Re: Opinions sought on an experiment

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

Re: Opinions sought on an experiment

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

Re: Opinions sought on an experiment

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 backgro

Re: Opinions sought on an experiment

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 > >https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarse

Re: Opinions sought on an experiment

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 w

Re: Opinions sought on an experiment

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 bight.

Re: Opinions sought on an experiment

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 bolocks

Re: Opinions sought on an experiment

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, Co

Re: Opinions sought on an experiment

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 cur

Re: Opinions sought on an experiment

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 knotwor

Re: Opinions sought on an experiment

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/ > > -- > L

Re: Opinions

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 go

Re: Opinions

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 stude

Re: Opinions

On 18 Mar 2014, at 12:04, "Steve Cottrell" 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 river, an

Re: Opinions

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'. The

Re: Opinions

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 -- _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss

Re: Opinions

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 don'

Re: Opinions

On 3/16/2014 7:12 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote: I'd be interested to hear your reaction this photo, please: 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 fe

Re: Opinions

On 17 Mar 2014, at 00:01, "Steve Cottrell" wrote: > > On 16/3/14, Bob W-PDML, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> I'd be interested to hear your reaction this photo, please: >> >> >> >> Love it or hate it, I don't mind, but if you have an opinion I'd love

RE: Opinions

> 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 >

Re: Opinions

On 16/03/2014, Bob W-PDML wrote: > I'd be interested to hear your reaction this photo, please: > > > > 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 sort of image

Re: Opinions

on 2014-03-16 17:12 Bob W-PDML wrote I'd be interested to hear your reaction this photo, please: 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 sigh

Re: Opinions

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 pitcher

Re: Opinions

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 wrote: > I'd be i

Re: Opinions

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 wrote: > I'd be interested to hear your reaction this photo, please:

Re: Opinions

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 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 > and it appears to me

Re: Opinions

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 http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/k

Re: Opinions

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

Re: Opinions

On 16/3/14, Bob W-PDML, discombobulated, unleashed: >I'd be interested to hear your reaction this photo, please: > > > >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.

RE: Opinions

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, IM

Re: Opinions

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

Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4

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.

Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4

t: 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! I appreciate your feedback o

RE: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4 and camera and lens evolution

quist Sent: 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, wrote: > > Mark , > Try this review, > http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3676&review=pent >

Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4

> 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 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 mi

RE: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4 Sigma 17-70mm lens reviews

...@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 t

RE: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4

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

RE: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4

Mark , Try this review, http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3676&review=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: Opin

Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4

gt;>> 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 >>>

Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4

/30/2013 9:51 PM, ma...@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 17-70 f4

> 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 s

Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4

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 17-70 f4 I did the sam

Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4

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 focus

RE: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4

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

Re: Opinions on DA 17-70 f4

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 looking

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 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 originale---

Re: Opinions on later Tamron 24/2.5

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 it

Re: Opinions on the FAJ 18-35 for film use.

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

Re: Opinions on the FAJ 18-35 for film use.

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 wrote: > Brian Walters wrote: > >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:48 -0500, "Ira H. Bryant IV" >

Re: Opinions on the FAJ 18-35 for film use.

Brian Walters wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:48 -0500, "Ira H. Bryant IV" wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:28:25 +0100 mike wilson 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 thi

Re: Opinions on the FAJ 18-35 for film use.

2010/8/16 P. J. Alling : >> > 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 PDML, please visit the link

Re: Opinions on the FAJ 18-35 for film use.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:48 -0500, "Ira H. Bryant IV" wrote: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:28:25 +0100 > mike wilson 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 peo

Re: Opinions on the FAJ 18-35 for film use.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:28:25 +0100 mike wilson 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 list would hav

Re: Opinions on the FAJ 18-35 for film use.

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

Re: Opinions on the FAJ 18-35 for film use.

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 b

Re: Opinions on the FAJ 18-35 for film use.

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 film

Re: Opinions on the FAJ 18-35 for film use.

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 H

Re: Opinions on the FAJ 18-35 for film use.

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 thou

Re: Opinions on Tamron 90mm macro?

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 it's

Re: Opinions on Tamron 90mm macro?

On Dec 10, 2009, at 16:22, Cymen Vig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Charles Robinson 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 doe

Re: Opinions on Tamron 90mm macro?

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Charles Robinson 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.  Fingers cros

Re: Opinions on Tamron 90mm macro?

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 k

Re: Opinions on Tamron 90mm macro?

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

Re: Opinions on Tamron 90mm macro?

If it is AF and will cost you $150, it's a steal. On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, 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

Re: Opinions on FA 100-300mm Zoom

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Jack Davis wrote: > Sold my FA 80~320 (eBay, $135+$15 shipping) a couple weeks ago. I'm expecting > delivery of a DA 55~300 (B&H, $350 w/free shipping) in a couple days. While > I'm realistic about sample variations, I like the test numbers I've read > along with

RE: Opinions on FA 100-300mm Zoom

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 [sup

Re: Opinions on FA 100-300mm Zoom

, am holding off on the DA*60~250 for now. Jack --- On Tue, 7/28/09, paul stenquist wrote: > From: paul stenquist > Subject: Re: Opinions on FA 100-300mm Zoom > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 4:31 AM > Some have had good luck with the FA &

Re: Opinions on FA 100-300mm Zoom

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 100-300

Re: Opinions on FA 100-300mm Zoom

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:18 +0200, "Toine" 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 in my futur

Re: Opinions on FA 100-300mm Zoom

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:31 -0400, "paul stenquist" 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 arrived in less >

Re: Opinions on FA 100-300mm Zoom

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 : > G'day all > > Sadly, my FA 80-320 mm zoom has started to play up. It can no longer > focus a

Re: Opinions on FA 100-300mm Zoom

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:31 AM, paul stenquist 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 http://brooksinthecountry.blogs

Re: Opinions on FA 100-300mm Zoom

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 wrote:

Re: Opinions please

Here comes another vote from the Norwegian jury. -- MaritimTim 2009/5/25 Bob W : > 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 -- PDML Pentax-Di

RE: Opinions please

> > 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

RE: Opinions please

> 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 surre

Re: Opinions please

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 p

Re: Opinions please

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 wrote: > A picture: > > http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg > > The highlights, particularly the child's face, look blown out, but they're

Re: Opinions please

What Godfrey said Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: Opinions please From: "Bob W" A picture: http://www.web-options.com/L1000308.jpg The highlights, particularly the child's

Re: Opinions please

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, co

Re: Opinions please

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

Re: Opinions please

Exposure looks fine to me. I like it. On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:55 PM, 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 > > > -- > PDML

Re: Opinions please

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

Re: Opinions please

From: "Bob W" 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, makes that leap out

Re: Opinions please

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?

Re: Opinions please

On Mon, 25 May 2009 22:55:07 +0100 Bob W 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 how the shot work

Re: Opinions please

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM, 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. Death, destruction, people with weapons - wait, that was anoth

RE: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted

. Regards, 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 t

Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted

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 fo

RE: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted

it company 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-

Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted

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 1

Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted

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 m

Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted

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

Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted

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 http://pdm

Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted

I'm hoping it's good, because I want one. B&H 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 th

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&qu

Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted

Steve, my very first abroad from Israel was back in September 1994 to NYC and LA. So you don't have to convince me ;-). Boris Steve Desjardins wrote: NYC is lovely in the fall. ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIB

Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted

- Original Message - From: "PN Stenquist" Subject: Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted If you buy from a reputable supplier, there is no risk. B&H replaced mine without question. What's more, the problem was due to assembly mistakes in manufacture.

Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted

- Original Message - From: "PN Stenquist" Subject: Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted I understand. It's unfortunate that Pentax doesn't have a better presence in Israel. It's more unfortunate that Pentax quality control doesn't have a better

Re: Opinions about DA 17-70/4 SDM wanted

NYC is lovely in the fall. ;-) >>> "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/10/2008 9:09 AM >>> 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

  1   2   3   4   5   >