In my case:
Focus
Shutter speed
Aperture adjustment
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: E.R.N. Reed
> My list:
> Use a lot --
> Multisegment metering and program (or Hyper Program, depending on the
> camera) for grabbing shots quickly
> Exposure compensation (especially with the digitals, to
Used almost constantly (virtually every shoot):
Multisegment metering
Centerweighted metering
Exposure compensation
Depth-of-field preview
Hyper-program exposure mode
Manual exposure mode
Autofocus (single shot mode)
Often:
TTL flash
Mirror lock-up/pre-fire
Built-in (pop-up) flash
Rarely:
IR Remo
lol ... Stick with an MX then. And leave the battery at home... ;-)
Or just set the DS into Manual exposure mode, turn off Image Review,
and use your hand held meter and your eye. Unless you actually want
to learn how to use the features provided, that is.
Godfrey
On Jul 20, 2005, at 8:3
I use almost everything Mark uses, although with different frequencies. Until
last year, my most advanced camera was an LX and I've always been somewhat of a
traditionalist, so most of this is still new to me. But, to my surprise, I find
much of the *istD features useful. In terms of how my list
Mine is close to Marks with some minor changes.
> Most often
Multisegment metering
Centerweighted metering
Depth-of-field preview
Hyper-program exposure mode
Manual exposure mode
Autofocus (single shot mode)
> Often:
Exposure compensation
AV exposure mod
Glad you could see the humor in the post.
Generally the MX goes without batteries, although lately I've been using a
couple of K-bodies, also sans batteries.
Frankly, it would be great to learn about the features these new cameras
have, but, in all honesty, their usefulness is sometimes elusive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I use almost everything Mark uses, although with different frequencies.
I'll bet this speaks more to the different kinds of subject matter you
and I tend to photograph as much as anything else.
>Until last year, my most advanced camera was an LX and I've always been
>
I find that the *ist-D is ready for the next exposure faster if the
preview is off.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Glad you could see the humor in the post.
Generally the MX goes without batteries, although lately I've been using a
couple of K-bodies, also sans batteries.
Frankly, it would be grea
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
Frankly, it would be great to learn about the features these new cameras
have, but, in all honesty, their usefulness is sometimes elusive. However,
there'
A smiley thought. Remember when amateur camera meant one that did not have all
three of those controls? Now it means one that has hundreds (or so it seems) of
unnecessary controls.
Hey, Shel, my camera is smarter than your camera !
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expe
- Original Message -
From: "Graywolf"
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
A smiley thought. Remember when amateur camera meant one that did not have
all three of those controls? Now it means one that has hundreds (or so it
seems) of u
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
[...]
Umm, what's Image Review - the screen on the back where you see what you
shot? Why turn it off? To further the manual film came
Save that quote ... !
One may also say that in order to be a photographer these days, you need to
know more about Photoshop than how to operate a camera or than you need to
know about photography.
Now I'm outta here on the great Battery Expedition. Gotta find them for
the 5n.
Shel
> [Origina
I turn it off to save on batteries and speed up the process. When I want to see
an image, I just press the review button. Yesterday I shot 35 frames without
looking. It was an idiot simple shot, and I knew I was getting what I wanted.
And now that I'm used to the camera, there's not much guesswo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I turn it off to save on batteries and speed up the process. When I want to see an image,
I just press the review button. Yesterday I shot 35 frames without looking. It was an
idiot simple shot, and I knew I was getting what I wanted. And now that I'm used to the
came
Batteries: AA lithiums make the camera even lighter; costs approx. $10 for 4.
AA alkalines are universally available; makes the camera heavier. AA
rechargeables: heavier but rechargeable if you are close to an outlet. Also
environmentally friendly. Or if you don't want to use the battery pack, us
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Graywolf"
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
A smiley thought. Remember when amateur camera meant one that did not
have all three of those controls? Now it means one that has hundreds
(or so it
t; "Expert Proof"
---
keithw wrote:
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
[...]
Umm, what's Image Review - the screen on the back where you see wha
On 20/7/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I do find it ironic that in order to be a photographer these days, you need
>to know more about how to operate a camera than you need to know about
>photography.
Here here!!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pas
om: "Graywolf"
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
A smiley thought. Remember when amateur camera meant one that did not
have all three of those controls? Now it means one that has hundreds
(or so it seems) of unnecessary controls.
I do find it ironic that
- Original Message -
From: "keithw"
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
I think I might be over-saturated by my equipment. I think I ought to keep
say four cameras only.
Two digital, two 35mm, and only the best lenses that fit each, and put
keithw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Back then, as I recall it, I was only interested in capturing images. I
>used what I had, no matter what it was, and did the best job I could.
Words to live by, whatever equipment you use.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
have laughed... how silly. Not so!
The film camera is a far, far more difficult selection, but I suspect it
would be my MX. I already have a "spare" for it... ;-)
keith
graywolf
* * * *
keithw wrote:
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message ----- From: "Graywolf&quo
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "keithw"
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
I think I might be over-saturated by my equipment. I think I ought to
keep say four cameras only.
Two digital, two 35mm, and only the best lenses tha
On 20 Jul 2005 at 10:07, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Umm, what's Image Review - the screen on the back where you see what you
> shot? Why turn it off? To further the manual film camera experience, or
> does turning it off do something else, perhaps wrt how quickly the camera
> will react or process
On 7/20/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my case:
>
> Focus
> Shutter speed
> Aperture adjustment
In my case:
Aperture adjustment,
Shutter Speed,
Focus.
In that order
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
On 20 Jul 2005 at 14:29, William Robb wrote:
> The problem, as I see it, is that when you
> pack too much gear along with you, the tendency is to over analyse everything.
> As often as possible, I will go out with one camera and one lens. Sometimes
> it'a
> wide angle, sometimes a normal, sometim
On Jul 20, 2005, at 1:29 PM, William Robb wrote:
I'm pretty much in the same boat. I have, in the past few years,
become more collector than photographer as well.
The problem, as I see it, is that when you pack too much gear along
with you, the tendency is to over analyse everything.
As oft
lable.
there were too many variables for most people to control. some of those
controls can now be placed into the camera.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: Features I use (for
ssage -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
I turn it off to save on batteries and speed up the process. When I want to
see an image, I just press the review button. Yesterday I shot 35 fram
On Jul 20, 2005, at 4:29 PM, William Robb wrote:
As often as possible, I will go out with one camera and one lens.
Sometimes it'a wide angle, sometimes a normal, sometimes a
telephoto, but always just one lens.
I find it to be a good exercise in seeing.
William Robb
I've been doing that
tele lenses
are mounted on the SFXn.
Having a backup camera is also a good thing for me.
greetings
Markus
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:58 AM
>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>Subject: Re
On 21 Jul 2005 at 3:05, Markus Maurer wrote:
> Hi Rob
> I really dislike changing lenses on the job a lot but started to prefer
> different lenses instead of zooms too.
> That's why I use two bodies now, for the 17mm-28mm wide lenses a small and
> very basic P30 or Chinon at F5.6-11,
> I do not ne
Does it have to be only one, or just one at a time?
For me the 4x5 Graphic is lots of fun, but expensive to run.
The MX's are fun. Usually I just carry one with the 35mm and 100mm lenses
unless there is some reason to carry more kit.
Even the new to me digital robocam is fun, although it is
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong"
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
i disagree. i think that before digital, there was a lot more qualitative
knowledge required that couldn't be so easily written down. film choice
determined lot
Not quite. I didn't ~need~ auto bracketing, nor did I need bracketed
shots. I decided to try it because the project at hand was boring and
repetitive and I didn't want to waste time on something I really didn't
want to do. I'd have done just as well with a manual camera, just not as
fast. Nor d
The Ds Slimming Filter.
All my over weight friends now love me. No longer have to search out
anorexic models to create images of beautiful people.
Seriously I hope this is the stupidest thing ever put into a Pentax camera.
If it isn't I don't think I want to know. Would be willing to pay for
Shel, comments inline...
On Jul 20, 2005, at 10:46 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Not quite. I didn't ~need~ auto bracketing, nor did I need bracketed
shots. I decided to try it because the project at hand was boring and
repetitive and I didn't want to waste time on something I really
didn't
wa
On 20/7/05, Powell Hargrave, discombobulated, unleashed:
>The Ds Slimming Filter.
You're kidding?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Features I use:
Aperture priority.
Program mode.
Autofocus with zone AF.
Manual focus.
Multi-segment metering.
Center weighted metering (along with exposure compensation)
Exposure compensation.
Histogram (this should appear earlier on my list).
Delete.
Self-timer.
2-second timer (for mirror lockup
Hello, Doug ...
> [Original Message]
> From: Doug Brewer
> Nevertheless, it was more effort than just having to turn on the
> feature.
Yes, it was more effort than just having to turn on the feature. However,
I'll say it again, I'd not go out and BUY a camera for such a feature. I
was cur
Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Jul 20, 2005, at 4:29 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
>> As often as possible, I will go out with one camera and one lens.
>> Sometimes it'a wide angle, sometimes a normal, sometimes a
>> telephoto, but always just one lens.
>> I find it to be a good exercise
Apparently yes the *ist-Ds and Pentax put a slimming filter into the
Optio 330/430 RS twins
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0206/02060604pentax330430rsdb100.asp
Major Features
Point 6.
digital filter mode gives you the power to control the tone of your
pictures. Achieving similar effects as con
Hear, Hear!
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Not quite. I didn't ~need~ auto bracketing, nor did I need bracketed
shots. I decided to try it because the project at hand was boring and
repetitive
Yet, Doug, I find exactly the same thing Shel does. The compromises I have to
put up with to have those features is annoying as hell. If their non-use was
transparent it would not be a problem, but it is not transparent, you have to
fight the camera. It is not as simple as just turning off AF,
...manual? who reads the manual...
Graywolf wrote:
Yet, Doug, I find exactly the same thing Shel does. The compromises I
have to put up with to have those features is annoying as hell. If
their non-use was transparent it would not be a problem, but it is not
transparent, you have to fight the
The *istD is the only autofocus camera I've ever used, but I have to say that
it presents no compromises whatsoever when used with manual focus lenses. With
MF lenses, it's a manual focus camera. Period. I agree wholeheartedly that
every photographer should understand the math and physics of pho
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote:
fight the camera. It is not as simple as just turning off AF, for instance,
every AF camera I have ever tried to us has had its manual focus use
compromised by the changes made to the design for the AF to work at all.
What cameras would these be (are we ta
Graywolf wrote:
Yet, Doug, I find exactly the same thing Shel does. The compromises I
have to put up with to have those features is annoying as hell.If their
non-use was transparent it would not be a problem, but it is not
transparent, you have to fight the camera. It is not as simple as just
t
I never made that assumption, nor did I say or imply it, Doug.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Doug Brewer
> Why do you and Shel assume I don't know camera basics just because I
> choose to use a modern camera?
Badly written, Shel. I meant to use myself as an example of a new camera
user.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I never made that assumption, nor did I say or imply it, Doug.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Doug Brewer
Why do you and Shel assume I don't know camera basics just because I
choose
There's one constant truth in photography: Knowledge is power.
Knowledge about exposure, lighting, focusing, manual, automatic and all
variations thereof.
There is a natural human tendency to consider knowledge that one already
has to be more important than knowledge yet to be obtained and the
ap
Well said Sir.
Dave
> There's one constant truth in photography:
Knowledge is power.
>
> Knowledge about exposure, lighting, focusing, manual, automatic and all
> variations thereof.
>
> There is a natural human tendency to consider knowledge that one already
On 21/7/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>It's like a car, for example. How often do I use *all* the features of
>my car? One of the reasons I bought the car I have is because of the
>large storage volume it has for a vehicle of its size. But I only take
>advantage of it a few times a
Hummm, this enplanes much, and is more than a little disturbing.
Cotty wrote:
On 21/7/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
It's like a car, for example. How often do I use *all* the features of
my car? One of the reasons I bought the car I have is because of the
large storage volu
that should be "...explains...", damned spell checker...
P. J. Alling wrote:
Hummm, this enplanes much, and is more than a little disturbing.
Cotty wrote:
On 21/7/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
It's like a car, for example. How often do I use *all* the features of
my car
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 21/7/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>It's like a car, for example. How often do I use *all* the features of
>>my car? One of the reasons I bought the car I have is because of the
>>large storage volume it has for a vehicle of its size. But I o
>>The Ds Slimming Filter.
>
>You're kidding?
>
>Cheers,
> Cotty
Bottom of page:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistds/page7.asp
The Ds Slimming Filter.
You're kidding?
My thought, precisely.
They're not kidding. This is one of the playback-post processing in-
camera options. At least, if you use this kind of thing, it makes a
copy of the original and saves the original. Mostly nonsense far as
I'm concerned.
Ther
On Jul 21, 2005, at 2:06 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The shutter release is flush with the housing, which puts the
finger in a
somewhat awkward and unnatural position in order to depress it
fully. It
doesn't take a standard cable release, and it won't allow the use
of a soft
release. If you
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 17:48, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> >>> The Ds Slimming Filter.
> >> You're kidding?
> > My thought, precisely.
>
> They're not kidding. This is one of the playback-post processing in-
> camera options. At least, if you use this kind of thing, it makes a
> copy of the origina
On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:02 AM, Graywolf wrote:
... a rejoinder is that maybe those who have become
dependent on using a plethora of features may want to try using a
fully
manual camera. You may find it freeing, and you can certainly learn
to work
around its limitations ...
The biggest limi
I'm with ya, Doug.
Godfrey
On Jul 21, 2005, at 8:33 AM, Doug Brewer wrote:
Graywolf wrote:
Yet, Doug, I find exactly the same thing Shel does. The
compromises I have to put up with to have those features is
annoying as hell.If their
non-use was transparent it would not be a problem, but i
On Jul 21, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Joaquim Carvalho wrote:
The Ds Slimming Filter.
You're kidding?
My thought, precisely.
They're not kidding. This is one of the playback-post processing in-
camera options. At least, if you use this kind of thing, it makes a
copy of the original and saves the
> >>> The Ds Slimming Filter.
Super idea. Now i can take self portraits and Cotty will never recognize me.:-)
Any one want a size XXL plaid jacket.
Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> >>> The Ds Slimming Filter.
>
>Super idea. Now i can take self portraits and Cotty will never recognize me.:-)
We just need a shortening filter to bring Cotty down to our size :)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.rob
I think there are a couple that do not, but they are a bit expensive. Otherwise
I agree with you on this point.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:02 AM, Graywolf wrote:
.
>We just need a shortening filter to bring Cotty down to our size :)
That's easy just un-slim him and then reduce the image size. :)
It may be a really stupid filter, but it is versatile.
Powell
On 21/7/05, Powell Hargrave, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Bottom of page:
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistds/page7.asp
!!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 21/7/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>We just need a shortening filter to bring Cotty down to our size :)
LOL.
And for apple pies ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
All you have to do is crop off his legs. That will make him shorter!
--
Bruce
Thursday, July 21, 2005, 12:48:59 PM, you wrote:
>>We just need a shortening filter to bring Cotty down to our size :)
PH> That's easy just un-slim him and then reduce the image size. :)
PH> It may be a really
A vertical with sliming is a shortening .
After meeting them I fould I could really look up to Cotty, Knarf, and
Wheatfield. Gives me a crick in the neck, it does.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Cotty wrote:
On 21/7
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The Ds Slimming Filter.
You're kidding?
My thought, precisely.
They're not kidding. This is one of the playback-post processing in-
camera options. At least, if you use this kind of thing, it makes a
copy of the original and saves the original. Mostly nonsense f
- Original Message -
From: "Graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
A vertical with sliming is a shortening .
The things this sentence brings to mind..
Afte
and have made up their mind they never will.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
The detractors or modern gear are largely found among those who h
On 7/21/05, Powell Hargrave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> That's easy just un-slim him and then reduce the image size. :)
>
> It may be a really stupid filter, but it is versatile.
>
> Powell
>
Couldn't you just tip the camera sideways? Then a slimming filter
would become a shortening filt
A. Focus screen optimized for brightness rather than accuracy.
B. Focus on the lens loose so the AF motor does not have to be too big, rather
than optimized for smoothness and accuracy by hand.
C. Viewfinder image of low magnification.
And yes, I know that the newer cameras are a lot better than
On Jul 21, 2005, at 12:13 PM, Graywolf wrote:
A. Focus screen optimized for brightness rather than accuracy.
That's true of the Canon 10D screen, but not of the Pentax *ist DS
screen.
B. Focus on the lens loose so the AF motor does not have to be too
big, rather than optimized for smooth
First lets get one thing straight. I am not saying anyone is a fool, not even you.
Second that is clearly a quote notice the funny little marks ("). I chose not
to direct quote it as it did not matter who said it.
One in the end uses what they chose to use, or are forced to use in the case of
I read you won't reply, but I am sending it anyway.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote:
fight the camera. It is not as simple as just turning off AF, for
instance, every AF camera I have ever tried to us has had its manual fo
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:47:59 +0200, Kostas Kavoussanakis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote:
A. Focus screen optimized for brightness rather than accuracy.
B. Focus on the lens loose so the AF motor does not have to be too big,
rather than optimized for smoothnes
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
Technical reason would be that part of the light (35% according to the KMP!)
entering the lens needs to go to the AF-system. This makes the VF dimmer. By
optimising the screen for brightness and by reducing the magnification
(concentrating the remaini
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:52:39 +0200, Kostas Kavoussanakis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
Technical reason would be that part of the light (35% according to the
KMP!)
entering the lens needs to go to the AF-system. This makes the VF
dimmer. By
optimis
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:52:39 +0200, Kostas Kavoussanakis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
Technical reason would be that part of the light (35% according to the
KMP!)
entering the lens needs to go to the AF-syst
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I read you won't reply, but I am sending it anyway.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote:
fight the camera. It is not as simple as just turning off AF, for
instance, every AF camera I have ever tr
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:18:07AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
> Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
>
> Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto focus. The camera
> doesn't use the viewfinder for focusing, you do. Viewfinders are only
> for aiming and composition in AF, that's why it's brighter,
I don't think you quiet understand precision manufacturing if you don't
understand the cost savings in
making a smaller viewfinder.
John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:18:07AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto
I could equally well say you don't quite understand the optics of a
viewfinder if you think the physical size of the pentaprism/mirror
makes any significant contribution to eventual image size.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:55:38PM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
> I don't think you quiet understand pre
I'll admit optics I'm not so good with. I'd hardly try to grind my own
lenses but manufacturing I
know quite a bit about and optics isn't even half the problem.
John Francis wrote:
I could equally well say you don't quite understand the optics of a
viewfinder if you think the physical size of
The primary cost savings in the design of an SLR viewfinder has to do
with the size of the prism and the accuracy which which it has to be
assembled. A 100% coverage viewfinder prism for 35mm format is large
and expensive, and has to be assembled extremely accurately or it
reflects an image
John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:18:07AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto focus. The camera
doesn't use the viewfinder for focusing, you do. Viewfinders are only
for aiming and composition in AF, that's why
Doug Brewer said:
> Nevertheless, it was more effort than just having to turn on the feature.
I guess I'm just way out of the loop. What's wrong with expending a little
effort and time if you're doing something you like?
A few years ago I decided to refinish a table. I set it up in the back
On Jul 21, 2005, at 12:13 PM, Graywolf wrote:
> The thing is, as Shel and others are trying to say, that once you
> have those skills the camera insisting that you prove you want
> to do what you want is an annoyance not a convenience.
I'm not trying to say quite that. Perhaps it's best that
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
A few years ago I decided to refinish a table. I set it up in the back
yard, and spent most of the weekend hand sanding the top, enjoying the
sunshine, t
William Robb wrote:
I just finished sanding the drywall in my bathroom.
If someone ever comes up with a power sander for that job, I'm all for it.
Hopefully you used the rubber pads and drywall sanding screens? They're
better than power sanders. They cut quickly but you still have control.
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Reese"
Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
William Robb wrote:
I just finished sanding the drywall in my bathroom.
If someone ever comes up with a power sander for that job, I'm all for
it.
Hopeful
On Jul 23, 2005, at 1:38 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Doug Brewer said:
Nevertheless, it was more effort than just having to turn on the
feature.
I guess I'm just way out of the loop. What's wrong with expending
a little
effort and time if you're doing something you like?
Indeed. Why
>
> From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/07/21 Thu AM 06:42:20 GMT
> To: "pentax list"
> Subject: Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
>
> On 20/7/05, Powell Hargrave, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >The Ds Slimm
98 matches
Mail list logo
