Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the
list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move
to digital. Who hasn't,
I haven't. But you knew that already.
and who have no plans to do so in the near or
foreseeable
Tom Reese wrote:
Shel Belinkoff tried to cause trouble when he wrote:
...Who hasn't (made the move to digital) and who have no plans to do so in
the near or foreseeable future?
That would be me.
Tom (Slides-R-Us) Reese
yawn - dog bites man :-)
ann
p.s. well maybe there were
I'm not using digital. I've just ordered an Nikon 9000ED scanner and plan to
stick with film for a few more years. Besides, Pentax digital offerings are
quite underwhelming in my opinion, and doesn't trigger a hint of gearlust in
me at least...
Pål
Pål Jensen wrote:
I'm not using digital. I've just ordered an Nikon 9000ED scanner and
plan to stick with film for a few more years. Besides, Pentax digital
offerings are quite underwhelming in my opinion, and doesn't trigger a
hint of gearlust in me at least...
What would it take for
Shel,
I'm using digital. I've been asked to make some photos of my sports club
on thursday for the newspaper. I'll take them with the digi, because the
workflow is faster and I've been asked for files.
Nevertheless, I've just finished a darkroom course. I started in summer
developing my
At 9:39 AM -0800 12/11/05, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the
list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move
to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or
foreseeable future?
Me! Me!
Op Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:39:02 +0100 schreef Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the
list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the
move
to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the
Hi Shel,
My only digital is the Optio 555, if we don't count the digital
workflow from Large Format (4x5) slides thru the Epson Expression
1680 Pro to PS.
I'm still waiting for a full frame DSLR. Maybe I will go over to the
dark s(l)ide, the Canon 5D is appealing (and besides, my only AF lens
is
: Who's Not Using Digital
Probably a good move, Shel. I've been thinking about selling one of my
Ds now before a new camera is introduced.
Paul
On Dec 11, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi,
No, I'm not giving up on digital. I needed some extra cash to pay for
some
unexpected
I have not either made move to digital. I like the stuff I have.
However, for bird photography I'm considering getting a digital - also
for the sake of being able to check out exposures. Otherwise I'm quite
happy with my MF and 35mm stuff. I do some cold weather photography and
my LX and
David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious about your industrial night scenes. What about them makes
them nearly impossible with digital? This is an honest question. I've
found digital's low-light capability to be better than the film I've
used.
The problem is with the lights
I'm not regular poster, but sometimes i think about going digital.
For example, i was asked to shoot some event this week:
If i have DSLR, then it will be somewhat easier. Now i have option to
use my MZ-3 and Press-800, with 50mm and 135mm manual focus lens.
Great setup for landscape/nature
Agree.
If i have a chance to get used istD, i'll get it. But otherwise i'm
planning to robber some bank shortly after P645D will be available :D
But more likely, that i get wide angle lens for my 645 or get 67.
Gasha
David Mann wrote:
Me.
A digi body is in my long-term plans, but there's
Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over
highlights than you can achieve with any film. For extreme situations,
it's easy to marry two exposures. Controlling flare is mainly a lensing
issue. The most current Pentax glass, such as the FA 35/2, can handle
situations
Nice shots by the way. You make the mundane quite attractive. Good work.
Paul
On Dec 12, 2005, at 6:46 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over
highlights than you can achieve with any film. For extreme situations,
it's easy to marry two
Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over
highlights than you can achieve with any film.
No, it doesn't. Once the sensor is saturated no RAW format in the world
will bring back the lost infirmation.
For extreme
The PSCS RAW converter will extrapolate missing highlight information
in one channel based on that in other channels, according to Adobe.
Based on considerable personal experience, I can say that I've seen
highlights appear when the exposure is dialed down in conversion that
were at not
- Original Message -
From: Ralf R. Radermacher
Subject: Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over
highlights than you can achieve with any film.
No, it doesn't. Once the sensor is saturated no RAW format in the world
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Control over highlights isn't the same thing as trying to save a buggered
exposure.
Try to save the highlights off a 2 stop overexposed slide some time
Tell you what. I'll simply win the lottery next weekend and then I'll
invite you all over for a
me. no plans till I can put a 15mm on without problems, and when I do,
I want it to have a 15mm focal length. I might have to wait till no film is
available, lol.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, December
Sounds like a plan. Count me in :-)).
Seriously, your photography is excellent. But it's interesting to
consider what might be possible here.
Paul
On Dec 12, 2005, at 7:58 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Control over highlights isn't the same thing as
This one time, at band camp, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Kevin,
What digital bodies are you using?
I have 3 *istD bodies.
Sorry if I gave the impression they were of various makes.
Kind regards
Kevin
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
me. no plans till I can put a 15mm...
That lens alone is reason enough for keeping at least one analog body.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries -
Good point. However, I have no complaints with the performance of the
DA 12-24. Great flare resistance, good sharpness, even in the corners.
Paul
On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:44 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
me. no plans till I can put a 15mm...
That lens
One can make adapter, to the dark side, like Cotty did ;)
I still wonder sometimes, what is cheaper:
1) full frame body, with great prime wide angle lens
2) cropped sensor body, with extreme wide angle without corners.
3) MF camera with wide angle lens.
Gasha
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Good
On 12/12/05, Gasha, discombobulated, unleashed:
1) full frame body, with great prime wide angle lens
2) cropped sensor body, with extreme wide angle without corners.
3) MF camera with wide angle lens.
I'd vote number 2.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
On Dec 12, 2005, at 4:58 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Control over highlights isn't the same thing as trying to save a
buggered
exposure.
Try to save the highlights off a 2 stop overexposed slide some
time
Tell you what. I'll simply win the
On Dec 12, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Steve Larson wrote:
me. no plans till I can put a 15mm on without problems, and when I do,
I want it to have a 15mm focal length. I might have to wait till no
film is
available, lol.
Um, you can fit a 15mm lens on any Pentax DSLR today and it will
still be a
And, for a slightly different perspective, the Pentax 10-17mm fisheye:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120103pentax_fishizoom.asp
Shel
You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
If you want the same field of view as a film body with a 15mm
Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, for a slightly different perspective, the Pentax 10-17mm fisheye:
In my experience, the effect of a fisheye lens wears off much too
rapidly to justify the expense.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage:
How rapidly is too rapidly? I got an FA 17-28
fisheye zoom in July, and it is still my
second-most-used lens.
Rick
--- Ralf R. Radermacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, for a slightly different perspective, the
Pentax 10-17mm fisheye:
In my
Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How rapidly is too rapidly? I got an FA 17-28
fisheye zoom in July, and it is still my
second-most-used lens.
Anything online?
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and
Ralf,
See
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=527031;
also
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3760021
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3760007
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3760017
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3760024
Finally, this was
Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=527031;
also
http://www.photo.net...
I'll be honest, I'm rather unimpressed. Though I'm a fan of extreme
wideangle lenses (of the linear variety), it appears fisheyes don't do
much for me.
Ralf
--
Ralf
On 13 Dec 2005 at 0:01, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=527031;
also
http://www.photo.net...
I'll be honest, I'm rather unimpressed. Though I'm a fan of extreme
wideangle lenses (of the linear
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the digital realm converting a fisheye view to a rectilinear view is
as easy
as applying any digital image filter, so fisheye lenses can realistically
be treated as ultra view angle rectilinear lenses too.
Or so I thought, as well. Have you ever
On 13 Dec 2005 at 0:22, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or so I thought, as well. Have you ever tried it? Once converted to
linear, the residual distorsion of those lenses (usually wave-shaped)
looks far worse than the fisheye image you started with and it's
On Dec 12, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
And, for a slightly different perspective, the Pentax 10-17mm
fisheye:
In my experience, the effect of a fisheye lens wears off much too
rapidly to justify the expense.
I have to admit that fisheye views often become cliché to my
Not for a couple of years. I don't want to spend money in something that is
going to be outdated in several months. With slides I have the raw allways
at my service with just a film scanner. Rolls of film developed and
digitalized are less expensive than buying DSLR that have less pixels than
film
This one time, at band camp, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the
list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move
to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or
Not yet..aside from my wife's compact.
Don't know exactly what it will take, but it will have to come from
Pentax. As the saying goes, I'll know it when I see it.
--- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on
the
list, at
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or
foreseeable future?
Me.
Kostas (still looking for an affordable MZ-S, though)
I am still shooting film with a PZ-1p, a PZ-1, and
occasionally a Super Program. I have an Optio 33L
that is always in my bag, but an Olympus Stylus Zoom
is in there too.
When the successor to the istD comes out I will give
it due consideration, and I may or may not take the
digital plunge then.
I haven't. I do have a small (2mp) Nikon digicam, but I don't think that's
what you mean. In all truth, I haven't been taking photos at all this year,
film or digital. I seem to have been too busy with other stuff. However, I'm
starting to get itchy feet and I might take an exotic trip soon.
--
Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have several digital bodies, but still use film. Over weekend I did some
portraits of dancers at a ballet school, all film. I have not gone digital,
it is just another tool for use where appropriate.
Exactly. Same here. Digital has its advantages,
Hi Kevin,
What digital bodies are you using?
Paul
On Dec 11, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on
the
list, at least from the usual gang of regular
I've had a *istD for a little over a year, but I still use my film
bodies for BW (ZX-L, MX, ME Super, H1, H3V).
Glenn
On 12/11/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the
list, at least from the usual gang of regular
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the
list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move
to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or
foreseeable future?
Film. Not likely to change in
Oh god, another convert, proselytizing.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the
list, at least from the usual gang of regular
Not at all ... I was just curious, trying to get a sense of how many
have/have not converted. And, FYI, I've sold my DSLR
And since when does asking a question equate to proselytizing?
Shel
You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
[Original Message]
From: graywolf
Oh god, another
I love slides. Although I now own a *ist D, I still use my Spotmatic ES
cameras for slides.When I travel to exotic places, I'll record the
majority of images on digital, but I also bring an Olympus XA and some
Velvia slide film.
I don't do weddings with digital. Clients are surprised,
We have an Optio we use for family snapshots. Otherwise, black and
white film and occasionally some chrome. I bought a scanner a while
back for scanning film, but am fairly frustrated with the amount of
work required to produce something printable. (Have I mentioned how
much I hate digital
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Not at all ... I was just curious, trying to get a sense of how many
have/have not converted. And, FYI, I've sold my DSLR
U, I seem to have missed something...
I thought you had just got _into_ digital! I mean, within the last year?
And now you're leaving it?
I don't
I'm still PO'd at my D2H. Does thaty
count.:-)
Dave
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the
list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move
to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to
Hi,
No, I'm not giving up on digital. I needed some extra cash to pay for some
unexpected medical expenses, and was unable to work for a month or so, so I
chose to sell the digi rather than one of my film cameras. I think
graywolf knew that, so there was no need to explain it further. IOW,
On Dec 11, 2005, at 2:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
... how many have/have not converted. ...
LOL! I never converted. Makes it sound like some kind of belief system
I bought another camera, sold an older one to make up some of the
money, it happened to be digital. I liked it enough that i
Shel Belinkoff tried to cause trouble when he wrote:
...Who hasn't (made the move to digital) and who have no plans to do so in
the near or foreseeable future?
That would be me.
Tom (Slides-R-Us) Reese
Aren't we all being a little too sensitive about this? Not you, Scott,
but in general it seems that a lot of people suspect that Shel had some
devious motive in asking this question. You would think he asked how
many need drugs to cope with erectile dysfunction problems. It's just
an
Probably a good move, Shel. I've been thinking about selling one of my
Ds now before a new camera is introduced.
Paul
On Dec 11, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi,
No, I'm not giving up on digital. I needed some extra cash to pay for
some
unexpected medical expenses, and was unable
On 12/11/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be me.
Tom (Slides-R-Us) Reese
Me too.
-frank (~real~ bw is shot on film) theriault
ps: I hope I don't really have to put a smiley WRT the above; please
don't flame me...
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri
In a message dated 12/11/2005 5:52:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me too.
-frank (~real~ bw is shot on film) theriault
ps: I hope I don't really have to put a smiley WRT the above; please
don't flame me...
Grrr. If you don't switch to digital then we will come
On 12/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/11/2005 5:52:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me too.
-frank (~real~ bw is shot on film) theriault
ps: I hope I don't really have to put a smiley WRT the above; please
don't flame me...
In a message dated 12/11/2005 6:07:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not worried about getting flamed for sticking with film, but
rather for my tongue-in-cheek quip about real bw is shot on film.
I've seen some pretty good conversions for digital, and I just wanted
a
On 12/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=
My point is, why should we? (Even when it comes to BW.)
I was just joking around, Marnie. Really.
I'm not even sure why you're using we, or what group you're
referring to when you use the word.
I'm with Godfrey here, really.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 11:42 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Who's Not Using Digital
I love slides. Although I now own a *ist D, I still use my Spotmatic ES
cameras for slides.When I travel
In a message dated 12/11/2005 6:32:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I still haven't gotten over the fact that you went over to the dark
side - and by that I mean Canon, not digital LOL.
Marnie aka Doe ;-) A horse head will be the next threat.
You call that a threat? g
Digital, shmigital. g
Cheers,
G
On 12/11/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the
list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move
to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in
Tom (Slides-R-Us) Reese
I'm very much in the slide corner myself, though Tom's beaten
me to the name.
Cheers,
G
On 12/11/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shel Belinkoff tried to cause trouble when he wrote:
...Who hasn't (made the move to digital) and who have no plans to do so in
I am one of those folks who isn't using digital and who has no plans to in
his personal photography. Happily I am a hobbyist and not a professional
photographer and so am not pressured to make decisions based upon speed or
upon return on investment. Part of the reason I've not followed the
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have several digital bodies, but still use film. Over weekend I did some
portraits of dancers at a ballet school, all film. I have not gone digital,
it is just another tool for use where appropriate.
Exactly. Same here.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. I am even worse, I now belong to the Digital DARK Mafia.
But you ALSO have a Pentax Optio.
(You do still have the Pentax Optio, don't you?)
In a message dated 12/11/2005 7:49:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. I am even worse, I now belong to the Digital DARK Mafia.
But you ALSO have a Pentax Optio.
(You do still have the Pentax Optio, don't you?)
==
I am afraid that only
Me.
A digi body is in my long-term plans, but there's no budget for it.
My plan to pick up a 67II body is higher-priority anyway. If I had
money I'd have bought a really good kit recently :(
- Dave
On Dec 12, 2005, at 6:39 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I was thinking about this last night.
On Dec 12, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Still have a number of film cameras in the closet however.
Are you saving them for the Mardi Gras?
- Dave
On Dec 11, 2005, at 11:08 PM, David Mann wrote:
On Dec 12, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Still have a number of film cameras in the closet however.
Are you saving them for the Mardi Gras?
lol ... No, just for sake of fond reminiscence from using them. Two
Rollei 35s, a
75 matches
Mail list logo
