On Mar 18, 2006, at 6:10 PM, Rick Womer wrote:
Since when does the fisheye effect need to be obvious
or tiresome? Putting modesty aside, I could display
for your consideration:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3760021
Yes, it's a good shot and shows that excellent work not obviou
That's the point. The fisheye makes some shots "work"
that otherwise wouldn't, but one has to be careful.
Rick
--- David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> G'day Rick,
>
> Great shot, but the fisheye effect isn't that
> obvious. So in that
> series of yours it isn't tiresome.
>
> Dave
>
>
G'day Rick,
Great shot, but the fisheye effect isn't that obvious. So in that
series of yours it isn't tiresome.
Dave
On 3/19/06, Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since when does the fisheye effect need to be obvious
> or tiresome? Putting modesty aside, I could display
> for your consi
Good one! You might consider cloning out the feet and white clothing on
the right. But, overall, a very good example of how fisheyes can
produce desirable results.
Paul
On Mar 18, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Rick Womer wrote:
Since when does the fisheyeoody aside, I could display
for your consideration
Since when does the fisheye effect need to be obvious
or tiresome? Putting modesty aside, I could display
for your consideration:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3760021
Rick
--- David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/17/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > It'
- Original Message -
From: "David Savage"
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
Thanks Bill,
Very much appreciated. I owe you a drink.
Buy John Forbes a drink instead...
It evens things out a bit.
William Robb
Quoting "E.R.N. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
This list is making you buy all that non-Pentax stuff?
How? I'm puzzled ...
Just trying to even up the bags.:-) Besides, i confuse easly.
Dave
On 3/17/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Savage"
> Subject: Re: OT 4 months
>
>
>
> >
> > By any chance would have a high res. jpg with the exif info or DNG
> > f
- Original Message -
From: "David Savage"
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
By any chance would have a high res. jpg with the exif info or DNG
file that you wouldn't mind emailing me to practice with?
www.komkon.org/~wrobb/IMGP0391.PEF
It's a full 13mb file.
William Robb
David J Brooks wrote:
I told my wife, no camera equipment for 2006. So far i have ordered
the D200, bought the Sigma 10-20 and am this close to getting the
Tamron 90 macro for the Nikon mounts
Damn i hate this list.
lol
This list is making you buy all that non-Pentax stuff?
How? I'm puzzle
>
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/03/17 Fri PM 12:52:08 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: OT 4 months
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "mike wilson"
> Subject: Re: Re: OT 4 months
>
>
&
- Original Message -
From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Re: OT 4 months
Why does there need to be a fisheye effect?
http://www.dvdtechcameras.com/gallery/zenitar/1/14.htm
Not every picture can be so carefully contrived as to hide the lens
curvature as some of t
On 3/17/06, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's the plan. In general the fisheye effect gets tired quickly.
>
> Why does there need to be a fisheye effect?
> http://www.dvdtechcameras.com/gallery/zenitar/1/14.htm
There doesn't "need" to be, few of those examples show it though.
Dave
>
> From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/03/17 Fri AM 09:37:50 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: OT 4 months
>
> On 3/17/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's a fun lens, but you will probab
On 3/17/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a fun lens, but you will probably want to become familiar with ways to
> de-fisheye the images.
>
> William Robb
>
That's the plan. In general the fisheye effect gets tired quickly.
By any chance would have a high res. jpg with the exif i
- Original Message -
From: "Mishka"
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
thanks to your hard work, i got one yesterday (together with *istdl) --
i like it quite a bit -- it seems to cover ~ 180deg at 10mm and it's
still seriously wide (when defished) even at the long limit
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Øsleby"
Subject: RE: OT 4 months
That's the reason why I never have (and probably never will) owned a
fisheye.
Why order fish in the first place, when you will convert it to meat later?
Feels like a broken record here ;-)
It
te the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
From: David J Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17. mars 2006 02:32
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
I told my wife, no camera equipment fo
thanks to your hard work, i got one yesterday (together with *istdl) --
i like it quite a bit -- it seems to cover ~ 180deg at 10mm and it's
still seriously wide (when defished) even at the long limit.
best,
mishka
On 3/16/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's a fun lens, but you
I bought my Zenitar after seeing Franks at GFM last year.
Bought as a fun lens only, but, its a decent lens non the less
Dave
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I agree with Tim. I have the Zenitar 16/2.8 fish eye and it's a fun
lens for occasional use, but when I want ultrawide a
age-
> From: David J Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17. mars 2006 02:32
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: OT 4 months
>
> I told my wife, no camera equipment for 2006. So far i have ordered the
> D200, bought the Sigma 10-20 and am this close
I told my wife, no camera equipment for 2006. So far i have ordered the
D200, bought the Sigma 10-20 and am this close to getting the Tamron 90
macro for the Nikon mounts
Damn i hate this list.
lol
Dave
On Mar 16, 2006, at 6:23 AM, David Savage wrote:
G'day All,
In early November last y
Enjoy it.
I almost made my "no new cameras for 12 months" plan last year ...
but I bought the Panny LX1 at Thanksgiving time. Didn't last long: I
sold it and bought the Sony R1.
I'm pretty much done with Pentax purchases until the DA50-135/2.8 and
the new 10Mpixel body are released. With
I agree with Tim. I have the Zenitar 16/2.8 fish eye and it's a fun
lens for occasional use, but when I want ultrawide and rectilinear, I
use the DA14/2.8 which is far superior. I bought the Zeni because it
was fishy and would never de-fish it; I had the DA14 already.
Godfrey
On Mar 16, 20
rowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
> -Original Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17. mars 2006 00:48
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: OT 4 months
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Øsleby"
Subject: RE: OT 4 months
Why de-fish? Why order fish, if you want meat?
I'm not trying to be a smartass here. I don't get this.
The 10-17 is a fisheye zoom. It's nice and wide, but the fisheye effect g
ginal Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 16. mars 2006 23:13
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: OT 4 months
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Savage"
> Subject: OT 4 months
>
>
>
&g
- Original Message -
From: "David Savage"
Subject: OT 4 months
The DA10-17 is the only lens that has tempted me to break my
resolution. But when I was told that the local distributor didn't even
know if the were going to import it I felt safe. My local camera store
kindly offere
28 matches
Mail list logo
