John wrote on 10/11/18 8:42 AM:
Points taken because the whole thread is obviously contrived just to
sneak in a bad pun.
Guilty
On 10/4/2018 12:37, Larry Colen wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote on 10/4/18 9:31 AM:
It works well and provides the appropriate contrast.
Thanks. I was worried
Points taken because the whole thread is obviously contrived just to sneak in a
bad pun.
On 10/4/2018 12:37, Larry Colen wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote on 10/4/18 9:31 AM:
It works well and provides the appropriate contrast.
Thanks. I was worried that my bark was worse than my bight.
On 10/4/2018 12:20, Larry Colen wrote:
I'm curious what people think about using the tree as a background for the
knotwork photo
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/44187747395/in/album-72157671969270997/
Shift the rope to the right so there's only one type of bark texture in the
It goes against my grain to comment about that. Others might get board.
-Original Message-
>From: Larry Colen
>Subject: Opinions sought on an experiment
>
>I'm curious what people think about using the tree as a background for
>the knotwork photo
>
On 4/10/18, postmas...@robertstech.com, discombobulated, unleashed:
> It works well and provides the appropriate contrast.
Thanks. I was worried that my bark was worse than my bight.
>>>
>>> You should be strung up by the bolocks for that sentence Colen
>>
>>That may be true, but
Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
>Steve Cottrell wrote on 10/4/18 11:13 AM:
>> On 4/10/18, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>> Paul Stenquist wrote on 10/4/18 9:31 AM:
It works well and provides the appropriate contrast.
>>>
>>> Thanks. I was worried that my bark was worse than my
Steve Cottrell wrote on 10/4/18 11:13 AM:
On 4/10/18, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:
Paul Stenquist wrote on 10/4/18 9:31 AM:
It works well and provides the appropriate contrast.
Thanks. I was worried that my bark was worse than my bight.
You should be strung up by the
On 4/10/18, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Paul Stenquist wrote on 10/4/18 9:31 AM:
>> It works well and provides the appropriate contrast.
>
>Thanks. I was worried that my bark was worse than my bight.
You should be strung up by the bolocks for that sentence Colen
--
Cheers,
That would be a knotty problem
On 10/4/2018 11:37 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote on 10/4/18 9:31 AM:
It works well and provides the appropriate contrast.
Thanks. I was worried that my bark was worse than my bight.
On Oct 4, 2018, at 12:20 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
I'm
Paul Stenquist wrote on 10/4/18 9:31 AM:
It works well and provides the appropriate contrast.
Thanks. I was worried that my bark was worse than my bight.
On Oct 4, 2018, at 12:20 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
I'm curious what people think about using the tree as a background for the
It works well and provides the appropriate contrast.
> On Oct 4, 2018, at 12:20 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> I'm curious what people think about using the tree as a background for the
> knotwork photo
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/44187747395/in/album-72157671969270997/
>
> --
>
First thing I see is the woman with her head cropped and skin tones
too bright. Then I observe the reflection and I was expecting to see
her face, but there's a man's head instead. This is surprising and
confusing but in a good way, it grabs my interest, I'm trying to
figure out what the heck is
On 17/3/14, Bob W-PDML, discombobulated, unleashed:
There's a karting centre just by the Thames Barrier - is that the one?
Indeed.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
|| (O) |Web Video Production
--www.seeingeye.tv
_
--
PDML
On 17/3/14, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
Alongside all of that, I look at modern Magnum photographers like Paolo
Peregrin, Jonas Bendiksen, Alex Majoli and others who are doing really
interesting things, and I look at my pictures and I think to myself 'my
pictures are in a timewarp'.
On 18 Mar 2014, at 12:04, Steve Cottrell co...@seeingeye.tv wrote:
On 17/3/14, Bob W-PDML, discombobulated, unleashed:
There's a karting centre just by the Thames Barrier - is that the one?
Indeed.
If he moves to Greenwich it would be a pleasant little cycle to work for him
along the
On 18/3/14, Bob W-PDML, discombobulated, unleashed:
If he moves to Greenwich it would be a pleasant little cycle to work for
him along the river, and a fairly easy ride to college, which is at the
Elephant isn't it? I don't know how rents here compare to where he is
now, but it is a very studenty
I don't like it, but it's intriguing. There seems to be a lot going on
in the reflection, but the person in the foreground dominates too
much. Also the foreground looks washed out to me - and what are those
black circles on the knitwear?
Chris
On 16 March 2014 23:12, Bob W-PDML
It appears to me that the man on right is inside a cafe and looking
out the window into the early morning sun. The lettering on his shirt
is the shadows of the lettering that is presumably on the glass window
he is looking through. Part of what you see in the window is
reflection (the small
on 2014-03-16 17:12 Bob W-PDML wrote
I'd be interested to hear your reaction this photo, please:
http://www.web-options.com/Panorama.jpg
Love it or hate it, I don't mind, but if you have an opinion I'd love to hear
why you think whatever it is you think about it.
my reactions at first
On 16/03/2014, Bob W-PDML p...@web-options.com wrote:
I'd be interested to hear your reaction this photo, please:
http://www.web-options.com/Panorama.jpg
Love it or hate it, I don't mind, but if you have an opinion I'd love to
hear why you think whatever it is you think about it.
It's the
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of John Coyle
To be honest, it does nothing for me. Additionally:
There is no strong focal point
The right-hand side is blown out (on my monitor at least).
There is a confused out-of-focus area on the left hand side, which seems
to
On 17 Mar 2014, at 00:01, Steve Cottrell co...@seeingeye.tv wrote:
On 16/3/14, Bob W-PDML, discombobulated, unleashed:
I'd be interested to hear your reaction this photo, please:
http://www.web-options.com/Panorama.jpg
Love it or hate it, I don't mind, but if you have an opinion I'd
On 3/16/2014 7:12 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote:
I'd be interested to hear your reaction this photo, please:
http://www.web-options.com/Panorama.jpg
Love it or hate it, I don't mind, but if you have an opinion I'd love to hear
why you think whatever it is you think about it.
Thanks,
B
It has a few
Bob, here is my take on the matter.
I am seeing the half headless person and the reflection of the man's
face which together look somewhat intriguing. However most of the frame
is filled with the whatever garb the half headless man is wearing. The
reflection on it does not help - I almost
I don't hate it, but neither do I love it -- on initial viewing. It's
an intriguing puzzle to me; I find I want to know what's going on and
who is located where in it. It looks kind of universal to me, like it
could be taken near a busy cafe in any part of the world.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:12
To be honest, it does nothing for me. Additionally:
There is no strong focal point
The right-hand side is blown out (on my monitor at least).
There is a confused out-of-focus area on the left hand side, which seems to
contain a pair of socks
hung over a rail. Does not contribute to the shot,
On 16/3/14, Bob W-PDML, discombobulated, unleashed:
I'd be interested to hear your reaction this photo, please:
http://www.web-options.com/Panorama.jpg
Love it or hate it, I don't mind, but if you have an opinion I'd love to
hear why you think whatever it is you think about it.
Love it.
BW
Without looking at the other opinions: somehow troubling. The stark contrast,
the scowl on the subject's face, the jumble of reflections are all unsettling.
It's effective, for sure, if that's what you were after.
Cheers,
Rick
On Mar 16, 2014, at 19:12 , Bob W-PDML wrote:
I'd be interested
I don't love it or hate it - it just doesn't do anything for me. I don't
care for the subject matter, don't know what I'm supposed to get out of it
and it appears to me it was just a very quickly caught, unplanned image,
There since you asked.
Kenneth Waller
It is a mess of an image, but a strangely intriguing mess of an image.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
I don't love it or hate it - it just doesn't do anything for me. I don't
care for the subject matter, don't know what I'm supposed to get out of it
I find it too busy for my taste. Perhaps if the left side was cropped
to yield fewer main elements, it might work better.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Bob W-PDML p...@web-options.com wrote:
I'd be interested to hear your reaction
Mark,
While several PDMLers have already responded to your question, I will
add my impression.
I wrote about this lens a few times earlier here.
Here is my message from half a year ago:
http://pdml.net/pipermail/pdml_pdml.net/2013-July/352571.html
You can see other opinions on the same thread.
, December 30, 2013 8:07 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4
Thanks Jonathan. Is there a review of the 17-70 f4 on dxomark? I can't find
it but I am probably missing it. They seem to have a high regard for the
16-45 though! I appreciate your feedback on the 17-70
Mark ,
Try this review,
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3676review=pentax+17-
70mm
Jonathan
-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark C
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 8:07 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions
Mark,
Here is another test.
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2010/02/lens-test-pentax-da-17-70mm-f4-al-sdm-a
f
jonathan
-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark C
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 8:07 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions
...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark C
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 8:07 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4
Thanks Jonathan. Is there a review of the 17-70 f4 on dxomark? I can't find
it but I am probably missing it. They seem to have a high regard for the
16-45 though
-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark C
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 8:07 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4
Thanks Jonathan. Is there a review of the 17-70 f4 on dxomark? I can't find
it but I am probably missing it. They seem to have a high regard for the
16
: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 11:39 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4
Paul via phone
On Jan 1, 2014, at 2:20 PM, ma...@redwoodhorses.com wrote:
Mark ,
Try this review,
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3676review=pent
ax+17-
70mm
-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Dario Bonazza
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:50 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4
I did the same for the same reason. Quality-wise, it's a bit worse than the
16-45, but the difference is not so obvious.
The zoom range
...@redwoodhorses.com wrote:
Check out
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings
I personally like the 17-70 f4 lens.
jonathan
-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Dario Bonazza
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:50 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions on DA
:
Check out
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings
I personally like the 17-70 f4 lens.
jonathan
-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Dario Bonazza
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:50 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions on DA
I did the same for the same reason. Quality-wise, it's a bit worse than the
16-45, but the difference is not so obvious.
The zoom range and the silent focus are true bonuses for my photography,
hence I'm not tempted to get back to the 16-45 (which I still own).
Dario
-Messaggio
I keep looking at this lens too. Not a lot of information on the list
about it but you can find a review of it here.
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/408-pentax_1770_4
On 12/30/2013 6:07 PM, Mark C wrote:
I'm thinking about getting a DA 17-70 f4 as an upgrade to my DA 16-45
f4. Mostly
Check out
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings
I personally like the 17-70 f4 lens.
jonathan
-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Dario Bonazza
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:50 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions on DA 17
Thanks, Dario. I will probably hang onto my 16-45 as well. The 17-70 is
sounding good...
Mark
On 12/30/2013 6:50 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
I did the same for the same reason. Quality-wise, it's a bit worse
than the 16-45, but the difference is not so obvious.
The zoom range and the silent
://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings
I personally like the 17-70 f4 lens.
jonathan
-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Dario Bonazza
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:50 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4
I did the same
I have the adaptall 28mm 2.5. The lens isn't well corrected with
digital and throws aberrations along the sides of the frame that erode
sharpness. I have a feeling that the 24 might have the same issues. I
would take some test shots in sunlight and look at the corners. If its
newer than adaptall
Hi Adam,
I bought one at 2003 for my Z-1p and continued to use it with digital
bodies (until the DA* series arrived). It have served fine. Of course it
has more distortion and is not as sharp as top lenses, but I've never
said this lens is a crap, why did I had to spend my money. The other
On 8/16/2010 1:32 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Optically they're supposed to be fairly good, but with a build of finest
mouse-hair.
I've one of these FAJ 18-35 lenses. Sans non-metal mount (I fail to
characterize it in any more accurate way) the build is actually quite
good for a lens worth $150
Ira H. Bryant IV wrote:
Anyway, I know that I'm not answering the question you asked, but I
hope it helps anyway.
Mark!
--
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
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:28:25 +0100
mike wilson m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ira H. Bryant IV wrote:
Anyway, I know that I'm not answering the question you asked, but I
hope it helps anyway.
Mark!
C'mon, if the people on this list only answered the questions that were
asked then the
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:48 -0500, Ira H. Bryant IV
irabry...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:28:25 +0100
mike wilson m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ira H. Bryant IV wrote:
Anyway, I know that I'm not answering the question you asked, but I
hope it helps anyway.
2010/8/16 P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com:
Optically they're supposed to be fairly good, but with a build of finest
mouse-hair.
and that while we're at it - MARK
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the
Brian Walters wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:48 -0500, Ira H. Bryant IV
irabry...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:28:25 +0100
mike wilson m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ira H. Bryant IV wrote:
Anyway, I know that I'm not answering the question you asked, but I
hope it helps
FYI, the FA20-35 works great with digital. The range may not be as
interesting as it was with film, but image quality is wonderful. it's
also surprisingly light.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:56 AM, mike wilson m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Brian Walters wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:48 -0500,
I don't know about the FAJ 18-35, but I was in the same position as you
and went for the Samyang manual focus 19-35. I got the Phoenix-branded
one, but it comes in many guises. I didn't use it for a long time
because I really didn't have confidence in it, but I pulled it out the
other day and
I apologize, the Phoenix 19-35 is made by Cosina and not Samyang. I get
my third-party sell-to-anyone OEMs confused sometimes. Anyway, the
truth is probably a plus, not a minus. If I had my choice of
Cosina-made lenses I would be a very happy man.
Ira
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:14:16 -0500
Ira
On 8/17/2010 9:48 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
I know it's cheaply built, but I've got one offered to me at a very
reasonable price and it would make a nice wide zoom option for my
Z-1p. Sadly funds do not currently extend to a FA 20 or FA 20-35 which
would be my preferred choice.
So, how is it on
If it is AF and will cost you $150, it's a steal.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
There is a guy locally selling an old zx-30 with 3 lenses (including this
Tamron) for $150.
All I can find for 90mm Tamron macro autofocus lenses is one that looks...
On Dec 10, 2009, at 10:46, Boris Liberman wrote:
If it is AF and will cost you $150, it's a steal.
I'm hopeful. His photo of all the gear laid out shows a lens which does NOT
look like the older MF f2.5 lens. Fingers crossed!
-Charles
--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis,
I have the Tamron 90 in Nikon mount, bought new in 2006 i think. Its
good, but along the same lines as my FA 100 macro.
Some days it produces some good images and some days kinda soft images.
Having said that, i had only used it on the D200 in jpeg mode, which
was always a struggle for me to get
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2009, at 10:46, Boris Liberman wrote:
If it is AF and will cost you $150, it's a steal.
I'm hopeful. His photo of all the gear laid out shows a lens which does NOT
look like the older MF f2.5 lens.
On Dec 10, 2009, at 16:22, Cymen Vig wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2009, at 10:46, Boris Liberman wrote:
If it is AF and will cost you $150, it's a steal.
I'm hopeful. His photo of all the gear laid out shows a lens which
On Dec 10, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Charles Robinson wrote:
There is a guy locally selling an old zx-30 with 3 lenses (including
this Tamron) for $150.
All I can find for 90mm Tamron macro autofocus lenses is one that
looks... pretty nice. I'll know more when I see it at lunchtime,
but if
Some have had good luck with the FA 100-300, but the consensus is that
it's not as good.
Check ebay. I sold my 80-320 two weeks ago on ebay. It went for $130
to a fellow in Australia. Shipping was $31, and it arrived in less
than a week.
Paul
On Jul 28, 2009, at 6:57 AM, Brian Walters
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:31 AM, paul stenquistpnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
heck ebay. I sold my 80-320 two weeks ago on ebay. It went for $130
Crap. I wish i had known that. I would have but a bid in.
Live and learn
Dave
--
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
I sold my 80-320 to finance the 55-300. The 55-300 is much better
above 200 mm and it doesn't creep while walking around. My FA100-300
doesn't see any use.
It's for sale!
Toine
2009/7/28 Brian Walters supera1...@fastmail.fm:
G'day all
Sadly, my FA 80-320 mm zoom has started to play up. It can
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:31 -0400, paul stenquist
pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
Some have had good luck with the FA 100-300, but the consensus is that
it's not as good.
Check ebay. I sold my 80-320 two weeks ago on ebay. It went for $130
to a fellow in Australia. Shipping was $31, and it
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:18 +0200, Toine to...@repiuk.nl wrote:
I sold my 80-320 to finance the 55-300. The 55-300 is much better
above 200 mm and it doesn't creep while walking around. My FA100-300
doesn't see any use.
It's for sale!
Based on that, and on Paul's post, I think I see a 55-300
At 8:57 PM +1000 7/28/09, Brian Walters wrote:
G'day all
Sadly, my FA 80-320 mm zoom has started to play up. It can no longer
focus at infinity beyond about the 180 mm setting. It seems to work OK
otherwise.
I'm considering the DA 55-300 mm as a replacement but I've seen a couple
of FA
on the DA*60~250 for now.
Jack
--- On Tue, 7/28/09, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
From: paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Opinions on FA 100-300mm Zoom
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 4:31 AM
Some have had good luck
I found the Tamron 70-300 LD Di to be very good, sharper than my FA 80-320 and
F 70-210. they're cheap to buy too. I've not tried the 55-300 but hear it's
very good.
John
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Brian Walters
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Jack Davisjdavi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Sold my FA 80~320 (eBay, $135+$15 shipping) a couple weeks ago. I'm expecting
delivery of a DA 55~300 (BH, $350 w/free shipping) in a couple days. While
I'm realistic about sample variations, I like the test numbers I've
Bob W wrote:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Bob
That is rather brilliant. I'd say, another surrealist shot in the vein
of your girl in the
Bob W wrote:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown
out, but they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Bob
That is rather brilliant. I'd say, another surrealist shot in
the vein
Very good capture Bob. Agree white should not offer detail other than
any other colors or shades (didn't work so well this
transtation, but I
always get tired by this time of night).
I keep trying to adjust the horizon, CCW just a little bit...
minor nit
indeed. One shot or did you
Here comes another vote from the Norwegian jury.
--
MaritimTim
2009/5/25 Bob W p...@web-options.com:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Bob
--
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Death, destruction, people with weapons - wait,
On Mon, 25 May 2009 22:55:07 +0100
Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but
they're not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Bob
would like a higher def version but...
I like
Very good capture Bob. Agree white should not offer detail other than
any other colors or shades (didn't work so well this transtation, but I
always get tired by this time of night).
I keep trying to adjust the horizon, CCW just a little bit... minor nit
indeed. One shot or did you bracket?
From: Bob W p...@web-options.com
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but
they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
I like it ... it looks like a figure in a diorama rather than a real
child,
On 25/5/09, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Looks fine to me, I can see plenty of detail. Nice pic.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
Exposure looks fine to me. I like it.
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're
not really. Sometimes there is no detail in white.
Bob
He's a red-head. Like me at his age, he has no color to his skin. But
there are freckles, I'd wager. Move in closer!
On May 25, 2009, at 14:55 , Bob W wrote:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but
they're
not
I like it. I'm looking at it on my laptop, so much is lost. But it
projects a mood that I'd describe as mysterious if not dark. The child
appears almost as a mannequin, and his position in frame and tightly
programmed look contribute to a somewhat unnatural feeling. Strange,
interesting,
What Godfrey said
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com
Subject: Re: Opinions please
From: Bob W p...@web-options.com
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly
This has red hair. Therefore the way his face came out is only
natural... Or at least this is what I am thinking.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
A picture:
http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg
The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown
,
John
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boris Liberman [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 November 2008 19:28
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted
Hi!
Thanks, John. Yes, I noticed that some of the reviews
Hi!
Thanks, John. Yes, I noticed that some of the reviews mentioned that...
I will have another, closer, look.
Boris
John Whittingham wrote:
Hi Boris
The Tamron 17-35 has quite a bit of field curvature resulting in a
lot of images that do not look sharp at the edges. This was something
I
Hehe I have an eye on that one as well ;)
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thibouille wrote:
Boris, my 16-45 may go at a time or another ... I just dunno yet.
Please let me know when you would know ;-). But many ideas are running
through my head,
In fact, to disclose even more details on my pondering, I am thinking
of selling FAJ 18-35 (probably somewhat overdue anyway), a film body
and a 21 ltd (please notice) and buy Tamron 17-35/2.8. Then I'll have
2 Tamron zooms and 4 Pentax full frame primes - quite enough for me.
Boris
On Wed, Nov
with my Tamron 28-75 or a bag full of FA
primes.
Regards,
John
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boris Liberman [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 November 2008 11:47
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted
Bill I reckon that DA 16-45/4 is a stop slower, a bit shorter but buy
one, return none kind of lens for fraction of the price.
I may be buying one myself some day. And yet, may be not, I don't know...
Boris
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: PN Stenquist
Subject: Re
I'm hoping it's good, because I want one.
BH photo has a few reviews, seem to be mostly self congratulatory
expressions that the buyer made a good choice.
Boris Lieberman wrote:
Hi!
I don't recall any significant discussion of this lens. Anyone owning
it? Or is it the general opinion of
Boris, my 16-45 may go at a time or another ... I just dunno yet.
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
Photo: K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
Thinkpad: X23+UB,X60+UB
Programing: D7 user (trying out D2007)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Thibouille wrote:
Boris, my 16-45 may go at a time or another ... I just dunno yet.
Please let me know when you would know ;-). But many ideas are running
through my head, including, but not limited to, Tamron 17-50/2.8 that
can be had for a very fair price here in Israel brand new.
Boris
If you buy from a reputable supplier, there is no risk. BH replaced
mine without question. What's more, the problem was due to assembly
mistakes in manufacture. I'm sure it's been resolved. (Although pixel
peeping paranoid users will continue to imagine problems.)
Paul
On Nov 9, 2008, at
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Boris Liberman
Sent: Monday, 10 November 2008 1:16 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted
Hoover like in the namesake dam?
Hoover as in the company that makes vacuum cleaners
Paul, each time I send a lens to US of A for replacement and each time
I receive one as it passes through our border, I get to pay money.
After two or three replacement transactions, I'll be better of flying
to NYC and cherry picking the sucker over the counter.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:01 PM,
I understand. It's unfortunate that Pentax doesn't have a better
presence in Israel.
Paul
On Nov 10, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Paul, each time I send a lens to US of A for replacement and each time
I receive one as it passes through our border, I get to pay money.
After two or
1 - 100 of 477 matches
Mail list logo
