini-lab
does.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 11:05 PM, Markus Maurer wrote:
Hi Aaron
thanks a lot for these impressive examples and the other postings, it
does
help me a lot.
But showing me some 6x7 format shots was a bit cruel, how should I
ever like
my "grainy 35mm sauces" again?
See, I'm enabling you. You mus
One of my favourite comic strips of all time has a child doing his
homework. He looks up and says, "Dad, what's Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle?" The father pauses, puts down his newspaper and says, "I
don't know."
-Aaron
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Gautam Sarup wrote:
Heisenberg Unce
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:13 PM, frank theriault wrote:
Ah, the organized chaos of those artistic types:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4260706&size=lg
Frank, are you sure that it's YOUR friend's kitchen?
http://aaronreynolds.ca/gallery/Halifax/kitchen_RVP_portfolio
That's my sister-
9 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>Come on, we all know that reality is that which, when you stop believing in
>it, does not go away.
>
Oh, Mark ... !
Come on, we all know that reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
does not go away.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:05 pm
Size: 1K
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
It's been repeated many times
On Mar 26, 2006, at 1:53 PM, William Robb wrote:
For some people, myself included, the picture (or whatever, it could
be a clay pot for all I care) at the end is little more than a
byproduct of the process.
And some people are saying that the process determines whether one is
creative or on
On Mar 26, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Cesar wrote:
I am fortunate to have a lab that I trust, and they have told me that
I am the most consistetnt photographer per roll that they have.
And see, I WAS the lab that I trusted, and while I still have most of
the lab in my house I can't really get up the
quot;David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:00 am
Size: 1K
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On 3/26/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Colin J wrote:
>
> > I was merely expressing
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
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 thos
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 offe
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
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 pri
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
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 that?
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
What stinks sometimes is when you take something that you love and turn it into
a career and then you get sick of it.
I love to shoot film, but I could die happy if I never stepped into a darkroom
again in my life.
I don't care much for "digital workflow" either, but I'm not sick of it yet.
I
quot;pentax list"
On 25/3/06, Aaron Reynolds, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Cotty, I do not and have never lived in the United States. My e-mail
>address says as much.
Guilty as charged! I sincerely apologise.
>
>Replace the word "art" with "heart". Same argu
Original Message-
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: March Madness
Date: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:15 pm
Size: 5K
To: "pentax list"
On 25/3/06, Aaron Reynolds, discombobulated, unleashed:
>So, Cotty, why is it that only users of reflex cameras are artists?
I'm afraid
On Mar 25, 2006, at 9:07 AM, David Savage wrote:
From what I understand of Cory's original post, what happens at these
events is that they set up several banks of still cameras in strategic
around the court/field/venue, aimed at various points of potential
interest?! (it doesn't matter a whit
On Mar 25, 2006, at 8:46 AM, graywolf wrote:
And equipment in my experience plays a part way secondary to having
the neccessary contacts with photo buyers.
Bingo!
-Aaron
On Mar 25, 2006, at 3:22 AM, Cotty wrote:
Let me get this right, or I may be misunderstanding the situation.
There's lots (6? 8? ) of cameras aimed at strategic points of the
playing area, with remote controls to one or a couple of operators.
Therefore, the operators ( I call them that for want
On Mar 24, 2006, at 8:23 PM, David Savage wrote:
And yet you complain about others who voice their complaints/concerns.
I don't get it.
-Aaron
On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:43 PM, William Robb wrote:
How does pointing out why something is the way it is (that's all Rob
did)
automatically get classified as carping, or an argument about needs and
wants?
Sorry for the confusion, Bill -- I wasn't referring to Rob, just the
general tone of the
On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I have no need for this lens to cover 24x36mm.
A 20mm lens for that format does the job I want to do just fine.
Why should I pay the difference in price for something I don't need or
want?
It's just something to carp about. Really, how m
CTED]>
Subj: Re: March Madness
Date: Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:32 pm
Size: 1016 bytes
To: "pentax list"
On 24/3/06, Aaron Reynolds, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I don't think you can say that without seeing the photographs, Cotty. I
>don't see it as much different from using a
I'm outraged that they introduced the D and abandoned those of us who bought a
lot of film. I can't fit film in my D -- now I have to throw it all away at
great personal expense.
Seriously, Joe -- the horse is really, really dead.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Tainter <[EMA
I don't think you can say that without seeing the photographs, Cotty. I don't
see it as much different from using a rangefinder or perhaps a camera on a
tripod with a cable release.
Much of the art is in the placement, and knowing what will happen where. It's
an extreme version of picking you
Shel, if you print one be sure to add SHEL-O-VISION in big letters.
-Aaron
On Mar 23, 2006, at 6:12 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
As I said: Pentax F, FA, DA, D-FA lenses only.
Pentax A, A* lenses don't have the ROM data.
Yes... but Cristian's Sigma shows up as a Pentax A lens?
-Aaron
More samples, not as gigantic as the last one. Click on each to see a
1280 pixel version.
http://aaronreynolds.ca/gallery/Baseball/helmets1 -- Delta 3200, 6x7,
a more evenly-lit scene (baseball stadium lighting, with the lights
only half on during batting practice)
http://aaronreynolds.
On Mar 23, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Christian wrote:
When i view my Exif data using the Sigma 300 F4, it says its a Pentax
A300 f4 lens.
Really? My Sigma 300/4 showed as "Pentax FA* 300 f4.5"
My Pentax A* 200mm f2.8 says it's a --. I suppose it was too young
to have that data implanted in i
On Mar 23, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
The Kingston cards aren't nearly as fast as an Ultra II.
Which Kingston cards -- the slow ones or the fast ones?
-Aaron
On Mar 23, 2006, at 9:00 AM, Niko Koskela wrote:
I found the problem. I looked at the lens and the camera bayonet once
more after posting here. I realised the cam on the lens which couples
the aperture with the camera had bent just slightly inwards. It was
hard to notice, it hadn´t bent too m
On Mar 22, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
http://aaronreynolds.ca/gallery/MLU-demo
It's a good dual-purpose example -- if you size it to 55x70mm and crop
out a 24x36mm chunk, you can see both the grain at 35mm and the
difference in grain at 6x7.
I had a moment and did it fo
http://aaronreynolds.ca/gallery/MLU-demo
Not at home to put up a gallery yet, but I remembered that file was still on my
site.
This image was put up to demo hand-holding a Pentax 67, 1/30 f4 with mirror
lock up, shot under a streetlight. The film is Ilford Delta 3200 processed in
Ilfotec DD-X
ubj: RE: Which high speed film for indoor shots ? was:RE: How do you
selectyour camera for the day? was
Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:58 pm
Size: 403 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On 22 Mar 2006 at 17:53, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> Oh, I should note that any samples I have will be sharpened to m
Oh, I should note that any samples I have will be sharpened to make an
appropriate-looking print.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "Markus Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: RE: Which high speed film for indoor shots ? was:RE: How do you
selectyour camera for the day? was
Date: Wed Ma
I have a number of samples... let me find some and post them tonight.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "Markus Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: RE: Which high speed film for indoor shots ? was:RE: How do you
selectyour camera for the day? was
Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Size: 4K
Further to Rob's note, Ilford Delta 3200 basically stinks in TMax developer, no
matter what you do.
I love Delta 3200, and it's great in a lot of developers, but not TMax.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Which high speed film for indoor sh
On Mar 22, 2006, at 9:48 AM, William Robb wrote:
While many 1hr labs can process 120 C-41 (I think all Noritsu film
processors can do it), very few will have the needed masks and lenses
to print it.
True. Though a lot of places that do have the masks and lenses still
don't know what to do
es
to scan them later on the computer or are you one luckier people that
can do
it yourself?
greetings
Markus
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 1:15 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DS vs DL viewfinder?
More to the point of my question, actually -- is there any way I can
find out which focusing screen ships with the DS2 by examining my DS2?
And is there any way to determine whether or not the eyepiece is
multi-coated?
-Aaron
On Mar 22, 2006, at 12:57 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
If you grew up with Rollei TLRs and Hasselblad SLRs, you'd think your
35mm camera was like looking down a dark tunnel.
Going from the 67 to something like the ME Super or the LX, I always
took a little while to adjust to how tiny the find
On Mar 22, 2006, at 3:25 AM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Godfrey, it is viewfinder in Dl that is noticeably brighter than the
one in
Ds - mainly thanks to new matte screen called Natural Bright Matte II.
I
think Dario can confirm my observation especially that he had these two
cameras at the sa
On Mar 21, 2006, at 11:54 PM, William Robb wrote:
I realize that this is like saying my dog has pretty good breath for a
dog.
"This brand of kitty litter is far and away the best-tasting."
-Aaron
What white balance options are missing?
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: RE: More on *ist D vs DS
Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:52 pm
Size: 1K
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Hi,
I don't know what Custom Image Sizes is, so I couldn't miss it;
Who
I thought there was no effects "cheating" in Ronin...
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: CRASH! Always Wear Your Seat Belt ...
Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:02 pm
Size: 913 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Well, I did say arguably ;-)) Just
On Mar 21, 2006, at 3:24 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Don't know if I posted it here, but CRASH was the next film in my
NetFlix
queue, and it shipped earlier today.
You did post that -- I thought you meant the other Crash, the one that
just won some Oscars.
-Aaron
On Mar 21, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Mike, to which "Crash" movie are you referring. There was one by David
Cronenberg
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=404309
and the more recent one
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=70023961 with Sandra
Bullock
and frie
On Mar 21, 2006, at 5:11 AM, mike wilson wrote:
I've read a lot of negative remarks about the film in various places.
Many Americans don't like it - it certainly doesn't encourage me to
visit LA.
You're talking about the "other" Crash -- the one that won the Oscar a
few weeks back. Shel i
I've put the book on my to-read list. Thanks, Mike.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Re: CRASH! Always Wear Your Seat Belt ...
Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:00 am
Size: 1K
To:
>
> From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mar 21, 2006, at 2:23 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Your examples all work fine in Mac OS X's Mail.app too.
...and in PalmOS's VersaMail.
-Aaron
If you haven't seen it, rent the David Cronenberg Crash from a few years back
(though not from Blockbuster, which carries a comically edited version of the
film). It's creepy and eerie, and at times deliriously funny, if you only are
able to let yourself laugh at it.
It's mainly about people d
On Mar 20, 2006, at 3:17 PM, jtainter wrote:
Even if the new lenses do have the drive shaft, for how long will this
be the case? Will Pentax eventually drop the AF drive shaft, just as
they dropped the mechanical aperture linkage from many recent lenses?
How many years did they support the me
On Mar 20, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Dave Kennedy wrote:
Tried out my wired remote on my DS yesterday, and found that when the
remote in plugged in, my display is shut off. Hence I cannot see the
histograms - that doesn't make any sense to me.
That doesn't seem good. That would really mess up the us
On Mar 19, 2006, at 10:00 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
I have 9 GB of CF cards, and am seriously peeved at Pentax for
treating those of us who stepped forward and bought the *ist D in this
way.
Maybe Pentax doesn't think you're going to throw away your *ist D?
If you sell your D when you upgrad
On Mar 19, 2006, at 10:08 PM, Mishka wrote:
i know that with manual focus, this shot wouldn't have been a problem
at all
(a swing is a pretty predictable device :)
Welcome to the first great lesson of action photography! It seems you
found it on your own. ;)
-Aaron
On Mar 19, 2006, at 1:39 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
As should be obvious from my comment, I don't find these grips to my
taste. I had one for my 10D and hated the additional bulk and weight,
never got used to using the portrait shutter release anyway.
They're useful if you find yourself in
On Mar 19, 2006, at 1:26 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Acid Image is for Palm OS. I don't believe they have a WinCE version.
OK, my ears just perked up. I got a Palm TX as part of a recent gig
(they wanted a drop in the overall price, so I suggested that I could
keep some of the technology p
On Mar 18, 2006, at 11:23 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
It just uses the remote socket to give the vertical release. It
doesn't require a mod like the 3rd party D70 grips do.
Exactly. That's what I like about it.
Now, what's this one and why is it so much cheaper?
http://www.dicain.com/2002/shop/sh
What's clever about it is how it manages to give a vertical release to a camera
that expressly doesn't support one. I'd be interested in one but at the same
time thankful that it comes off.
Anyone bought stuff from this company?
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMA
Sell it to me now please.
-Aaron
On Mar 18, 2006, at 1:40 AM, John Francis wrote:
This link was just posted on rec.photo.digital.slr-systems:
http://www.dicain.com/2002/zb/view.php?id=notice&no=61
On Mar 17, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
I can't find a good comparison online apart from Ken Rockwell's.
Don't make me go to his site, I'm begging you.
What I still don't get is why they'd opt to create a second Velvia 100
rather than keeping the 50 in the lineup. Maybe it's like the
On Mar 17, 2006, at 4:00 PM, Juan Buhler wrote:
In other news, I'm thinking about installing the engine of my '98
Honda Civic in a Ferrari.
HAR!
-Aaron
On Mar 17, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Derek wrote:
I think that Velvia 50 is more saturated and has finer grain than
even the new 100. YMMV.
In terms of grain, Velvia 50 was noticeably grainier than Velvia 100F,
mostly because the 100F emulsion is a much newer design.
-Aaron
On Mar 17, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
If you want no grain, shoot Astia (RMS 7, finest grain slide film).
Grain-wise Velvia 50 and Velvia 100F are nearly indistinguishable as
far as I can tell (RMS 8 vs 9). Note that Velvia 100 (not F) is also
RMS 8.
But I like grain. Which is why I
:40 -0500
>
>Saturation. 100F is much lower saturation than 50. Velvia 100 (not F) is
>fairly close to 50, but a fair number of people don't like it as much.
>
>-Adam
>
>
>
>Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>>While I sympathize with people who've had their favorite
601 - 700 of 2475 matches
Mail list logo
