Mick ...
I think we all agree that for static subjects the idea works well.
But the real question (for me) is how Mark uses a digital camera to
prep a shot of something that's dynamic, and which may move or
disappear in a fraction of a second. Perhaps he doesn't ... I don't
know, and only Mark
and 35mm--Warning! Long post
Shel scribbled.
Wasn't it Bethoven who composed while deaf - although I suppose
he was a special example.
Yes, but he wasn't totally deaf his entire career. FWIW, he
was totally
deaf when he wrote Symphony 9, and actually conducted its premier
-Original Message-
From: Mick Maguire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
My two cents worth: In a recent edition of Outdoor
Photographer there was a
pro landscape photographer (sorry I don't remember his name)
who used a
digital camera to compose / try shots before getting all his
At 05:23 AM 9/25/01 -0700, you wrote:
Mark Cassino wrote:
Right on that. Traditional photography is
like trying to learn the piano without hearing
what you play. It would be like paying a piece,
sending in a tape, and a day or so later finally
hearing it. I also set and prep the
Christian Skofteland writes:
John Shaw says the he often uses a view camera to shoot landscapes because
it forces him to slow down and carefully compose before tripping the
shutter.
I find the same thing using a 6x7. I've noticed that it is just not practical in
some situations, like when
Must be that same alien intervention that caused the streaks on my recent
roll of Delta 400
Bill, KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This has nothing really to do with this thread, but everything to do
with being surprised. Some time ago I developed a roll of Tri-X, and
was astounded to find the
At 08:15 AM 9/25/01 -0500, Maris wrote:
Good point, Shel. Plus the digital camera and 35mm will each operate
uniquely and identical settings may not result in identical images anyway,
and using appropriate differing settings puts you back to square one -
taking the 35mm image alone.
This is
At 06:31 AM 9/25/01 -0700, Shel wrote:
Ahh ... I see the word learn in Mark's post, which makes your point,
although I do believe Mark is a pretty good photographer, so I
overlooked his need to learn.
We all need to keep learning, Shel :-)
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
Yes, and the same alien intervention that keeps making money disappear from my
bank account only to reappear in Pentax's. Damned aliens!
BTW: I'm off to visit my parents in Georgia this weekend and plan on giving the
MZ-S a thorough workout. Full report later.
Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
A very interesting comment, Mark, and one I don't understand.
First, how can you prep a shot with one camera and then make a
second keeper with anything but a static subject. IOW, if you're
shooting a living, breathing entity, the second shot will not be the
same as
On 22 Sep 2001, at 10:24, Mike Johnston wrote:
I read some fascinating comments recently written by a guy who signs
himself Peter iNova--I don't know his real name. He pointed out that
the resolution cutoff for digital is relatively severe--because, in
his words (paraphrasing), You can't
True - the CCD is probably collecting more data per square millimeter than
I am giveing it credit for. Possibly more than film, though I don;t really
have a point o0f reference for that.
But, the bottom line is a 3.3 megapixel image is still limited in how big
it can be printed.
To put this
Mark C. wrote:
I'm totally with you on this, Mike. I bought a 3 mp digital about a month
ago, and just relish the freedom to walk around and shoot whatever. You
can shoot hundreds of pics in a day, get the results instantly, see what
works and what doesn't. The instant feedback and
Another interesting aspect of digital shooting is that you can choose the
length of your roll of film. I can buy a 32, 64, or 128MB SmartMedia
card for my camera, for instance. Shooting at the maximum pixel count in
Super-High-Quality (lowest level of JPEG compression), you get 27 shots on a
64MB
At 09:42 AM 9/19/01 -0500, Mike wrote:
Personally I'm extremely surprised by my own reaction to trying digital. I
have been so loyal to my established method (dirt-simple: manual-focus 35mm
camera, 35 to 50mm lenses, Tri-X, D-76, carefully crafted 6x9 or 7x10.5
full-frame prints) for so long,
Mike wrote:
I have a decent-quality $650 3-mp p/s that's pretty limited--it simply has
to be prefocused to be at all responsive, for instance. You have to achieve
the green dot first or the camera is so slow as to be useless. But because
of the extremely small size of the CCD and the extreme
Mike Johnston wrote:
I have a decent-quality $650 3-mp p/s that's pretty limited--it simply has
to be prefocused to be at all responsive, for instance. You have to achieve
the green dot first or the camera is so slow as to be useless.
So what's next on your shopping list?
When you think
Mike wrote:
MJ lens, wonderful things become possible. First of all, depth of field is so
MJ great that at moderate apertures (I mean like f/2.8 or f/4) and ordinary
MJ camera-to-subject distances, pan-focus (i.e., everything in focus front to
Sorry Mike, to me narrow dof is a big loss. And
Mike Johnston wrote:
Personally I'm extremely surprised by my own reaction to trying digital.
Yes, you seem like a kid let loose in a candy store with a gold card
g
What has caught me completely by surprise is that I find I love it. I love
PICTURES--I love exploring the look of the world
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
So, how do you get a more selective DOF? What if you want just a
small area in focus and lots of out of focus area in front of or
behind the subject? Can you set the focus between two subjects, where
and Alin said:
Bokeh? What bokeh can you possibly get at such
Mike wrote:
Personally I'm extremely surprised by my own reaction to trying
digital. [A long description of the wonders of digital snipped to avoid
offending the guy who hates inclusion of long excerpts in reponses.]
Have you tried McDonald's food? I think you'll find it really exquisite.
tom wrote:
soon you'll be able to mount all
your Pentax lenses on an MZ-D.
You'll be able to manually focus and
expose to your heart's content.
When I see it, I'll believe it. I know that there are those who swear
it's coming, and I hope it does, and that it's a well-designed
camera.
Robert Wetmore wrote:
And have you ever driven a Ford F-150?
These things corner like a dream!
Have you ever driven an Aston Martin? Those things can't carry 4x8
sheets of plywood worth a shit!
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The interesting aspect of Mike's post
is that he's an avowed and
accomplished darkroom freak who really
seems to like the output he gets
from a middle of the road digital camera.
Since I've never seen Mike's prints, and don't know what he considers
a quality
Hi Tom ... yes, I was talking about print quality, not the subject or
composition of his photos. And yes, you're probably correct in
assuming that Mike knows a bit about what makes a quality print,
however, we all have different standards and preferences. I've spent
some time with a photographer
Alin wrote:
Sorry Mike, to me narrow dof is a big loss. And please don't tell me
you can fix that in Photoshop.
Alin,
I'm not trying to talk you out of your own methods. Honest. We all use what
we need and choose. All I can talk about are my own experiences, and that's
all I'm doing. I
Mike Johnston wrote:
I would imagine that now we're going to get into a theoretical argument
about resolution, based on numbers. I've never cared for--or given much
credence to--any of that kind of nonsense. I look at pictures. If it looks
good, it is good. If it looks like crap, I don't
From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But I like them a lot. And I'm having a lot of fun learning how to do
them.
That's probably the key word to my whole experience of digital: FUN. It's
just an enormous kick. Truly a blast. I'm really, really enjoying myself.
Well there it is Mike! That's
what is Et tu ?
From: Robert Wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Digicams and 35mm--Warning! Long post
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:41:39 -0400
Mike wrote:
Personally I'm extremely surprised by my own reaction to trying
digital. [A long
: Re: Digicams and 35mm--Warning! Long post
| what is Et tu ?
|
|
| From: Robert Wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Re: Digicams and 35mm--Warning! Long post
| Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:41:39 -0400
|
| Mike wrote:
|
| Personally I'm
Anand wrote:
what is Et tu ?
It means You too? (literally, and you) in Latin. According to
Shakespeare it was what Julius Caesar said to Brutus after Brutus had
mortally stabbed him. Shakespeare probably got the historical reference from
Holland's translation of Suetonius.
--Mike
-
This
Mike Johnston wrote:
Shakespeare probably got the historical reference from
Holland's translation of Suetonius.
Or quite possibly from Plutarch's Lives, which was the historical source
of many Shakespearean plots. Plutarch wrote, Some say, he (Caesar)
opposed the rest , and continued
32 matches
Mail list logo
