Curious

Pentax has us all on tenterhooks by the way they are introducing the new version of the D. I'm curious as to why we would expect anything faster than we are getting from them. In October 2001, Pentax announced the cancellation of their full frame DSLR. That announcement mentione

curious

er made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. Paul http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&size=md -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

curious

Paul, what part of LA (lower alabama) was that picture taken? :-) Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Curious ...

Anyone here EVER use the double-exposure capacity of the LX? I always thought it was cool, but never needed it so never got one. (The only other PK body I’ve seen with double-exposure is that Promaster 2500 PK) -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@

Re: Curious

Hi! If past is prologue, why should we have expected anything faster? The only possible reason I can think of is that now Pentax have had produced half dozen siblings for *istD. So they kind of learned the drill, so to say. Assuming that their programmers know the craft, I would hope that

Re: Curious

Larry Levy wrote: Pentax has us all on tenterhooks by the way they are introducing the new version of the D. I'm curious as to why we would expect anything faster than we are getting from them. In October 2001, Pentax announced the cancellation of their full frame DSLR. That announc

Re: Curious

Derby, You sure you're not in Telecom Product Development.? Looks like a snapshot of our of our industry. . dk On 2/24/06, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm in medical device product development. Consumer gear has different > constraints, but I'll bet the frustrations are the same. >

Re: Curious

I think that's any industry, I do support(ish) for a large ISP/Telco and deal regularly with Product Development and he pretty much described our process too. -Adam Dave Kennedy wrote: Derby, You sure you're not in Telecom Product Development.? Looks like a snapshot of our of our industry.

Re: Curious

ry 24, 2006 8:11 PM Subject: Curious Pentax has us all on tenterhooks by the way they are introducing the new version of the D. I'm curious as to why we would expect anything faster than we are getting from them. In October 2001, Pentax announced the cancellation of their full frame DS

Re: Curious

Derby Chang responed to my delineation of the *ist D timeline with a wonderful summary: I'm in medical device product development. Consumer gear has different constraints, but I'll bet the frustrations are the same. * Marketing changes their product requirements every 3-2 months * Upper manageme

Just curious ...

Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom?

Curious Auctions

I know we shouldn't discuss current auctions here, but I am also confident that no one here is foolish enough to bid on a dodgy one. Does anyone else think it strange that a certain auction site suddenly has three FA* 85 F1.4s for sale? Two are in China and one in Poland. I recall that this dea

Re: curious

environment. > It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed perhaps. > > Is the total silence due to the content or the execution? Or perhaps > it > never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. > Paul > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_i

Re: curious

environment. > It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed perhaps. > > Is the total silence due to the content or the execution? Or perhaps > it > never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. > Paul > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_i

Re: curious

al environment. > It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed perhaps. > Is the total silence due to the content or the execution? Or perhaps it > never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. > Paul > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&

Re: curious

environment. > It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed perhaps. > > Is the total silence due to the content or the execution? Or perhaps > it > never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. > Paul > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_i

Re: curious

Fair enough, just curious as I said:-). Paul On Mar 2, 2007, at 11:02 PM, David Savage wrote: > I saw it, and it didn't do anything for me at all. So I kept my gob > shut :-) > > Cheers, > > Dave > > > > On 3/3/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr

Re: curious

the total silence due to the content or the execution? Or perhaps >> it >> never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. >> Paul >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&size=md >&

Re: curious

Is the total silence due to the content or the execution? Or perhaps it > never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. > Paul > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&size=md > I saw it earlier, but didn't have time to respond. My initial reaction was

Re: curious

aniti-social >> environment. >> It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed perhaps. >> >> Is the total silence due to the content or the execution? Or perhaps >> it >> never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. >> Paul >

Re: curious

ntent or the execution? Or perhaps it > never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. > Paul > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&size=md I just thought it was the neighbor. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.n

Re: curious

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&size=md > > === > It looks too deliberate to me -- carefully laid out and posed. From the > towel, to the beer cans, to the cigarette pack carefully sticking out of her > pocket. Was it for an ad for so

Re: curious

t or the execution? Or perhaps it >never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. >Paul >http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&size=md > > > > Didn't see it the first time - but not my sort of thing. might fit into a photo essay - would play

Re: curious

My feeling exactly re: being staged or set up. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&size=md > > === > It looks too deliberate to me -- carefully laid out and posed. From the > towel, to the beer cans, to the ciga

Re: curious

e total silence due to the content or the execution? Or perhaps it >never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. >Paul >http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&size=md I ddn't see it before, but having seen it now, I agree with marnie, it looks a bit

Re: curious

cuted perhaps. >>> >>> Is the total silence due to the content or the execution? Or perhaps >>> it >>> never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. >>> Paul >>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&size=md >

Re: curious

Thanks for looking. Interesting feedback on this one. Very different from what was said when I first showed these (in color) some years ago. Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > My feeling exactly re: being staged or set up. > > Shel > > >> [Original Message] >> From: <[EMAIL

Re: curious

It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed perhaps. >> Is the total silence due to the content or the execution? Or perhaps >> it >> never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. >> Paul >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=

Re: curious

On 3/3/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It was posed. This lady and I did a whole series of posed shots in a > trailer park. > > I personally have no misgivings in regard to staging a photograph, > although I don't want them to look posed. That's fine by me. Show us the rest of the

Re: curious

>> I'm somewhat surprised that there was no response to my post of a > >> picture of a woman in what coucl be called an aniti-social > >> environment. > >> It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed > perhaps. > >> > >&g

Re: curious

Thanks. Yes, I'll post a small gallery in another message. Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 8:19 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: > On 3/3/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It was posed. This lady and I did a whole series of posed shots in a >> trailer park. >> >> I personally have no misgivings in

Re: curious

in what coucl be called an aniti-social >>>> environment. >>>> It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed >> perhaps. >>>> >>>> Is the total silence due to the content or the execution? Or >> perhaps >>>

Re: curious

Hi Paul, I recall some of the earlier pics, some of which I liked, and while I recognize that they, too, were set-ups, this one comes across as more artificial-looking than what I remember the earlier pics to be. Of course, over time, our perspectives change, changing the way we view photos and s

Re: curious

Thanks for the feedback, Shel. I posted a small series. It's here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=701586 I'm surprised that the disc never arrived. I sent it over a week ago. If it doesn't come in the next few days, I'll mail another one. I was wondering why you didn't report your

Re: curious

It was taken in Pontiac, Michigan. It was the only really decrepit trailer park we were able to find. This particular trailer was abandoned. Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Walter Hamler wrote: > Paul, what part of LA (lower alabama) was that picture taken? > :-) > > Walt > > -- > PDML Pentax

Re: curious

It was posted twice FWI. I looked @ it & believe you had posted it a few years ago. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:54 PM Subject: Re: curious > In a message dated 3/2/2007 8:17:24 P.M. Pacific Standard T

Re: curious

Paul Stenquist wrote: > It was taken in Pontiac, Michigan. It was the only really decrepit > trailer park we were able to find. This particular trailer was > abandoned. Holy cow, Paul! You folks have some really well preserved trailer parks up there. Down here, what's shown in those photos wou

Re: curious

Paul Stenquist wrote: > I personally have no misgivings in regard to staging a photograph, > although I don't want them to look posed. If you do another trailer park series, get the wardrobe and props from the local Salvation Army or Goodwill store or something so they'll look "lived in". :-) -

Re: curious

That's exactly where we bought them -- Salvation Army. Right down the street from the TP. Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> I personally have no misgivings in regard to staging a photograph, >> although I don't want them to look posed. > > If you

Re: curious

Yeah, I believe it. I think if I took a ride up into Michigan Militia territory, I can find something nastier. But I didn't want to make this too much work:-). Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > Paul Stenquist wrote: >> It was taken in Pontiac, Michigan. It was the only rea

Re: curious

Paul Stenquist wrote: > That's exactly where we bought them -- Salvation Army. Right down the > street from the TP. You've got better Salvation Army stores than we do, too. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.

Re: curious

*that's* the shot. Love it. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailma

Re: curious

On 3/3/07, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: >Thanks Cotty. I appreciate the feedback. The original crop was closer >to what you describe, and it was a horizontal. It also reveals the lawn >chair to be far from pristine. We had all we could do to keep it from >collapsing. You can see

Re: curious

s. > Is the total silence due to the content or the execution? Or perhaps it > never made it to the list. No big deal, just curious. > Paul > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&size=md > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: curious

On 4/3/07, Lists, discombobulated, unleashed: >I saw it and quite liked it, nice tonality. Holy shit, the List is talking. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail

Re: curious

Thanks Cotty. Eventually I blunder my way to something decent. :-). On Mar 3, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Cotty wrote: > > > *that's* the shot. Love it. > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|

RE: curious

Mail List Emne: Re: curious Thanks for looking. Interesting feedback on this one. Very different from what was said when I first showed these (in color) some years ago. Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > My feeling exactly re: being staged or set up. > > Shel &g

Curious DemSelfies :-)

Well, not quite that spelling, but I couldn't resist. :-) https://seuppcdn01.1x.com/images/user/5dcd47081982253f66cc064214a9c63c-hd4.jpg And the photographer, Abdul Gapur Dayak, - has a rather interesting collection: https://1x.com/photo/2070376 I am not sure if these photos are photoshoppe

Re: Curious ...

I've used it. It worked in so far as the frames lined up properly. On 6/28/2023 9:29 AM, coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: Anyone here EVER use the double-exposure capacity of the LX? I always thought it was cool, but never needed it so never got one. (The only other PK body I’ve seen with double

Re: Curious ...

Pretty sure the K2 could do it too. I remember using it once. Cheers, Dave > On Jun 29, 2023, at 1:29 AM, coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: > > Anyone here EVER use the double-exposure capacity of the LX? > > I always thought it was cool, but never needed it so never got one. > > (The only other

Re: Curious ...

I vaguely remember trying it a couple of times back in the 80's -I mostly did double exposures in the darkroom. ann On 6/28/2023 3:52 PM, John Sessoms wrote: I've used it. It worked in so far as the frames lined up properly. On 6/28/2023 9:29 AM, coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: Anyone here EVE

Re: Curious ...

Very late reply: I have, but the results were not very good. NOT a fault with the camera, but with the brain behind the eye behind the viewfinder. On 6/28/2023 9:29 AM, coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: Anyone here EVER use the double-exposure capacity of the LX? I always thought it was cool,

curious printing issue

I had a weird problem while printing the other day. A couple of the latest B&W photos I was printing to an ~11x14 size were coming out with a slight magenta tint on the Epson Enhanced Matte A3 paper. This despite being fully color managed and making dozens of seemingly identical, perfectly

Re: Just curious ...

Hi! One over here. SB> Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a SB> darkroom? Are you going to stop talking to me after this? Boris

Re: Just curious ...

No, Boris, I shan't ... Boris Liberman wrote: > Hi! > > One over here. > > SB> Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a > SB> darkroom? > > Are you going to stop talking to me after this? > > Boris

RE: Just curious ...

> Who on this list has never developed their own film and made > prints in a darkroom? Me. *hangs head in shame* But I've only been shooting seriously for two years, and I haven't gotten around to taking a darkroom class yet.

RE: Just curious ...

Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Who on this list has never developed their own film and made > prints in a darkroom? Me too sadly, until I joined PDML I had never thought of it either. I've retained many of the posts which have discussed the subject and I have bought a couple of books as well. When the

Re: Just curious ...

Shel Belinkoff asked: "Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom?" I have developed black and white film and printed it and I've played with Cibachrome prints from slides (wow did that stuff smell bad). I've never developed ektachrome or color negatives. T

Re: Just curious ...

Shel Belinkoff wrote: Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom? I was going to say "Me" But then I remembered. I processed a film at school once and made one print. I also processed a roll of slide film using a kit. (Also many years ago!) As to Grayw

RE: Just curious ...

s the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Just curious ... Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 08:19:39 -0800 Who on this lis

Re: Just curious ...

Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom? Wish I did. I have been dreaming to have my own darkroom for something like 10 years now, but never had the place nor the will to actually commit to it. I have been frustrated by poor lab prints for years and even

Re: Just curious ...

And that means? Alan Chan wrote: > Since then, making my own prints make no > sense. And now, the digital era has started... >

Re: Just curious ...

Because Actually, my curiosity was piqued by a comment made during a discussion of B&W "imaging" made on the Photoshop list. The commentator suggested that those who have never made their own B&W prints might be at a disadvantage when it comes to creating B&W images in the digital workflow.

Re: Just curious ...

ot;PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 2:19 AM Subject: Just curious ... > Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a > darkroom? > > >

Re: Just curious ...

i haven't. and now that i'm digital, i don't plan on. arnie - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 11:19 AM Subject: Just curious ... > Who o

Re: Just curious ...

ould cost about $50 to print a single copy on my Epson 1280 printer. Herb - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 11:19 AM Subject: Just curious ... > Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a > darkroom?

Re: Just curious ...

Depends. How do you define sharp? You can do billboards with 35mm and they will look sharp. But if you mean putting your nose up against it sharp, probably 5x7. From 2 feet or so maybe 16x. That assumes medium speed film, with something like Techpan you can go bigger. These are pretty much grain

Re: Just curious ...

That's an unanswerable question in some ways. Far too many variables. However, I have seen exquisite prints made from Tri-X and that Kodak 3200 film that were larger than two feet on the short side. Here are some of the variables on the exposure side: Film Developer choice Developing

Re: Just curious ...

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:38:26 -0800, you wrote: I've used a process camera to shoot a lot of litho line film, which I developed in trays. I've also made contact prints, and also shot PMT paper which transfers to positive using a roller device. But I've never developed B&W film shot in a camera smal

Re: Just curious ...

- Original Message - From: "Ryan Lee" Subject: Re: Just curious ... > Just out of curiosity, in anyone's own > experience, how big can one make a sharp print from a 35mm negative (and > which enlarger/ lens combo)? > > One time when I was a lad, and didn

Re: Just curious ...

50 f/2.8 - Original Message - From: "William Robb" Subject: Re: Just curious ... >and the lens was an EL > Nikkor 50mm f/2.

Re: Just curious ...

An hour! Yikes.. skipping the test strip + serendipity? Any chance you have a scan of the image? Rgds, Ryan - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 2:27 AM Subject: Re: Just curious ...

Re: Just curious ...

- Original Message - From: "Ryan Lee" Subject: Re: Just curious ... > An hour! Yikes.. skipping the test strip + serendipity? Any chance you have > a scan of the image? No, it was a gift to the young lady who was the subject of it, and I never did make a print for

Re: Just curious ...

40x48 print? One would need a very large scanner to scan that one. ;-) cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> An hour! Yikes.. skipping the test strip + serendi

Re: Just curious ...

Hi, well, now you've put me on the spot! These numbers are useful for predicting how big you can go before you start to lose apparent sharpness, but they depend on what you as the photographer are trying to achieve. That's why they can't be treated as rules. In the end you decide how big you want

Re: Just curious ...

nowledge, but I think I missed a stop somewhere back there and I'm now somewhere else. :-)? :-(? Rgds, Ryan - Original Message - From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 9:15 AM Subject: Re: Just curious ... &g

RE: Just curious ...

I have not. -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 8:20 AM To: PDML Subject:Just curious ... Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom?

RE: Curious Comparison

l.com -Original Message- From: Collin R Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 8:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Curious Comparison Anyone compared the image results from the FA35/2AL to the FA*43/1.9? Collin

RE: Curious Comparison

Or how about the 43 vs. the 50 1.4 and 2.0 models... 43/1.9 has slightly more distortion (and slight bright-ring bokeh) than 50/1.4. But the 43 is slightly sharper near wide open. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ STOP MOR

Re: Curious Auctions

Yeah, this is a recurring scam. And it's usually the FA* 85/1.4 that's offered. On May 9, 2008, at 10:47 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: > I know we shouldn't discuss current auctions here, but I am also > confident that no one here is foolish enough to bid on a dodgy one. > > Does anyone else think it

PESO - Curious pup

Elephant seals are strange animals... As mammals come, their investment in parental care is pretty scant. Blog link only this time, since there are two pics: http://alunfoto.blogspot.com/2009/12/curious-pup.html Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML

PESO: Curious Gull

Like the "curious" tilt of the head. Fun at the lake. The sun was in and out and I may have out exposed the shutter a wee bit. heck! Comments encourages. Jack http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=588 K-5, DA 55~300@300mm, f/8, 1/8000, ISO 1600 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss

Re: Curious Gull

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:37 PM Subject: PESO: Curious Gull Like the "curious" tilt of the head. Fun at the lake. The sun was in and out and I may have out exposed the shutter a wee bit. heck! Comments encourages. Jack http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=588 K-5

Re: Curious Gull

gt; Subject: Re: Curious Gull > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 9:22 PM > Great tilt of the head, Jack.  > Nice catch.  Yields a nice animal expression. Crop is a > little tight for my eye.  Would prefer a bit more space > a

Re: Curious DemSelfies :-)

First guess would be a lucky shot. In his collection I see many more damselflies posing in groups. He must have found a way to enforce lucky shots... On Tue, 9 Nov 2021, 00:48 Igor PDML-StR, wrote: > > > Well, not quite that spelling, but I couldn't resist. :-) > > https://seuppcdn01.1x.com/imag

Re: Curious DemSelfies :-)

Maybe staged (posed?) somehow rather than photoshopped? On 11/9/2021 2:22 AM, Toine wrote: First guess would be a lucky shot. In his collection I see many more damselflies posing in groups. He must have found a way to enforce lucky shots... On Tue, 9 Nov 2021, 00:48 Igor PDML-StR, wrote: W

Re: Re: Curious ...

The K2 method is no different than any other camera with a rewind button on the bottom. The LX was clearly special. -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the dire

Rebates make me curious

I wonder why they'd be offering rebates on lenses not part of the consumer mainstream. The Limited line, that is. http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/scms_docs//GearUpCashBack_Coupon_111505.pdf "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose"

Re: curious printing issue

Have you run a nozzle check? A plugged cyan nozzle could be the problem. Powell At 08:20 AM 28/04/2006 , you wrote: > >I had a weird problem while printing the other day. > >A couple of the latest B&W photos I was printing to an ~11x14 size >were coming out with a slight magenta tint on the E

Re: curious printing issue

Yes, nozzles are all clear. And I replaced the two marginally low ink carts (light cyan and magenta) as well afterwards ... no change. As I said, this happened in the middle of printing the same file to a different size of the same paper. The other prints were perfect, showed no tinting at

Re: curious printing issue

- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: curious printing issue Yes, nozzles are all clear. And I replaced the two marginally low ink carts (light cyan and magenta) as well afterwards ... no change. As I said, this happened in the middle of printin

Re: curious printing issue

- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: curious printing issue Printing remains a fussy business, regardless of how sophisticated the technology. Where the ink hits the paper remains a certain amount of one-by-one randomness. It has always been that

Re: curious printing issue

On Apr 28, 2006, at 7:34 PM, William Robb wrote: Yes, nozzles are all clear. And I replaced the two marginally low ink carts (light cyan and magenta) as well afterwards ... no change. As I said, this happened in the middle of printing the same file to a different size of the same paper. Th

Re: curious printing issue

CTED]>; "PDML" Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 5:20 PM Subject: curious printing issue I had a weird problem while printing the other day. A couple of the latest B&W photos I was printing to an ~11x14 size were coming out with a slight magenta tint on the Epson Enhanced Matte A3

Re: curious printing issue

Obviously, since I've solved the problem. G On May 4, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Jostein wrote: It's not that difficult, once you pass a certain threshold of resources and understanding.

Re: PESO - Curious pup

Interesting behavioral moments, Jostein! Jack --- On Sat, 12/5/09, AlunFoto wrote: > From: AlunFoto > Subject: PESO - Curious pup > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Saturday, December 5, 2009, 6:20 AM > Elephant seals are strange > animals... > As ma

Re: PESO - Curious pup

/curious-pup.html Jostein === Love the photo of the pup sniffing the guy. Not that I could stand all that cold and snow, I couldn't. Marnie aka Doe :-) - We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we cr

Re: PESO - Curious pup

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:20 AM, AlunFoto wrote: > Elephant seals are strange animals... > As mammals come, their investment in parental care is pretty scant. > Blog link only this time, since there are two pics: > http://alunfoto.blogspot.com/2009/12/curious-pup.html Looks like

Re: PESO: Curious Gull

Very nice gull! Well framed (cropped?). On Apr 13, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > Like the "curious" tilt of the head. Fun at the lake. > The sun was in and out and I may have out exposed the shutter a wee bit. heck! > > Comments encourages. > > Jack >

Re: PESO: Curious Gull

Yes, cropped. (About 50%) Thankk you, Stan! Jack) --- On Wed, 4/13/11, Stan Halpin wrote: > From: Stan Halpin > Subject: Re: PESO: Curious Gull > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 3:14 PM > Very nice gull! Well framed > (cropped?)

  1   2   3   >