2010/11/11 CheekyGeek :
>
> A must-have if you are an adherent of the Time Zone System .
As invented by Damsel Madams?
--
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
the
A must-have if you are an adherent of the Time Zone System .
Darren Addy
Kearney, Nebraska
--
Nothing is sure, except Death and Pentaxes.
--
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 ab
Wait a minute, er F stop here.
Dave
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:33 PM, John Celio wrote:
> I thought this was a pretty timely idea:
>
>
> http://www.uncommongoods.com/product/f-stop-watch
>
> Back in my watch-wearing days I probably would have gotten one.
>
> John
>
> --
> http://www.neovenator.co
I thought this was a pretty timely idea:
http://www.uncommongoods.com/product/f-stop-watch
Back in my watch-wearing days I probably would have gotten one.
John
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.cafepress.com/jacelio
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailma
Hello Roman,
I like the first two most. The second is my favorite. You captured a
great expression on her face like she was really communicating with
the audience.
--
Bruce
Saturday, August 12, 2006, 6:54:50 AM, you wrote:
R> http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060812152304
--
PDML Pentax
http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060812152304
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:56:30PM -0500, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> Kenneth Waller wrote:
> >
> > Paul wrote:
> > >I always try to put my best foot forward.
>
> > Only way to fly.
> >
> > Thanks Paul
> >
> > Kenneth Waller
> >
> >
> Paul flies with his feet???
> ann
Well, of course. It's far to
Of course. Didn't I show you that?
On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Kenneth Waller wrote:
Paul wrote:
I always try to put my best foot forward.
Only way to fly.
Thanks Paul
Kenneth Waller
Paul flies with his feet???
ann
Kenneth Waller wrote:
>
> Paul wrote:
> >I always try to put my best foot forward.
> Only way to fly.
>
> Thanks Paul
>
> Kenneth Waller
>
>
Paul flies with his feet???
ann
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: What the F??
Apples to oranges comparison. I have a 24mm/f2.0 lenses. Will it produce
better results than a 24mm/f.2.8 lens which costs less than 1/2 as much?
In my case yes, because I quite often use it at f2.0. Now l
On 30 Nov 2005 at 15:54, graywolf wrote:
> Apples to oranges comparison. I have a 24mm/f2.0 lenses. Will it produce
> better results than a 24mm/f.2.8 lens which costs less than 1/2 as much?
> In my case yes, because I quite often use it at f2.0. Now let's think
> about someone who always uses
Apparent sharpness.
Although I'm not familiar with either lens, apparent sharpness would have
been my guess.
I always try to put my best foot forward.
Only way to fly.
Thanks Paul
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the F??
Well now you tell me, after I just ordered the DA16-45!
It hasn't even arrived yet...
Regards, Bob S.
On 11/30/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yesterday I did a shoot in a supermarket. I could have covered it all with my
> DA 16-45. But instead I switched back and forth betwee
Or "Good Enough, is always good enough".
In cameras, that is often a long way from the most expensive, because
above a certain point you are paying for features you rarely if ever
need, or for "marketing image".
An on topic comparison, for 99% of serious photographers a K-1000 is
just as good
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the F??
Sure some novices can get decent pictures with good cameras. But what is
their hit rate of decent pictures? And some total novices have an instinct
for
photography anyway. And some don't.
Th
Apples to oranges comparison. I have a 24mm/f2.0 lenses. Will it produce
better results than a 24mm/f.2.8 lens which costs less than 1/2 as much?
In my case yes, because I quite often use it at f2.0. Now let's think
about someone who always uses flash in low light situations and never
goes belo
xpensive at the time, to take tons of bad photos. Overexposed,
underexposed, things cut off, telephone poles coming out of Aunt Jane's head (I
don't
have an Aunt Jane, but that idea), lousy shots of people, not so great shots of
landscapes.
I didn't know what the f I was doing.
In a message dated 11/30/2005 5:57:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No.
All one needs are tools suited for the job. I'd say that "sufficient
tools" will produce results (in the hands of a good photographer) that
are every bit as good as "the best tools".
Marnie, I suspect
nses...
>
> In what way?
>
> Just curious
>
> Kenneth Waller
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: What the F??
>
> Yesterday I did a shoot in a supermarket. I could have covered it all with my
> DA
> 16-45. But instead
>Prior experience told me that the results would be slightly better with my
>best lenses...
In what way?
Just curious
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What the F??
Yesterday I did a shoot in a supermarket. I could have covered it all with
Yesterday I did a shoot in a supermarket. I could have covered it all with my
DA 16-45. But instead I switched back and forth between the K 24/3.5, the FA
35/2, and the FA 50/1.4. Why? Because the three primes are better tools. Same
photographer, better tools. Prior experience told me that the r
There are many different definitions of "best". The marketing
definition of "best" may not correspond with
the users definition.
frank theriault wrote:
On 11/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, sure, we are agreed better tools are better. The best tools one can
aff
>
> From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/11/30 Wed PM 01:56:23 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: What the F??
>
> On 11/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, sure, we are agreed bette
On 11/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, sure, we are agreed better tools are better. The best tools one can
> afford is best.
No.
All one needs are tools suited for the job. I'd say that "sufficient
tools" will produce results (in the hands of a good photographer) that
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the F??
==
Well, sure, we are agreed better tools are better. The best tools one can
afford is best.
It's just a really good camera in the hands of a poor photographer will
produce poor pictu
> Heck, let's face it; even on a self-selected list of gearheads
> like the PDML, the vast majority of shots that are exhibited
> are exceptional because of the skill of the photographer; the
> kit lens on a DS (or an MV with the 50/f1.7, or a Spotmatic, ...)
> in the right hands can produce stunni
In a message dated 11/29/2005 4:38:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bad equipment is limiting.
Someone mentioned that excellent photos can be made with a Holga.
I am sure that is possible.
OTOH, Holgas don't have a reputation for having the sharpest lenses, so
right away, th
Note the quotes around "hands on" denoting the ironic usage...
Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:
On 11/29/05, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ken Rockwell the master of the "hands on" hardware review, (in which he
admits that he's never even seen the hardware).[...]
Isn't t
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I would tend to agree. Basically. Good equipment does not a good
photographer
make. And some very good photographers have used primitive (by our
standards)
equipment.
Bad equipment is limiting.
Someone mentioned that excellent photos
On 11/29/05, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ken Rockwell the master of the "hands on" hardware review, (in which he
admits that he's never even seen the hardware).[...]
Isn't that a "hands off" hardware review?
--
Best regards,
Alex Sarbu
In a message dated 11/28/2005 5:35:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quotes"
The camera's only job is to get out of the way of making photographs.
[info][add][mail]
Ken Rockwell, Your Camera Does Not Matter, 2005
Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your imag
ing lenses, listening to advice etc.
Regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Dave Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 29. november 2005 02:35
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: What the F??
Review and discuss.
Who does he think he is.LOL
- Original Message -
From: "Fred"
Subject: Re: What the F??
Heck, let's face it; even on a self-selected list of gearheads like the
PDML,
Well, judging by the number of "PESO" (etc.) posts versus the number of
gear-related posts, I'm not so sure that
Pop Photo has always been incomplete...
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: What the F??
I don't know who the hell he's writing for, but mass market would
imply... I'm not sure, that there's a market for compl
> Ever seen anything of Kenny's bigger than about 600x1000 pixels?
> Ever heard of Kenny prior to the internet?
> I thought not.
That's one top-quality major-league put-down there, Rob... ()
And Kenny always spoke so highly of you... ()
Fred
> Heck, let's face it; even on a self-selected list of gearheads like the
> PDML,
Well, judging by the number of "PESO" (etc.) posts versus the number of
gear-related posts, I'm not so sure that the PDML is as much of a gear-head
list as it used to be. IMHO... FWIW...
Fred
- Original Message -
From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: What the F??
I don't know who the hell he's writing for, but mass market would
imply... I'm not sure, that there's a market for complete BS?
Popular Photography magazine has been around for decades
William Robb
I don't know who the hell he's writing for, but mass market would
imply... I'm not sure, that there's a market for complete BS?
John Francis wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:41:38PM -0600, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Bro
P. J. Alling wrote:
Ken Rockwell the master of the "hands on" hardware review, (in which
he admits that he's never even seen the hardware).
I note that *at least* he doesn't only do that to Pentax. I see there's
a new Canon reviewed in the same manner.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:41:38PM -0600, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Dave Brooks"
> Subject: What the F??
>
>
> >Review and discuss.
>
> >
> >Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image.
>
Ken Rockwell the master of the "hands on" hardware review, (in which he
admits that he's never even seen the hardware). He hasn't the wit to
realize what a bombastic blowhard he is, and is so full of himself that
he doesn't understand that the objection to his nitwit "hands on"
reviews is that
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Brooks"
Subject: What the F??
Review and discuss.
Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image.
Ever seen anything of Kenny's bigger than about 600x1000 pixels?
Ever heard of Kenny prior to the internet?
I though
Dave Brooks wrote:
>
> Review and discuss.
>
> Who does he think he is.LOL Even i see through this.:-)
>
> Quotes"
> The camera's only job is to get out of the way of making photographs.
> [info][add][mail]
> Ken Rockwell, Your Camera Does Not Matter, 2005
>
> Your equipment DOES NOT af
Review and discuss.
Who does he think he is.LOL Even i see through this.:-)
Quotes"
The camera's only job is to get out of the way of making photographs.
[info][add][mail]
Ken Rockwell, Your Camera Does Not Matter, 2005
Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less t
44 matches
Mail list logo
