You can see that in the eyes.
Well done
Dave
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:
> Something to tug at your heart...
>
> http://bongmanayon.posterous.com/the-best-smile-ever
>
> Bong
>
> --
> Bong Manayon
> http://www.bong.uni.cc
>
> --
>
-best-smile-ever
Bong
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:
> Something to tug at your heart...
>
> http://bongmanayon.posterous.com/the-best-smile-ever
How beautiful!
Thanks for the photo and the story. I hope they get enough money to
get their power back.
cheers,
frank
--
"
2010/12/19 Bong Manayon :
> Something to tug at your heart...
>
> http://bongmanayon.posterous.com/the-best-smile-ever
>
Lovely, Bong!
Jostein
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mail
It's all in the eyes! Great image.
Jeffery
On Dec 18, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:
> Something to tug at your heart...
>
> http://bongmanayon.posterous.com/the-best-smile-ever
>
> Bong
>
> --
> Bong Manayon
> http://www.bong.uni.cc
>
> --
Beautiful tribute to a precious soul.
Jack
--- On Sat, 12/18/10, Bong Manayon wrote:
> From: Bong Manayon
> Subject: PESO- The Best Smile Ever
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Saturday, December 18, 2010, 5:21 PM
> Something to tug a
Wonderful image and a great story. Thanks for sharing.
Dan
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:
> Something to tug at your heart...
>
> http://bongmanayon.posterous.com/the-best-smile-ever
>
> Bong
>
> --
> Bong Manayon
> http://www.bong.uni.cc
>
&
So true. Wonderful image. Beautiful little girl.
Paul
Paul
On Dec 18, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:
> Something to tug at your heart...
>
> http://bongmanayon.posterous.com/the-best-smile-ever
>
> Bong
>
> --
> Bong Manayon
> http://www.bong.uni.cc
>
&g
Something to tug at your heart...
http://bongmanayon.posterous.com/the-best-smile-ever
Bong
--
Bong Manayon
http://www.bong.uni.cc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
On Dec 7, 2010, at 6:58 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/photogalleries/101130-best-space-pictures-2010/#/space92-hubble-anniversary_19582_600x450.jpg
Amazing stuff. While we were in Sydney we saw the Hubble 3D movie at IMAX.
Highly recommen
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/photogalleries/101130-best-space-pictures-2010/#/space92-hubble-anniversary_19582_600x450.jpg
I think i see some dust on the sensor.
And blobs. NASA better launch a giant piece of white paper up there
quick-smart and check it out, or the
I think i see some dust on the sensor.
Dave
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/photogalleries/101130-best-space-pictures-2010/#/space92-hubble-anniversary_19582_600x450.jpg
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/photogalleries/101130-best-space-pictures-2010/#/space92-hubble-anniversary_19582_600x450.jpg
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/leonid-meteor-shower-skywatching-tips-101115.html
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=1661&gid=138
Dan
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
Boris Liberman wrote:
On 11/8/2010 7:37 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
The crop factor is determined by how many pixels are masked off at the
edges of the sensor.
Mark, it would /really/ surprise me if after so many cameras with exactly
1.53 crop factor, Pentax decided to introduce K-5 with sligh
On 11/8/2010 7:37 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
CheekyGeek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
According to DxO, K-7 has bigger sensor than D7000. The crop factors are
1.52 vs 1.53 respectively...
*Evil grin*
I'm guessing that you are not serious, but isn't the crop fac
The true iso values are different as well, Pentax bing a lot closer to
advertised iso values.
Cheating that way (yes Pentax does as well) is a way to get more DR at
a given advertised iso value.
I hate this behaviour !
2010/11/8, P. J. Alling :
> I'm not entirely sure that the K-5 D7000 and Alph
I'm not entirely sure that the K-5 D7000 and Alpha 55 actually use the
/exact/ same sensor. Not only do they seem to have different frame
sizes, and pixel counts, (which could be accounted for in the three
manufactures implementations, but they also have different Pixel
pitches. That seems to
- Mensaje original
> De: John Francis
> Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Enviado: lun,8 noviembre, 2010 18:23
> Asunto: Re: It's offical: K-5 is the best (D7000 tested)
>
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 10:15:58AM -0600, CheekyGeek wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 8, 201
CheekyGeek wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
>> According to DxO, K-7 has bigger sensor than D7000. The crop factors are
>> 1.52 vs 1.53 respectively...
>>
>> *Evil grin*
>
>I'm guessing that you are not serious, but isn't the crop factor due
>to a *combination* of th
Oh, of course I am not being serious. I am thinking however that this
web site, which is looked up and looked at by great many people and
which is striving to be most well known could be more attentive to the
small details such as this. It should be 1.53 and most likely it is
yet another minor misp
On 11/8/2010 11:15 AM, CheekyGeek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
According to DxO, K-7 has bigger sensor than D7000. The crop factors are
1.52 vs 1.53 respectively...
*Evil grin*
I'm guessing that you are not serious, but isn't the crop factor due
to a *combinat
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 10:15:58AM -0600, CheekyGeek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
> > According to DxO, K-7 has bigger sensor than D7000. The crop factors are
> > 1.52 vs 1.53 respectively...
> >
> > *Evil grin*
>
> I'm guessing that you are not serious, but isn
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
> According to DxO, K-7 has bigger sensor than D7000. The crop factors are
> 1.52 vs 1.53 respectively...
>
> *Evil grin*
I'm guessing that you are not serious, but isn't the crop factor due
to a *combination* of the sensor size and the flang
According to DxO, K-7 has bigger sensor than D7000. The crop factors are
1.52 vs 1.53 respectively...
*Evil grin*
On 11/8/2010 3:26 PM, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
DxO has tested the D7000:
http://www.dslrmagazine.com/pruebas/pruebas-tecnicas/nikon-d7000-sensor-raw.html
And the K-5 gets an slight a
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Miserere wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 08:26, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
>> DxO has tested the D7000:
>> http://www.dslrmagazine.com/pruebas/pruebas-tecnicas/nikon-d7000-sensor-raw.html
>>
>> And the K-5 gets an slight advantage thanks to its ISO 80 setting, not
>> prese
On 8 November 2010 10:06, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
>
> Thanks Miserere, this is what I call 'team work'...
Team España ;-)
> Regarding the Sony A55...May its results be affected by the mirror preventing
> part of the light from reaching the sensor?
Hmmm...that's a good question. Looking at the S
On 8 November 2010 10:12, David J Brooks wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Miserere wrote:
>> At low ISO you need a good
>> sensor, but at high ISO you also need great algorithms.
>
> I thought you needed great legs.??
>
> Dave
I already have those.
--M.
--
\/\/o/\/\ --> http://
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Miserere wrote:
> At low ISO you need a good
> sensor, but at high ISO you also need great algorithms.
I thought you needed great legs.??
Dave
>
>
> --M.
> --
>
> \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com
>
> http://EnticingTheLight.com
> A Quest for P
- Mensaje original
> De: Miserere
> Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Enviado: lun,8 noviembre, 2010 15:54
> Asunto: Re: It's offical: K-5 is the best (D7000 tested)
>
> On 8 November 2010 08:26, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
> > DxO has tested the D7000:
>
On 8 November 2010 08:26, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
> DxO has tested the D7000:
> http://www.dslrmagazine.com/pruebas/pruebas-tecnicas/nikon-d7000-sensor-raw.html
>
> And the K-5 gets an slight advantage thanks to its ISO 80 setting, not present
> in the D7000.
I suppose it's time for me to do my thi
DxO has tested the D7000:
http://www.dslrmagazine.com/pruebas/pruebas-tecnicas/nikon-d7000-sensor-raw.html
And the K-5 gets an slight advantage thanks to its ISO 80 setting, not present
in the D7000.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_
Larry, Godfrey, Thibs, Tom, Bill, John, Dario, Bob W, Bob S et al (*), I
appreciate your comments and suggestions.
I am thinking of the following "strategy".
1. Larry, both my cameras are fully hmmm accessorized, meaning properly
tuned Katz Eye screens and viewfinder magnifying eye caps. I would
On 9/27/2010 10:25 PM, Bob W wrote:
for the fruit of your loins it must only be the very best. A Leica S2.
Bob
Bob, you're not being honest here. Both you and I know very well that
Leica S2 is mere pretense to the very best...
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Mark got a point, Steve. He might not necessarily be right, but he's got
a point!
Boris
On 9/27/2010 10:30 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Steven Desjardins wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
My pick would be the new Fuji X100.
You're devious, Mark.
Why Steve, the tho
Boris,
for the fruit of your loins it must only be the very best. A Leica S2.
Bob
--
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral
bankruptcy."
-Woody Allen
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pd
Assuming it's everything it's touted to be.
On 9/27/2010 4:20 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
My pick would be the new Fuji X100.
--
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral
bankruptcy."
-Woody Allen
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
htt
On Sep 27, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Like I wrote to Tom on the other thread, Galia is complaining a bit about AF
> of her K10D. I could, in principle, proceed towards spending our time
> together whereas I'd be telling her about the way AF is supposed to be used,
> et
Steven Desjardins wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> My pick would be the new Fuji X100.
>>
>You're devious, Mark.
Why Steve, the thought never occurred to me that Bosis might actually
use the camera himself on occasion. I'm shocked, shocked that you
would think such
mpare brands here. I'd simply like to know how would you
> approach this issue.
Boris,
for the fruit of your loins it must only be the very best. A Leica S2.
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDM
You're devious, Mark.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> My pick would be the new Fuji X100.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
My pick would be the new Fuji X100.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
When I saw the word "modern", I assumed that to mean "still in production". If
the term is used more loosely, it would be good to use a manual focus, manual
exposure camera rather than a "push the button and the camera does the rest"
camera.
Jeffery
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.n
I don't presume to know what makes the best modern camera for a child
who loves to take photos, particularly a child now used to what is at
least an advanced amateur camera with three professional-quality
lenses. What alternative would be better? Teaching her how to focus
manually when t
Sorry one more comment.
Regarding a newcomer the NEX5 offers plenty. I'm not a newcomer and
the only thing I wish for was the two lenses mentioned. A longer zoom
which either has just become available or is about to, and a true
macro.
It could easily be a non-afficando's only camera.
On Mon, S
Also despite the negative view of the provided add on flash, it's
generated acceptable results the few times I've used it. I now leave
it on camera instead of detaching.
Tom C.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Tom C wrote:
> I hope to stick a NEX5 gallery up this week.
>
> I was initially missi
I hope to stick a NEX5 gallery up this week.
I was initially missing the viewfinder, but not to the extent I had
anticipated. In some respects a large-ish LCD screen can be a good
substitute.
I don't have the long 200mm zoom yet, but do have the 16mm and the
18-55mm lenses. I think what I'll mi
Boris Liberman wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Like I wrote to Tom on the other thread, Galia is complaining a bit
> about AF of her K10D. I could, in principle, proceed towards spending
> our time together whereas I'd be telling her about the way AF is
> supposed to be used, etc. This can prove beneficial to he
Nowadays, if I'm being asked to make recommendations for someone
without a vested interested in a particular system, I find it
hard to suggest they go with the bulk and weight of a DSLR.
The four thirds systems (and, in particular, micro four thirds)
offer image quality as good as any DSLR that's
Nice. Keep the K10D and get her an older MF macro lens. AF is tricky
for insects anyway. MF first and then fine tune by rocking back and
forth.
http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Pentax-Manual-Focus/category-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses?s=1&bcode=PK&ccode=6&cc=55968&r=WG&f
On Mon, Sep 2
On 9/27/2010 4:50 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
The Kx would be great. Smaller and lighter too. If you want her to
keep the K10D, maybe teach her to move the AF point around by hand
using the 4 way controller. This will slow her down but this would be
a good way to learn about planning the shot
BTW, she could always use MF on tricky subjects. I know that's obvious
to us but kids don't always think to do that. MF is ther in case AF
breaks.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> Obvioussly, the 645D. Explain this to your wife ;-)
>
> The Kx would be great. Smaller
Obvioussly, the 645D. Explain this to your wife ;-)
The Kx would be great. Smaller and lighter too. If you want her to
keep the K10D, maybe teach her to move the AF point around by hand
using the 4 way controller. This will slow her down but this would be
a good way to learn about planning the
Wink, wink, nod, nod.
K-x is a good idea though...
Boris
On 9/27/2010 4:38 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Boris,
If the camera is for Galia, I'd stick with Pentax - maybe a K-X? That
way she can share lenses with dad.
If the camera is for Galia (wink, wink, nod, nod) and Boris gets to
use it, that'
obb wrote:
>
> --
> From: "Boris Liberman"
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 7:39 AM
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: The best modern camera for the child who likes to shoot
>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
--
From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Re: The best modern camera for the child who likes to shoot
On 9/27/2010 4:25 PM, P N Stenquist wrote:
I suggest a K-5 for you, Boris. Then pass along your K-7 to Galia.
Paul
I cannot afford buying
--
From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Re: The best modern camera for the child who likes to shoot
On 9/27/2010 4:05 PM, William Robb wrote:
The obvious answer would be the K7. It's AF and exposure are greatly
improved, and you alre
On 9/27/2010 4:25 PM, P N Stenquist wrote:
I suggest a K-5 for you, Boris. Then pass along your K-7 to Galia.
Paul
I cannot afford buying a flagship from Pentax every single year, Paul.
For that to happen I may have to sell a good chunk of my glass, e.g. my
three FA limited lenses. I am also
On 9/27/2010 4:22 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
Like William Robb said, the K7 is a natural direction to go.
Much-improved AF is one of the benefits compared to the K10D. It is
also a little bit smaller and much quicker to respond (hard to
describe, but you feel it when you use it).
Control inter
I suggest a K-5 for you, Boris. Then pass along your K-7 to Galia.
Paul
On Sep 27, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 9/27/2010 4:05 PM, William Robb wrote:
The obvious answer would be the K7. It's AF and exposure are greatly
improved, and you already have a lens kit to go along with
On 9/27/2010 4:05 PM, William Robb wrote:
The obvious answer would be the K7. It's AF and exposure are greatly
improved, and you already have a lens kit to go along with it. It's also
smaller and hopefully lighter than the K10.
Or drop a bunch of money on a different brand that will also show
per
On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:39, Boris Liberman wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Like I wrote to Tom on the other thread, Galia is complaining a bit about AF
> of her K10D. I could, in principle, proceed towards spending our time
> together whereas I'd be telling her about the way AF is supposed to be used,
> etc. T
--
From: "Boris Liberman"
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 7:39 AM
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Subject: The best modern camera for the child who likes to shoot
Hi!
Like I wrote to Tom on the other thread, Galia is com
If I had to advice someone how to start a serious outfit from scratch today,
I'd suggest the GH2 with a couple lenses. Then you get a modern system with
the best possible balance between compactness, electronic viewfinder, AF,
metering and lens/image quality.
If that solution is too expe
I had problems with the Contax G2 for a month or so, and finally "got it" so to
speak. If there ARE actually problems with the K10D, it would be nice to still
be able to use the lenses. I am very fond of the K-x, to the point that I
usually pick it up instead of the heavier K-7. The Panasonic GF
Hi!
Like I wrote to Tom on the other thread, Galia is complaining a bit
about AF of her K10D. I could, in principle, proceed towards spending
our time together whereas I'd be telling her about the way AF is
supposed to be used, etc. This can prove beneficial to her to some extent.
The altern
Hi!
Like I wrote to Tom on the other thread, Galia is complaining a bit
about AF of her K10D. I could, in principle, proceed towards spending
our time together whereas I'd be telling her about the way AF is
supposed to be used, etc. This can prove beneficial to her to some extent.
The altern
Sigma 50-500, hands down.
-Adam
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Jens wrote:
>
> I have an SMC FA* 2.8/80-200mm zoom lens, which is excellent.
> Now I need to supplement my range with something like a 150-500mm zoom lens.
> Before I search for a used lens I need to know what I should be looking
2010/9/15 Adam Maas :
>
> Sigma 50-500, hands down.
How do you zoom with your hands down, though?
Cheers
Ecke
-
Cameras don’t shoot people.
Photographers shoot people.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_p
I should really read an entire post, (and this was short so I have no
excuse), before I reply. Nevermind.
On 9/15/2010 10:43 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
If you want a reasonably wide view on your K-7 and a lens that
compliments the FA the only thing that fit's that I know of is the DA*
16-50mm
If you want a reasonably wide view on your K-7 and a lens that
compliments the FA the only thing that fit's that I know of is the DA*
16-50mm f2.8 There will be a gap in your coverage but if you use primes
there are lots of gaps which I do often and that doesn't bother me
much.. Or you can s
Sorry. I see you found it already.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> Did you note the other thread on the Sigma 170-500? I don't know what
> it costs but they have images.
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Jens wrote:
>>
>> I have an SMC FA* 2.8/80-200mm zoom lens,
Did you note the other thread on the Sigma 170-500? I don't know what
it costs but they have images.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Jens wrote:
>
> I have an SMC FA* 2.8/80-200mm zoom lens, which is excellent.
> Now I need to supplement my range with something like a 150-500mm zoom lens.
> Bef
I have an SMC FA* 2.8/80-200mm zoom lens, which is excellent.
Now I need to supplement my range with something like a 150-500mm zoom lens.
Before I search for a used lens I need to know what I should be looking for.
I use K20 and K-7 bodies and I want pro quality images.
My budget will be in the n
On 8/19/2010 8:24 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
If I were to trim it to 8, It would be these:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624636199391/
Trimming further, I'd discard the last 3.
I think you can discard the two photos before the last. The last one is
a keeper in my eyes.
It
; Come to think of it, I don't even agree completely with myself. When I look
> at the shots I had selected for my "best of October 2010" set, I had chosen 9
> of them, but not the same 9.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624664440516
>
> It i
oto than some of the ones I've kept.
Come to think of it, I don't even agree completely with myself. When I look at
the shots I had selected for my "best of October 2010" set, I had chosen 9 of
them, but not the same 9.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/7215762466444051
Larry, without disrespect, but perchance you can trim it further, to,
say, 8 images?
I am not trying to attack you, I rather challenge you to be as brief as
you possibly can. That's an interesting exercise, I think.
Boris
On 8/18/2010 6:15 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
I trimmed the set down to w
quot;Brian Walters"
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:34 AM
> Subject: Re: geso best of the bugs
>
>
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:15 -0700, "Larry Colen" wrote:
>>> I trimmed the set down to what I think
That's a fun little gallery, Larry. I agree with Brian about the dashboard
shot. Very nice there. Cheers, Christine
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Walters"
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: geso best
Very good.
I like 60089.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> I trimmed the set down to what I think are the 16 strongest photos:
> http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624749731196/
>
> --
> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pent
On 18/8/10, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I see that we share an aesthetic.
Mark!
Be careful you can catch nasty bugs doing that.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
-- http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PD
Very nice gallery, Larry.
Dan
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> I trimmed the set down to what I think are the 16 strongest photos:
> http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624749731196/
>
> --
> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:15 -0700, "Larry Colen" wrote:
> I trimmed the set down to what I think are the 16 strongest photos:
> http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624749731196/
>
Not being a petrol-head, I find it had to get excited by car images but
vintage stuff is different. T
On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Bob W wrote:
>>
>> I trimmed the set down to what I think are the 16 strongest photos:
>> http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624749731196/
>>
>
> this unrestored (?) one:
> < http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/4903351900/>
>
> is a really beaut
On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:38 AM, eckinator wrote:
> Nice set. Too bad though - I was expecting to see VeeDubs... =P
There's a VeeDub in this shot:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/4902762069/
:-)
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.n
Nice set. Too bad though - I was expecting to see VeeDubs... =P
Ecke
2010/8/18 Larry Colen :
> I trimmed the set down to what I think are the 16 strongest photos:
> http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624749731196/
>
> --
> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>
>
>
>
>
> -
>
> I trimmed the set down to what I think are the 16 strongest photos:
> http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624749731196/
>
this unrestored (?) one:
< http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/4903351900/>
is a really beautiul looking car - like a well-used Leica. I'd love to driv
Larry Colen
> Sent: 18 August 2010 04:15
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: geso best of the bugs
>
> I trimmed the set down to what I think are the 16 strongest photos:
> http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624749731196/
>
> --
Good to see the ones
I trimmed the set down to what I think are the 16 strongest photos:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624749731196/
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE f
Mark Roberts wrote:
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
One misconception I had had was that .png files were better for printing
and had little to do with viewing on the monitor...
someone at cafepress had gotten on my case about this
Cafe Press prefers PNG for a couple of reasons:
* It's good for
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>One misconception I had had was that .png files were better for printing
>and had little to do with viewing on the monitor...
>someone at cafepress had gotten on my case about this
Cafe Press prefers PNG for a couple of reasons:
* It's good for graphic designs (as opposed t
ty setting in images.
PNG (Portable Network Graphics) is a losslessly compressed image file
format that was designed to improve upon the proprietary GIF format
(owned by CompuServe). There's a good discussion of it on Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics
It&#x
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>Is there any point to display an image on line at 300 PPI as opposed to
>72 (or 96) with the same outside dimensions of, say
>1200 x 800 ?
PPI settings have no effect on web images. None at all. The pixel
dimensions are all that matter. I go with around 800-900 pixel
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Is there any point to display an image on line at 300 PPI as opposed to
72 (or 96) with the same outside dimensions of, say
1200 x 800 ? Or as .png as opposed to jpg ?
Almost all the files I send to smugmug are 300 ppi/dpi and 12 inches
across - and a few mgs...
oprietary GIF format
(owned by CompuServe). There's a good discussion of it on Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics
It's at its best for use with graphic images, not photographic images.
JPEG and the little-used JPEG-2000 are better formats for photographi
Ann, few points:
1. JPG (as opposed to PNG, as I understand) may contain color profile
information. So that if you share your pics with your fellow photogs,
they might have profiled monitor and the browser that supports profiles.
Thus, they would see your pics exactly the way you processed the
72ppi dates back to the original Macintosh. At the time it allowed for WYSIWYG
display of text in documents and was about as good as consumer grade monitors
could be expected to do. Apple held on to that standard for quite a while, but
now 96dpi is the sweet spot as most people would rather have
On 16 August 2010 13:32, Doug Franklin wrote:
> I've had monitors up to 150 ppi and I could still see the individual pixels
> at normal viewing distance, so I don't think that 72 ppi thing is true. It
> was the default on some systems back in the day, as was 96 ppi, on other
> systems, also back
On 2010-08-15 18:04, Rob Studdert wrote:
"someone" told me once that the human eye can't see any more detail on a
screen than 72 ppi anyway and since it loads faster,
one need not make images larger...
No idea where that stems from, my current screens display ~99PPI (1600
pixels across 16 inch
901 - 1000 of 3748 matches
Mail list logo
