Re: *ist D problem (firmware?)
Rob Brigham a écrit : I think I am gonna wait before I go for this one. Only novelty value at the moment for me, so I will see other experiences before risking problems. Also a pain is that you apparently cannot save direct to the CF - all images have to go down the USB 1.1 connection which realistically means jpg only... If they had USB 2 this would be acceptable, but as things stand they REALLY need to give a 'write to card' option which only sends the preview to PC. Yes, you can! In Optionals settings put: Your Removable Disk\DCIM\100PENTX You can create others folders, and read/write on the CF with any browser, during Remote Assistant works. It's very slow, why data flow is (perhaps ?) with USB 1 only: CCD -- PC -- CF Michel
RE: *ist D problem (firmware?)
It is very slow because it is NOT writing direct to the CF. It is sending the entire file to the remote software on the PC which is then writing it back to the camera. Which means twice as much data going through the slow USB 1.1 link. As I said - they need a DIRECT to CF link. -Original Message- From: Michel Carrère-Gée [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Brigham a écrit : Also a pain is that you apparently cannot save direct to the CF - all images have to go down the USB 1.1 connection which realistically means jpg only... If they had USB 2 this would be acceptable, but as things stand they REALLY need to give a 'write to card' option which only sends the preview to PC. Yes, you can! In Optionals settings put: Your Removable Disk\DCIM\100PENTX You can create others folders, and read/write on the CF with any browser, during Remote Assistant works. It's very slow, why data flow is (perhaps ?) with USB 1 only: CCD -- PC -- CF Michel
Re: Sorry!
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 18:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry, I think I pushed the send button too quick, with a reply that copied the previous digest. Aaron Bransky I pushed the reply button too late, for which I apologize. -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Mac OSX 10.3.3 and card readers
Hi Cotty, It seems that only Lexar card readers have a problem with 10.3.3. I did repair the disk permissions. I spent an hour on the phone with an apple tech and he took me through a whole range of troubleshooting steps, even to the extent of pressing a reset button on the motherboard. I'm just going to download in system 9 and wait for a bug disk. I also have a sandisk reader at work. I'm going to bring that home tonight and try it here. Paul On Mar 18, 2004, at 7:29 AM, Cotty wrote: On 17/3/04, PAUL S discumbobulated: I upgraded from OSX 10.3.2 to 10.3.3 this morning, and now my flash cards won't open on the OSX desktop. Fortunately, I have a dual system G4, so I can boot in 9.2 and download my files. I spent almost an hour on the phone with apple techs trying to work through the problem. They apparently don't have a fix. I expect a patch to appear on software update in a day or two. But OSX users who don't want to deal with the card reader problem might want to hold off on installing 10.3.3. Note: All my cards are Lexar. Others might be readable, but I doubt it. Paul Thanks for the heads-up Paul. I have the .3 update but was going to hold off for a few weeks in case anything obvious reared up. Now it has. Sorry for the obvious, but did you repair the disk permissions after you installed the update? FSCK in single user mode? I'll hunt about for any info I can find... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
OT: Kodak release 14MP Canon body
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1079600492.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PAW -- The Light at Saybrook Point (Borough of Fenwidk)
What Shel said about the magic moment. That being said,i still like the photo.The contrast between the white windows and snow with the darker buildings is nice.Plus i like the reflection of the light house thinghy. Dave I don't know if this actually got sent so I'll apologize in advance for a double post. Once again I'm opening myself to criticism comments and possible ridicule. Taken at dusk a couple of weeks ago 400mm lens hand held. Forget the shutter speed but it was long. http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PAW_--_LightAtSaybrookPoint.html
RE: Kodak release 14MP Canon body
Yeah, I find it interesting that they use a Sigma body, but don't do it in a Sigma mount. What about us Pentax users Kodak? We want full frame too. Those greedy Canon people not have two options! -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 March 2004 14:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Kodak release 14MP Canon body http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1079600492.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/ ~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Kodak release 14MP Canon body
On 18 Mar 2004 at 13:45, Rob Brigham wrote: Yeah, I find it interesting that they use a Sigma body, but don't do it in a Sigma mount. What about us Pentax users Kodak? We want full frame too. Those greedy Canon people not have two options! Maybe Cosina will feel sorry for us like the Leica M crowd, LOL Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: outselling film
Perhaps they expect in two years from now to be in another price range with a DSLR then $1350. On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 18:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I seem to recall reading a post recently that said that Pentax expects its DSLRs to outsell its film SLRs in two years. Are Pentax's film camera sales that bad? I find it hard to believe that a product that is currently selling for $1350 or thereabouts is going to outsell a product that is going for less than $350. Where are people going to come up with that spare $1000? The film N80 is likewise $1000 cheaper than the digital D100 that is based on it, and there are several Nikon models below that, in the $300 range. Perhaps people who are currently buying N70s for roughly $300 are not going to buy D70s for $1000 but will buy a $300 coolpix digital PS instead (that's cheaper than a lot of coolpixes...) If people were willing to spend $1000 for SLRs, why is there so much effort put into capturing the $250 and $300 segment of the market? I don't see everyone toting MZ-Ss, or even Nikon F100 or Canon EOS-3s (which can run rings around a D70 in almost every way). Last I looked, $300 didn't get you a very impressive digital PS. The models that tempted me were more like $500, which could have gotten me a second LX in good shape instead. Pop photo's report from Japan suggested that most manufacturers expected digital camera and film camera sales to stabilize. Digital SLRs are still trickling down to the lower rungs of pros who have much stronger economic and functional reasons to pay for them than most people, and this may account for the continued strong DSLR sales. DJE -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Kodak release 14MP Canon body
Sure they will. That's why they decided to make one in M42 mount!! How about that? g Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Maybe Cosina will feel sorry for us like the Leica M crowd, LOL _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
I've been usin a Nikon LS4000 ED scanner for morethan a year nw and would definitely recommend it. I started with a Nikon Coolscan II (good), upgraded to a Minolta Dual Scan II (absolute rubbish), and then to the Nikon 4000 (the best). It's easy to use, gives great scans, includes ICE which greatly simplifies cleaning slides, and I'd recommend it. Of course the new Nikon Coolscan V is probably equivalent now at half the price. Nick -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18/03/04 09:45:13 To: PDML[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner I'm working on a long term project to scan years worth of BW negatives and also plan to use the scanner for E6 transparencies, and, to a lesser extent, color neg. I also intend to make larger than 8x10 prints and feel that the largest pixel count is important. I'm very close to deciding on a Nikon 4000ppi model (I can never recall the model number sigh). Why did those of you who bought one, decide it was the way to go? And for those who bought something else, why that, or why not the Nikon? My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've heard some questionable comments about other scanners. shel
Re: outselling film
Maybe this observation from last weeks darkroom class may be helpfull. One of the young ladys,who takes nicely composed pictures,has a problem with over flash and other lighting details with her mf camera. She mentioned to the instructor that she felt if she bought a digital rebel or N70,put it on P mode, her results would improve dramatically.No mention of a film body in the story. It was not until the instructor had a long talk with her about cameras,light meters bracketing +- EV etc did she realize there was more to cameras than a lens and a battery.(nothing a general interst night class would not fix) I'm sure there are many more like this young lady out there that feel their photography will only improve with a digital rebel or N70(BTW i keep pluggin' Pentax but no ones a listnin')in P mode. Good for sales but not good for their confidence.imnsho Dave Perhaps they expect in two years from now to be in another price range with a DSLR then $1350. On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 18:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I seem to recall reading a post recently that said that Pentax expects its DSLRs to outsell its film SLRs in two years. Are Pentax's film camera sales that bad? I find it hard to believe tha t a product that is currently selling for $1350 or thereabouts is going t o outsell a product that is going for less than $350. Where are people going to come up with that spare $1000? The film N80 is likewise $1000 cheaper than the digital D100 that is based on it, and there are several Nikon models below that, in the $300 range. Perhaps people who are currently buying N70s for roughly $300 a re not going to buy D70s for $1000 but will buy a $300 coolpix digital PS instead (that's cheaper than a lot of coolpixes...) If people were willing to spend $1000 for SLRs, why is there so much effort put into capturing the $250 and $300 segment of the market? I don't see everyone toting MZ-Ss, or even Nikon F100 or Canon EOS-3s (which can run rings around a D70 in almost every way). Last I looked, $300 didn't get you a very impressive digital PS. The models that tempted me were more like $500, which could have gotten me a second LX in good shape instead. Pop photo's report from Japan suggested that most manufacturers expec ted digital camera and film camera sales to stabilize. Digital SLRs are st ill trickling down to the lower rungs of pros who have much stronger econom ic and functional reasons to pay for them than most people, and this may account for the continued strong DSLR sales. DJE -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Enabled at last
Frank said, innocently, Who needs drums anyway? Oh, I don't know knarf, in my opinion are you ready for this ---they're hard to beat --- vvvbg Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Enabled at last Who needs drums anyway! vbg Congrats, Dave. And, most important, have fun! cheers, frank From: David Madsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Enabled at last Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:00:40 -0700 I picked up an *istD with a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 today - the result of selling my drum equipment. I am looking forward to spending the day shooting with it tomorrow. David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com
Re: PAW - Free Los Siete
I really like this one,Shel. It really tells a story.Nice and sharp too. Dave(not familiar with that film)Brooks Taken during a time of political travail in San Francisco http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/los-siete.html
Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena
William Robb wrote: Lets see, to get an angle of view that is more or less the same as the 15mm f/3.5 (the widest rectilinear that Pentax makes for 35mm), they would need to make a 10mm lens. I really have my doubts that this is feasable with the 45 or so mm flange to focal plane distance that the K mount has. Sigma have already made a full-frame 12-24mm zoom - a 10mm prime sounds tricky but not impossible in my decidedly unexpert opinion :-) S
Re: AF280T no longer TTL - repair needed
Have a look at Cotty's page on modifying the AF280T to allow the flash to be used for fill-in: http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/mods/flashmod/flashmod.html S Lon Williamson wrote: Not a dirty contact. First thing I checked. Anyone tips on getting inside? I've opened up a few flashes before, but things can get tricky. I don't want to snap any plastic. I know how to check contacts, and how to solder. William Robb wrote: It could be as simple as a dirty contact or broken wire, bith easily fixed. Of course, it could also be a fried controller, not so easily fixed. William Robb
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Hi Nick In what way was the Minolta rubbish? Have you scanned BW negs with either? Nick Clark wrote: I've been usin a Nikon LS4000 ED scanner for morethan a year nw and would definitely recommend it. I started with a Nikon Coolscan II (good), upgraded to a Minolta Dual Scan II (absolute rubbish), and then to the Nikon 4000 (the best). It's easy to use, gives great scans, includes ICE which greatly simplifies cleaning slides, and I'd recommend it. Of course the new Nikon Coolscan V is probably equivalent now at half the price.
Re: OT: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
What will do the scratching of the body? Certainly not a soft strap. Certainly not the triangular keeper. Those have been used on cameras for years and years... I have a 1/2 wide soft woven fabric strap, made by Pentax, that was attached to my KM when I bought it. No way anything there could scratch a camera body that I can see. keith whaley Bob W wrote: Hi, Thursday, March 18, 2004, 12:23:31 AM, Shel wrote: Hi Bob, Frank ... I'm using an LX strap on one of my Leicas right now. Can't use the LX attachments, of course, but, instead, I'm using ate clips from an ME Super or some such body. It all comes together quite nicely. http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/strap.jpg I've always assumed that would risk scratching the body. Cheers, Bob
Re: *ist D problem (firmware?)
- Original Message - From: Rob Brigham Subject: RE: *ist D problem (firmware?) It is very slow because it is NOT writing direct to the CF. It is sending the entire file to the remote software on the PC which is then writing it back to the camera. Which means twice as much data going through the slow USB 1.1 link. Try as I might, I can't see why this would be a problem. The whole idea of the remote asistant is to get the files straight to the PC. William Robb
Re: PAW -- The Light at Saybrook Point (Burough of Fenwick)
frank theriault wrote: Snip I meant to ask you in my previous post, where exactly is this Saybrook Point? Is the Borough of Fenwick in Mass, or am I way off base, here? The Borough of Fenwick is part of Old Saybrook CT. There are three things about it that make it interesting. 1.) Katheryn Hepburn inherited a beach cottage there and made it her primary home for at least 40 years. Katy's dead now but I've still had a tourist or two ask how to find her house while I've been in the area, I must look like a local... 2.) The Borough is one of only a couple using that form of Government in Connecticut, it's mostly made up of private roads, and a Golf Course. The light is inaccessible from land due to that fact. (The sign on the road indicates only residents and lighthouse personnel are allowed access. 3.) It's at the mouth of the Connecticut river, the only major river on the east coast of the United States, probably North America without a major deep water port. It makes the river relatively pristine, (the Bald Eagle capital of New England). cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Kodak release 14MP Canon body
They're already making a Drangefinder :-) together with Epson using the same sensor as the *ist D. Then, they already make a M42-mount slr. Maybe a M42-mount and a fully compatible K-mount DSLR by Cosina/Epson team is not so further away... Dario Bonazza - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 3:50 PM Subject: RE: Kodak release 14MP Canon body On 18 Mar 2004 at 13:45, Rob Brigham wrote: Yeah, I find it interesting that they use a Sigma body, but don't do it in a Sigma mount. What about us Pentax users Kodak? We want full frame too. Those greedy Canon people not have two options! Maybe Cosina will feel sorry for us like the Leica M crowd, LOL Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: AF280T no longer TTL - repair needed
Thanks. I went there, knowing about the mod, but found no way to click to this. Steve Jolly wrote: Have a look at Cotty's page on modifying the AF280T to allow the flash to be used for fill-in: http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/mods/flashmod/flashmod.html
Re: Kodak release 14MP Canon body
I wrote: They're already making a Drangefinder :-) together with Epson using the same sensor as the *ist D. Of course I mean Cosina, not Kodak. Then, they already make a M42-mount slr. Maybe a M42-mount and a fully compatible K-mount DSLR by Cosina/Epson team is not so further away... Dario Bonazza
Re: Digital Imaging, File Formats, and Color
Response below - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Digital Imaging, File Formats, and Color 1) Which file format, in what type of compression, in what color space (or photometric interpretation) is the best for archiving and printing (not web use)? Brent, Jpeg is somewhat misunderstood. It is a lossy compression, but losses only occur when the file is saved. So, you've just captured the award winning image you've always wanted. You photoshop it to your liking and save as your master in jpeg format (here's where the losses occur). You now want to print it, you open it up and print (no additional losses here). If you don't save changes to the file you just printed, and simply close out it out, no further losses to your master occurs. It's the resaving that causes additional losses. In some instances I have resaved after opening but have yet to see this lead to a noticeably degraded image. Kenneth Waller
Re[2]: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena
From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sigma have already made a full-frame 12-24mm zoom - a 10mm prime sounds tricky but not impossible in my decidedly unexpert opinion :-) Have you used it? Neither have I. Mostly, because I haven't seen a single review, saying that it's any good at 12mm. Jeez, take a 20/4, put a digicam's wide angle converter on it -- bang! - problem solved. Mishka
Re: OT: Lost posts
It appears you've broken through the shields... Dr E D F Williams wrote: I replied to a request about a BW developer saying that I used Rodinal for everything -- giving a lot of examples -- and the message vanished enroute. I sent it again and it disappeared a second time. If this gets there the problem has been solved. If it doesn't no one will know anyway. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See Extra Pages 'The Cement Company from HELL!' Updated: August 15, 2003 Oh my God! They've killed Teddy!
Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
-Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Nick In what way was the Minolta rubbish? Have you scanned BW negs with either? I also used CoolScan 4000 for almost 2 years, and Minolta Scan Multi II for a few months. I might have had a defective unit, but Minolta -- had serious banding problems -- the software is a piece of crap, that didn't do even what it was supposed to -- the color reproduction (esp. the blue channel) was horrible. I routinely had pink areas (like, peoples lips) on my scans that had 0 blue! it had a great price from calumet, but turned out to be a worthless piece of junk. OTOH, the nikon was truly great scanner, and the only reason i parted with it was to be able to scan mf as well. now i am waiting for the 9000 model. mishka
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Shel, The two top brands for home users in my opinion are the Minolta Dimage series and the Nikons. I've owned both. They both have nice twain interfaces, and both have option that includes interface cards. You want something faster than USB 1.0, becuase a hi-res scan can produce 30+ megabyte files and that takes time to travel over your wire! I switched from Minolta to Nikon because I wanted medium format support and went to the LS-8000. I think Minoltas are a bit more affordable currently. Lastly, make sure your scanner you are considering is supported by the ScanVue software from Hamrick. Its probably the best scanner software out there, so you always want to have that as an option! Since you are mainly talking about older BW film, don't get too impressed by Digital ICE and those addons, many aren't compatible with true BW emulsions! At 01:45 AM 3/18/2004 -0800, you wrote: I'm working on a long term project to scan years worth of BW negatives and also plan to use the scanner for E6 transparencies, and, to a lesser extent, color neg. I also intend to make larger than 8x10 prints and feel that the largest pixel count is important. I'm very close to deciding on a Nikon 4000ppi model (I can never recall the model number sigh). Why did those of you who bought one, decide it was the way to go? And for those who bought something else, why that, or why not the Nikon? My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've heard some questionable comments about other scanners. shel
Re: *ist D problem (firmware?)
Is the flash problem with remote assistant operating camera? Handheld, mine works with flash up. And I just tested it with flash up, still works! At 10:54 PM 3/18/2004 +1100, you wrote: Just posted to dpreview, but decided someone here may be able to help too. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1028message=8045382 Just loaded up the new firmware (1.11), and played with the remote software for a while. Worked fine... novelty value. Then... came back later to play. This time, I discovered that I had a problem - when the flash was flipped up (irrespective of any connection to the computer), AF would not operate, and shutter would not fire. Bummer hey. I'm sure it worked the first time I tried the new firmware. Works fine without the flash, whether plugged in to the puter or not. Anyway, tested a few things - resetting all camera settings, eventually decided it was a bug with the new firmware. S, I dug up my old 1.10 firmware, and installed that. Still the same problem )-: With the flash up the camera responds to nothing from the shutter button (or from the remote assistant shutter/focus controls) Even tried re-installing various firmware... Do I have to take my camera back and get a replacement? Pretty annoying to say the least. Anyone else with similar experiences, connected or not with firmware updates? David
Re: Kodak release 14MP Canon body
Nice, but it has the wrong mount. Again. Can't Kodak do it right, at least once? grin Alex Sarbu --- Martisoare virtuale prin http://felicitari.acasa.ro
Re: AF280T no longer TTL - repair needed
Hi Lon, It is easy to take apart. Just watch out for the spring on the battery door, it will go flying. Cotty's webpage shows details. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 4:53 AM Subject: Re: AF280T no longer TTL - repair needed Not a dirty contact. First thing I checked. Anyone tips on getting inside? I've opened up a few flashes before, but things can get tricky. I don't want to snap any plastic. I know how to check contacts, and how to solder. William Robb wrote: It could be as simple as a dirty contact or broken wire, bith easily fixed. Of course, it could also be a fried controller, not so easily fixed. William Robb
Re: Digital Imaging, File Formats, and Color
For your project, you need a color test chart, or anything that can be used as a true baseline, and have that in a picture at the begining of every session or roll. Then have one of those charts available for anyone wanting to produce an image in the future and they'll make your red the red they was there! In theory. Uncompressed TIF, but zip up your files possibly - external compression. At 01:05 PM 3/17/2004 -0500, you wrote: Back to the list after a few years of absence. I apologize if I've already missed a similar discussion. I've recently been interested in digitizing my photographic process. I'm sticking with E-6, but every slide I make I get scanned. The web-site www.josephholmes.com gave me a bit of inspiration in to what digital imaging can mean to the photographic process: overcoming, or at least managing, the limitations and variations that are introduced when we try to represent the natural world in print form or on the web. This self imposed term paper I've been doing on the web has led to more questions than answers. I came back here to get a consensus I have relied upon in the past. Here are my questions: 1) Which file format, in what type of compression, in what color space (or photometric interpretation) is the best for archiving and printing (not web use)? My feeling so far is that GIF is out b/c it is limited to 256 colors; JPEG (which is actually a compression not a format) is out because the compression is lossy; TIFF seems to be the winner. Are there there viable options to consider. Should the TIFFs be compressed in a particular way, or uncompressed? Which way? Should the file be in RGB, CMKY, XYZ, L*a*b*, or other. I know RGB is good for monitors, CMYK is good for printers, and L*a*b* has its advantages too, but what should be the bread and butter? 2) Could someone explain the Color Management process. Does this process change the information in a file, or does it merely alter it during the data process to change it for a specific use. Ex- if I have a color profile for my scanner, does it alter the raw data coming in, or provide a means of interpreting that data? Similarly, if I changed a color profile for an image in photoshop one day, and then changed it back to the original later, would the result be different from the original? And lastly, is color management based on a standard palette that all profiles look to as a baseline, or does the process happen in the absence of a standard? how? Thanks for the help and the dicussion. I'm glad to be back. Brent Roberts Florence, SC (formerly of Birmingham, AL)
Re: PAW -- The Light at Saybrook Point (Burough of Fenwick)
Just for you Frank, a few more lighthouse photos... The first is from St. Simions island of the coast of Georgia USA http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery4/Wall3.html The second is a small Light of a style that's ubiquitous in the US from the Florida Keys http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery6/Wall1.html The last it the Saybrook light from the closest accessible land approach, http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery9/Wall2.html
Re: Digital Imaging, File Formats, and Color
- Original Message - From: Kenneth Waller Subject: Re: Digital Imaging, File Formats, and Color Response below - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Digital Imaging, File Formats, and Color 1) Which file format, in what type of compression, in what color space (or photometric interpretation) is the best for archiving and printing (not web use)? Brent, Jpeg is somewhat misunderstood. It is a lossy compression, but losses only occur when the file is saved. So, you've just captured the award winning image you've always wanted. You photoshop it to your liking and save as your master in jpeg format (here's where the losses occur). You now want to print it, you open it up and print (no additional losses here). If you don't save changes to the file you just printed, and simply close out it out, no further losses to your master occurs. It's the resaving that causes additional losses. In some instances I have resaved after opening but have yet to see this lead to a noticeably degraded image. I may be mistaken, but I believe that JPEG only supports 8 bit (256 colours) colour, which is kinda limited. I'm saving my stuff as however it comes off the camera, usually RAW, so that I will have access to the full colour gamut that the camera shoots, or as 16 bit tiff. I am not overly worried about not being able to read this stuff in the future, I figure I have the software now, I can't see that changing anytime soon. William Robb
Re: Re[2]: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena
- Original Message - From: Mike Ignatiev Subject: Re[2]: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sigma have already made a full-frame 12-24mm zoom - a 10mm prime sounds tricky but not impossible in my decidedly unexpert opinion :-) Have you used it? Neither have I. Mostly, because I haven't seen a single review, saying that it's any good at 12mm. Jeez, take a 20/4, put a digicam's wide angle converter on it -- bang! - problem solved. I think the whole idea is to get some sort of quality image as well. 10mm focal length is a surprisingly large jump from 12mm. William Robb
Re: OT: Mac OSX 10.3.3 and card readers
Do you use a firewire or USB card reader? DagT På 18. mar. 2004 kl. 14.21 skrev Paul Stenquist: Hi Cotty, It seems that only Lexar card readers have a problem with 10.3.3. I did repair the disk permissions. I spent an hour on the phone with an apple tech and he took me through a whole range of troubleshooting steps, even to the extent of pressing a reset button on the motherboard. I'm just going to download in system 9 and wait for a bug disk. I also have a sandisk reader at work. I'm going to bring that home tonight and try it here. Paul On Mar 18, 2004, at 7:29 AM, Cotty wrote: On 17/3/04, PAUL S discumbobulated: I upgraded from OSX 10.3.2 to 10.3.3 this morning, and now my flash cards won't open on the OSX desktop. Fortunately, I have a dual system G4, so I can boot in 9.2 and download my files. I spent almost an hour on the phone with apple techs trying to work through the problem. They apparently don't have a fix. I expect a patch to appear on software update in a day or two. But OSX users who don't want to deal with the card reader problem might want to hold off on installing 10.3.3. Note: All my cards are Lexar. Others might be readable, but I doubt it. Paul Thanks for the heads-up Paul. I have the .3 update but was going to hold off for a few weeks in case anything obvious reared up. Now it has. Sorry for the obvious, but did you repair the disk permissions after you installed the update? FSCK in single user mode? I'll hunt about for any info I can find... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: *ist D problem (firmware?)
OK, I think I got caught up in somebody else's thinking here, and didn't translate it into my own real-world use. For me, I don't care about sending images direct to PC as I am quite happy to write to card download on a firewire reader or to my flashtrax. The only use for me of Remote Assistant is just that - remote assisstance. Being able to set timer intervals and do extended autobracketing. In fact only really the first of those. And I guess as such I am not likely to be hamstrung by the download taking a ling time. I still feel it should be an option to write direct to CF (if only because it should have been simple to implement), but feel even more strongly for people using it as you say - in order to write directly to PC that not giving us USB 2 was a BIG mistake. Maybe the ideal compromise would be to use the card as a buffer - writing direct to that and having a background process trickling the stuff down to the PC. I bet that wouldn't be easy to implement though... -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 March 2004 14:34 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D problem (firmware?) - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham Subject: RE: *ist D problem (firmware?) It is very slow because it is NOT writing direct to the CF. It is sending the entire file to the remote software on the PC which is then writing it back to the camera. Which means twice as much data going through the slow USB 1.1 link. Try as I might, I can't see why this would be a problem. The whole idea of the remote asistant is to get the files straight to the PC. William Robb
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
The TWAIN driver for the Minolta refused to work so I had to use the supplied program to scan to TIFF rather than import into Photoshop directly. The Minolta used a carrier for slides and negatives which it moved during the scan rather than moving the LED array which the Nikon does. I found it would never register the same on successive scans, so that it would scan a different bit of the slide during preview and full scan, or even between subsequent scans of the same slide. It was all a bit hit and miss. I was glad when I part exchanged it for the Nikon. Nick -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18/03/04 14:40:14 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner Hi Nick In what way was the Minolta rubbish? Have you scanned BW negs with either? Nick Clark wrote: I've been usin a Nikon LS4000 ED scanner for morethan a year nw and would definitely recommend it. I started with a Nikon Coolscan II (good), upgraded to a Minolta Dual Scan II (absolute rubbish), and then to the Nikon 4000 (the best). It's easy to use, gives great scans, includes ICE which greatly simplifies cleaning slides, and I'd recommend it. Of course the new Nikon Coolscan V is probably equivalent now at half the price.
Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena
- Original Message - From: Steve Jolly Subject: Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena It was in the 21st Feb issue of Amateur Photographer (UK), so I'm afraid there isn't a link to give you. They printed MTF graphs for five different focal lengths. At 12mm, the resolution (if you define it as the number of lppm that the lens can resolve with a contrast of 0.5) was 27 lppm wide-open, and 30 lppm closed down two stops. From the text of the review: Corner-of-frame sharpness at 12mm and full aperture (f4.5) is good on subject main features, with fine detail improving at three stops down to a very high standard. For some reason, people seem to think that a really wide angle lens should be (can be) as sharp as a normal or short telephoto macro lens. Thsi ain't the case, however, and the longer the lens flange to focal plane distance is, the harder it is to get a good design. If the Stigma is half assed good at 12mm, then they have done well. William Robb
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
I have once scanned BW with the nikon but not to very good effect. However the negative was very thin as I'd used some old chemicals to process it, something I don't do very often as I almost exclusively use Fuji Velvia or Sensia 200 slide film. Best get the answer to this one from someone more experienced. Nick -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff[EMAIL PROTECTED] Have you scanned BW negs with either?
Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
i scanned a few rolls of BW (some tmax100, some trix, some really old svema) on the nikon -- apart from the fact that ice is not working with it, i couldn't see anything to complain about. just make sure you save and edit all in 16 bit mode, otherwise all you'll have is 256 shades of grey. mishka -Original Message- From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:16:19 - Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner I have once scanned BW with the nikon but not to very good effect. However the negative was very thin as I'd used some old chemicals to process it, something I don't do very often as I almost exclusively use Fuji Velvia or Sensia 200 slide film. Best get the answer to this one from someone more experienced. Nick
Re: Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
- Original Message - From: Mike Ignatiev Subject: Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner i scanned a few rolls of BW (some tmax100, some trix, some really old svema) on the nikon -- apart from the fact that ice is not working with it, i couldn't see anything to complain about. just make sure you save and edit all in 16 bit mode, otherwise all you'll have is 256 shades of grey. Digital Ice doesn't work with black and white film. William Robb
Using the 500ftz flash with *ist d...
I'm having a problem getting flash compensation to work properly. I read that if I put the camera on M that I could use the exposure compensation function to act as flash compensation. This works fine with the pop-up flash, but when I try it with the 500ftz, it only works if I am adding compensation (+1, +1.5, +2, etc). When I subtract it (-1, -2 -3, etc), the shots look exactly the same as they do with no compensation. Any ideas on why this is happening? BTW, I'm using firmware 1.11 Thanks. Josh
Re: OT: Mac OSX 10.3.3 and card readers
I was using the Lexar USB card reader that comes with their 1 gig cards. I'm going to try my sandisk reader tonight. I think the problem is restricted to Lexar. Dag T wrote: Do you use a firewire or USB card reader? DagT På 18. mar. 2004 kl. 14.21 skrev Paul Stenquist: Hi Cotty, It seems that only Lexar card readers have a problem with 10.3.3. I did repair the disk permissions. I spent an hour on the phone with an apple tech and he took me through a whole range of troubleshooting steps, even to the extent of pressing a reset button on the motherboard. I'm just going to download in system 9 and wait for a bug disk. I also have a sandisk reader at work. I'm going to bring that home tonight and try it here. Paul On Mar 18, 2004, at 7:29 AM, Cotty wrote: On 17/3/04, PAUL S discumbobulated: I upgraded from OSX 10.3.2 to 10.3.3 this morning, and now my flash cards won't open on the OSX desktop. Fortunately, I have a dual system G4, so I can boot in 9.2 and download my files. I spent almost an hour on the phone with apple techs trying to work through the problem. They apparently don't have a fix. I expect a patch to appear on software update in a day or two. But OSX users who don't want to deal with the card reader problem might want to hold off on installing 10.3.3. Note: All my cards are Lexar. Others might be readable, but I doubt it. Paul Thanks for the heads-up Paul. I have the .3 update but was going to hold off for a few weeks in case anything obvious reared up. Now it has. Sorry for the obvious, but did you repair the disk permissions after you installed the update? FSCK in single user mode? I'll hunt about for any info I can find... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Hi, Thursday, March 18, 2004, 2:43:46 PM, Keith wrote: What will do the scratching of the body? Certainly not a soft strap. Certainly not the triangular keeper. Those have been used on cameras for years and years... I have a 1/2 wide soft woven fabric strap, made by Pentax, that was attached to my KM when I bought it. No way anything there could scratch a camera body that I can see. a lot of the Leica Ms I've seen show significant wear or scratching from whatever straps have been used. My own M3 (1958) is a good example of wear, rather than scratches. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Using the 500ftz flash with *ist d...
Hello Josh, Could you provide a little more detail, such as in manual mode, what is your shutter speed and aperture set to. And what do you mean by looks the same? Once you subtract too much the ambient light takes over. How bright is it outside where you are trying this? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, March 18, 2004, 10:35:30 AM, you wrote: JG I'm having a problem getting flash compensation to work properly. I read JG that if I put the camera on M that I could use the exposure compensation JG function to act as flash compensation. This works fine with the pop-up JG flash, but when I try it with the 500ftz, it only works if I am adding JG compensation (+1, +1.5, +2, etc). When I subtract it (-1, -2 -3, etc), the JG shots look exactly the same as they do with no compensation. Any ideas on JG why this is happening? BTW, I'm using firmware 1.11 JG Thanks. JG Josh
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Hi, Thursday, March 18, 2004, 9:45:13 AM, Shel wrote: I'm working on a long term project to scan years worth of BW negatives and also plan to use the scanner for E6 transparencies, and, to a lesser extent, color neg. I also intend to make larger than 8x10 prints and feel that the largest pixel count is important. I'm very close to deciding on a Nikon 4000ppi model (I can never recall the model number sigh). Why did those of you who bought one, decide it was the way to go? And for those who bought something else, why that, or why not the Nikon? My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've heard some questionable comments about other scanners. I have a Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED, which I think is the same as the one you're considering. I chose it because I wanted that resolution and this appeared to be the best option at the time I bought it. I found few if any negative comments about it while I was researching it. It was chosen by a lot of labs and other people who depended on it to generate money, which was a significant factor in my choice. I haven't used it as much as I expected to, largely because I'm lazy and I haven't fully got to grips with the technicalities of colour management. However, it is easy to use and produces results I'm satisfied with so far. One word of advice I can offer is to use lint-free gloves when you put a strip of film into the holder. It's rather a fiddly operation getting it lined up properly and you run the risk of getting paw-prints on the film unless you wear gloves. I have an IT-8 slide which I use to set up the scanner profile. It was difficult to find sensible information about how to do this with VueScan, but I found a web-page in French with the information. I intend to translate it into English and post it on my site sometime. If you're interested I could get on with that. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Traditional BW film. It should work with Chromogenic BW. But then Bill doesn't like Chromogenic BW. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Mike Ignatiev Subject: Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner i scanned a few rolls of BW (some tmax100, some trix, some really old svema) on the nikon -- apart from the fact that ice is not working with it, i couldn't see anything to complain about. just make sure you save and edit all in 16 bit mode, otherwise all you'll have is 256 shades of grey. Digital Ice doesn't work with black and white film. William Robb
Re: Digital Imaging, File Formats, and Color
Hi, Thursday, March 18, 2004, 8:51:20 AM, Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] raw is *guaranteed* to be readable for as long as C complilers are available, since dcraw.c is an easily available open source program. just burn the source code together with the images once. in fact, i think, this is the only reasonable archival format for digital camera images: it keeps all the information camera captures, but no more. I trust you can give everyone who needs it a good crash course in C compilation in ten years time, then. :-) Pleas put me on the list. I agree with you that C compilers are likely to be around for 10 more years, but in a longer perspective, you will need to burn the compiler along with the image data, and archive a computer with an operating system that can run the compiler as well. all you need is the file format syntax and semantics. Then you can use whatever programming language and operating system will be the flavour of the month in 10 years time. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: OT: Mac OSX 10.3.3 and card readers
OK, I have a Lexar Firewire card reader, but no Lexar cards. I´m not sure if I should take the chance to upgrade from 10.3.2 yet... DagT På 18. mar. 2004 kl. 19.40 skrev Paul Stenquist: I was using the Lexar USB card reader that comes with their 1 gig cards. I'm going to try my sandisk reader tonight. I think the problem is restricted to Lexar. Dag T wrote: Do you use a firewire or USB card reader? DagT På 18. mar. 2004 kl. 14.21 skrev Paul Stenquist: Hi Cotty, It seems that only Lexar card readers have a problem with 10.3.3. I did repair the disk permissions. I spent an hour on the phone with an apple tech and he took me through a whole range of troubleshooting steps, even to the extent of pressing a reset button on the motherboard. I'm just going to download in system 9 and wait for a bug disk. I also have a sandisk reader at work. I'm going to bring that home tonight and try it here. Paul On Mar 18, 2004, at 7:29 AM, Cotty wrote: On 17/3/04, PAUL S discumbobulated: I upgraded from OSX 10.3.2 to 10.3.3 this morning, and now my flash cards won't open on the OSX desktop. Fortunately, I have a dual system G4, so I can boot in 9.2 and download my files. I spent almost an hour on the phone with apple techs trying to work through the problem. They apparently don't have a fix. I expect a patch to appear on software update in a day or two. But OSX users who don't want to deal with the card reader problem might want to hold off on installing 10.3.3. Note: All my cards are Lexar. Others might be readable, but I doubt it. Paul Thanks for the heads-up Paul. I have the .3 update but was going to hold off for a few weeks in case anything obvious reared up. Now it has. Sorry for the obvious, but did you repair the disk permissions after you installed the update? FSCK in single user mode? I'll hunt about for any info I can find... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: no fate but what we make
We've had a lot of speculation, but here's what I would actually do. I have no idea how typical I am. I realize that I'm not as bothered by the APS sensor because I'm not an ultrawide angle fan. I've used the 20-35 on my MZ-S but don't use it that often on 20. OTOH, I have a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 which is now an excellent sports lens. Yes, I know I this is not a real magnification effect etc., but my point is that I am happy with the FOV my old lenses now have. I would also be perfectly happy to buy a FF sensor camera, but it would have to get much cheaper to tempt me. If the *istD where $600 and the FF version were $1350, would I spend the extra? Probably not. The original $1350 for the current APS *ist D got me digital capabilities in the first place, which was a major change over my then current cameras. I'm not sure how much I would pay for a bigger sensor when the APS version seems to suit my needs just fine. I'd probably invest the money in a lens. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: no fate but what we make
Somebody said 15 years. I consider that a long time by today's standards. But seriously folks. The APS sensor is always going to be cheaper. It will be the basis of the cameras that are in high volume price range between $300-700. Once there are lenses out there at the wide end (and the 14 is wide enough for most folks) the FF sensor will have to offer such a massive increase in performance that you'll feel the need to switch. With the lenses out there, however, the makers will feel a need to keep the format alive. Remember, they wanted this format with film but there wasn't any real advantage over 35 mm. And if you never go higher than 8x10, I doubt you'll think the investment is worth it. No art here, just business. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
- Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner Traditional BW film. It should work with Chromogenic BW. But then Bill doesn't like Chromogenic BW. It works fine with chromogenics, which are, in reality, colour negative film. I actually quite like the Kodak chromogenics, although I have noted image stability problems in the past. I don't like XP-2 all that much for a number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with the image quality of the film, which I think is fine. William Robb
Re: no fate but what we make
- Original Message - From: Steve Desjardins Subject: Re: no fate but what we make . Once there are lenses out there at the wide end (and the 14 is wide enough for most folks) Most people want telephotos, not wide angles anyway. Thats why there were so many zooms that go to 300mm or more, and not so many that were wider than 24mm until the APS digital sensors made shorter focal lengths necessary. For most consumers, the APS sensor size is a benefit, since their telephotos just got longer. William Robb
Re: zoom distortion
I'm curious what the gigantic 80-210/4.5 SMC-T lens could do! DJE Same normal zoom behaviour... I will check the 3.5 version tomorrow (K-mount, as long as the 4.5 but fat). 85-210mm to be exact. Andre I checked my 85-210mm f/3.5 and distorsion is noticably better corrected than in the 4.5 lens (from a quick check: nil from 105mm to 120mm; builds up very slowly; only easy to see although still not important at the ends). This lower distorsion is understandable as the 3.5 is a newer design (Pentax says: a new optical formula to assure exceptional quality at all distances and focal lenghts). I don't know... but I tried it once at 210mm f/3.5 on a low contrast subject and the slide was very acceptable although very slightly blurred, probably because my steady hand-hold grip at 1/60 using a fixed pole was still not steady enough. Its front group is identical to the one found in the reknown 135-600/6.7. I have been told the 85-210mm f/3.5 had a street price of over $500 when it was available, in 1976. Its lens hood has a nice feature: it also screws reversed on the lens (as with the 400-600mm hood). Andre
Optio TV ad.
Hey, I caught the end of the Optio ad on ESPN. I guess it really does sexist. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
this has probably been discussed to death before, but what's the reason to use chromogenic bw? if you take a color negative film, and print on bw paper, wouldn't it give you the same result? am i missing something very basic here? best, mishka -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Traditional BW film. It should work with Chromogenic BW. But then Bill doesn't like Chromogenic BW.
RE: HC110
You really should try XTOL. XTOL is the recommended developer for TMAX film, not TMAX developer. tv What is the best way to agitate the film with XTOL? I've had mitigated results with 3200 films (Kodak and Ilford) and I suspect this combination might need more or less agitation than what I gave (5 seconds every 30 seconds in a 4-reel Patersen tank), or a smaller tank that will permit effective upside-down movement. Andre
Using the 500ftz flash with *ist d...
Bruce, I was testing this indoors. There was almost no ambient light (it was at night with all of the lights off). I set the shutter speed to 1/125, aperture was f/8. I did it like this b/c I just wanted to test the flash exposure compensation. When I was in Manual mode and I used the internal pop-up flash, the flash compensation worked great (the image was over or under exposed by whatever amount of flash compensation that I set). When I tried the exact same thing with the 500ftz, it would work as it should if I was setting flash over compensation (the image would be brighter than correct exposure) but when I tried under compensation (-1, -3, etc), it would do absolutely nothing. In other words, an image taken with no flash compensation had the exact same exposure (looked exactly the same) as an image taken with -3 dialed in on the camera. Could you provide a little more detail, such as in manual mode, what is your shutter speed and aperture set to. And what do you mean by looks the same? Once you subtract too much the ambient light takes over. How bright is it outside where you are trying this? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, March 18, 2004, 10:35:30 AM, you wrote: JG I'm having a problem getting flash compensation to work properly. I read JG that if I put the camera on M that I could use the exposure compensation JG function to act as flash compensation. This works fine with the pop-up JG flash, but when I try it with the 500ftz, it only works if I am adding JG compensation (+1, +1.5, +2, etc). When I subtract it (-1, -2 -3, etc), the JG shots look exactly the same as they do with no compensation. Any ideas on JG why this is happening? BTW, I'm using firmware 1.11 JG Thanks. JG Josh
RE: HC110
-Original Message- From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You really should try XTOL. XTOL is the recommended developer for TMAX film, not TMAX developer. tv What is the best way to agitate the film with XTOL? I've had mitigated results with 3200 films (Kodak and Ilford) XTOL isn't really the best push developer...Microphen or DD-X work better. What do you mean by mitigated? and I suspect this combination might need more or less agitation than what I gave (5 seconds every 30 seconds in a 4-reel Patersen tank), or a smaller tank that will permit effective upside-down movement. I always do 5/30 agitation. tv
Re: PAW -- The Light at Saybrook Point (Burough of Fenwick)
Hi! On my screen I see two odd patches of yellow/purple above the buildings... I have only one feeling about this image. It looks like it was shot from a very well heated room, probably with fireplace, just before commencing to listening to one' favorite music with shot of whisky in hand. It is cold, and winterly, and ... it tilts to the left just a little bit. Just my cents... Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Paw: Another Lighthouse (was Re: PAW -- The Light at Saybrook Point (Burough of Fenwick))
I think the originally posted PAW is the best lighthouse shot so far. It was a bit dark, but it conveyed a certain mood of bad weather brooding. Even with the half frozen water in the foreground. And that's when a lighthouse really shines, after all. Uh. Pun half-intended, I guess. All this talk about lighthouses and recent interest in panorama shots made me look into my archives for one particular pano of a lighthouse. I upsampled it, and printed it out on roll-paper with my Epson 890 to 20x55 cm. Since the original was a cropped 35mm slide, I didn't expect it to turn out more than half decent, but it came out very nice. Maybe photoshop CS is better at upsampling than it's predecessor, I don't know... Here's a web-version, 800 pixels wide: http://home.online.no/~jooksne/paw/paw2.html It's an image I'm very fond of myself, but I know others don't see as much in it as I do. I may have posted it here earlier, so bear with me if you have seen it before. Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 4:35 PM Subject: Re: PAW -- The Light at Saybrook Point (Burough of Fenwick) Just for you Frank, a few more lighthouse photos... The first is from St. Simions island of the coast of Georgia USA http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery4/Wall3.html The second is a small Light of a style that's ubiquitous in the US from the Florida Keys http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery6/Wall1.html The last it the Saybrook light from the closest accessible land approach, http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery9/Wall2.html
Re: OT: BW or Colour - Maybe a WOW?
Hi! Frank, I am late and I know it. Still, neither really works for me. I am thinking about cropping the left roughly half from the b-w image. But I realize your vision is different than mine... Also evidently, my monitor would be re-calibrated real soon as it needs it. ft You like better? Worser? Both equally mediocre? g On a side note. Never thought that anything can be worser lol... Although, in EMC Boston where I visited once as I worked for EMC Israel, they used to say anyways which isn't an official word either. My speller does not like, for instance. Nor does it like worser... Just my cents. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Digital Imaging, File Formats, and Color
- Original Message - From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] all you need is the file format syntax and semantics. Then you can use whatever programming language and operating system will be the flavour of the month in 10 years time. That's true. Let's hope that people like John Francis still hang around by then...:-) Jostein
Re: Enabled at last
- Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] And as a symbol, nothing to shake a stick at although if you can snare some comfortable stools, not bad per cushion. Wearing your hi hat tonight, are you... grin Jostein
Re[2]: Digital Imaging, File Formats, and Color
hey, you can always send your files to india... or, wherever all techies will be, at that time. mishka -Original Message- From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's true. Let's hope that people like John Francis still hang around by then...:-)
Re: no fate but what we make
15 years was what I said, and it wasn't a very carefully calculated time span. However, consider this. It is inevitable that digital sensors will in time be able to output more and more pixels. Therefore, if the APS sensor does get replaced in time, it won't be by a larger sensor. It is possible that manufacturers could try using a smaller sensor, but to what advantage? I like modestly-sized cameras, but even for me, the *ist D is quite small enough. I wouldn't buy a smaller camera because it just wouldn't be easy to operate. Aside from the non-issue of in-camera sharpening, nearly all the criticisms of the *ist D revolve around size problems - the 4-way button is too small; the card is hard to get out; it interferes with the strap; it's difficult to operate the aperture ring on older lenses because of the pentaprsm overhang; the lcd is small. All these are size issues. Nobody wants a smaller camera. I think APS may be with us in various flavours for a very long time. John On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:03:27 -0500, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Somebody said 15 years. I consider that a long time by today's standards. But seriously folks. The APS sensor is always going to be cheaper. It will be the basis of the cameras that are in high volume price range between $300-700. Once there are lenses out there at the wide end (and the 14 is wide enough for most folks) the FF sensor will have to offer such a massive increase in performance that you'll feel the need to switch. With the lenses out there, however, the makers will feel a need to keep the format alive. Remember, they wanted this format with film but there wasn't any real advantage over 35 mm. And if you never go higher than 8x10, I doubt you'll think the investment is worth it. No art here, just business. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: no fate but what we make
Perhaps they do only need to introduce one, Vic -- but that's not where I was going with my comment. Mine was in response to the implication that Pentax was moving more toward DSLRs and away from digital PS cameras. To me, if a company is concentrating on SLRs and moving away from PS cameras, they'd probably be producing a few different kinds of SLRs, and the number and variety of PS models would be diminishing. But no! Pentax has introduced ONE DSLR. Admittedly, it was introduced recently, and admittedly it has had good press and seems popular with the folks who bought it but still it's only one. In the time since the introduction of the *istD, how many Optio models have they introduced? They seem to announce a couple more every month! ERN It's the Optio sales that are funding the RD into DSLR's Bill
Re: Sydney harbour view guide (was- Lavender Bay)
I just found an interesting page which provides a map and the associated views of our fair city from these points. It looks like a great idea for photogs planning a city visit. Do you know of a similar page in your local? No, but what a great idea. I might be able to incorporate my North of 19th Avenue photo essay into something like this. I have a lot of rural pictures shot over 3 years now and not sure how to present it. Looks challenging to set up though. Thanks for the link Rob Dave http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/exhibits/SydneyHarbour/harbour1.htm
Re: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
C-41 Minilab 1hr capable! At 10:45 PM 3/18/2004 +0300, you wrote: this has probably been discussed to death before, but what's the reason to use chromogenic bw? if you take a color negative film, and print on bw paper, wouldn't it give you the same result? am i missing something very basic here? best, mishka -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Traditional BW film. It should work with Chromogenic BW. But then Bill doesn't like Chromogenic BW.
Re[2]: no fate but what we make
those are design issues, and size is one of the constraints. mx and me-s are of the same size, but their design differs quite a bit, so you are in effect saying: those small buttons on me-s are because the camera is too small (*)! but those small buttons are only one possible solution, as mx shows. it's only a matter of creativity of the design team, given the constraints. and, for one, i would want a small camera. in fact, i would want, ideally, a vanishingly small tiny camera, provided it takes quality pictures. mishka (*) i did like the buttons when i had that camera. -Original Message- From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... All these are size issues. Nobody wants a smaller camera. I think APS may be with us in various flavours for a very long time. John
Re: BW developer quandry
You're right about measuring small quantities but I guess a small laboratory scale would help there. And a mask to protect you from the fine powder that gets in the air. Andre
[1630] trackball problems
Hi All, I'm having a bit of a problem with the trackball on my 1630. Has anybody else had this. It dosn't move very smoothly across the screen and gets stuck just below the needle position selection area. Blown Board, dirty ball??? Any help appreciated Feroze
Re: [1630] trackball problems
I think you need to clean your ball(s) Christian - Original Message - From: Mubeen Noorbhai [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 3:40 PM Subject: [1630] trackball problems Hi All, I'm having a bit of a problem with the trackball on my 1630. Has anybody else had this. It dosn't move very smoothly across the screen and gets stuck just below the needle position selection area. Blown Board, dirty ball??? Any help appreciated Feroze
Re: Using the 500ftz flash with *ist d...
Josh, I just tested with my own *istD and AF500FTZ, and from the camera display, there were marked difference between no compensation and -2. I tried both f/8 and f/16. Focal distance was about 2.5m and the lens I used was a Sigma APO EX 70-200/2.8. There is a chance that your flash or camera is faulty, but there are a few more factors you should check for first. One thing I really dislike with the 500FTZ is that it's sometimes difficult to insert all the way into the X-shoe. If yours is like mine, maybe it's not properly connected? The 500FTZ is a powerful flash, and the flash pulse is quite long lasting. Longer than eg. the AF400T. For this reason, I have had problems with it for closeups. How close was your subject? If your subject is close, then the flash may have difficulties quenching the amount of light emitted. hth, Jostein - Original Message - From: Josh Goodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:57 PM Subject: Using the 500ftz flash with *ist d... Bruce, I was testing this indoors. There was almost no ambient light (it was at night with all of the lights off). I set the shutter speed to 1/125, aperture was f/8. I did it like this b/c I just wanted to test the flash exposure compensation. When I was in Manual mode and I used the internal pop-up flash, the flash compensation worked great (the image was over or under exposed by whatever amount of flash compensation that I set). When I tried the exact same thing with the 500ftz, it would work as it should if I was setting flash over compensation (the image would be brighter than correct exposure) but when I tried under compensation (-1, -3, etc), it would do absolutely nothing. In other words, an image taken with no flash compensation had the exact same exposure (looked exactly the same) as an image taken with -3 dialed in on the camera. Could you provide a little more detail, such as in manual mode, what is your shutter speed and aperture set to. And what do you mean by looks the same? Once you subtract too much the ambient light takes over. How bright is it outside where you are trying this? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, March 18, 2004, 10:35:30 AM, you wrote: JG I'm having a problem getting flash compensation to work properly. I read JG that if I put the camera on M that I could use the exposure compensation JG function to act as flash compensation. This works fine with the pop-up JG flash, but when I try it with the 500ftz, it only works if I am adding JG compensation (+1, +1.5, +2, etc). When I subtract it (-1, -2 -3, etc), the JG shots look exactly the same as they do with no compensation. Any ideas on JG why this is happening? BTW, I'm using firmware 1.11 JG Thanks. JG Josh
Re: Using the 500ftz flash with *ist d...
Hallo that is a know buck if you are using the older TTL flashes (not for the AF360) But there is a work around. Only with ISO 400 the flash exposere is correct. With 200 it is to dark. So use 200 as -1 compensation. 400 is ok and if you want overexpose use +1, +2 Or put in 200 and +1 than is correct, 0 is -1, +2 is +1 and so on. Hope that helps Rüdiger -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Josh Goodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: Donnerstag, 18. März 2004 20:58 Betreff: Using the 500ftz flash with *ist d... Bruce, I was testing this indoors. There was almost no ambient light (it was at night with all of the lights off). I set the shutter speed to 1/125, aperture was f/8. I did it like this b/c I just wanted to test the flash exposure compensation. When I was in Manual mode and I used the internal pop-up flash, the flash compensation worked great (the image was over or under exposed by whatever amount of flash compensation that I set). When I tried the exact same thing with the 500ftz, it would work as it should if I was setting flash over compensation (the image would be brighter than correct exposure) but when I tried under compensation (-1, -3, etc), it would do absolutely nothing. In other words, an image taken with no flash compensation had the exact same exposure (looked exactly the same) as an image taken with -3 dialed in on the camera. Could you provide a little more detail, such as in manual mode, what is your shutter speed and aperture set to. And what do you mean by looks the same? Once you subtract too much the ambient light takes over. How bright is it outside where you are trying this? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, March 18, 2004, 10:35:30 AM, you wrote: JG I'm having a problem getting flash compensation to work properly. I read JG that if I put the camera on M that I could use the exposure compensation JG function to act as flash compensation. This works fine with the pop-up JG flash, but when I try it with the 500ftz, it only works if I am adding JG compensation (+1, +1.5, +2, etc). When I subtract it (-1, -2 -3, etc), the JG shots look exactly the same as they do with no compensation. Any ideas on JG why this is happening? BTW, I'm using firmware 1.11 JG Thanks. JG Josh
Re: OT: Kodak release 14MP Canon body
I wonder if this is Kodak shooting itself in the foot again? Hasn't the EOS 1-Ds consistently outperformed the Kodak dsc-14 in image quality and most other categories? A Sigma body with a Canon mount, will consumers drop $5G for it? I won't be surprised, however, if Canon drops the 1-Ds price a grand or so putting it closer to the Kodak in price. My 2 worth Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: PAW -- The Light at Saybrook Point (Burough of Fenwick)
Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! On my screen I see two odd patches of yellow/purple above the buildings... I have only one feeling about this image. It looks like it was shot from a very well heated room, probably with fireplace, just before I wish, it was shot from a bridge on a causeway over frozen salt, well at least brackish water, and it was cold... commencing to listening to one' favorite music with shot of whisky in hand. It is cold, and winterly, and ... it tilts to the left just a little bit. Just my cents... Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [1630] trackball problems
what kind of trackball? wired, wireless? optical? i have a wireless optical from logitech, and that kind of behavior usually means that my receiving base cannot get the signal. home this helps mishka -Original Message- From: Mubeen Noorbhai [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:40:14 +0200 Subject: [1630] trackball problems Hi All, I'm having a bit of a problem with the trackball on my 1630. Has anybody else had this. It dosn't move very smoothly across the screen and gets stuck just below the needle position selection area. Blown Board, dirty ball??? Any help appreciated Feroze
Re: Re[2]: no fate but what we make
The difference between the M cameras and the *ist D is that there are vastly more buttons, screens, compartments, etc to cram into or onto the *ist D. Then there is the problem of holding a small camera properly. I once owned a Minox (don't ask why!), and I certainly didn't think its size made it a nicer camera to use than the ME Super that I owned at the same time. John On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:46:24 +0300, Mike Ignatiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: those are design issues, and size is one of the constraints. mx and me-s are of the same size, but their design differs quite a bit, so you are in effect saying: those small buttons on me-s are because the camera is too small (*)! but those small buttons are only one possible solution, as mx shows. it's only a matter of creativity of the design team, given the constraints. and, for one, i would want a small camera. in fact, i would want, ideally, a vanishingly small tiny camera, provided it takes quality pictures. mishka (*) i did like the buttons when i had that camera. -Original Message- From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... All these are size issues. Nobody wants a smaller camera. I think APS may be with us in various flavours for a very long time. John -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Paw: Another Lighthouse (was Re: PAW -- The Light at Saybrook Point (Burough of Fenwick))
This, I like, very much! Great shot. Wonderful mood. Bruce Thursday, March 18, 2004, 12:06:31 PM, you wrote: J All this talk about lighthouses and recent interest in panorama shots made J me look into my archives for one particular pano of a lighthouse. I J upsampled it, and printed it out on roll-paper with my Epson 890 to 20x55 J cm. Since the original was a cropped 35mm slide, I didn't expect it to turn J out more than half decent, but it came out very nice. Maybe photoshop CS is J better at upsampling than it's predecessor, I don't know... Here's a J web-version, 800 pixels wide: J http://home.online.no/~jooksne/paw/paw2.html J It's an image I'm very fond of myself, but I know others don't see as much J in it as I do. I may have posted it here earlier, so bear with me if you J have seen it before. J Cheers, J Jostein
RE: OT: Kodak release 14MP Canon body
-Original Message- From: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I wonder if this is Kodak shooting itself in the foot again? Hasn't the EOS 1-Ds consistently outperformed the Kodak dsc-14 in image quality and most other categories? This is a new improved version of the 14...we'll have to wait and see how things shake out. I was planning to get a 1DII in the next few months but I may hold off a bit... tv
Re: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
Stupidly wide exposure latitude. Tiger Moses wrote: C-41 Minilab 1hr capable! At 10:45 PM 3/18/2004 +0300, you wrote: this has probably been discussed to death before, but what's the reason to use chromogenic bw? if you take a color negative film, and print on bw paper, wouldn't it give you the same result? am i missing something very basic here? best, mishka -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Traditional BW film. It should work with Chromogenic BW. But then Bill doesn't like Chromogenic BW.
Re: Paw: Another Lighthouse (was Re: PAW -- The Light at Saybrook Point (Burough of Fenwick))
I like your shot, good subject matter, nice composition, smooth gradations of tone, much better than mine in that respect, either you have a much better scanner or a much better exposure, on top of everything else. Jostein wrote: I think the originally posted PAW is the best lighthouse shot so far. It was a bit dark, but it conveyed a certain mood of bad weather brooding. Even with the half frozen water in the foreground. And that's when a lighthouse really shines, after all. Uh. Pun half-intended, I guess. All this talk about lighthouses and recent interest in panorama shots made me look into my archives for one particular pano of a lighthouse. I upsampled it, and printed it out on roll-paper with my Epson 890 to 20x55 cm. Since the original was a cropped 35mm slide, I didn't expect it to turn out more than half decent, but it came out very nice. Maybe photoshop CS is better at upsampling than it's predecessor, I don't know... Here's a web-version, 800 pixels wide: http://home.online.no/~jooksne/paw/paw2.html It's an image I'm very fond of myself, but I know others don't see as much in it as I do. I may have posted it here earlier, so bear with me if you have seen it before. Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 4:35 PM Subject: Re: PAW -- The Light at Saybrook Point (Burough of Fenwick) Just for you Frank, a few more lighthouse photos... The first is from St. Simions island of the coast of Georgia USA http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery4/Wall3.html The second is a small Light of a style that's ubiquitous in the US from the Florida Keys http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery6/Wall1.html The last it the Saybrook light from the closest accessible land approach, http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery9/Wall2.html
Re: no fate but what we make
announcing more doesn't mean they are selling more. the market shelf life of a PS digicam is a lot shorter than a DSLR. that's one incentive for abandoning the digital PS market. in a commodity market, the one with the highest production volume wins because their cost per unit is lower. 2 and 3 megapixel digital cameras are a commodity and 4 is almost becoming one. Herb - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:18 PM Subject: Re: no fate but what we make In the time since the introduction of the *istD, how many Optio models have they introduced? They seem to announce a couple more every month!
RE: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
The opposite seems true too. When you print chromogenic negs on colour paper the contrast is completely different to BW papers. I tried using chromogenics because I could get it developed and proofed (6x4s) in any minilab in an afternoon, but the contrast problem made the proof useless and I ended up doing a contact sheet anyway. From there I decided I might as well develop it myself and stick with fp4/hp5 that I prefer. Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Variable contrast black and white papers often don't react well to colour negative film. Gaak. It doesn't matter if the paper is VC or not. William Robb
Slide Dup for *ist D
Hey all, Just received my Slide Holder 1x . K from eBay . . . the seller has more (or at least I saw another listed by him) . . . very nice purchase . . . brand new in the box, it even had the plastic bag around it still! Anyhow, as I am looking through this I'm imagining there is a good chance that this item could be used on the *ist D as a slide copier . . . Basically here's the setup: Camera + 12 mm extension + Reverse Adapter K 52mm + Slide Holder 1x K This gives you a mag of 1.00 on a 35 mm system. Unfortunately we need a lower magnification, and my mind isn't working too well right now . . . I figure we either need a lower mag lens or higher mag lens, but can't get my brain around the reversed lens . . . do we want a 35 mm or an 85 mm lens reversed? I don't have either in the 52 mm filter range . . . So for all you math/lens majors, what lens do we need? IL Bill
Re: Slide Dup for *ist D
- Original Message - From: William M Kane Subject: Slide Dup for *ist D Hey all, Just received my Slide Holder 1x . K from eBay . . . the seller has more (or at least I saw another listed by him) . . . very nice purchase . . . brand new in the box, it even had the plastic bag around it still! Anyhow, as I am looking through this I'm imagining there is a good chance that this item could be used on the *ist D as a slide copier . . . Basically here's the setup: Camera + 12 mm extension + Reverse Adapter K 52mm + Slide Holder 1x K This gives you a mag of 1.00 on a 35 mm system. Unfortunately we need a lower magnification, and my mind isn't working too well right now . . . I figure we either need a lower mag lens or higher mag lens, but can't get my brain around the reversed lens . . . do we want a 35 mm or an 85 mm lens reversed? I don't have either in the 52 mm filter range . . . So for all you math/lens majors, what lens do we need? I am pretty sure you are going to need a combination of a longer focal length lens, and more lens extension from both the camera and the slide. I still haven't managed a good slide duping system for the ist D, so if you could report on your experimrnts that would be grand. You could probably use a step down ring on the reverse adaptor and take the lens down to 49mm. If there is a bit of vignetting, it isn't going to matter much, as the format will still be inside the projected circle. William Robb William Robb
April PUG procedure
so how do we submit if the gallery site is down? i don't have a link to the submission form saved. Herb...
RE: HC110
XTOL isn't really the best push developer... Microphen or DD-X work better. If I remember well I was using XTOL with a 1:2 or 1:3 dilution. I guess I was looking for trouble... Microphen is the next one I was to try. A friend of mine prepares Microphen concentrates at home. I'll try it for the 3200 films exposed at 800-1000 and get some DD-X for the pushed ones. Thanks for the tip, Tom. What do you mean by mitigated? No punch, not dense enough, especially in the center (the top and bottom of film was a bit denser). Andre
RE: Slide Dup for *ist D
get a bellows then you have adjustable magnification. jco J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 7:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slide Dup for *ist D - Original Message - From: William M Kane Subject: Slide Dup for *ist D Hey all, Just received my Slide Holder 1x . K from eBay . . . the seller has more (or at least I saw another listed by him) . . . very nice purchase . . . brand new in the box, it even had the plastic bag around it still! Anyhow, as I am looking through this I'm imagining there is a good chance that this item could be used on the *ist D as a slide copier . . . Basically here's the setup: Camera + 12 mm extension + Reverse Adapter K 52mm + Slide Holder 1x K This gives you a mag of 1.00 on a 35 mm system. Unfortunately we need a lower magnification, and my mind isn't working too well right now . . . I figure we either need a lower mag lens or higher mag lens, but can't get my brain around the reversed lens . . . do we want a 35 mm or an 85 mm lens reversed? I don't have either in the 52 mm filter range . . . So for all you math/lens majors, what lens do we need? I am pretty sure you are going to need a combination of a longer focal length lens, and more lens extension from both the camera and the slide. I still haven't managed a good slide duping system for the ist D, so if you could report on your experimrnts that would be grand. You could probably use a step down ring on the reverse adaptor and take the lens down to 49mm. If there is a bit of vignetting, it isn't going to matter much, as the format will still be inside the projected circle. William Robb William Robb
Re: Slide Dup for *ist D
Extension needed is very little. Any more than 12 mm and it racks out of focus . . . On Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 06:51 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: get a bellows then you have adjustable magnification. jco --- - J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com --- - -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 7:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slide Dup for *ist D - Original Message - From: William M Kane Subject: Slide Dup for *ist D Hey all, Just received my Slide Holder 1x . K from eBay . . . the seller has more (or at least I saw another listed by him) . . . very nice purchase . . . brand new in the box, it even had the plastic bag around it still! Anyhow, as I am looking through this I'm imagining there is a good chance that this item could be used on the *ist D as a slide copier . . . Basically here's the setup: Camera + 12 mm extension + Reverse Adapter K 52mm + Slide Holder 1x K This gives you a mag of 1.00 on a 35 mm system. Unfortunately we need a lower magnification, and my mind isn't working too well right now . . . I figure we either need a lower mag lens or higher mag lens, but can't get my brain around the reversed lens . . . do we want a 35 mm or an 85 mm lens reversed? I don't have either in the 52 mm filter range . . . So for all you math/lens majors, what lens do we need? I am pretty sure you are going to need a combination of a longer focal length lens, and more lens extension from both the camera and the slide. I still haven't managed a good slide duping system for the ist D, so if you could report on your experimrnts that would be grand. You could probably use a step down ring on the reverse adaptor and take the lens down to 49mm. If there is a bit of vignetting, it isn't going to matter much, as the format will still be inside the projected circle. William Robb William Robb
PAW #6: Tough Boy
Shooting from the hip. Uncropped I couldn't get the scan to come anywhere close to the print, for some reason. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2215439 As always, comments are encouraged and appreciated. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: OT: BW or Colour - Maybe a WOW?
Hi, Boris, I agree with you. Not about the cropping. Just about the pic not being worth worrying about - not for now at least. I've moved on. May come back to it later, but for now it's in the dead pic file. vbg As far as worser, you likely know that's how many young children say worse. They've internalized a general rule (adding er to an advective to make it superlative), and haven't learned not to apply it to the exceptions. So, they say worser. I was just being silly and juvenile. But you probably knew that. g And, I'm guessing that kids do the same thing in Russian, Hebrew, and every other language. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: BW or Colour - Maybe a WOW? Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:13:48 +0200 Hi! Frank, I am late and I know it. Still, neither really works for me. I am thinking about cropping the left roughly half from the b-w image. But I realize your vision is different than mine... Also evidently, my monitor would be re-calibrated real soon as it needs it. ft You like better? Worser? Both equally mediocre? g On a side note. Never thought that anything can be worser lol... Although, in EMC Boston where I visited once as I worked for EMC Israel, they used to say anyways which isn't an official word either. My speller does not like, for instance. Nor does it like worser... Just my cents. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]) _ Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Enabled at last
Geez. Where's tvv when you need him! Tom - Tom? You out there? vbg -frank, joining this groan-a-thon The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Enabled at last Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:18:03 +0100 - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] And as a symbol, nothing to shake a stick at although if you can snare some comfortable stools, not bad per cushion. Wearing your hi hat tonight, are you... grin Jostein _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
At 10:45 PM 3/18/2004 +0300, you wrote: this has probably been discussed to death before, but what's the reason to use chromogenic bw? if you take a color negative film, and print on bw paper, wouldn't it give you the same result? am i missing something very basic here? best, mishka The masking on color negative film interferes with proper tonal renditions. Kodak makes a BW paper (Panalure) designed especially to print color negatives. Some conventional papers seem to do a better job with color negs then others. Ilford multi grade IV does well IIRC. Chromegenics have their place. They area good film for portraits as they are somewhat softer then conventional BW films. Most times you do not want maximum sharpness in a portrait. MY 2 Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: OT: BW or Colour - Maybe a WOW?
Hi Frank ... Color, BW ... doesn't really change anything. It's no betterer or worserer. You do have photos that are more better though. shel frank theriault wrote: Hi, Some of you may recall that I posted this to mixed reviews (being charitable g) several weeks or a month ago: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2111661 Any thoughts on seeing it in bw? http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2129161 You like better? Worser? Both equally mediocre? g I'm still not sure about this image, but there's something about it that I feel I can say if it's reworked the right way. Maybe with a WOW?
Re: April PUG procedure
At 04:36 PM 3/18/2004, Herb Chong wrote: so how do we submit if the gallery site is down? i don't have a link to the submission form saved. Try this: http://oksne.net/autopug/pugform.asp Pat in SF
RE: Enabled at last
What do you call the guy who always hangs out with musicians? The drummer. David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com
Re: PAW #6: Tough Boy
Great expression on the boy's face, and I like the angle. The way the table emerges from the bottom of the frame really works for me. I don't like the way the other guy's right hand is hidden. I'm not sure what exactly is going on here, but the concealed hand is a bit disconcerting. That large expanse of white on the left is a bit distracting, and it would be nice if the boy's jacket didn't disappear into the background. That being said, you did an excellent job with the available light, and that weird metal thing on the wall is pretty cool, too. I just wish I could figure out what the context was. :) chris On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, frank theriault wrote: Shooting from the hip. Uncropped I couldn't get the scan to come anywhere close to the print, for some reason. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2215439 As always, comments are encouraged and appreciated. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
