Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

I'm currently on a trip. When I return, I'll look for an un-treated example. Jack --- Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Jack Davis wrote: > > > When Velvia first came out, I tried a roll or two. As it happened, > I > > caught a scene that sold well. > > Resol

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Jack Davis wrote: When Velvia first came out, I tried a roll or two. As it happened, I caught a scene that sold well. Resolution was impressive, but the color tones, gosh. I recall the agony of instruction to the pro-lab each time I needed a print. "..and get rid of the burg

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

ginal Message - > From: "Tom C" > Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched > > > > For once I agree with Pal... > > > > It's always been my contention that Velvia looks closer to the way > I > > remember the scene than other films

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

- Original Message - From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched Purple Haze, what province is that in? Mind pollution. It's universal, not provincial. b..

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched http://www.kenduncan.com/echristmas I want to hear the Pogues version. William Robb

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

x-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:49:33 +1000 On 5 Dec 2005 at 18:19, Tom C wrote: > For once I agree with Pal... > > It's always been my contention that Velvia looks closer to the way I > remember th

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

If you have to ask you can't get there... Tom C wrote: Velvia always reminds me of the way things looked on Purple Haze trips. It's a form of reality I quite enjoyed. William Robb Purple Haze, what province is that in? Tom C. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (sc

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On 5 Dec 2005 at 18:19, Tom C wrote: > For once I agree with Pal... > > It's always been my contention that Velvia looks closer to the way I > remember the scene than other films (I'm talking about nature/landscape). > It's > not a good skin-tone film from what I've experienced. People seem t

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Velvia always reminds me of the way things looked on Purple Haze trips. It's a form of reality I quite enjoyed. William Robb Purple Haze, what province is that in? Tom C.

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

- Original Message - From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched For once I agree with Pal... It's always been my contention that Velvia looks closer to the way I remember the scene than other films (I'm talking about nature/landscape). It&#x

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

of viewing the exact same image on the films in question, and w/o the benefit of having witnessed the original scene. Tom C. Tom C. From: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 22:2

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

And of course the camera makes all the decisions: highlight values, shadow value, color temperature, tint, sharpness. I prefer to make my own decisions. Paul On Dec 4, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you start shooting RAW *Everybody* shoots

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

"Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >If you start shooting RAW *Everybody* shoots RAW - it's just that some let the camera do the conversion to JPEG for them before the shot's stored on their memory card. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

On 4/12/05, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, unleashed: >If you start shooting RAW, you'll probabnly never shoot a single JPEG again >ever. On the contrary, I shot RAW three and a half years ago when I got a D60, but for the sort of stuff I do, for the output I use, jpegs do me just fine and I don't

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

In a message dated 12/3/2005 9:48:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shooting jpeg is sort of like shooting negtives and sending them out to one of those places that make slides from them, but they throw away the negative. Shooting raw is like shooting negatives and keeping

RE: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

il: pentax list Emne: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched) >> Promise me you'll do a little test - shoot the same (well lit) scene in >> both RAW and jpeg. Stick them both through PS and bump them both up to >> A3. Examine. Report back. &g

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Excellent point. I feel much better knowing that I not only have my processed tiff in storage but my untouched RAW file as well. Paul On Dec 4, 2005, at 12:46 AM, graywolf wrote: Shooting jpeg is sort of like shooting negtives and sending them out to one of those places that make slides from th

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Raw is like a negative. In camera jpeg is like a slide made from that negative and tossing the negative. There is 3-4 stops of latitude in that negative, none in the slide. If the slide (jpeg) is just the way you want it, fine no problem. But if it is a bit off, and you do not have the raw fil

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Shooting jpeg is sort of like shooting negtives and sending them out to one of those places that make slides from them, but they throw away the negative. Shooting raw is like shooting negatives and keeping them. You and still make jpegs from them, use a batch process and and it is not much tr

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

is inherently better than another is the day I'll eat my Stetson. Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" [Original Message] From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Date: 11/28/2005 6:27:33 PM Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched On Nov 28, 2005, at 8:05

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/hatprice.jpg graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: That puppy cost considerably more than $15.00 Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

What I am wearing in the photo is a Stetson Fifteen, 3x Beaver, the $15 price tag is still in it (they made dress hats back then up to the 100 which was 100% beaver sold for $100 and came in a lockable hard hat case). I would guess it was made in the 1940's. Believe me they do not use felt like

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

- Original Message - From: "Mark Stringer" Subject: Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched) Maybe matrix metering would have helped but... Using an auto flash rather than depending on TTL would have helped more. Seriously. William Robb

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

In a message dated 12/2/2005 9:20:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Marnie, Any file you print should be interpolated or "upsized" to deliver best results with a given printer at a given dimension. My Epson 2200 likes 360 dpi, so to print 11 x 17, I upsize the RAW to the

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

I regret not shooting raw at our Christmas party Last night I shot some candids at our party. I used the large jpg setting after reading a lot of this debate I thought I would save some time converting images at home. This was indoors with a flash. My settings were point and shoot (green?)

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

Hi Marnie, Any file you print should be interpolated or "upsized" to deliver best results with a given printer at a given dimension. My Epson 2200 likes 360 dpi, so to print 11 x 17, I upsize the RAW to the maximum value in the CS converter, which is about 72 megabytes in 8 bit. This yields an

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/2/2005 7:30:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That would be true if we were judging jpeg results vs. RAW results. What Cotty disputed was Adobe's assertion that the RAW converter provides better upsizing than does PhotoShop in

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

In a message dated 12/2/2005 7:30:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That would be true if we were judging jpeg results vs. RAW results. What Cotty disputed was Adobe's assertion that the RAW converter provides better upsizing than does PhotoShop interpolation. Evaluation of

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Dec 2, 2005, at 12:31 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > >> Two GB Flash card for only $75? I've been out of touch for awhile. > >Back in February Kingston had a special deal on 512 cards, ten for $ >100. Sure it means swapping cards more often than 1 or 2GB cards,

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

On 2 Dec 2005 at 8:37, Cotty wrote: > >I'll give it a try. I'm just basing that comment on what adobe has said > >about interpolation in RAW vs. in a converted file mode. To be honest, > >I've never shot any jpegs with either of my Ds. I wanted to be totally > >in synch with working in RAW, so

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On Dec 2, 2005, at 4:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always output from ACR at 144 meg, 16 bit. After processing, I convert to 8-bit, 72 meg, which is perfect for printing and just right for most of my clients. Pics downsized for the web seem to look exactly the same whether I start from

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

I always output from ACR at 144 meg, 16 bit. After processing, I convert to 8-bit, 72 meg, which is perfect for printing and just right for most of my clients. Pics downsized for the web seem to look exactly the same whether I start from native size or from this large upsized file. > > On Dec

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I agree, and add to that the inane use of polarizers and graduated tobacco filters and the hideous picture is complete. There is a solution though, don't use Velvia and educate those you can. I know it's depressing to witn

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On Dec 1, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Cotty wrote: That's true if the subject of your shot doesn't demand an extended range. However, if you're working with bright highlights and deep shadows, you can achieve more with RAW than you can with a perfectly exposed jpeg. RAW also enables better fine tuning of

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Okay, I just didn't recall your saying that. Jack --- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Like I said - 2GB is still expensive. > The sweet spot at present is the 1GB cards, which are just > beginning to drop below the $50 price point. > > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 11:10:09AM -0800, J

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

That's for CF cards, right? Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > [Original Message] > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 12/2/2005 12:22:19 PM > Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched > > > Like I said - 2GB

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

BTW, what's the speed of that Kingston card? Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > [Original Message] > From: John Francis > Nope - Kingston 1GB on special for $49.99 at Frys/Outpost > > I wouldn't touch no-name memory for something I care about. > That's why I had IBM/Hitachi Mi

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

> [Original Message] > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 12/2/2005 12:16:22 PM > Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched > > > Nope - Kingston 1GB on special for $49.99 at Frys/Outpost > > I wouldn't touch no-name memory for something

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Like I said - 2GB is still expensive. The sweet spot at present is the 1GB cards, which are just beginning to drop below the $50 price point. On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 11:10:09AM -0800, Jack Davis wrote: > Just one example: Sandisk 2GB from $147 - $220. (B&H) > > Jack > > --- John Francis <[EMAI

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Nope - Kingston 1GB on special for $49.99 at Frys/Outpost I wouldn't touch no-name memory for something I care about. That's why I had IBM/Hitachi Microdrives before I switched to CF. On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 10:34:48AM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Where have you seen a 1GB SD card for below $

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Not quite below $50, but dealram.com notes a Kingston for $53.60: Tim On 12/2/05 10:34, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Where have you seen a 1GB SD card for below $50.00? Maybe a slow, cheap, > no-name brand? > > Shel > "You meet the nicest people with a Pen

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Just one example: Sandisk 2GB from $147 - $220. (B&H) Jack --- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Apparently. I switched to 2GB CF cards some months back, when > the price dropped below the $100 mark for a brand name I knew. > SD isn't quite there yet for the 2GB cards, but 1GB is bel

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On Dec 2, 2005, at 12:31 PM, Jack Davis wrote: Two GB Flash card for only $75? I've been out of touch for awhile. Back in February Kingston had a special deal on 512 cards, ten for $ 100. Sure it means swapping cards more often than 1 or 2GB cards, but for the price saving I'll swap.

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Where have you seen a 1GB SD card for below $50.00? Maybe a slow, cheap, no-name brand? Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > [Original Message] > From: John Francis > SD isn't quite there yet for the 2GB cards, but 1GB is below $50.

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Apparently. I switched to 2GB CF cards some months back, when the price dropped below the $100 mark for a brand name I knew. SD isn't quite there yet for the 2GB cards, but 1GB is below $50. This was a forward-looking cost estimate, so I assumed a price a little below what it is today - a year f

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

this has happened Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched) That would be true if we were judging jpeg results vs. RAW results. What Cotty disputed was Adobe's assertion that the RA

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Two GB Flash card for only $75? I've been out of touch for awhile. Jack --- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > > Assuming that you fill one card per week and that the cost of the > cards is > > $75.00 each, storing the

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

h a Pentax" > [Original Message] > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 12/2/2005 9:23:10 AM > Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > > Assuming that y

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Assuming that you fill one card per week and that the cost of the cards is > $75.00 each, storing the photos on the cards is $3750.00 annual expense. Hmm. That's rather more than most people will do. $75 buys, what, 2GB of flas

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

I don't quite see the point of that. Assuming that a card will hold the information forever, one then has a huge number of cards stored somewhere but no way to ~see~ the photos. So, at some point the pics have to be downloaded to some device (most likely a computer) in order to see or edit the fi

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

gt; to > me the comparison should be on paper. > > Kenneth Waller > > -Original Message- > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet > Switched) > > Hi Rob, > I think Cotty

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

Paul, Since the ultimate output of most photography is a print (arguable), it seems to me the comparison should be on paper. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Sw

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

th Waller -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched) On 2 Dec 2005 at 10:50, Toralf Lund wrote: > Will he do a proper blind test while looking at those pictures, I wonder... Al

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

>I have a fiver on Paul not being able to tell the two apart Same here Cotty. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched) >> Promise me you'll do a little test -

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

On 2/12/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: >I think Cotty agreed that RAW allows for more latitude. What he wanted >me to test was my assertion (based on Adobe info) that upsizing in the >RAW converter yields better results than subsequent PhotoShop >interpolation. I'm not sure if

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

Hi Rob, I think Cotty agreed that RAW allows for more latitude. What he wanted me to test was my assertion (based on Adobe info) that upsizing in the RAW converter yields better results than subsequent PhotoShop interpolation. I'm not sure if one can see the difference, but I'll have a look. I

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

On 2 Dec 2005 at 10:50, Toralf Lund wrote: > Will he do a proper blind test while looking at those pictures, I wonder... All that is needed is two prints one with an A and one with a B on the back. However a test like this means little if the RAW file used for comparison hasn't been processed i

Re: Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

Cotty wrote: Promise me you'll do a little test - shoot the same (well lit) scene in both RAW and jpeg. Stick them both through PS and bump them both up to A3. Examine. Report back. I'll give it a try. I'm just basing that comment on what adobe has said about interpolation in RAW v

Pentax RAW vs JPEG Shootout (was - Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched)

>> Promise me you'll do a little test - shoot the same (well lit) scene in >> both RAW and jpeg. Stick them both through PS and bump them both up to >> A3. Examine. Report back. >> >I'll give it a try. I'm just basing that comment on what adobe has said >about interpolation in RAW vs. in a conver

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

In a message dated 12/1/2005 3:34:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think digital will *really* make a difference as and when the actual media used in the camera becomes so low-cost and reliable that you won't have to copy the data at all. (But I've probably mentioned

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On Dec 2, 2005, at 7:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And most photographers do not make their own color prints from negative film. So they don't get to do those adjustments themselves. I hate scanning colour neg film. I don't care how many adjustments Photoshop gives me, the problem is th

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

In a message dated 12/1/2005 8:06:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Basically, it's hard to change the colors of print film after the print is > made. Print film is more flexible than slide film or jpeg format, for both colour compensation and exposure latitude. Camera RAW

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Ann said: > > >someone said earlier on the list that if you > > >nailed the shot there was essentially no > > >difference. > > That's true if the subject of your shot doesn't demand an extended range. > However, if you're working with bright highlights and deep shado

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Tom C wrote: > > >From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >I'll continue to shoot jpgs, too - hey, Cotty, > >this is an area we sure do agree on. > >I can shoot raw, but I can't get enough images on > >a card - and I have to take time > >to run it through a coverter to tif and it takes > >too

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On 1 Dec 2005 at 18:39, Jack Davis wrote: > Can't pass up this opportunity "come out" and reveal the actual > physical repulsion I experienced each time I see a Velvia print > attempting to depict an element of the natural world. > Now, in a PS world of hue and tone sliders, I long for the limits

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On Dec 2, 2005, at 1:04 AM, Christian wrote: My feelings exactly. Now that it's UNIX, I'd like to have one too. Careful... I already have one but I want two more. - Dave

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched Basically, it's hard to change the colors of print film after the print is made. Print film is more flexible than slide film or jpeg format, for both colour compensation and e

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

In a message dated 12/1/2005 7:07:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand perfectly what you're talking about. It's just that I believe most view the analogy opposite of the way you're stating it. I did too for a while. Tom C. == Okay. I see it the way I said.

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

I understand perfectly what you're talking about. It's just that I believe most view the analogy opposite of the way you're stating it. I did too for a while. Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Wh

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

In a message dated 12/1/2005 6:31:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did it strike again? :) Raw is comparable to transparency film in that very little interpretation is done to what could be considered the first generation image. After that the analogy between digital file

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There's no real reason for the player units to cost a lot, of course; I can buy a cheap-ish 400-DVD carousel from a home audio-video store. I did something like this with my CD collection. Two 400-disc Sony carousels, both about half full. It's actu

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Can't pass up this opportunity "come out" and reveal the actual physical repulsion I experienced each time I see a Velvia print attempting to depict an element of the natural world. Now, in a PS world of hue and tone sliders, I long for the limits previously imposed by the availability of a single

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:19:17 EST In a message dated 12/1/2005 6:12:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think most here would consider it the opposite of what you just said. Tom C. == Dsylexia st

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

In a message dated 12/1/2005 6:12:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think most here would consider it the opposite of what you just said. Tom C. == Dsylexia strikes again. RAW = slides, JPEG = print film. Sheesh. marnie who needs an interpreter

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

I think most here would consider it the opposite of what you just said. Tom C. To me shooting JPEGs is like shooting negative film and shooting RAW is like shooting positive film.

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

In a message dated 12/1/2005 3:34:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>I think digital will *really* make a difference as and when the actual >>media used in the camera becomes so low-cost and reliable that you won't >>have to copy the data at all. (But I've probably mentione

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

In a message dated 12/1/2005 3:09:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I was trying to say was that the way it was presented here, shooting JPEG would be like using old MacOS, and RAW like using a purely command line based Unix system. I want to have the GUI *and* the comm

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

In a message dated 12/1/2005 2:32:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have several berets... -frank "frenchie" theriault Sorry, frank. Eating a beret is simply not as impressive as eating a Stetson. Marnie aka Doe ;-)

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

From: Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Good point. Maybe I shouldn't conclude based on hearing about all the processing these people do, that I have to do all this work. Of course, I have a certain bias towards control myself, but a the same time, I'm probably a lot less enthusiastic about work

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

I'll give it a try. I'm just basing that comment on what adobe has said about interpolation in RAW vs. in a converted file mode. To be honest, I've never shot any jpegs with either of my Ds. I wanted to be totally in synch with working in RAW, so I never even tried it. But I will. Might be fun.

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

to spend time learning a new platform and perhaps new software. The day that someone can show me that one platform is inherently better than another is the day I'll eat my Stetson. Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" [Original Message] From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL P

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

- Original Message - From: "Jack Davis" Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched Rod, This is just a "back bench" snipe and not intended as a serious exception to your remarks, but it makes me wonder how "color balance" concerned I should have bee

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Rob Studdert wrote: On 2 Dec 2005 at 0:32, Toralf Lund wrote: Tapes are the most commonly used media for backups on large computer systems. They have a longer expected shelf lifetime than anything else. In other words a back-up solution not quite equivalent to the cost of DVD burne

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On 2 Dec 2005 at 0:32, Toralf Lund wrote: > Tapes are the most commonly used media for backups on large computer > systems. They have a longer expected shelf lifetime than anything else. In other words a back-up solution not quite equivalent to the cost of DVD burner and 100 quality DVD media.

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On 1 Dec 2005 at 15:12, Jack Davis wrote: > Rod, > This is just a "back bench" snipe and not intended as a serious > exception to your remarks, but it makes me wonder how "color balance" > concerned I should have been over my decades of shooting slide film. > Guess I didn't know any better, so was

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

There is also the "cost" of doing the storage job. Moving files around or writing them to DVD takes time - probably more than handling the negs in my experience. Then it is a question of how paranoid you are. Should you trust the DVD media (which does not really have a proven track record)? D

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On 2 Dec 2005 at 0:04, Toralf Lund wrote: > More limited than the one of film, I suspect. Which is the main point, > really. Before I can *really* see digital as an advantage, I think it > has to offer me new options (compared to film) without making me > sacrifice what I get with film. Maybe a

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Rod, This is just a "back bench" snipe and not intended as a serious exception to your remarks, but it makes me wonder how "color balance" concerned I should have been over my decades of shooting slide film. Guess I didn't know any better, so was blithely unaware and, generally, accidentally please

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On 1 Dec 2005 at 23:53, Toralf Lund wrote: > Ah, yes, I knew that, really. I haven't shot much slide myself... But is > it fair to say that negative film is actually "better" in this respect? It all depends, if you need absolute colour control it can be an absolute nightmare shooting print film

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

I do too! A blackfelt one, classic Stetson. My other hat is a Resistol, for the summer. rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: Indeed I do picked it up at Stockman's outfitters in Buffalo, Wyoming some years ago. It's a 5X ... not particularly high end, but fun to wear every now and then. Shel

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Rob Studdert wrote: On 1 Dec 2005 at 23:03, Toralf Lund wrote: I also got a Mac after MacOS became Unix (I also have a Linux box - no MS software allowed in my home.) A quite liked Macs before that, too, but using the them did feel a bit like wearing a straitjacket at times. But now I alwa

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On 1 Dec 2005 at 13:57, Toralf Lund wrote: > There is also the "cost" of doing the storage job. Moving files around > or writing them to DVD takes time - probably more than handling the negs > in my experience. Then it is a question of how paranoid you are. Should > you trust the DVD media (whi

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Also, I've never thought a lot about "colour balance" with film, but perhaps that's because the lab has done the job for me? I wonder if there are many labs that will accept "raw" files and do something productive with them these days, by the way. Most of the "consumer" ones I've come acros

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

Also, I've never thought a lot about "colour balance" with film, but perhaps that's because the lab has done the job for me? I wonder if there are many labs that will accept "raw" files and do something productive with them these days, by the way. Most of the "consumer" ones I've come across

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On 2/12/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: >Shoot the right subject matter and no you'll never see a difference. >Simply put >if the tonal range of the scene fits within the capture range of the camera >then all will be sweet however if the range exceeds that you will either clip >th

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On 1 Dec 2005 at 23:03, Toralf Lund wrote: > > I also got a Mac after MacOS became Unix (I also have a Linux box - no > MS software allowed in my home.) A quite liked Macs before that, too, > but using the them did feel a bit like wearing a straitjacket at times. > But now I always pull out the

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

ell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Date: 11/28/2005 6:27:33 PM Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched On Nov 28, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: "I, as well as every full-time career professional photographer I've ever met, just happen to use Mac. It's a given, just

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

It seems to me that RAW also ought to be able to give you the same output as JPEG without requiring extra work, though. All the information is available, isn't it? I mean, the colour balance settings etc. applied to the JPEG are stored in the tags of the file aren't they? So it should reall

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On 1 Dec 2005 at 22:41, Toralf Lund wrote: > Sounds like the way it should be... I must say that when I express a > certain scepticism to digital photography now and then, it's partly > because of all the talk about the "workflow" on this list and elsewhere, > which gives me the impression that

Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched

On 11/30/05, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > > The day that someone can show me that one platform is inherently better > > than another is the day I'll eat my Stetson. > > > > > > You have a Stetson? I have several berets... -frank "frenchie" theriault -- "Shar

  1   2   3   >