Well, they're not exactly right. I'm able to connect the camera to my
win98se machine. However if you plan to shoot raw and need the Pentax
photo lab software it won't install on 98, maybe not on ME, though I
didn't actually try. It would probably run, but the installer depends
on files not
Hi Ann
All you need is a card reader to use Windows 98. I now have WinXP but
I still download to the computer via a card reader.
Peter is right - the Pentax software doesn't run on 98 so, if you
shoot RAW you need another raw converter.
One you could consider is Silkypix - it has a free mode an
More likely is the fact that Microsoft no longer support W98, and ME was a
crap OS anyway, more buggy than a June night! I still have a W98SE machine
for client support, but it gets little use nowadays, as most have moved on.
My preference would be to go for XP Pro rather than 2000, but that's y
>
> From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/26 Mon AM 04:55:24 GMT
> To: PDML@pdml.net
> Subject: Windoze versions and DS
>
> Before I ordered the DS I called Pentax to ask a couple of
> questions
> could it deliver the size and resolution I wanted in prints
> (that the stock
There is absolutely no reason to upgrade. Don't use the Pentax software
(which is terrible), and don't use the USB connection. Get a cheap
card-reader and use it to download pictures and upload firmware.
John
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 05:55:24 +0100, Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Be
On 6/26/06, Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I might have to breakdown and install the windoze 2000
> upgrade that has been sitting in the
> drawer for 5 years...
>
> OTOH - maybe the only reason Windoze 98 SE isn't in the
> list on the site Shel pointed me to
> is that the writer didn't
>
> From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/26 Mon PM 12:16:18 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: Re: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
> It's very slow, and has an extremely limited range of adjustments.
>
>
On Jun 26, 2006, at 5:59 AM, mike wilson wrote:
> OK. What's quicker? I've never used it to adjust images, always
> doing that in PS.
What do you use it for, then?
The Pentax LAB and BROWSER are slow and do poor RAW conversions
compared to almost any other RAW converter I've tested.
Godf
>
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/26 Mon PM 01:55:50 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2006, at 5:59 AM, mike wilson wrote:
>
> > OK. What's quicker?
"P. J. Alling" wrote:
>
> Well, they're not exactly right. I'm able to connect the camera to my
> win98se machine.
Phew -
For starters, that's really all I need to do.
> However if you plan to shoot raw and need the Pentax
> photo lab software it won't install on 98, maybe not on ME, though I
On dialup this may take a couple of days...
Mat Maessen wrote:
>On 6/26/06, Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>I might have to breakdown and install the windoze 2000
>>upgrade that has been sitting in the
>>drawer for 5 years...
>>
>>OTOH - maybe the only reason Windoze 98 SE isn't
Brian Walters wrote:
>
> Hi Ann
>
> All you need is a card reader to use Windows 98. I now have WinXP but
> I still download to the computer via a card reader.
>
> Peter is right - the Pentax software doesn't run on 98 so, if you
> shoot RAW you need another raw converter.
>
> One you could co
I would rather not upgrade to XP if I don't have to - unless
I had a separate machine totally :)
All of you - JOhn, Mike, Godfrey, Peter, Brian - thanks for
the reassurance and tips -
MY resistance to change, or rather, not changing things I
don't actually have to,
has a lot to do with no one r
- Original Message -
From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
> On dialup this may take a couple of days...
>From what I hear about Ann's host, more like a couple of weeks..
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
ht
Ann, I may have spoken too soon. After sending the last message I
realized I hadn't actually used either the D or DS on the Win98 machine
since I installed a high speed card reader on my W2K box about 6 months
ago. So I tried them both and neither works. Seems that the Pentax
Drivers have to
- Original Message -
From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
> Ann, I may have spoken too soon. After sending the last message I
> realized I hadn't actually used either the D or DS on the Win98 machine
> since I installed a high speed card re
On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:39 AM, mike wilson wrote:
>>> OK. What's quicker? I've never used it to adjust images, always
>>> doing that in PS.
>>
>> What do you use it for, then?
> Win ME, PS6. Pentax Photolab2.1
I'm not sure you understood the question. Do you use it for RAW
conversions or what?
In a message dated 6/25/2006 11:39:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Ann
All you need is a card reader to use Windows 98. I now have WinXP but
I still download to the computer via a card reader.
Peter is right - the Pentax software doesn't run on 98 so, if you
shoot RAW
Original Message -
>From: "P. J. Alling"
>Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
>
>
>
>>On dialup this may take a couple of days...
>>
>>
>
>>From what I hear about Ann's host, more like a couple of weeks..
>
>William Rob
Ann,
Most card reader packages include a CD that has the Win 98SE driver on
it and instructions how to install the driver. Your laptop probably
only supports USB 1.1, but be sure to get a card reader that uses USB
2.0. The reader will be backward compatible and should work on your
current la
ngs have happened before.
William Robb wrote:
>- Original Message -----
>From: "P. J. Alling"
>Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
>
>
>
>>Ann, I may have spoken too soon. After sending the last message I
>>realized I hadn't actually
missing.
John
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:59:05 +0100, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>>
>> From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: 2006/06/26 Mon PM 12:16:18 GMT
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Subject: Re: Re: W
>
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/26 Mon PM 04:35:46 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
> On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:39 AM, mike wilson wrote:
>
> >>> OK. What's quicker? I'v
"P. J. Alling" wrote:
>
> Ann, I may have spoken too soon.
You'll be hearing from my attorney
>After sending the last message I
> realized I hadn't actually used either the D or DS on the Win98 machine
> since I installed a high speed card reader on my W2K box about 6 months
> ago. So I
Paul Sorenson wrote:
>
> Ann,
>
> Most card reader packages include a CD that has the Win 98SE driver on
> it and instructions how to install the driver. Your laptop probably
> only supports USB 1.1, but be sure to get a card reader that uses USB
> 2.0. The reader will be backward compatible an
Sorry about that!!
Don't know where I got the idea you were using a laptop. I don't like
'em either - the keyboard's just too freakin' small for my hands and I
keep hitting the wrong keys.
-P
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> Paul Sorenson wrote:
>> Ann,
>>
>> Most card reader packages include a CD that
John Forbes wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:04:58 +0100, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>>From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Date: 2006/06/26 Mon PM 06:29:20 GMT
>>>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List&qu
Most laptops nowadays have full-sized keyboards. Both my StinkPads do.
-Adam
Paul Sorenson wrote:
>Sorry about that!!
>
>Don't know where I got the idea you were using a laptop. I don't like
>'em either - the keyboard's just too freakin' small for my hands and I
>keep hitting the wrong keys.
On Jun 26, 2006, at 1:49 PM, mike wilson wrote:
>> 1) The range of adjustment available with the Pentax LAB on RAW files
>> is almost exactly what the camera itself is capable of and provides
>> very little improvement over what you can do in full resolution JPEG
>> *** out of the camera. Other RA
Paul Sorenson wrote:
>
> Sorry about that!!
>
> Don't know where I got the idea you were using a laptop. I don't like
> 'em either - the keyboard's just too freakin' small for my hands and I
> keep hitting the wrong keys.
>
> -P
All is forgiven -- the non-mouse is what gets me -- it was
hard e
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>Paul Sorenson wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry about that!!
>>
>>Don't know where I got the idea you were using a laptop. I don't like
>>'em either - the keyboard's just too freakin' small for my hands and I
>>keep hitting the wrong keys.
>>
>>-P
>>
>>
>
>All is forgiven -- the non-
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Date: 2006/06/26 Mon PM 06:29:20 GMT
>>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>>>> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that once you get the softw
John Forbes wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>>The LX does metered exposures past 30 seconds,
>>
>>
>
>Useful once in a blue moon
>
>
Unless you do a lot of long exposures, like Ralf.
>
>
>>can adjust exposure during the exposure in Av mode.
>>
>>
>
>Only useful when doing very long exposures - on
On Jun 26, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>>> The LX does metered exposures past 30 seconds,
>> Useful once in a blue moon
> Unless you do a lot of long exposures, like Ralf.
Sorry, but I also occasionally do work which requires very long
exposure times. Metering in such circumstances is a
ed USB drivers have disappeared. I find that to
> be
> truly annoying but similar things have happened before.
>
> William Robb wrote:
>
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "P. J. Alling"
> >Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
> >
> >
>
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>On Jun 26, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>
>
The LX does metered exposures past 30 seconds,
>>>Useful once in a blue moon
>>>
>>>
>>Unless you do a lot of long exposures, like Ralf.
>>
>>
>
>Sorry, but I also occasionally do work wh
On Jun 26, 2006, at 5:02 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>> Sorry, but I also occasionally do work which requires very long
>> exposure times. Metering in such circumstances is a nearly total
>> waste of time. Experience and bracketing are more useful.
>
> Except with OTF metering. Then metering for such wo
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>On Jun 26, 2006, at 5:02 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Sorry, but I also occasionally do work which requires very long
>>>exposure times. Metering in such circumstances is a nearly total
>>>waste of time. Experience and bracketing are more useful.
>>>
>>>
>>Except
On Jun 26, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>> Use a laptop instead of a 23" monitor, transferring your storage card
>> to the computer to read it. Do it combined with focus bracketing.
>
> Yep, take 6lbs of gear instead of a few ounces. Not practical for most
> people, especially since you're a
John Forbes wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:51:00 +0100, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> disappear. :-)
>
> >
>
> > The LX does metered exposures past 30 seconds,
>
> Useful once in a blue moon
>
>
Hehe - even a new moon or a crescent moon :)
> can adjust exposure during the ex
Nope ...
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Ann Sanfedele
> > > Shoots at ISO's below 200.
> >
> > That's useful - wish the D did.
>
> Ooops I hope the DS does
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> (Heck, the LX isn't
> officially mine until I get that SG-1 to Aaron, which will arrive
> tomorrow I hope).
It's very telling that I'm keeping the ME Super over the LX, at least
to me. I value the size, weight, flash sync and noise advantages of
On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:49 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The LX does metered exposures past 30 seconds,
>>> Useful once in a blue moon
>> Unless you do a lot of long exposures, like Ralf.
>
> Sorry, but I also occasionally do work which requires very long
> exposure times. Metering in such circu
result was 36 perfectly exposed frames. Exposure times were quite long
... some certainly in the area of 30 seconds or more.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Date: 6/26/2006 8:21:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Wi
On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>>> Shoots at ISO's below 200.
>>
>> That's useful - wish the D did.
>
> Ooops I hope the DS does
It doesn't -- shooting at lower than 200 ISO does not, apparently, make
the image any better. It's only of use for those doing long exposure
wor
On Jun 26, 2006, at 11:27 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I once did a series of shots - 36 exposures - in a darkened room
> except for
> the flickering light of a TV set. The film was TX. All I did was set
> the
> LX to AUTO and let the camera do the rest. I paid no attention to
> reciprocity n
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>
> >>> Shoots at ISO's below 200.
> >>
> >> That's useful - wish the D did.
> >
> > Ooops I hope the DS does
>
> It doesn't -- shooting at lower than 200 ISO does not, apparently, make
> the image any better. It's onl
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:49 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
>
>
>The LX does metered exposures past 30 seconds,
>
>
Useful once in a blue moon
>>>Unless you do a lot of long exposures, like Ralf.
>>>
>>>
>>Sorry, but I also occa
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>
>
>
Shoots at ISO's below 200.
>>>That's useful - wish the D did.
>>>
>>>
>>Ooops I hope the DS does
>>
>>
>
>It doesn't -- shooting at lower than 200 ISO does not, apparently, make
>the
On Jun 26, 2006, at 11:40 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> That depends entirely on the sensor's native ISO.
Right -- I was explaining the specific case of the Pentax D cameras.
-Aaron
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>
>
>>(Heck, the LX isn't
>>officially mine until I get that SG-1 to Aaron, which will arrive
>>tomorrow I hope).
>>
>>
>
>It's very telling that I'm keeping the ME Super over the LX, at least
>to me. I value the size,
On Jun 26, 2006, at 11:44 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> Acros doesn't, out to the max Aperture Priority exposure the LX can do
> (approx 120 seconds). Wish there was a colour equivalent.
Well, finally -- 30 years on, and they make a film that can keep up
with the camera. Maybe one day they'll make a
Hah... funny you should mention it, I always liked the FA.
My new rule is that whenever I get a camera I dislike I will sell it to Adam.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Windoze versions and DS
Date: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:54 pm
Size:
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>Hah... funny you should mention it, I always liked the FA.
>
>My new rule is that whenever I get a camera I dislike I will sell it to Adam.
>
>-Aaron
>
>-Original Message-
>
>From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subj: Re: Windoz
It wasn't a test, so it wasn't repeated. Al I'm saying is that the LX with
it's OTF metering worked better than expected and gave 36 perfectly exposed
negatives in very low and changing light.
I said nothing about saturated negs - I said that they were perfectly
exposed.
Shel
> [Original Mess
Hi Marnie
Unfortunately the newer Elements versions don't run on Win98.
However, now that I have XP, I'm thinking of inversting in Elements 4
(I currently use Elements 1 - quite adequate apart from lack of raw
conversion).
Cheers,
Brian
+
Brian Walt
>
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Comparing Pentax Lab with Camera Raw or any of a half dozen other
> good RAW converters is kinda like comparing a 1975 home slide
> processing kit with a calibrated, replenished E6 processing machine
> maintained by a knowledgeable technic
On Jun 27, 2006, at 12:36 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> It wasn't a test, so it wasn't repeated. Al I'm saying is that the LX
> with
> it's OTF metering worked better than expected and gave 36 perfectly
> exposed
> negatives in very low and changing light.
>
> I said nothing about saturated negs
On Jun 27, 2006, at 3:35 AM, mike wilson wrote:
> Except the odds are high that my LX will still be (at least
> capable of) taking photos when the DL2 is consigned to the landfill.
Why is that? What parts are surviving on your LX that are failing in
your DL2?
As someone who has killed mo
Not a problem with a DSLR ;-))
IIRC, transport problems were something of an issue with the LX - and, to a
lesser extent, the MX - many suffered from uneven frame spacing.
Shel (owner of 5 LX and 4 MX)
> [Original Message]
> From: Aaron Reynolds
> As someone who has killed more
> than one c
No, but the shutter could be.
I know there'sa guy here in Toronto who killed a Nikon D70 that way in 6
weeks.
Of course, he did 105000 or so exposures. Guy is a Pomerian breeder who
would shoot his pups with models. His technique came down to continuous
advance and hoping the pups did somethin
Mike, why on earth do you think a Pentax LX will withstand prolonged
exposure to rain?
We happen to know that the LX has more than one mechanical fault that
will appear over time due to design issues; we don't know anything like
that about the new bodies. Why would you make assumptions that th
I never quite got my LX motor drive to work correctly. Apparently, there was
enough drag in the transport mechanism that the motor drive would be fooled
into thinking that the roll was fully exposed, and go into rewind mode. I still
have the LX but sold the motor drive, when I was raising cash f
On Jun 27, 2006, at 2:01 AM, mike wilson wrote:
>> Comparing Pentax Lab with Camera Raw or any of a half dozen other
>> good RAW converters is kinda like comparing a 1975 home slide
>> processing kit with a calibrated, replenished E6 processing machine
>> maintained by a knowledgeable technician
>
On Jun 27, 2006, at 4:38 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>> Except the odds are high that my LX will still be (at least
>> capable of) taking photos when the DL2 is consigned to the landfill.
>
> Why is that? What parts are surviving on your LX that are failing in
> your DL2?
My thought too. The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I never quite got my LX motor drive to work correctly. Apparently, there was
> enough drag in the transport mechanism that the motor drive would be fooled
> into thinking that the roll was fully exposed, and go into rewind mode. I
> still have the LX but sold the mo
Probably not if you drown it, as well. Drowning cameras has never been
good for their longevity.
The older, purely mechanical cameras could sometimes withstand a dunking
depending on water conditions and the care taken to clean and dry them.
Cameras with electronics were more difficult to save.
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>I never quite got my LX motor drive to work correctly. Apparently, there was
>>enough drag in the transport mechanism that the motor drive would be fooled
>>into thinking that the roll was fully exposed, and go into rewind mode. I
>>still have
able for short
> time?
>
> As to LX repair frequency, it was a constant topic on my first stint on the
> PDML. What kind of repairs were the barrage of DL complaints about?
>
> -Aaron
>
> -----Original Message-
>
> From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PRO
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> I hope the DS I've ordered is a lot more durable than the
> Canon I drowned so easily...
Not if you drown it, I don't think :-)
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>
> > I hope the DS I've ordered is a lot more durable than the
> > Canon I drowned so easily...
>
> Not if you drown it, I don't think :-)
>
> Kostas
>
yup yup
a
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> Probably not if you drown it, as well.
Drowning cameras has never been
> good for their longevity.
now you tell me :)
>
> The older, purely mechanical cameras could sometimes withstand a dunking
> depending on water conditions and the care taken to clean and dry
On Jun 27, 2006, at 7:44 AM, mike wilson wrote:
>> Yes, it does. Vuescan's RAW conversion implementation is derived from
>> the inclusion of the open source dcraw libraries. It does an good job
>> in many ways, with the usual Vuescan controls, if you like that way
>> of working. It does not do ho
Sounds like the symptoms of a bad battery pack. Mine worked just fine
for the first year or so that I had it, then the battery pack started to
go and both my LXen started exhibiting that problem, if it had been only
one I'd have thought it was the camera. It's funny but the winder still
worke
The pack was newly rebuilt by Pentax. I thought it was probably the result of
too much drag in the camera. However, the camera had recently been treated to a
CLA. Mine works fine with the winder as well. I still have it on the camera.
-- Original message --
From
apped frames.
--
Cheers,
Bob
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff
> Sent: 27 June 2006 12:43
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
> Not a problem with a DSLR ;-))
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> I have never seen Pentax advertising material claiming that the LX is
> weatherproof.
I've heard quite the opposite because of the user-changeable prisms and
screens.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/reliability/index.htm
The bottom of th
On Jun 27, 2006, at 4:29 PM, mike wilson wrote:
> The battery problem was common to all alkaline-powered
> cameras. With the LX, you had three choices - no battery, lithium cell
> or the remote battery pack.
What battery problem? The electronics were functioning just fine when
it froze up --
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2006, at 4:29 PM, mike wilson wrote:
>
>
>> The battery problem was common to all alkaline-powered
>>cameras. With the LX, you had three choices - no battery, lithium cell
>>or the remote battery pack.
>
>
> What battery problem? The electronics were functi
On Jun 27, 2006, at 5:13 PM, mike wilson wrote:
> Congratulations. Yawn.
What does that mean?
-Aaron
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
One other factor that is not mentioned, but is very real - is usage.
Most DSLR users take more frames with their DSLR's than their film
equivalents. Usually by a wide margin. I can vouch for myself, that
I have taken more frames with my 2 *istD's in the past 2 1/2 years
than all the rest of my fi
>
> From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/26 Mon AM 09:53:50 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
> There is absolutely no reason to upgrade. Don't use the Pentax software
&g
o: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>>
>> There is absolutely no reason to upgrade. Don't use the Pentax software
>> (which is terrible),
>
> Apart from the user interface (which I find to be pitful but no worse
&g
>
> From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/26 Mon PM 06:29:20 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
> Mike,
>
> I suspect that once you get the software sorted out, much of your bias
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:04:58 +0100, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>>
>> From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: 2006/06/26 Mon PM 06:29:20 GMT
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Subject: Re: Windoze
>
> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/26 Mon PM 09:51:00 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
> John Forbes wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:04:58 +0100, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/27 Tue AM 03:44:58 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
> Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>
> From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/27 Tue AM 11:38:25 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2006, at 3:35 AM, mike wilson wrote:
>
> > Except the odds are high that my
>
> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/27 Tue PM 12:38:20 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
> No, but the shutter could be.
>
> I know there'sa guy here in Toronto who killed a Nikon D70 that way
>
> From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/27 Tue PM 01:33:45 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
> Mike, why on earth do you think a Pentax LX will withstand prolonged
> exposure to rain?
Because mine
>
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/27 Tue PM 02:06:36 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Windoze versions and DS
>
> On Jun 27, 2006, at 2:01 AM, mike wilson wrote:
>
> >> Comparing Pentax Lab with Camera Raw
vailable forshort time?
As to LX repair frequency, it was a constant topic on my first stint on the
PDML. What kind of repairs were the barrage of DL complaints about?
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Re: Windoze versions and DS
D
er at upscaling than others?
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Windoze versions and DS
Date: Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:56 am
Size: 399 bytes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On Jun 26, 2006, at 5:59 AM, mike wilson wrote:
> OK. What
-Original Message-
>
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subj: Re: Windoze versions and DS
> Date: Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:56 am
> Size: 399 bytes
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2006, at 5:59 AM, mike wilson wrote:
>
>> OK.
On Jun 26, 2006, at 11:36 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Do you have PSCS 1? It's just about as good as version 2
Nope, running Photoshop 7 still. When you have and need three
licenses, you delay as long as humanly possible when upgrading.
-Aaron
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
In terms of a RAW Converter, I think you'd be better off with PS
Elements 3 or 4.
On Jun 26, 2006, at 11:48 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 2006, at 11:36 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>> Do you have PSCS 1? It's just about as good as version 2
>
> Nope, running Photoshop 7 still. When yo
For what reason, Paul?
-Aaron
On Jun 27, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> In terms of a RAW Converter, I think you'd be better off with PS
> Elements 3 or 4.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> -Original Message-
>
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subj: Re: Windoze versions and DS
> Date: Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:56 am
> Size: 399 bytes
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>
>
> On Jun 26,
I meant only in comparison to using the plug-in converter with PhotoShop 7.
The software Godfrey suggested and other alternatives might be better. But the
RAW Converter for Elements is reportedly quite close in capability to the
version used with PSCS.
Paul
-- Original message ---
ACR 3.x works with them. It's probably the best quality RAW conversion
for PEF's. You lose the advanced controls though.
-Adam
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> For what reason, Paul?
>
> -Aaron
>
> On Jun 27, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>
>>In terms of a RAW Converter, I think you'd be
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
