Where did you go? Someplace warm I hope…
stan
> On Jan 6, 2017, at 6:23 PM, ann sanfedele wrote:
>
>
> sigh...
>
> ann
>
>
> --
> 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 ab
You're here...=-O
-p
On 1/6/2017 5:23 PM, ann sanfedele wrote:
sigh...
ann
--
Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old.
--
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 1/6/2017 3:03 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
Interesting comparisons. I see a small but noticeable improvement in
detail in Image 3 compared with image 1.
If I recall correctly, Ricoh's implementation of pixel shift produces
images with the same pixel dimensions as a 'normal' image but with
increa
On 1/5/2017 11:00 PM, Stanley Halpin wrote:
Been done before I am sure. I had heard since forever that LR could
not take advantage of pixel-shifted files from the K-3ii or K-1. But
I saw a discussion recently that implied to me that LR did work. As
part of my recent look at the Leica-M adapter f
Larry Colen wrote:
Or you could pretend that it's the 21st century and just download the
software from here:
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/support/download_digital.html
Oops my bad, those seem to be only for the Q
Mac:
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/support/digital/dc_util
Stanley Halpin wrote:
Been done before I am sure. I had heard since forever that LR could
not take advantage of pixel-shifted files from the K-3ii or K-1. But I
saw a discussion recently that implied to me that LR did work.
As part of my recent look at the Leica-M adapter for K mount, I shot
so
Interesting comparisons. I see a small but noticeable improvement in
detail in Image 3 compared with image 1.
If I recall correctly, Ricoh's implementation of pixel shift produces
images with the same pixel dimensions as a 'normal' image but with
increased detail. This contrasts with the Olympus
On 5/9/2016 12:34 PM, Chris Mitchell wrote:
Trying to donate, but get the message "Your request failed due to
technical difficulties. Please try again after some time". It happened
on Mark's book donation page too. I waited some time (24 hours) and it
still happens. Has anyone else seen the same?
I tried to convert a portion of yourmsgand Mail said “you want Rich Text?” I
said sure. Sent the reply. Got this notice from mailbox-owner:
"The message's content type was not explicitly allowed”
stan
> On May 9, 2016, at 2:45 PM, Stanley Halpin
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 9, 2016, at 1:17 PM,
Thanks Stan! Taken as a generous offer. I suspect it's related to the
"donate" button so I'll try sending it directly to Doug first.
CM
On 9 May 2016 at 19:43, Stanley Halpin wrote:
> Try sending me the money and if it comes through I will send it on.
> That is a serious offer BTW…
> Paypal addr
Try sending me the money and if it comes through I will send it on.
That is a serious offer BTW…
Paypal address is the same I use on PDML.
stan
> On May 9, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Chris Mitchell wrote:
>
> Trying to donate, but get the message "Your request failed due to
> technical difficulties. Ple
Ambiguous result using iPhone Gmail app: I see the message in this
thread, but I also got a reply on my phone saying "The message's
content type was not explicitly allowed."
Rick
http://photo.net/photos/RickW
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Rick Womer wrote:
> Can it now handle mail from the Gm
Trying to donate, but get the message "Your request failed due to
technical difficulties. Please try again after some time". It happened
on Mark's book donation page too. I waited some time (24 hours) and it
still happens. Has anyone else seen the same? I want to donate!
Chris
On 9 May 2016 at 18
Nope. At least gmail is smart enough to recognize that it needs to
respond to threads with plain text. Its when I compose a new message
that it reverts to formatted.
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Gonz, did you send that with formatted text?
>
>
> On 5/9/16 1:20 PM, Gonz
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Hi, kids.
>
>
> Now might be a good time to remind you to throw some cash into the PDML
> kitty, since it is currently as empty as campaign promises.
>
> much love,
>
> Doug
Done
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http:
Doug Brewer wrote:
Now might be a good time to remind you to throw some cash into the PDML
kitty, since it is currently as empty as campaign promises.
Done.
much love,
Doug
There's nothing in this world quite like love from Doug Brewer.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox
Gonz, did you send that with formatted text?
On 5/9/16 1:20 PM, Gonz wrote:
No wonder my posts never make it. I forget to put the "plain-text"
mode in gmail. It defaults to formatted.
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Doug Brewer wrote:
Hi, kids.
Basically, what Mark and I are trying to ac
Looks nicely plain to moi -
ann
On 5/9/2016 1:17 PM, Doug Brewer wrote:
Hi, kids.
Basically, what Mark and I are trying to accomplish is to accept
formatted text and convert it to plain text in order to send on to The
List. That way, those of you with email clients that revert to or can
on
It came through without a hitch, Doug.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Hi, kids.
>
> Basically, what Mark and I are trying to accomplish is to accept formatted
> text and convert it to plain text in order to send
replying in plain text...
whichever is the fastest..
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
On 9 May 2016 20:18:57 Doug Brewer wrote:
Hi, kids.
Basically, what Mark and I are trying to accomplish is to accept
formatted text and convert it to plain text in order to send on
No wonder my posts never make it. I forget to put the "plain-text"
mode in gmail. It defaults to formatted.
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Hi, kids.
>
> Basically, what Mark and I are trying to accomplish is to accept formatted
> text and convert it to plain text in orde
>Makes sense to me - I used to speak Fortran.
Looking forward to when my odometer reads 377377 so I can call it Heath.
(It will be a while. 17 is about 2 years away.)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML,
Makes sense to me - I used to speak Fortran.
smh
On Apr 4, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
>
> Stan,
> And if there were no others, - did you see them? ;-)
>
> Which reminds me an old joke:
> Programmer's wife tells him what to buy at the store:
> "Please buy a loaf of bread, and if th
Stan,
And if there were no others, - did you see them? ;-)
Which reminds me an old joke:
Programmer's wife tells him what to buy at the store:
"Please buy a loaf of bread, and if there are fresh eggs, - buy a dozen."
The guy comes back with a dozen loafs of bread.
Wife:
- Why did you buy this
One msg last night about testing your new phone, two this morning re some new
software, then this one. If there were others, I didn't see them.
On Apr 4, 2013, at 2:31 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
> The past few messages failed.
>
> More of the same?
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail.
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> The past few messages failed.
>
> More of the same?
Are you going through Google in any way? If yes, it's possible Google
isn't showing you the messages (I've noticed that in the past).
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6h
None of them (3) failed to make it to my Mail program Larry.
On Apr 3, 2013, at 23:31 , Larry Colen wrote:
> The past few messages failed.
>
> More of the same?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please
Ack, ignored.
Alastair Robertson skribenen:
> Plain text I hope now and perhaps success at last!
>
> Alastair
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On 1/11/07 6:28 PM, "Alastair Robertson", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Plain text I hope now and perhaps success at last!
PDML ignores nothing.
Ken
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
ay 17, 2006 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: another test please ignore this one too
Caught me! 8-0
Didn't you know that "tests" always get through? (Maybe we should
always include the word "test" with our posts).
Jack
--- Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Photo
Caught me! 8-0
Didn't you know that "tests" always get through? (Maybe we should
always include the word "test" with our posts).
Jack
--- Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Photographers are voyeurs, I knew that. :-)
>
> Jostein
>
>
__
D
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jostein wrote:
> Kostas, I don't know. I have never done a similar test on film.
> And, I'm bery unlikely to use any wide angle lens on full opening at
> any rate, so the thought has simply not occurred to me before. :-(
No need to frown (:-(). I would be quite pleased to note
L PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: Another test of DA 16-45/4 against other Pentax glass
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jostein wrote:
IMHO, there are only two samples that qualify as "useless mush";
the FA*
28-70/2.8 at 28mm and the A645/2.8, both at full op
Monday, April 4, 2005, 9:28:06 PM, Kostas wrote:
KK> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jostein wrote:
>> IMHO, there are only two samples that qualify as "useless mush"; the FA*
>> 28-70/2.8 at 28mm and the A645/2.8, both at full opening.
KK> I am not a great photographer, but these would be useless even for
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jostein wrote:
> IMHO, there are only two samples that qualify as "useless mush"; the FA*
> 28-70/2.8 at 28mm and the A645/2.8, both at full opening.
I am not a great photographer, but these would be useless even for me.
I know nothing about the A645, but with the FA* I am rea
On 4 Apr 2005 at 12:29, Jostein wrote:
> Today I got to look at my own page from two TFT monitors (an LG and a
> ViewSonic). On the LG, the CA is hardly visible at all. It's there, but the
> colour is very inconspicuous. Looks like you are very much right about the
> fringing being a monitor thing
Thanks Jostein. That's good to know.
On Apr 4, 2005, at 6:29 AM, Jostein wrote:
Today I got to look at my own page from two TFT monitors (an LG and a
ViewSonic). On the LG, the CA is hardly visible at all. It's there,
but the
colour is very inconspicuous. Looks like you are very much right about
Today I got to look at my own page from two TFT monitors (an LG and a
ViewSonic). On the LG, the CA is hardly visible at all. It's there, but the
colour is very inconspicuous. Looks like you are very much right about the
fringing being a monitor thing. Interestingly, the more contrasty TFTs also
ac
On 3 Apr 2005 at 23:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rod Opined:
> >
> > CA is visible to me and the the zoom appears pretty poor compared to the
> > A20,
>
> Uh, the A20 wide open created nothing but useless mush. And it was only
> mediocre
> at the other stops. As far as CA is concerned, I ca
Rod Opined:
>
> CA is visible to me and the the zoom appears pretty poor compared to the A20,
Uh, the A20 wide open created nothing but useless mush. And it was only
mediocre at the other stops. As far as CA is concerned, I can't see it, Herb
can't see it. It must not be very extreme, or perha
On 3 Apr 2005 at 8:05, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> On the basis of this, I'm thinking
> I don't need the 20/2.8. That f-stop would be nice, but it appears to
> be an f-stop that I wouldn't want to use. I'm speaking only in regard
> to perceived sharpness. On these web images, I can't really judge
there was enough of a break in the rain to run out and do a quick and dirty
set of photos with 6 lenses: Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6, DA 14/2.8, DA 16-45/4,
31/1.8 Limited, FA* 24/2, and FA* 28-70/2.8. if i had time, i should have
tried the FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 too. it's too late now. you can see selected 1
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Another test of DA 16-45/4 against other Pentax glass
Jostein wrote:
Don,
1. In the photoshop settings, set "units & rulers" to show as pixels.
Then you can use the info pane to gauge the exact size of your
s
D]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Another test of DA 16-45/4 against other Pentax glass
Jostein wrote:
Don,
1. In the photoshop settings, set "units & rulers" to show as
pixels.
Then you can use the info pane to gauge the exact size of your
selection. Onc
e 31 Limited. i have some
brick walls i can shoot too, although they won't be rectangular bricks. it's
heavy overcast and a bit windy, but i think i can get some shots.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, Ap
Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: Another test of DA 16-45/4 against other Pentax glass
An excellent comparison Jostein, much more 'scientific' than mine.
-Original Message-
Fr
sed I had to be more
> systematic...:-)
>
> 2. No. I was shocked to see how poorly it performed. I think I might
> have to repeat the exercise for this lens with all apertures.
>
> Jostein
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL
he exercise for this lens with all apertures.
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: Another test of DA 16-45/4 against other Pentax glass
An excellent comparison Jostein, much more &
favours one over the other, but in this scene I would say the FA is
much better than the DA wrt. fringing.
Jostein
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Another test of DA 16-45/4 against oth
An excellent comparison Jostein, much more 'scientific' than mine.
2 questions:
1. How did you create the .jpgs for the individual table cells,
such as this one: http://www.oksne.net/tests/watest/1645-28.jpg
I can never seem to keep my crops identical like this.
2. When you shot the FA 28-70 at 2
ene I would say the FA is
much better than the DA wrt. fringing.
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Another test of DA 16-45/4 against other Pentax glass
Good work. The 31 Limit
Good work. The 31 Limited is obviously superb, even at 2.8. I'm
surprised at how well the DA 16-45 stacks up at f8. It appears to be
better than both the 20/2.8 and the FA* 28-70 and a near match for the
31 Limited. It's also decent at F4. On the basis of this, I'm thinking
I don't need the 20/
Marnie,
It's the same mechanism as "Don't look down" & "It's too your
right.no, your other right.", people are just contrary. :-)
BTW Bill, I have to read it to know not to read it s... :-)
Dave S
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:09:05 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a m
In a message dated 3/19/2005 4:03:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
failed again
===
And why is it, when it says do not read, I always do?
Hehehe.
Marnie
Yes, I am back!
Two full days without pdml content, what
an experience :-). I actually managed to
do some work!
Antti-Pekka
---
Antti-Pekka Virjonen
Computec Oy, Turku Finland
Gsm: +358-500-789 753
www.computec.fi * www.estera.fi
> -Original Message-
> From: Antti-Pekka Virjonen
> Se
Frank,
You're able to post again.
Hope you get two copies of this mail...:-)
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 5:36 PM
Subject: another test
> Seems I got subscribed to the digest (just got on
56 matches
Mail list logo