Re: OT: Monitor color adjust
On Apr 18, 2006, at 4:32 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Since then, the Monaco Optix system has come up to be on par with the G-M system, and the Colorvision Spyder has been improved as well. The G-M unit has updated software too. I recently thought about buying a new system to replace my original ColorVision Spyder Pro kit. About the only page I could find that had a useful comparison was this: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm The Monaco and G-M systems seem to be pretty close. The comments about the highlights discouraged me from looking at the Spyder2. Of the three, I'd most likely go for the Monaco Optix system now, but they're probably all pretty close at the same price levels now. I continue to use the G-M Eye One Display unit, with its latest software, and get excellent results. I was going to look into the GM Eye One Display 2, but I'm reluctant to throw the money around right now. - Dave
OSX on a PC
Interesting post from the ProRental list. Powell + Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:16:31 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ProRental] Windows on a Mac and vice versa... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 I assume all of you are aware that you can go the other direction as well. OS-X (Intel version) will load and run (with a surprisingly small amount of work) on newer non-Mac Intel PC's with no glitches. While Apple has been good about making the ability to load Windows on the Intel Macs available (the information was already widely dispersed on the internet), their lawyers have been equally busy trying to stem the proliferation of the information that the reverse is available. You'll find some of the sites that had this information now have link removed at the request of Apple's Legal Department. Best possible case, however, is that this is simply a delaying tactic. There's really not much of a problem finding the files you need. But OS-X (intel) has been running on, for example, common Dell laptops since at least August of last year, when some folks got the Developer's Kit version up and running. No problems, no glitches. So for those early adopters and those tired of waiting for Apple Intel laptops, or those who want lower prices or greater variety, etc., and who have a bit of computer savvy, the opportunity is there to have three systems (Linux, Windows and OS-X) running on your system, with the choice available at boot time. david
Re: Metalica?
On Apr 18, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Bob W wrote: If Condo Rice doesn't shoot her first. Just send her on a hunting trip with Cheney. - Dave
Re: OT: My latest invention.
On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:54 AM, Bob W wrote: Absolutely! The early bird may catch the worm, but it's the bird who's too lazy to get out of bed who automates worm-catching. So the early worm gets f-d. Who's the bird and who's the worm? - Dave
Re: PESO - 'Infamous' GFM Curve redux
On Apr 18, 2006, at 8:08 AM, frank theriault wrote: Now that I have a road bike (ie: with gears and brakes and such), I may just throw it into the back of Dave's truck. I think those switchbacks would be fun on the way down (although I'll probably get kicked off the mountain for riding my bike on that road). Call me masochistic but I'd rather ride up it. - Dave
Re: OT: Amusing blog
On Apr 18, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Bob W wrote: I stumbled upon this blog while googling*. [...] *3 or 4 years ago that sentence would have been gibberish. I wish it still was. - Daveblogjax2.0gle
Re: Pentax info in Japanese
Op Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:25:10 +0200 schreef Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So, can anyone understand the content of this page? http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/other/2006/04/17/3647.html Dario, Try http://www.appliedlanguage.com/free_translation.shtml. Seems like a decent translation: No mention of potatoes :o) -- Regards, Lucas
Re: long lens for birds?
Russell, Not that I have any expertise whatsoever on the subject of wildlife photography, but I'd say also that primes are definitely the way to go. And you will always want more reach than you have. Seems like in order to get really close for those frame filling shots that shooting from a blind produces the best results. Especially with the more skittish species. At least with the Pentax equipment that doesn't have image stabilization built in. I have been very satisfied with a relatively new enablement in the Tokina AT-X 400mm f5.6. This is the same lens that Bruce and a few others here also have. It is light and small for a 400mm prime; very hand-holdable on bright days. I haven't taken a lot of time yet to see how it works with a 1.4X teleconverter for extra reach. Here is a recent shot grabbed in my front yard: http://i.pbase.com/o4/87/63987/1/58830040.YardBird.jpg Too bad they discontinued this lens. I too would be tempted to get another if it came up available. I don't think however that the lens mentioned by William as going for $40.00 on eBay is the same. There is another version (manual) by Tokina; the SL I beleive, but it is not the same or even close in quality to the AT-X SD version. Good luck with your search, JayT
RE: Metalica?
That's very a propos - I made a prawn curry in a wok just this weekend. Very nice it was, too. And I had a haircut. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 April 2006 01:14 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Metalica? Bob W wrote: And, finally, know this: I have fewer secrets than Hillary Clinton. has anybody else ever noticed that Hillary Clinton is an anagram of Collin Hitlar? Bob Walkden is an anagram of Bald Ben Wok. I believe this speaks for itself.
RE: OT: A book
I would go for a real book over a virtual book or a boxed set any time. Books are so much more convenient (assuming they are the right size - there's a horrible tendency to make photo books too big). -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Bob Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 April 2006 03:50 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: A book Juan, I wonder about books in this digital age. Two suggestions: 1) Sell a virtual book of images...low production costs. 2) Don't do a book, try a BOX of display images. There is a local scrapbook store that sells boxes. Sell a boxed portfolio of your photos. Regards, Bob S.
Re: long lens for birds?
On 17/4/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: It's easy to shoot birds with a 200-- if they're dead. Mark! would that be a parrot Paul? ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Sigma AF 24 /2.8
Op Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:55:55 +0200 schreef Henk Terhell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I will get this lens secondhand shortly. Wouln't this be a good compact standard lens for the *istD? Hi Henk, I use it on film, and like it a lot. But, for what it's worth: the previous owner had an *ist-D and sold it ;-) It's quite compact: About the size of a 50mm, but it seems a little 'fatter'. You might want to look for a good hood: I find the lens quite susceptible to flare, and the matching 'perfect hood' won't do you much good on digital. Hope this helps, -- Regards, Lucas
Re: long lens for birds?
I have a Chinon 300/5.6 which looks a lot like this Tokina 400/5.6. Maybe the same factory? Would a 300/5.6 on a APs snesor be OK ? Isn't 5.6 a bit slow ? -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Re: OT: My latest invention.
From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/18 Tue AM 06:06:34 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: My latest invention. On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:54 AM, Bob W wrote: Absolutely! The early bird may catch the worm, but it's the bird who's too lazy to get out of bed who automates worm-catching. So the early worm gets f-d. Messy business. Allegedly. Who's the bird and who's the worm? - Dave - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: OSX on a PC
To be precise, OSX for x86 will run on any CPU which as SSE2 capability which means Pentium4, Pentium-M/Centrino,Athlon64/Sempron and newer. Of course many components won't have drivers so you won't be able to use a numbers of things, sadly. But it could be nice to try and see the feeling or whatever reason you might have. On 4/18/06, Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting post from the ProRental list. Powell + Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:16:31 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ProRental] Windows on a Mac and vice versa... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 I assume all of you are aware that you can go the other direction as well. OS-X (Intel version) will load and run (with a surprisingly small amount of work) on newer non-Mac Intel PC's with no glitches. While Apple has been good about making the ability to load Windows on the Intel Macs available (the information was already widely dispersed on the internet), their lawyers have been equally busy trying to stem the proliferation of the information that the reverse is available. You'll find some of the sites that had this information now have link removed at the request of Apple's Legal Department. Best possible case, however, is that this is simply a delaying tactic. There's really not much of a problem finding the files you need. But OS-X (intel) has been running on, for example, common Dell laptops since at least August of last year, when some folks got the Developer's Kit version up and running. No problems, no glitches. So for those early adopters and those tired of waiting for Apple Intel laptops, or those who want lower prices or greater variety, etc., and who have a bit of computer savvy, the opportunity is there to have three systems (Linux, Windows and OS-X) running on your system, with the choice available at boot time. david -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Opinions about ZX-7 MZ-7
As well as Z20 and Z50. On 4/15/06, Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: E.R.N. Reed a écrit : Unca Mikey wrote: (among other things) As near as I can tell from pictures and the manual, the ZX-7 is the only Pentax SLR that allows Av mode using either the aperture ring on the lens or a selector on the body. No. The PZ-1 also does. Which suggests that the PZ-1p would too. There may be still more. :) I had the lowest-end PZ-70 as a second body quite a while ago, and it did, too. No doubt other bodies in the Z/PZ series did. Patrice -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: PESO - huntsman
Frank got it in one (-: Thanks for the comments, funnily enough I didn't consider it a scary experience though I was damn close (-: Huntsmans are generally pretty friendly and their bite isn't supposed to be that bad. Cheers, David David Savage wrote: Eeeek. :-) Ugly bugger. Nice one Dave. Dave S On 4/17/06, David Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taken just a few minutes ago of a recent guest of mine. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/huntsman.jpg FA50/2.8 macro and with extension, f/22, ISO 800. Any guesses as to what sort of flash I used? q-: Comments appreciated. Cheers, David
PESO - qd beach pano
I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg Shot with the A24/2.8, stitched with Autostitch. I was surprised that the moving waves didn't prove to be a problem. I quite like the colour version too, I'll show that if the BW doesn't work for people. Comments? Cheers, David
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
David Nelson wrote: I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg Shot with the A24/2.8, stitched with Autostitch. I was surprised that the moving waves didn't prove to be a problem. I quite like the colour version too, I'll show that if the BW doesn't work for people. Comments? Cheers, David Good picture. Its a pity about the monstrosity on the right. Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
Really nice Dave. Dave S On 4/18/06, David Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg Shot with the A24/2.8, stitched with Autostitch. I was surprised that the moving waves didn't prove to be a problem. I quite like the colour version too, I'll show that if the BW doesn't work for people. Comments? Cheers, David
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
I like it. Maybe crop the cube on the right? Toine On 4/18/06, David Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg Shot with the A24/2.8, stitched with Autostitch. I was surprised that the moving waves didn't prove to be a problem. I quite like the colour version too, I'll show that if the BW doesn't work for people. Comments? Cheers, David
Re: OT: Monitor color adjust
On 18 Apr 2006 at 18:03, David Mann wrote: About the only page I could find that had a useful comparison was this: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm The Monaco and G-M systems seem to be pretty close. The comments about the highlights discouraged me from looking at the Spyder2. It seems like an unnecessary beat-up to me. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: OT: A book
I'll second that. Books are so much nicer to read when they're in the hand than when they're on the screen. Boxed sets of photos, while nice, tend, over time, to have some photos disappear. Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W I would go for a real book over a virtual book or a boxed set any time. Books are so much more convenient (assuming they are the right size - there's a horrible tendency to make photo books too big).
Re: OT: Amusing blog
Bob W wrote: I stumbled upon this blog while googling*. Normally they're not worth reading, but this one made me laugh a lot, so I thought I'd share. http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/2004/05/pyongyang-breaking-news.html The humour is rather British. It includes stuff like this: 'Every adult must at some point have paused during some slapstick piece of debauchery and thought, Christ, this is ridiculous. Having testicles is like being chained to the village idiot.' -- Cheers, Bob *3 or 4 years ago that sentence would have been gibberish. That is the funniest thing I've read in ages. Thanks for the notice, Bob. Here in South America Andrew Lloyd Weber is known for his 'sheet music'. bwahahaaa D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Re: IR architecture
Sorry Ken, I shouldn't have been so flip. Of course there is the magic hour in Sydney. Man, there was a beautiful sunset this afternoon. Kenneth Waller wrote: I think it was Ken who said my pics had too harsh a light. I agree. But I live in Sydney so it is a challenge to get soft northern light. While I've never been anywhere near Sydney (I'd love to), I have no idea how soft northern light compares to Sydney light, but I do know that no matter where you are the light is softer around sunrise sunset than other times in the day. This was the light I was implying. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GESO: IR architecture I think it was Ken who said my pics had too harsh a light. I agree. But I live in Sydney so it is a challenge to get soft northern light. So, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade :) IR has the virtue of being very forgiving about the harshness of light. http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/index7/06_04_HeartIR/index.htm D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Re: OT: Amusing blog
Fun site. Thanks for posting. Shel Bob W wrote: I stumbled upon this blog while googling*. Normally they're not worth reading, but this one made me laugh a lot, so I thought I'd share. http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/2004/05/pyongyang-breaking-news.html The humour is rather British. It includes stuff like this: 'Every adult must at some point have paused during some slapstick piece of debauchery and thought, Christ, this is ridiculous. Having testicles is like being chained to the village idiot.' Cheers, Bob *3 or 4 years ago that sentence would have been gibberish.
Buying CF Cards on eBay from acptan/chitekcorp
Hi all, There is a company that trades under various names (acptan, chitekcorp and so on) and sells SD, CF cards and other stuff. Their listings usually have a large amount of unnecessary text that occupies a couple of pages. But it would be easier for me to use my recent experience to explain how they operate. I bought a Kingston 2 Giga CF 50X card yesterday. The postage (ten times actual was shown as £19.95) but with the postage added the total came to about what one would expect to pay for such a card. However, when I got the invoice I found another £19.95 added for 'Postal Insurance'. Although I looked carefully I didn't see this stipulation which must be somewhere down at the bottom of the load of crap they have on the listing. I am aware of this kind of trick, but was still caught. This is not honest. To deliberately hide extra costs from a buyer is just plain crooked and I've had trouble from them before. But it was another name and I didn't make the connection. In this case they had demanded payment after I'd already paid and refused to deliver. I sorted that out and eventually got the item (a CF Card of course). Don't buy from them unless you check and double check every line of the listing. And remember, they are out to cheat you and they cover their asses very well so I don't think eBay would be interested in a complaint. And they change their tactics in order to confuse buyers. I'll get cards from Hong Kong in future. Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
On Apr 18, 2006, at 9:09 PM, David Nelson wrote: I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg I like the photo, but I'd like it better if the building wasn't leaning. I'd be interested to see the colour version. - Dave
RE: Buying CF Cards on eBay from acptan/chitekcorp
There are so many reputable places from which to buy cards. eBay is no longer the least expensive (as it may have been some time ago), and the amount of fraud and bad sellers has multiplied over the past couple of years as well. I think many of us have found stores, either on line or brick and mortar, that provide what we want fairly and honestly. I've been happy with Newegg.com for my cards - they are cheap, fast, and convenient to do business with, and they describe the cards (at least those that interest me) accurately. Stick with your Hong Kong supplier Don - really, why go anywhere else? To save a few pennies? Shel [Original Message] From: Don Williams There is a company that trades under various names (acptan, chitekcorp and so on) and sells SD, CF cards and other stuff. Their listings usually have a large amount of unnecessary text that occupies a couple of pages. But it would be easier for me to use my recent experience to explain how they operate. I bought a Kingston 2 Giga CF 50X card yesterday. The postage (ten times actual was shown as £19.95) but with the postage added the total came to about what one would expect to pay for such a card. However, when I got the invoice I found another £19.95 added for 'Postal Insurance'. Although I looked carefully I didn't see this stipulation which must be somewhere down at the bottom of the load of crap they have on the listing. I am aware of this kind of trick, but was still caught. This is not honest. To deliberately hide extra costs from a buyer is just plain crooked and I've had trouble from them before. But it was another name and I didn't make the connection. In this case they had demanded payment after I'd already paid and refused to deliver. I sorted that out and eventually got the item (a CF Card of course). Don't buy from them unless you check and double check every line of the listing. And remember, they are out to cheat you and they cover their asses very well so I don't think eBay would be interested in a complaint. And they change their tactics in order to confuse buyers. I'll get cards from Hong Kong in future.
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
On 18/4/06, David Nelson, discombobulated, unleashed: I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg How odd. I think that the ugly apartment block actually makes the shot. Balances well. Good work. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Re: PESO - huntsman
From: David Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/18 Tue AM 08:51:22 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO - huntsman Frank got it in one (-: Ringflash not on the lens, though? The doughnuts would have been more central, rather then off to one side. Thanks for the comments, funnily enough I didn't consider it a scary experience though I was damn close (-: Huntsmans are generally pretty friendly and their bite isn't supposed to be that bad. Cheers, David David Savage wrote: Eeeek. :-) Ugly bugger. Nice one Dave. Dave S On 4/17/06, David Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taken just a few minutes ago of a recent guest of mine. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/huntsman.jpg FA50/2.8 macro and with extension, f/22, ISO 800. Any guesses as to what sort of flash I used? q-: Comments appreciated. Cheers, David - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: long lens for birds?
Cotty wrote: On 17/4/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: It's easy to shoot birds with a 200-- if they're dead. Mark! would that be a parrot Paul? ;-) Thanks Cotty! (Beautiful plumage, eh?)
Re: PESO - huntsman
Well-spotted - I don't like the flat effect that a lens-mounted ring flash gives, so I just handheld it. Cheers, David mike wilson wrote: Ringflash not on the lens, though? The doughnuts would have been more central, rather then off to one side.
RE: long lens for birds?
A pretty good shot Jay Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: Jay Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18. april 2006 08:54 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: long lens for birds? Russell, Not that I have any expertise whatsoever on the subject of wildlife photography, but I'd say also that primes are definitely the way to go. And you will always want more reach than you have. Seems like in order to get really close for those frame filling shots that shooting from a blind produces the best results. Especially with the more skittish species. At least with the Pentax equipment that doesn't have image stabilization built in. I have been very satisfied with a relatively new enablement in the Tokina AT-X 400mm f5.6. This is the same lens that Bruce and a few others here also have. It is light and small for a 400mm prime; very hand-holdable on bright days. I haven't taken a lot of time yet to see how it works with a 1.4X teleconverter for extra reach. Here is a recent shot grabbed in my front yard: http://i.pbase.com/o4/87/63987/1/58830040.YardBird.jpg Too bad they discontinued this lens. I too would be tempted to get another if it came up available. I don't think however that the lens mentioned by William as going for $40.00 on eBay is the same. There is another version (manual) by Tokina; the SL I beleive, but it is not the same or even close in quality to the AT-X SD version. Good luck with your search, JayT
Could this be due to different sensors
Small experiment done the other day. Shot some IR with the istD, 16-45 F4 and the R72. At iso 1600 in M mode, i was shooting around 1/30 F4 and getting a decently exposed shot. Histo more or less in the centre. Yesterday, using the D200, 35-70 F2.8, M mode and R72 filter. To get similar results at iso 1600, i had to shoot at 2 sec at F4. Could this be due to the sensitivity differnce of the two sensors. Just curious Dave Equine Photography in York Region
Re: long lens for birds?
On 4/18/06, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is a decent lens (or a decent length) for shooting birds? snip G'day Russell FA 100mm f2.8 Macro isn't too shabby: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/pages/IMGP2152_2.html Of course you need friendly birds :-) The FA 80-320 f4.5-5.6 isn't bad for a cheap lens: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/index.html#6 All but the last 2 in the gallery were shot with the FA 80-320 Dave (not really helping much) S.
Re: long lens for birds?
When did you change your name John? Dave S ===On 4/18/06, Jan Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:=== Paul, the Tokina focuses down to about 13 feet. That isn't close enough on film for any but the largest birds, but on the APS sensor in the *ist-D it is OK, as evidenced by my last parrot shot. Also, the glass is good enough to withstand reasonable enlargement too. HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Tokina 400/5.6 variations (Re: long lens for birds?)
I've seen 3 varieties of this lens. The oldest of them is the RMC. Then came the SD Finally came AF and improved optics in the AT-X SD. Here's some general observations: The old RMC may be limited to the K/M mount. The SD can have A, or not, but also has a Ricoh pin. Fortunately Tokina had the foresight to make it a bump so that it won't interfere with Pentax' AF coupling. The AT-X SD is where auto-focus comes in. I've seen no manual focus AT-X SD in the 400/5.6. (Someone correct me if that observation is in error.) The SD and AT-X SD are Very Good optically. The RMC is much cheaper and OK optically. Not bad, like old Soligor. But imo it's worth the extra few bucks to get the SD. Collin KC8TKA
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
Cotty wrote: On 18/4/06, David Nelson, discombobulated, unleashed: I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg How odd. I think that the ugly apartment block actually makes the shot. Balances well. Good work. Oh crap! I agree with Cotty This isn't a good start to the day... (I think the building anchors the shot on the right, for the record, nice one David) -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
Hi! I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg How odd. I think that the ugly apartment block actually makes the shot. Balances well. Good work. I concur... Without the box ;-) the eye would gently float out of the frame never getting back ;-)... With the box, the eye stays in, return to wonder around the waves and generally fill pleasant. Boris
Re: long lens for birds?
What's the story on this friendly bird..taxidermy? Jack --- David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/18/06, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is a decent lens (or a decent length) for shooting birds? snip G'day Russell FA 100mm f2.8 Macro isn't too shabby: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/pages/IMGP2152_2.html Of course you need friendly birds :-) The FA 80-320 f4.5-5.6 isn't bad for a cheap lens: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/index.html#6 All but the last 2 in the gallery were shot with the FA 80-320 Dave (not really helping much) S. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: long lens for birds?
Hi Russell, Birds are difficult because they're so small and fidgety. They don't ever seem to sit still. You need to use some type of blind to get close even with really long lenses. I don't like TCs for birds because I lose too much shutter speed. I throw away enough blurred shots as it is. Your best bet is to set up a feeder near a tree just outside a window in your house. I've never been a fan of feeder pictures. Birds will often land in the tree before they hop down onto the feeder. If you're quick you'll be able to get a few shots of them sitting on the branch. Of the lenses you mentioned, the 80-320 is your best bet IMO. Focal length counts for everything in bird photography. I haven't used mine for birds but I have used it for bigger wildlife at a distance and had good results. Tom Reese -- Original message -- From: Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] What is a decent lens (or a decent length) for shooting birds? I read a book about this topic, and author prefers to shoot at 200, but I have noticed that many of the shots posted here are much longer than that, and often with a TC. This also brings to mind Tim from Norway and having problems even with a 500. So is 200 (or 135 for angle of view) unrealistic until I have mastered stalking? What I have right now is the 18-55 kit, A24/2.8 and a Super-Tak 50/1.4. So the only way I can get close enough for a decent picture is if I also bring my Ruger, and I don't think that would be a good idea. And further more... if 200 (135) is an appropriate length, the lens' that I have been considering are: DA50-200/4-5.6 FA80-320/4.5-5.6 A70-210/4 any comments on these lens' would be great, or should I instead be looking at primes? (I do have a very limited budget.) I believe that they can each be had for around $200 US or less, and of course I would go for an older MF over a newer AF if it is better. My point is that I would like to know what I need to start looking/saving for. Thanks. Russell
PESO: another bird (A 400/5.6 plus A2X-S)
They're playing the Cubs this weekend. (The St. Louis Cardinals, that is.) Collin KC8TKA
Re: long lens for birds?
Nah! It's wild native bird that just isn't afraid of anything :-) I've seen them fight off crows, magpies and kookaburras. What it was doing was following behind my old man, as he was walking on the lawn, eating all the flying insects that Dad stirred up. When Dad stopped and sat down this little guy would chirp angrily at him. When that didn't work, it jumped all over Dad until he got up and continued stirring. This carried on for about an hour or so. At one stage I had it perched on my left hand while I photographed with the right. It still visits the yard daily. Dave S On 4/18/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the story on this friendly bird..taxidermy? Jack --- David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/18/06, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is a decent lens (or a decent length) for shooting birds? snip G'day Russell FA 100mm f2.8 Macro isn't too shabby: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/pages/IMGP2152_2.html Of course you need friendly birds :-) The FA 80-320 f4.5-5.6 isn't bad for a cheap lens: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/index.html#6 All but the last 2 in the gallery were shot with the FA 80-320 Dave (not really helping much) S. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT: Amusing blog
On 4/18/06, Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is the funniest thing I've read in ages. Thanks for the notice, Bob. Here in South America Andrew Lloyd Weber is known for his 'sheet music'. bwahahaaa Sorting through some stuff at the weekend, I came across a postcard book of Graham Rawle's Missing Consonants. One of the postcards was Andrew Lloyd Webber writing another hit musical :-) -- Wendy Beard Ottawa Canada
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
Looked again (including cropping with a piece of paper) and indeed the block makes the perfect shot. Very strange, I get a little dizzy when my eyes keep floating from block to waves to block to... :-) On 4/18/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18/4/06, David Nelson, discombobulated, unleashed: I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg How odd. I think that the ugly apartment block actually makes the shot. Balances well. Good work. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
I'd like to see the color version. I'm one of those people the BW doesn't work for. Rick --- David Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg Shot with the A24/2.8, stitched with Autostitch. I was surprised that the moving waves didn't prove to be a problem. I quite like the colour version too, I'll show that if the BW doesn't work for people. Comments? Cheers, David http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT: A book
Boxed folio sets and books are two entirely separate things. Both are great when done well, but one does not replace the other. Photo books sell about 4x as many copies as boxed folio sets, from my research. I tend to prefer books as folio sets do tend to get scattered over time. However, folio sets made in small individual printings tend to have better print quality, though. And, BTW, if you're going to sell a boxed folio set, you might as well get a real box made from archival materials than the junk you buy at the local stationary store. Or make one yourself, custom. That adds art value. Godfrey On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:34 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I'll second that. Books are so much nicer to read when they're in the hand than when they're on the screen. Boxed sets of photos, while nice, tend, over time, to have some photos disappear. Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W I would go for a real book over a virtual book or a boxed set any time. Books are so much more convenient (assuming they are the right size - there's a horrible tendency to make photo books too big).
Re: Could this be due to different sensors
It's more likely to be due to difference in the the IR-block filter in the two cameras. Sounds like the D200 has a more tightly controlled IR block. Godfrey On Apr 18, 2006, at 5:09 AM, David J Brooks wrote: Small experiment done the other day. Shot some IR with the istD, 16-45 F4 and the R72. At iso 1600 in M mode, i was shooting around 1/30 F4 and getting a decently exposed shot. Histo more or less in the centre. Yesterday, using the D200, 35-70 F2.8, M mode and R72 filter. To get similar results at iso 1600, i had to shoot at 2 sec at F4. Could this be due to the sensitivity differnce of the two sensors. Just curious Dave Equine Photography in York Region
Re: Could this be due to different sensors
Nikon's been implementing very tight IR filters on all their pro/semi-pro bodies. Only the D70s and D50 are suited for IR work of the current Nikon digital bodies. -Adam Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: It's more likely to be due to difference in the the IR-block filter in the two cameras. Sounds like the D200 has a more tightly controlled IR block. Godfrey On Apr 18, 2006, at 5:09 AM, David J Brooks wrote: Small experiment done the other day. Shot some IR with the istD, 16-45 F4 and the R72. At iso 1600 in M mode, i was shooting around 1/30 F4 and getting a decently exposed shot. Histo more or less in the centre. Yesterday, using the D200, 35-70 F2.8, M mode and R72 filter. To get similar results at iso 1600, i had to shoot at 2 sec at F4. Could this be due to the sensitivity differnce of the two sensors. Just curious Dave Equine Photography in York Region
Re: OT: Amusing blog
On 4/18/06, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I stumbled upon this blog while googling*. *3 or 4 years ago that sentence would have been gibberish. Or some obscure cricket term. Which amounts to the same thing ;-) Dave S
Re: Buying CF Cards on eBay from acptan/chitekcorp
The only problem I have with NewEgg.com is that they've instituted shipper policies that make them very inconvenient for me to do business with. They will not allow UPS shipments to be picked up from the dispatch center anymore, which is essential for me since there is often no one at home when the UPS truck arrives here. It's much easier for me to just run over to the dispatch center the next morning ... 10 minutes away ... but it takes three days of phone hassles to get an authorization to do so now. Buy.com and BH Photo have comparable prices and no such silly shipper restrictions. I've had no problem dealing with either. Probably more expensive to do business with them than Hong Kong for Don, though. Godfrey On Apr 18, 2006, at 3:23 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I've been happy with Newegg.com for my cards - they are cheap, fast, and convenient to do business with, and they describe the cards (at least those that interest me) accurately.
Re: Buying CF Cards on eBay from acptan/chitekcorp
I've been buying my cards at Costco. They sell Sandisk Ultra II CF and SD cards for about the same price as BH and other photo discounters. And no shipping cost. I know they have 1 gig cards. I believe they now have 2 gig versions as well. Paul -- Original message -- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only problem I have with NewEgg.com is that they've instituted shipper policies that make them very inconvenient for me to do business with. They will not allow UPS shipments to be picked up from the dispatch center anymore, which is essential for me since there is often no one at home when the UPS truck arrives here. It's much easier for me to just run over to the dispatch center the next morning ... 10 minutes away ... but it takes three days of phone hassles to get an authorization to do so now. Buy.com and BH Photo have comparable prices and no such silly shipper restrictions. I've had no problem dealing with either. Probably more expensive to do business with them than Hong Kong for Don, though. Godfrey On Apr 18, 2006, at 3:23 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I've been happy with Newegg.com for my cards - they are cheap, fast, and convenient to do business with, and they describe the cards (at least those that interest me) accurately.
Re: OT: A book
Juan Buhler wrote: A question for you PDMLers: I had the chance to see books made by fastbackbooks.com today, and I'm thinking about self editing one with some of my photographs. Their quality is very nice, they are hardcover, cloth bound little books. lulu.com also offer a number of interesting services to the prospective self-publisher... S
Re: long lens for birds?
This makes a lot of sense and works well for those types of birds that eat at feeders... Jays, Finches, Chickadees, Buntings, Grosbeaks, even Quail. Sometimes predatory birds like Hawks and Kestrels may start hanging around a feeder as well, in hopes of getting a meal. Another thing to do if not shooting out in the wild is to set up some kind of water feature. A fountain or a small pool with a drip system will atrract a lot of birds to the area. As others have said the focal length of the lens you'll need depends entirely on how close you can get. I can tell you that a 500mm lense on the *ist D at 40 yards has yet to produce a pleasing shot of large birds like eagles and herons when the picture is cropped enough to show off the bird. Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Reese) Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: long lens for birds? Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:52:36 + Hi Russell, Birds are difficult because they're so small and fidgety. They don't ever seem to sit still. You need to use some type of blind to get close even with really long lenses. I don't like TCs for birds because I lose too much shutter speed. I throw away enough blurred shots as it is. Your best bet is to set up a feeder near a tree just outside a window in your house. I've never been a fan of feeder pictures. Birds will often land in the tree before they hop down onto the feeder. If you're quick you'll be able to get a few shots of them sitting on the branch. Of the lenses you mentioned, the 80-320 is your best bet IMO. Focal length counts for everything in bird photography. I haven't used mine for birds but I have used it for bigger wildlife at a distance and had good results. Tom Reese -- Original message -- From: Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] What is a decent lens (or a decent length) for shooting birds? I read a book about this topic, and author prefers to shoot at 200, but I have noticed that many of the shots posted here are much longer than that, and often with a TC. This also brings to mind Tim from Norway and having problems even with a 500. So is 200 (or 135 for angle of view) unrealistic until I have mastered stalking? What I have right now is the 18-55 kit, A24/2.8 and a Super-Tak 50/1.4. So the only way I can get close enough for a decent picture is if I also bring my Ruger, and I don't think that would be a good idea. And further more... if 200 (135) is an appropriate length, the lens' that I have been considering are: DA50-200/4-5.6 FA80-320/4.5-5.6 A70-210/4 any comments on these lens' would be great, or should I instead be looking at primes? (I do have a very limited budget.) I believe that they can each be had for around $200 US or less, and of course I would go for an older MF over a newer AF if it is better. My point is that I would like to know what I need to start looking/saving for. Thanks. Russell
Re: OSX on a PC
Nope, it won't run on my IBM Thinkpad X24 with its Pentium III-M. However there are windows managers out there that will give the look and feel of OSX with Linux or BSD, so I may wind up running one of them eventually. In the mean time I have to get more ram so I can run PS-CS2 (won't even load with 256mb). And a larger hard drive so I can dual boot XPP and Linux. Then I need a CD-ROM or DVD drive I can boot from (my old HP USB CD-Writer apparently does not have the firmware to boot from it). And of course wireless so I can connect hither and yon, although I already have a nifty 3com Xjack 802.11b PC-Card coming. Gee, and I thought the X24 was such a bargain at $275 when I bought it off ebay a couple weeks ago. But then, 3lb-6.9oz, according to the PO's scale, and 11 x 8.9 x 1.2 inches is so nice. Came loaded with XP Pro SP2, with a current COA, and Office 2000 as well. And this thing has a compact-flash slot so I can load the photos from my digital directly. When I first heard of OSX-86 I was excited. Too bad it won't run on the PIII-M, it would be like having a Powerbook for under $300. Somehow I believe I can live without it though GRIN. (Did I say I finally have a laptop again?) graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Thibouille wrote: To be precise, OSX for x86 will run on any CPU which as SSE2 capability which means Pentium4, Pentium-M/Centrino,Athlon64/Sempron and newer. Of course many components won't have drivers so you won't be able to use a numbers of things, sadly. But it could be nice to try and see the feeling or whatever reason you might have. On 4/18/06, Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting post from the ProRental list. Powell + Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:16:31 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ProRental] Windows on a Mac and vice versa... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 I assume all of you are aware that you can go the other direction as well. OS-X (Intel version) will load and run (with a surprisingly small amount of work) on newer non-Mac Intel PC's with no glitches. While Apple has been good about making the ability to load Windows on the Intel Macs available (the information was already widely dispersed on the internet), their lawyers have been equally busy trying to stem the proliferation of the information that the reverse is available. You'll find some of the sites that had this information now have link removed at the request of Apple's Legal Department. Best possible case, however, is that this is simply a delaying tactic. There's really not much of a problem finding the files you need. But OS-X (intel) has been running on, for example, common Dell laptops since at least August of last year, when some folks got the Developer's Kit version up and running. No problems, no glitches. So for those early adopters and those tired of waiting for Apple Intel laptops, or those who want lower prices or greater variety, etc., and who have a bit of computer savvy, the opportunity is there to have three systems (Linux, Windows and OS-X) running on your system, with the choice available at boot time. david -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: OT: A book
Besides 50 prints would cost about the same per set. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Bob W wrote: I would go for a real book over a virtual book or a boxed set any time. Books are so much more convenient (assuming they are the right size - there's a horrible tendency to make photo books too big). -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Bob Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 April 2006 03:50 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: A book Juan, I wonder about books in this digital age. Two suggestions: 1) Sell a virtual book of images...low production costs. 2) Don't do a book, try a BOX of display images. There is a local scrapbook store that sells boxes. Sell a boxed portfolio of your photos. Regards, Bob S.
Re: long lens for birds?
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] One should not let a lust for toys be confused with needs. Toys are nice to have but one should not lie to one's self about it. graywolf OTOH, there's no real substitute for having the right tool for the job. :-) Tom C.
RE: PESO:Sullana cigar factory sign
Hi Tim I'm a bit late with answering, thanks for looking an the honest comment, that helps ;-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 1:41 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: PESO:Sullana cigar factory sign I'm cold. Sorry. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14. april 2006 01:20 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO:Sullana cigar factory sign Hi Pentaxians lately on a stroll in the ugly industrial quarters of Zurich I tested the SP Tamron 70-150mm 2.8 soft focus portrait lens. I have no soft focus test shots so far but will soon make some. Soft focus only works at apertures from 2.8-4 so I have to look for a good subject. I forgot that when I took a photo of a bottle of wine and a glass both dated 1959 last week but with an aperture of F8. This former cigarette factory sign attracted me somehow and I would love to hear from you whether I works for you and if it evokes some emotions in you or just leaves you cold. It could be a good candidate for a b/w conversion, what do you think? Made with the SP Tamron at 150mm. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4332095size=lg (272 KB) thanks for looking and your opinions. greetings Markus
RE: PESO:Havana Club car
Hi UncaMikey thanks for looking and commenting. maybe the next time I am in top form and have the courage to ask ;-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Unca Mikey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:20 AM To: PDML Subject: RE: PESO:Havana Club car Greetings Markus, I like this! The distortion caused by the wide angle lens, making the front of the car disproportionately large, works well. The car is about to leap out of frame to the left. Next time, get the lovely lady to sit behind the wheel and roll down the window and wave as she drives off. *UncaMikey Hi car lovers From the last discussion here about old timer Volvo's I got the impression that we have quite a few car lovers and gourmet here on the list. So I present for a short time only (because of my used Photo.net budget of 15 images) the Havana club car I saw in the old city part of Zurich last week. Stupid me was too shy that day to ask the lovely lady on the passenger seat in the car for a photo and a smile :-( http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4335561size=lg with the Pentax SFXn and Pentax A 24mm on Fuji Superia ISO 400 film. greetings Markus
Re: OT: A book
On Apr 17, 2006, at 7:49 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: I wonder about books in this digital age. Two suggestions: 1) Sell a virtual book of images...low production costs. 2) Don't do a book, try a BOX of display images. There is a local scrapbook store that sells boxes. Sell a boxed portfolio of your photos. The problem with option #1 is that there is no way to ensure what your images/photos/whathaveyou will look like on a purchaser's screen. Lenswork is doing this with their Lenswork Extra CD editions ... the user interface is only just OK, and I luckily have a high quality monitor with proper calibration so I think I'm seeing about 50-60% of what a printed book or folio might be. But I subscribe to both the print and CD versions of the magazine ... and there's no comparison to the printed magazine. Godfrey
Re: Buying CF Cards on eBay from acptan/chitekcorp
I only get them from BH when I have other items to bundle them with, the increased shipping cost is insignificant. Saves on state sales tax too. Buy.com ships with no fee, IIRC. Godfrey On Apr 18, 2006, at 7:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been buying my cards at Costco. They sell Sandisk Ultra II CF and SD cards for about the same price as BH and other photo discounters. And no shipping cost. I know they have 1 gig cards. I believe they now have 2 gig versions as well.
RE: Outdated Kodachrome 64 slide film any good?
Hi Gautam I'm late but thanks for the examples. The auction for the Kodachrome film ended without me, I was sleeping ;-) While I like the third photo, the first two look not like very good scans and a bit bluish for me, but that may be related to the size presented and monitor settings here. Maybe you have to auto adjust color settings and more in Photoshop after Vuescan... greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Gautam Sarup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 8:56 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Outdated Kodachrome 64 slide film any good? Markus, Here are some K64 photographs for you to look at. They were scanned on a Canon 8400F with VueScan using the Kodachrome setting that it has. Beyond that I haven't done any editing. The colors on the originals are much better. http://static.flickr.com/30/62716350_c9fc7d224c.jpg http://static.flickr.com/28/62098993_6862fb7a25.jpg http://static.flickr.com/28/62097206_1cbd82bcf0.jpg Another interesting thing I found about Kodachrome is that when you hold up a slide to the light at a certain angle the the borders of objects in the image appear to be etched on the surface of the slide. Cheers, Gautam On 4/13/06, Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mark I have the opportunity to get some Kodakchrome 64 slide film dated 2003 including development and framing and postage for around 2 dollars a 36 exposure roll. The film comes from a professional photo dealer who had them always cooled in the fridge. He sells them now because Kodak stops developing slide film here in Switzerland at the end of the year as far as his information goes so I would have to use it soon. He says that because of the special nature of that Kodachrome film such a long storage should not cause quality problems. He says that compared to today's slide film this type is rather soft and color muted, he sounds honest to me. I would love to try about 40 rolls slide film at 10% of its original price, would you trust it for **a not** important project? I have never used slide film, I would be quite a new experience for me :-) Opinions from everybody welcome greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:16 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Who's Not Shooting Raw? I shoot RAW exclusively: I learned my lesson back when I was shooting film. I once shot an event using some cheap, outdated film because I intended to use the shots for an insignificant web project.
Re: OT: Monitor color adjust
What kills me, reading between the lines, is that buying one of these things does not neccesarially mean one's monitor will be calibrated properly. Tom C. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Monitor color adjust Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:33:57 +1000 On 18 Apr 2006 at 18:03, David Mann wrote: About the only page I could find that had a useful comparison was this: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm The Monaco and G-M systems seem to be pretty close. The comments about the highlights discouraged me from looking at the Spyder2. It seems like an unnecessary beat-up to me. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Buying CF Cards on eBay from acptan/chitekcorp
I would file a complaint with eBay. When there is a bunch of stuff on a listing that has nothing to do with the item being sold, I become paranoid and usually pass it up no matter how much of a bargain it seems. They usually seem to be hiding a Catch-22 in there somewhere. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Don Williams wrote: Hi all, There is a company that trades under various names (acptan, chitekcorp and so on) and sells SD, CF cards and other stuff. Their listings usually have a large amount of unnecessary text that occupies a couple of pages. But it would be easier for me to use my recent experience to explain how they operate. I bought a Kingston 2 Giga CF 50X card yesterday. The postage (ten times actual was shown as £19.95) but with the postage added the total came to about what one would expect to pay for such a card. However, when I got the invoice I found another £19.95 added for 'Postal Insurance'. Although I looked carefully I didn't see this stipulation which must be somewhere down at the bottom of the load of crap they have on the listing. I am aware of this kind of trick, but was still caught. This is not honest. To deliberately hide extra costs from a buyer is just plain crooked and I've had trouble from them before. But it was another name and I didn't make the connection. In this case they had demanded payment after I'd already paid and refused to deliver. I sorted that out and eventually got the item (a CF Card of course). Don't buy from them unless you check and double check every line of the listing. And remember, they are out to cheat you and they cover their asses very well so I don't think eBay would be interested in a complaint. And they change their tactics in order to confuse buyers. I'll get cards from Hong Kong in future. Don
RE: PESO:Sullana cigar factory sign
Hi Dave I think the colors in the sky are somewhat off here so It may not be your monitor settings :-) I used a polarizer but the rest of the cast comes from the (wrong) scan. I think I will try a b/w conversion and if I do not like that simple delete the photo. Heavy selection is important too :-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: David Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 8:24 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO:Sullana cigar factory sign On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Markus Maurer wrote: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4332095size=lg (272 KB) Cigarettenfabrik - I love that word. The logo looks interesting. To me the sky looks a bit flat and slightly off-colour, but you can probably ignore that because I had a disastrous monitor calibration session last night and all my settings are way out. - Dave
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
I like it. The building on the right balances the rocks on the left, I see an S shaped symmetry (with the S on its side) like a yin-yang mandala to the balance of elements. The tones are nice if a little too middle-tone ... I'd selectively push a little more deep black and lighten some areas ... and detailing is fine. Overall it would be better printed quite large than it appears in this small web rez view. A color rendering would be interesting to compare with, to see if color adds anything significant to the composition. Godfrey On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:09 AM, David Nelson wrote: I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg Shot with the A24/2.8, stitched with Autostitch. I was surprised that the moving waves didn't prove to be a problem. I quite like the colour version too, I'll show that if the BW doesn't work for people. Comments? Cheers, David
Re: Buying CF Cards on eBay from acptan/chitekcorp
One of the things I have found is that if a known web source -such as computer geeks-- has something listed on eBay, check their website as they usually are selling it cheaper there. In fact do a google search on anything you are not sure of the prices on. That way at least you will know not to bid more than you can get it for retail. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: There are so many reputable places from which to buy cards. eBay is no longer the least expensive (as it may have been some time ago), and the amount of fraud and bad sellers has multiplied over the past couple of years as well. I think many of us have found stores, either on line or brick and mortar, that provide what we want fairly and honestly. I've been happy with Newegg.com for my cards - they are cheap, fast, and convenient to do business with, and they describe the cards (at least those that interest me) accurately. Stick with your Hong Kong supplier Don - really, why go anywhere else? To save a few pennies? Shel [Original Message] From: Don Williams There is a company that trades under various names (acptan, chitekcorp and so on) and sells SD, CF cards and other stuff. Their listings usually have a large amount of unnecessary text that occupies a couple of pages. But it would be easier for me to use my recent experience to explain how they operate. I bought a Kingston 2 Giga CF 50X card yesterday. The postage (ten times actual was shown as £19.95) but with the postage added the total came to about what one would expect to pay for such a card. However, when I got the invoice I found another £19.95 added for 'Postal Insurance'. Although I looked carefully I didn't see this stipulation which must be somewhere down at the bottom of the load of crap they have on the listing. I am aware of this kind of trick, but was still caught. This is not honest. To deliberately hide extra costs from a buyer is just plain crooked and I've had trouble from them before. But it was another name and I didn't make the connection. In this case they had demanded payment after I'd already paid and refused to deliver. I sorted that out and eventually got the item (a CF Card of course). Don't buy from them unless you check and double check every line of the listing. And remember, they are out to cheat you and they cover their asses very well so I don't think eBay would be interested in a complaint. And they change their tactics in order to confuse buyers. I'll get cards from Hong Kong in future.
Re: OT: Monitor color adjust
Maybe so. But since I started using the Spyder2, my prints now look like what's on screen. Before then, making a print was a trial error process. Dave S On 4/19/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What kills me, reading between the lines, is that buying one of these things does not neccesarially mean one's monitor will be calibrated properly. Tom C. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Monitor color adjust Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:33:57 +1000 On 18 Apr 2006 at 18:03, David Mann wrote: About the only page I could find that had a useful comparison was this: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm The Monaco and G-M systems seem to be pretty close. The comments about the highlights discouraged me from looking at the Spyder2. It seems like an unnecessary beat-up to me. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Monitor color adjust
On 18 Apr 2006 at 10:01, Tom C wrote: What kills me, reading between the lines, is that buying one of these things does not neccesarially mean one's monitor will be calibrated properly. In anything where descisions need to be made there still needs to be someone competent at the controls. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: GESO: IR architecture
On Apr 17, 2006, at 4:15 AM, Derby Chang wrote: I think it was Ken who said my pics had too harsh a light. I agree. But I live in Sydney so it is a challenge to get soft northern light. So, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade :) IR has the virtue of being very forgiving about the harshness of light. http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/index7/06_04_HeartIR/index.htm Just had a chance to look at this set. To me, these two are the standouts: http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/index7/06_04_HeartIR/04.htm http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/index7/06_04_HeartIR/06.htm Most of the others are capriciously off-angle to no particularly good purpose, it proves more a distraction than adds to the photo's merit. These two have wonderfully dramatic lighting and present an emotional impact. I've done a good bit of IR work and most of the time white foliage is just too much of a gimmick. Just like tons of extreme soft focus with a toy camera lens and other highly stylized renderings ... unless done extremely well and used sparingly, IR work rarely has staying power to me. Godfrey
Re: OT: Monitor color adjust
I have no doubt it's better than no calibration. Tom C. From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Monitor color adjust Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:10:56 +0800 Maybe so. But since I started using the Spyder2, my prints now look like what's on screen. Before then, making a print was a trial error process. Dave S On 4/19/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What kills me, reading between the lines, is that buying one of these things does not neccesarially mean one's monitor will be calibrated properly. Tom C. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Monitor color adjust Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:33:57 +1000 On 18 Apr 2006 at 18:03, David Mann wrote: About the only page I could find that had a useful comparison was this: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm The Monaco and G-M systems seem to be pretty close. The comments about the highlights discouraged me from looking at the Spyder2. It seems like an unnecessary beat-up to me. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Monitor color adjust
Yes, same here. I bought the Eye One Display because I was getting very inconsistent color output to the printer. Since I bought it and calibrated my monitor, the prints look like what's on my screen. Whether they are correct in absolute colormetric terms is irrelevant. Consistency and predictability is what's important. Godfrey On Apr 18, 2006, at 9:10 AM, David Savage wrote: Maybe so. But since I started using the Spyder2, my prints now look like what's on screen. Before then, making a print was a trial error process. On 4/19/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What kills me, reading between the lines, is that buying one of these things does not neccesarially mean one's monitor will be calibrated properly.
Re: OSX on a PC
(Did I say I finally have a laptop again?) No, i do't think so. Did you get one.g Dave graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof ---
RE: long lens for birds?
Hi Jay that is a nice and promising photo, I would love to try that lens too :-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Jay Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:54 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: long lens for birds? I have been very satisfied with a relatively new enablement in the Tokina AT-X 400mm f5.6. This is the same lens that Bruce and a few others here also have. It is light and small for a 400mm prime; very hand-holdable on bright days. I haven't taken a lot of time yet to see how it works with a 1.4X teleconverter for extra reach. Here is a recent shot grabbed in my front yard: http://i.pbase.com/o4/87/63987/1/58830040.YardBird.jpg
Re: PESO - It must be Spring
On 4/17/06, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taken over the weekend - I especially like the results @ ISO 1600 Check out http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html Comments? I like it. At ISO 1600 there's a softness/graininess that appeals to me. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PESO - It must be Spring
On 4/17/06, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Spring soon ends - Birds will weep while in The eyes of fish are tears -- Matsuo Basho Took the words right out of my mouth. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PESO - It must be Spring
Thanks Rick. I'm surprised the DOF is so shallow at f/8--you must have been pretty close! This bird was oblivious as to my presence, was no more than 20 feet away actually seemed to be posing for me. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PESO - It must be Spring Very nice, Kenneth. I'm surprised the DOF is so shallow at f/8--you must have been pretty close! Rick --- Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taken over the weekend - I especially like the results @ ISO 1600 Check out http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html Comments? Thanks in advance Kenneth Waller http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: another bird (A 400/5.6 plus A2X-S)
Paul, excellent use of flash - I wouldn't have known it was used without you mentioning. I just bought the Kirk Xtender and hope to be able to use it as well as you have. Kenneth Waller Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 10:14 PM Subject: PESO: another bird (A 400/5.6 plus A2X-S) This guy was high in a tree. Shot him this afternoon with the above named lens and converter on a monopod. f5.6@ 1/2000, ISO 800, Sigma 500 Super flash plus Kirk Xtender. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4348360size=lg
What makes a dog stick a tonque out?
In this case it was couple of peanuts and raisins. Just as if it says I wish it was more... http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060418191740 -- home http://roman.blakout.net/
Re: PESO - It must be Spring
I like the angle it was taken at, and the BG looks almost painted. 1600 holds up pretty good. Looks like iso 400 sometimes on my D2H.:-) Dave Quoting Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Taken over the weekend - I especially like the results @ ISO 1600 Check out http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html Comments? Thanks in advance Kenneth Waller Equine Photography in York Region
Re: another bird (A 400/5.6 plus A2X-S)
Thanks Ken. The Kirk Xtender is rather easy to use, because it's hard to get too much flash at long distances. At least it's hard to get too much flash with my slow lenses:-). Paul -- Original message -- From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul, excellent use of flash - I wouldn't have known it was used without you mentioning. I just bought the Kirk Xtender and hope to be able to use it as well as you have. Kenneth Waller Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 10:14 PM Subject: PESO: another bird (A 400/5.6 plus A2X-S) This guy was high in a tree. Shot him this afternoon with the above named lens and converter on a monopod. f5.6@ 1/2000, ISO 800, Sigma 500 Super flash plus Kirk Xtender. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4348360size=lg
Re: OSX on a PC
I know I have an X23. But those have P3-M and NOT a Pentium-M, which quite a different beast. On 4/18/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope, it won't run on my IBM Thinkpad X24 with its Pentium III-M. However there are windows managers out there that will give the look and feel of OSX with Linux or BSD, so I may wind up running one of them eventually. In the mean time I have to get more ram so I can run PS-CS2 (won't even load with 256mb). And a larger hard drive so I can dual boot XPP and Linux. Then I need a CD-ROM or DVD drive I can boot from (my old HP USB CD-Writer apparently does not have the firmware to boot from it). And of course wireless so I can connect hither and yon, although I already have a nifty 3com Xjack 802.11b PC-Card coming. Gee, and I thought the X24 was such a bargain at $275 when I bought it off ebay a couple weeks ago. But then, 3lb-6.9oz, according to the PO's scale, and 11 x 8.9 x 1.2 inches is so nice. Came loaded with XP Pro SP2, with a current COA, and Office 2000 as well. And this thing has a compact-flash slot so I can load the photos from my digital directly. When I first heard of OSX-86 I was excited. Too bad it won't run on the PIII-M, it would be like having a Powerbook for under $300. Somehow I believe I can live without it though GRIN. (Did I say I finally have a laptop again?) graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Thibouille wrote: To be precise, OSX for x86 will run on any CPU which as SSE2 capability which means Pentium4, Pentium-M/Centrino,Athlon64/Sempron and newer. Of course many components won't have drivers so you won't be able to use a numbers of things, sadly. But it could be nice to try and see the feeling or whatever reason you might have. On 4/18/06, Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting post from the ProRental list. Powell + Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:16:31 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ProRental] Windows on a Mac and vice versa... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 I assume all of you are aware that you can go the other direction as well. OS-X (Intel version) will load and run (with a surprisingly small amount of work) on newer non-Mac Intel PC's with no glitches. While Apple has been good about making the ability to load Windows on the Intel Macs available (the information was already widely dispersed on the internet), their lawyers have been equally busy trying to stem the proliferation of the information that the reverse is available. You'll find some of the sites that had this information now have link removed at the request of Apple's Legal Department. Best possible case, however, is that this is simply a delaying tactic. There's really not much of a problem finding the files you need. But OS-X (intel) has been running on, for example, common Dell laptops since at least August of last year, when some folks got the Developer's Kit version up and running. No problems, no glitches. So for those early adopters and those tired of waiting for Apple Intel laptops, or those who want lower prices or greater variety, etc., and who have a bit of computer savvy, the opportunity is there to have three systems (Linux, Windows and OS-X) running on your system, with the choice available at boot time. david -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ... -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
Thanks for the comments guys, I'm very encouraged. The colour version: http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano2.jpg Cheers, David Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I like it. The building on the right balances the rocks on the left, I see an S shaped symmetry (with the S on its side) like a yin-yang mandala to the balance of elements. The tones are nice if a little too middle-tone ... I'd selectively push a little more deep black and lighten some areas ... and detailing is fine. Overall it would be better printed quite large than it appears in this small web rez view. A color rendering would be interesting to compare with, to see if color adds anything significant to the composition. Godfrey On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:09 AM, David Nelson wrote: I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg Shot with the A24/2.8, stitched with Autostitch. I was surprised that the moving waves didn't prove to be a problem. I quite like the colour version too, I'll show that if the BW doesn't work for people. Comments? Cheers, David
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
On 18/4/06, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: Oh crap! I agree with Cotty Oi Skoffo, you're dead meet bro Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
On 19/4/06, David Nelson, discombobulated, unleashed: Thanks for the comments guys, I'm very encouraged. The colour version: http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano2.jpg Nice! Mono for me though ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: PESO - qd beach pano
-Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 18/4/06, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: Oh crap! I agree with Cotty Oi Skoffo, you're dead meet bro is this what passes for ghetto speak in the city of dreaming spires? Bob
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
Oi Skoffo, you're dead meet bro is this what passes for ghetto speak in the city of dreaming spires? Sorry Bob, I was 16 when we left The Golden State and I occasionally lapse. Let me re-phrase that. I say Skoffers, you'll get a jolly good hiding the next time I see you. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT: A book
Same problem with printing. Quality is at the mercy of the printer. How much do you want to spend on this book, and how big is the production run? We used to have problems with high end kids books that sold only 10,000 per year. The marketing/sales force would deliberately overestimate sales at 20,000/year, so the production run would be bigger and cost lower. Of course inventory carrying cost was then the problem...along with titles that only sold 5,000 instead of 10,000 per year. Regards, Bob S. On 4/18/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 17, 2006, at 7:49 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: I wonder about books in this digital age. Two suggestions: 1) Sell a virtual book of images...low production costs. 2) Don't do a book, try a BOX of display images. There is a local scrapbook store that sells boxes. Sell a boxed portfolio of your photos. The problem with option #1 is that there is no way to ensure what your images/photos/whathaveyou will look like on a purchaser's screen. Lenswork is doing this with their Lenswork Extra CD editions ... the user interface is only just OK, and I luckily have a high quality monitor with proper calibration so I think I'm seeing about 50-60% of what a printed book or folio might be. But I subscribe to both the print and CD versions of the magazine ... and there's no comparison to the printed magazine. Godfrey
Re: PESO - qd beach pano
David Nelson a écrit : I don't shoot much scenic stuff and don't do much BW conversion, but here's a pano that happens to be both. Queenscliff Beach, the northern end of Manly. http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/beachpano.jpg Shot with the A24/2.8, stitched with Autostitch. I was surprised that the moving waves didn't prove to be a problem. I quite like the colour version too, I'll show that if the BW doesn't work for people. Comments? Works for me, though I would have put less sky and more rocks (cropping just above the tourist building on the right). Nice light, especially visible on the color version, but the BW version works better for me. I've downloaded your color image and make tests with different BW conversions, and found out I'd probably do something more dramatic (darker sky and sea), but well, I'm more into contrasty image for this kind of scene. Have you shot anything similar with closeups of the water playing with sand in the foreground, by chance? Patrice
photography from an airplane and unsharp mask
Hello! I have two questions that are somewhat related to each other. 1. Photography from a commercial airplane. What suggestions do you have for taking pictures from a commercial airplane? How to make them sharper and overcome some type of cast that is often seen in the day-time images of this kind (not clouds yet, but enough to decrease he overall contrast)? How to avoid the flat look of the images (e.g. when taking photos of the mountains below)? I remember somebody's advise that one shouldn't use polarizers while shooting through airplane windows, but don't remember why. Can someone clarify this? 2. When do you use sharp/unsharp filters in the PS or other software? (any hints on how to judge a reasonable level?) As an example, here is my photo of San Diego downtown taken from the plane. It is not a photo for presentation, just something that I am practicing on, and I am not happy with it. I wonder what else can be done to improve it. original photo: http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/SanDiego/IMGP2417-2sm.jpg and the one after unsharpen mask applied in PS: http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/SanDiego/IMGP2417-2sharpsm.jpg In your opinion, is this image oversharpened? The full size JPEGS are ~2MB each are in this location: http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/SanDiego/ Thank you, Igor
Re: OT: A book
The books I saw were of very nice quality. The person I talked to, who is the founder of the company, is also a photographer, and her prints (in her portfolio) were of very good quality. In any case, Bob, your suggestions are not at all bad--I might pursue the box of images in the near future. Thanks everybody for the support and suggestions. I am going forward with this, and if everything goes well I will have a first proof of the book during the opening of my show, on Friday the 28th. I'll post about it here. j On 4/18/06, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Same problem with printing. Quality is at the mercy of the printer. How much do you want to spend on this book, and how big is the production run? We used to have problems with high end kids books that sold only 10,000 per year. The marketing/sales force would deliberately overestimate sales at 20,000/year, so the production run would be bigger and cost lower. Of course inventory carrying cost was then the problem...along with titles that only sold 5,000 instead of 10,000 per year. Regards, Bob S. On 4/18/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 17, 2006, at 7:49 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: I wonder about books in this digital age. Two suggestions: 1) Sell a virtual book of images...low production costs. 2) Don't do a book, try a BOX of display images. There is a local scrapbook store that sells boxes. Sell a boxed portfolio of your photos. The problem with option #1 is that there is no way to ensure what your images/photos/whathaveyou will look like on a purchaser's screen. Lenswork is doing this with their Lenswork Extra CD editions ... the user interface is only just OK, and I luckily have a high quality monitor with proper calibration so I think I'm seeing about 50-60% of what a printed book or folio might be. But I subscribe to both the print and CD versions of the magazine ... and there's no comparison to the printed magazine. Godfrey -- Juan Buhler Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com
Re: OT: A book
On 4/18/06, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: lulu.com also offer a number of interesting services to the prospective self-publisher... Last year I made a mockup with some photos, and had it printed via lulu. I was dissappointed, the dark midtones were very muddy, and in general, the print quality was not great. Lulu seems oriented to text books more than to art ones. I did have a photo published in the latest version of JPEG magazine, also printed through lulu, and the quality is much better than my test book. Maybe they improved their act. j -- Juan Buhler Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com
Re: OT: A book
On Apr 18, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Same problem with printing. Quality is at the mercy of the printer. ... Of course. That's why an author/publisher *proofs* the book BEFORE starting a production print run, and can reject the production run if it doesn't meet the quality standard that you require. You don't have to give crap to a buyer, unless you don't care about the quality of your work. Godfrey
RE: photography from an airplane and unsharp mask
From: Igor Roshchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: photography from an airplane and unsharp mask Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Hello! I have two questions that are somewhat related to each other. 1. Photography from a commercial airplane. What suggestions do you have for taking pictures from a commercial airplane? How to make them sharper and overcome some type of cast that is often seen in the day-time images of this kind (not clouds yet, but enough to decrease he overall contrast)? The problem is you're generally shooting through double panes. The interior pane is plexiglass or something like it. Very prone to scratches, thereby reducing contrast. When you're shooting very much downwards as in the city shots you're shooting through the part of the panes that have more curvature relative to to the perpendicular, straight out the window view. That tends to distort, warp, and I'm guessing... reduce the contrast. I can see the image degrade with my naked eye when I look anywhere other than almost straight out. So, unfortunately it'll likely be hard to get really good images when close to the ground, unless the plane is banking heavily and you can shoot straight out the center of the window. How to avoid the flat look of the images (e.g. when taking photos of the mountains below)? Same as above. always try to shoot out the center of the winow, not down through the window. I remember somebody's advise that one shouldn't use polarizers while shooting through airplane windows, but don't remember why. Can someone clarify this? http://www.weather-photography.com/techniques.php?cat=generalpage=filters 2. When do you use sharp/unsharp filters in the PS or other software? (any hints on how to judge a reasonable level?) Almost every shot requires some degree of USM. It's very subjective. If your photo starts to appear granular or you can see halos on edges that weren't there before, you've likely overdone the USM. Not enough is usually better than too much. As an example, here is my photo of San Diego downtown taken from the plane. It is not a photo for presentation, just something that I am practicing on, and I am not happy with it. I wonder what else can be done to improve it. original photo: http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/SanDiego/IMGP2417-2sm.jpg and the one after unsharpen mask applied in PS: http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/SanDiego/IMGP2417-2sharpsm.jpg In your opinion, is this image oversharpened? Not in my opinion. It enhances the small detail such as windows in the buildings. It helps with thisimage becases it's reduced contrast to begin with and USM works by increasing edge contrast. It soes not look oversharpened. The full size JPEGS are ~2MB each are in this location: http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/SanDiego/ Thank you, Igor I'm sure the shots taken from a small hired plane with an open window would be far superior to those taken from a commercial airliner. But most of don't have that kind of cash laying around. Tom C.
Re: long lens for birds?
No change Dave, just that I had to use my laptop while my desktop was having a hissy fit, and the email account there is set up for my wife to use! Reverting to my (normal) male persona now... John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:22 PM Subject: Re: long lens for birds? When did you change your name John? Dave S ===On 4/18/06, Jan Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:=== Paul, the Tokina focuses down to about 13 feet. That isn't close enough on film for any but the largest birds, but on the APS sensor in the *ist-D it is OK, as evidenced by my last parrot shot. Also, the glass is good enough to withstand reasonable enlargement too. HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Re: photography from an airplane and unsharp mask
2. When do you use sharp/unsharp filters in the PS or other software? (any hints on how to judge a reasonable level?) Keep in mind your target. Sharpening for the web is different than sharpening for a printer, for example. I believe some of the sharpening plug-ins available keep this in mind. Also, if you start to see halos, you've gone too far. IMHO, the image is too sharp... you've created some moire in the building windows. Frankly, it looks like it could benefit from an (auto)levels more than anything- makes the haze go away. -Ryan
Re: Tokina 400/5.6 variations (Re: long lens for birds?)
Hi Collin: mine is the RMC version, and it is of course manual focus and manual aperture only, but works perfectly on everything I've tried from an ME up to the *ist-D. As I said, I have found the glass good enough, having used it mainly at f5.6-8: you may recall my PUG shot Butterfly Dance was shot with it, and the displayed image is a fairly heavily cropped one, looking at that photo may allow others to judge it's quality. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:29 PM Subject: Tokina 400/5.6 variations (Re: long lens for birds?) I've seen 3 varieties of this lens. The oldest of them is the RMC. Then came the SD Finally came AF and improved optics in the AT-X SD. Here's some general observations: The old RMC may be limited to the K/M mount. The SD can have A, or not, but also has a Ricoh pin. Fortunately Tokina had the foresight to make it a bump so that it won't interfere with Pentax' AF coupling. The AT-X SD is where auto-focus comes in. I've seen no manual focus AT-X SD in the 400/5.6. (Someone correct me if that observation is in error.) The SD and AT-X SD are Very Good optically. The RMC is much cheaper and OK optically. Not bad, like old Soligor. But imo it's worth the extra few bucks to get the SD. Collin KC8TKA
RE: photography from an airplane and unsharp mask
One more caveat. If you see a UFO, don't worry about all the stuff I just said and start firing away! :-) And let the government USM it all they want. Tom C. From: Igor Roshchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: photography from an airplane and unsharp mask Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Hello! I have two questions that are somewhat related to each other. 1. Photography from a commercial airplane. What suggestions do you have for taking pictures from a commercial airplane? How to make them sharper and overcome some type of cast that is often seen in the day-time images of this kind (not clouds yet, but enough to decrease he overall contrast)? How to avoid the flat look of the images (e.g. when taking photos of the mountains below)? I remember somebody's advise that one shouldn't use polarizers while shooting through airplane windows, but don't remember why. Can someone clarify this? 2. When do you use sharp/unsharp filters in the PS or other software? (any hints on how to judge a reasonable level?) As an example, here is my photo of San Diego downtown taken from the plane. It is not a photo for presentation, just something that I am practicing on, and I am not happy with it. I wonder what else can be done to improve it. original photo: http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/SanDiego/IMGP2417-2sm.jpg and the one after unsharpen mask applied in PS: http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/SanDiego/IMGP2417-2sharpsm.jpg In your opinion, is this image oversharpened? The full size JPEGS are ~2MB each are in this location: http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/SanDiego/ Thank you, Igor
Re: OT: A book
With direct mail advertising materials and brochures, we (large agencies) go well beyond examining proofs. We send an art director and a production expert to the printing plant. They examine the first press run and instruct the printer in regard to necessary changes. It's very rare that no adjustment is needed. Printing is a very inexact science. Sometimes we take a second look a day later, just to make sure that the print run is consistent. I would insist on total involvement before spending a lot of money on a book of photographs. Paul On Apr 18, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Apr 18, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Same problem with printing. Quality is at the mercy of the printer. ... Of course. That's why an author/publisher *proofs* the book BEFORE starting a production print run, and can reject the production run if it doesn't meet the quality standard that you require. You don't have to give crap to a buyer, unless you don't care about the quality of your work. Godfrey
