RE: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
I think your more concerned with CAPITOL LETTERS than your are with the meaning of the posts or the thoughts expressed. I dont think thats the most important thing to be concerned with.. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Erickson Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:03 PM To: pdml Subject: Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO Let me ask again: Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive messages add any value at all to the PDML? --Mark J. C. O'Connell wrote: ALL CAPS MEANS I AM PISSED OFF. If you actually read what is being said in the posts I am replying to you would understand. I dont start these things but people simply refuse to not get personal when they dont have to and they do it FIRST. I just reply in kind. Like calling me elitest schmuck because I use and recommend a much better screen setup even AFTER I told them it cost less than $200 NEW. Thats really not making any sense whatsoever. Its a personal attack to attempt to win a losing argument, plain and simple... jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
NO, I dont agree my images are not suitable for web viewing, they are not suitable for LOW SPEC PC displays. They display just fine on my sub $200 PC display. I have already posted this about three timea already. I AM NOT GOING TO RUIN THE PHOTOS JUST SO LOW SPEC DISPLAYS CAN VIEW THEM EASILY. Image quality is more important, let the LOW SPEC DISPLAY USERS deal with the scrolling or let them ruin them by downsizing, I am not going RUIN THEM FOR EVERYBODY, just to suit the lowest common denominator low spec displays. If they find my 1200 pixel images frustrating to view, I suggest they upgrade their displays instead of complaining they arent not suitable for their low spec displays.. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:28 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... - Original Message - From: Bob W JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, he can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look at it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all this e-bullying. It's amazing isn't it? Once again, joc manages to foul things up and cause a ruckus. Once again, a thread he involves himself in devolves into something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Anyway, Bob is correct, it's been pointed out to joc that his images aren't suitable for web viewing, and has been told why. Let the Wookie win, people, you know who you are dealing with, and you know that nothing you can say is going to impress upon him the error of his ways. This thread illustrates why I went to a gmail account. The first thing I did was to filter his posts to get trashed by gmail, and they never reach my POP server, so I don't have to deal with them at all. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
nope, I guess you dont understand the difference between choosing to not buy something ( which is fine ) and claiming not being able to afford to buy it. I dont buy the argument that ANY DSLR camera and lens system owners ( this is often over a grand) and users cant afford a $200 PC display in 2007. It makes no sense to me at all. And even if your stuff was a gift, you would be an extremely rare exception, not the rule... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:05 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Like I said, you haven't a clue to my financial status and capabilities. You have no knowledge of how I came to own any of the digital photo gear that I own - for all your dumb, cracker ass knows they were gifts, or I stole 'em off the back of a truck. You have the intelligence of a carrot. Back into the kill file for you ... and you were doing so well there for a while. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell NOPE, Your argument is futile because the PC display is JUST a cheap accessory to go with digital/DSLR photography and its WAY WAY less costly than the DSLR and good lenses so what I am arguing is that it's SENSELESS to be into DSLR photography AND not upgrade to current BUT INEXPENSIVE display resolutions to edit and enjoy those high res. DSLR images more easily or with higher quality reproduction The affordability factor is a NON issue because if you can afford the cameras and lenses, you can easily afford a good display monitor setup. I am not saying anyone can afford a good monitor setup, I am saying anymore DSLR system owners can. This is not HDTV, this is digital photography discussion which is far more relavant to the list... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
PESO 2007 - 16a - GDG
Working with the used Nikon LS-40 scanner I acquired last year, finally, I decided to test the APS film carrier as I have a bunch of APS negatives made between 1997 and 2002 that I've only barely looked at (and I still have my favorite APS camera, the Contax Tix, and a bunch of APS film in the freezer... !). Anyway, there are several rolls from late September 2001, taken with the Canon EOS IX, from my trip over just a week or so after 9/11. I remember that trip well... This roll has a bunch of photos taken around the Kingston train station and downtown London. This is the first one I processed and it's obvious that I have to re- learn film scanning to some degree. I thought the perspective was somewhat unusual and that folks might enjoy it... http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/16a.htm Comments, critique, etc always appreciated. A larger rendering is included as always. best, Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
EXCUSE ME? this all started by a bunch of people telling me what I should do, namely reduce the quality of the images in that web gallery so they would be easier to view with low spec displays. So dont tell me I have a freaking attitude for telling them what to do in reply ( which is upgrade their displays ) when they started by telling me to degrade my images for their low spec displays. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... I think people don't like being told what they should do, what they can afford, that they're stupid for not using the same or higher quality gear that JCO uses, and so on. It's not just about JCO's choice decision to post pics his way, it's his friggin attitude in telling people what they SHOULD do, and discounting the needs and personal choices others make. Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, he can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look at it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all this e-bullying. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
screw you, I dont seek anything but the truth and the truth is anyone using old display resolutions shouldnt be complaining to me about how they find 1200 pixel images frustrating, they should be fixing the problem on their end if their system is not up to the task of displaying these... My system which is neither state of art, nor expensive displays them fine...Reducing them in size is not the answer in my opinion because the COST in reduced image quality is too high.. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:09 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO Mark, I've had a peaceful and happy pdml experience since blocking JCO messages a month or two ago. Suggest you do the same. He seeks an audience. Regards, Bob S. On 4/3/07, Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me ask again: Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive messages add any value at all to the PDML? --Mark J. C. O'Connell wrote: ALL CAPS MEANS I AM PISSED OFF. If you actually read what is being said in the posts I am replying to you would understand. I dont start these things but people simply refuse to not get personal when they dont have to and they do it FIRST. I just reply in kind. Like calling me elitest schmuck because I use and recommend a much better screen setup even AFTER I told them it cost less than $200 NEW. Thats really not making any sense whatsoever. Its a personal attack to attempt to win a losing argument, plain and simple... jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using obsolescent display technology. Those 19 CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19 LCD's. Almost all of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20 or 24 panel) and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the great HDTV thread). -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: EXCUSE ME? this all started by a bunch of people telling me what I should do, namely reduce the quality of the images in that web gallery so they would be easier to view with low spec displays. So dont tell me I have a freaking attitude for telling them what to do in reply ( which is upgrade their displays ) when they started by telling me to degrade my images for their low spec displays. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... I think people don't like being told what they should do, what they can afford, that they're stupid for not using the same or higher quality gear that JCO uses, and so on. It's not just about JCO's choice decision to post pics his way, it's his friggin attitude in telling people what they SHOULD do, and discounting the needs and personal choices others make. Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, he can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look at it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all this e-bullying. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: 1) What size screen do you use 2x 19 2) What resolution do you prefer? 2x 1600x1200 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. I don't maximise my browser window. Largest I can see without resizing would be maybe 800x800 pixels. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 600-800px 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? No: I can easily drag a pic to the desktop and open it with Preview which will auto-resize. - Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
Have you actully WORKED on a 1600x1200 pc and didnt you find going back to 1280x960 very claustrophobic? I do whenever I have to.. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:15 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution 1. 15.4 16:10 Laptop screen (replaced my 21 CRT running at 1856x1392, miss teh resolution, but the LCD is far more crisp, which makes up for a lot. Looks way better than any 19 CRT running at 1600x1200) 2. 1280x800 (max res) 3. 1000x700 or so 4. 800-1000 horizontal, 5-700 vertical 5. yes -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 2) What resolution do you prefer? 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
if your saying your 1280x800 lcd screen looks better than any CRT running at 1600x1200 fine ( have you seen them all?) , but there is no way it can display nearly as much information like text etc. you need the pixels to do that...and you dont have nearly as many to work with.. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:15 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution 1. 15.4 16:10 Laptop screen (replaced my 21 CRT running at 1856x1392, miss teh resolution, but the LCD is far more crisp, which makes up for a lot. Looks way better than any 19 CRT running at 1600x1200) 2. 1280x800 (max res) 3. 1000x700 or so 4. 800-1000 horizontal, 5-700 vertical 5. yes -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 2) What resolution do you prefer? 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
THANK YOU- YOU FINALLY GET IT. YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING SCREW YOU - UPGRADE YOUR HARDWARE Why? Because its ridiculous to be telling me to reduce my images size AND QUALITY any further when they display fine on my SUB $200 display which is not extraordinary, not state of the art not even remotely expensive. I am not going to cater to very old crappy display resolution setups if it means I have to degrade the images for everyone, even those with reasonably modern resolutions. SECONDLY, I DO NOT AGREE that higher resolution setups mean you have to degrade ANY pc usage. I have found that the higher resolution setups I have gone to over the years GREATLY ENHANCED the entire PC usage experience, NOT just photo viewing. More workspace means more information at a glance, less scrolling of webpages INCLUDING TEXT ONLY WEBPAGES, ETC. I think many people here could be mislead by your comments thinking that higher resolution displays are only good for viewing photos. It makes just about everything you do on a PC easier to do, THE VERY THING THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINERS WERE ASKING FOR...So thats why my reply was, and still is : UPGRADE YOUR PC DISPLY RESOLUTION. It for your own benefit, not mine... JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:27 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... At 01:39 AM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED? Yes. I like ICE CREAM!! THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION THATST THE PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP OR EXPECT ME TO DUMB DOWN/DEGRADE MY IMAGES TO SUIT YOUR SHIT DISPLAY. You know sweet F.A. about my system. Image processing is only 1 of many things I use my computer for. 1600x1200 may be great for Photoshop, but I find it useless for web browsing, Word, Excel CAD. I've compromised and settled on 2 19 monitors running at 1280x1024 each. Your just angry because you've found out your assumptions regarding PDML screen resolutions were incorrect, and you can't admit that fact. Also, it you had paid attention to posts discussing this very topic (ie PDML member preferred screen resolutions) in the past, you would have known your assumptions were wrong. Even though you say you put the gallery together for the PDML, and several members commented that the shots were a bit large, you seem unwilling to simply say OK, I'll know better next time. Instead you've basically said Screw you! Upgrade your hardware. Kisses, Dave JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:51 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... No I understood what you said. The photo's you posted were fine for what they are and from what I saw. But because they are the resolution they are I only looked at 1 or 2 at full size because I couldn't view them without having to scroll around. It annoyed me, so I stopped looking. IMO if you want people to view your images and make comments, you shouldn't piss them off with a shithouse presentation. Web design 101. Dave On 4/3/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my post remarking that this wasnt posted for the the rest of the internet population, it was posted only to a photo group which should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than average spec of computer display for photo viewing than the rest of the internet population. This matters jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:08 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach.. . David Savage wrote: All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of the internet using population should be working. Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at all? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
RE: Is it possible to buy a Pentax lens in Sydney?
Rod, I made a small purchase from BH with absolutely no problems. So I am confident that if I had ordered from them, I would have had the lens since January. It amazes me that there apparently have not been any in the country since November. I have been told varies times for availability: 10-12-6 before xmas middle of January 14-2-7 End of March And now end of April I first tried to order this lens in October! I have no problem with the store that actually ordered the lens for me, it's not their fault. So I am sticking with them. I do have a problem with the other stores, who simply neglected to give me a price. But I can now see why they maybe simply frustrated with Kennedys. There appears to be something seriously wrong with distribution. Stephen At 19:33 3/04/2007, you wrote: Stephen, I decided to get a FA 50mm f/1.4 mid March this year. As I had problems with BH authentication of my VISA payment attempts on the web orders and they would not accept a backorder in my phone contact after the small quantity available one USA night were sold b4 the store opened I went to Adorama. The lens was shown as back-ordered on their web site. I phoned and a very helpful customer service operator helped me with information on when the Credit Card is charged and shipping cost policies on part shipments. I then emailed the sales person she specified with the details of my multipart order with and a copy (as requested) to her. I then went to bed as it was about 3am :) The following day I forwarded by email - again to the same customer service person - my credit card authentication, scans of front and back of card and the first page of a recent bill to authenticate the address etc. The actual ordering was on the USA Friday morning and the lens was shipped via UPS on the following USA Monday and it arrived on the following Friday (local time) at my home in a Melbourne suburb. If the lens had not become available and there were significant items in the rest of the order their policy is to ship the other items and NOT to charge the card for delayed items until the item(s) is(are) shipped - they also bear any extra shipping costs involved. The lens cost me about US$220 and about US$35 for shipping which was considerably less than I found on web prices in Oz. Especially when the shipping costs were shared over the other items. My only loss is that if there is a warranty problem with the lens I may have to send it back to the USA for warranty service or possibly pay full rates for local service - this is a risk I am prepared to take with a lens. Hope this is of interest and help to you in deciding what to do in your current frustrating situation Rod -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
HUH? I never recommedend any specific display technology or told anyone to buy a CRT, I recommended higher resolution displays and TODAY there are a whole bunch of LCDS that DO go much higher than 1280x1024 and for cheap too. YOU are out of touch. At the time I bought this CRT/CARD setup, there were virtually no LCDs that went higher than 1280x1024 but now today there are many many out there. That was the main reason I went with CRT, I wanted/needed the higher resolution that LCDS didnt offer THEN, not now though... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:59 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using obsolescent display technology. Those 19 CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19 LCD's. Almost all of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20 or 24 panel) and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the great HDTV thread). -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: EXCUSE ME? this all started by a bunch of people telling me what I should do, namely reduce the quality of the images in that web gallery so they would be easier to view with low spec displays. So dont tell me I have a freaking attitude for telling them what to do in reply ( which is upgrade their displays ) when they started by telling me to degrade my images for their low spec displays. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... I think people don't like being told what they should do, what they can afford, that they're stupid for not using the same or higher quality gear that JCO uses, and so on. It's not just about JCO's choice decision to post pics his way, it's his friggin attitude in telling people what they SHOULD do, and discounting the needs and personal choices others make. Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, he can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look at it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all this e-bullying. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
This approach is the wrong way round really. The ideal size across the diagonal for a picture should be about half the viewing distance. The recommended viewing distance for a computer screen is about 30 inches (75cm). So the maximum size of your picture should be about 15 inches (37cm) across the diagonal. This size means you can take in the whole picture from the viewing distance without having to 'scan' across it with your eyes (or scroll with your viewer), but the picture is not so small that you start to lose details and have to strain. So your picture (in 135 format) should be about 16x24 (40x60cm) for this viewing distance. Assuming 90 dots per inch resolution and a 1:1 mapping, your picture should be 1440x2160 = 31 megabytes. That rules out almost all monitors and line speeds for optimum viewing. For optimum viewing therefore you need to decide for yourself what is the target screen size and resolution, and make the largest picture you can that fits, allowing the audience to take in the whole thing without scanning or scrolling. The audience will just have to lean a bit closer to appreciate the fine detail of the picture. My display is a 1600x1200 15 LCD. I typically restrict the pictures I post to 800 pixels on the long edge, simply out of convention, convenience and politeness. If I have to scroll to see the whole picture I jump ship pdq. -- Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: 04 April 2007 06:15 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution My workstation screen is a Cinema Display 23, native resolution 1920x1200 pixels. My laptop screen is a cinema format 15, native resolution 1290x960 pixels. I run them at the native resolution. Which is mostly irrelevant. I can see quite a large image on screen, even in a browser window, without scaling or scrolling, and I can always have the display scale as required. However, a lot of people can't do that, and scaling imposes its limitations on image quality. So, unlike some other people who consider themselves and their screen the center of the universe, I build my standard web page displays to look good on a 1024x768 pixel display so that many people can enjoy what I show. That implies, after extensive testing and querying people on all kinds of different systems, that my standard web images now are rendered to a maximum of 594 pixels tall and a maximum of 794 pixels wide. That allows just enough room in typical browser window on that size screen to display the whole image without scrolling and with a little room left over, possibly, for captioning and controls. It's tight on 1024x768. And it still images nicely on my 23 display without scaling. And I provide a larger size optional rendering for my pictures at 1000 pixels vertical dimension, leaving the horizontal to run to whatever size it ought to be without going past 1800 pixels, for those with display capabilities that can view at that resolution. Whenever I have to scroll around to see pictures, it becomes tiresome and I rapidly move on to the next thing on my agenda. The magic of the image is lost that way. Godfrey On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:01 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 2) What resolution do you prefer? 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
It's a little claustrophobic for the first couple of weeks. And I miss the resolution when editing full-res photos. For everything else, the LCD is better. The text quality difference is incredible (And note my 21 monitor is a Cornerstone 1600P, a $1500 professional-grade monitor driven by a high-end Radeon card, not some low-end cheapo. Superb for editing, good text quality) and of course I can now take it with me. For general use, the laptop display simply blows any CRT out of the water. For editing, the extra resolution of the CRT is nice, but I'll get that back as soon as I get around to buying a 24 panel for my desk. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: Have you actully WORKED on a 1600x1200 pc and didnt you find going back to 1280x960 very claustrophobic? I do whenever I have to.. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:15 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution 1. 15.4 16:10 Laptop screen (replaced my 21 CRT running at 1856x1392, miss teh resolution, but the LCD is far more crisp, which makes up for a lot. Looks way better than any 19 CRT running at 1600x1200) 2. 1280x800 (max res) 3. 1000x700 or so 4. 800-1000 horizontal, 5-700 vertical 5. yes -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 2) What resolution do you prefer? 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
I've seen a lot of monitors, good and bad. For general use, a good LCD panel that's crisp, has a decent response time and a contrast ratio over 600:1 is significantly better (and easier on the eyes) than any CRT. For editing, the CRT's still a bit better (better blacks, higher resolutions), but not enough to beat the LCD for all-round use. Only way I'd run a CRT now is on a dedicated editing box that does nothing else. As to text, you're still getting similar amounts of text on the screen as you can run smaller fonts on a lower-res display. It's the physical size of the font that matters to readability, and that places a hard limit on how small the font can get onscreen (you can get more text on a higher res display but you risk eyestrain. As someone who gets payed to look at a display for 8+ hours a day, I can't risk that). -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: if your saying your 1280x800 lcd screen looks better than any CRT running at 1600x1200 fine ( have you seen them all?) , but there is no way it can display nearly as much information like text etc. you need the pixels to do that...and you dont have nearly as many to work with.. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:15 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution 1. 15.4 16:10 Laptop screen (replaced my 21 CRT running at 1856x1392, miss teh resolution, but the LCD is far more crisp, which makes up for a lot. Looks way better than any 19 CRT running at 1600x1200) 2. 1280x800 (max res) 3. 1000x700 or so 4. 800-1000 horizontal, 5-700 vertical 5. yes -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 2) What resolution do you prefer? 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
There are essentially no desktop LCD's that exceed 1280x1024 in sizes smaller than 20. 20 and up displays have come down in price a lot recently, but they still command a fairly large premium over a 19 1280x1024 display, with little gain for most users. Also there's been plenty of LCD options over 1280x1024 resolution for the last 5 years. They just weren't cheap. There's been a good selection of 20+ LCD's that run higher resolutions as long as I've been following LCD display technology (which is since Apple introduced the 20 Cinema Display around 5 years ago). The selection hasn't changed much (1-2 panels at any one time from each major brand) but the pricing has. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: HUH? I never recommedend any specific display technology or told anyone to buy a CRT, I recommended higher resolution displays and TODAY there are a whole bunch of LCDS that DO go much higher than 1280x1024 and for cheap too. YOU are out of touch. At the time I bought this CRT/CARD setup, there were virtually no LCDs that went higher than 1280x1024 but now today there are many many out there. That was the main reason I went with CRT, I wanted/needed the higher resolution that LCDS didnt offer THEN, not now though... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:59 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using obsolescent display technology. Those 19 CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19 LCD's. Almost all of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20 or 24 panel) and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the great HDTV thread). -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: EXCUSE ME? this all started by a bunch of people telling me what I should do, namely reduce the quality of the images in that web gallery so they would be easier to view with low spec displays. So dont tell me I have a freaking attitude for telling them what to do in reply ( which is upgrade their displays ) when they started by telling me to degrade my images for their low spec displays. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... I think people don't like being told what they should do, what they can afford, that they're stupid for not using the same or higher quality gear that JCO uses, and so on. It's not just about JCO's choice decision to post pics his way, it's his friggin attitude in telling people what they SHOULD do, and discounting the needs and personal choices others make. Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, he can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look at it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all this e-bullying. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
Hey, wow. I missed all this... Does any of you remember The Who and the ferocius bantering of him by that Romanian witty fellow whose name I can't seem to remember? Take it easy, men. There are much worse things than this. Ciao, Flavio -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:38 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: The PDML List Demographic and JCO screw you, I dont seek anything but the truth ... CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you www.telecomitalia.it -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Anti-stress link
Hello Everybody, In an attempt to ease the built-up tension I suggest that you adjourn to the provided link and have some fun and a laugh about ourselves, as both human being and photographers. Disclaimer: I beg Ann's (and any other lady in the list) pardon for some of the images...nothing really serious but certainly not very dignified. http://fishki.net/comment.php?id=18351 Ciao, Flavio PS: I'm sorry for the Cyrillic text, but I'm pretty sure you won't mind. ;-) CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you www.telecomitalia.it -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
At 02:59 PM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: THANK YOU- YOU FINALLY GET IT. YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING SCREW YOU - UPGRADE YOUR HARDWARE Why? Because its ridiculous to be telling me to reduce my images size AND QUALITY any further when they display fine on my SUB $200 display which is not extraordinary, not state of the art not even remotely expensive. I am not going to cater to very old crappy display resolution setups if it means I have to degrade the images for everyone, even those with reasonably modern resolutions. Sorry, but that's the wrong attitude to take when displaying images for public consumption (this includes the PDML). If people have to change a setting or buy a new piece of hardware, then the pictures ain't worth the effort. Certain types of photos benefit from increased resolution, a gnarled old tree, the aged steel beams of an old bridge, basically anything with texture. Pictures of shinny cars don't suffer nearly as much for being down sized for web viewing. They just don't have the fine detail to loose. SECONDLY, I DO NOT AGREE that higher resolution setups mean you have to degrade ANY pc usage. I have found that the higher resolution setups I have gone to over the years GREATLY ENHANCED the entire PC usage experience, NOT just photo viewing. More workspace means more information at a glance, less scrolling of webpages INCLUDING TEXT ONLY WEBPAGES, ETC. I think many people here could be mislead by your comments thinking that higher resolution displays are only good for viewing photos. It makes just about everything you do on a PC easier to do, THE VERY THING THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINERS WERE ASKING FOR...So thats why my reply was, and still is : UPGRADE YOUR PC DISPLY RESOLUTION. It for your own benefit, not mine... JCO There is no right or wrong. This is a personal preference thing. For me to be able to comfortably read text at 1600x1200 I have to bump up the font size to 120 DPI, thus negating the benefit of the extra resolution. Belive me I've tried it, and it doesn't work for me. D. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:27 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... At 01:39 AM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED? Yes. I like ICE CREAM!! THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION THATST THE PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP OR EXPECT ME TO DUMB DOWN/DEGRADE MY IMAGES TO SUIT YOUR SHIT DISPLAY. You know sweet F.A. about my system. Image processing is only 1 of many things I use my computer for. 1600x1200 may be great for Photoshop, but I find it useless for web browsing, Word, Excel CAD. I've compromised and settled on 2 19 monitors running at 1280x1024 each. Your just angry because you've found out your assumptions regarding PDML screen resolutions were incorrect, and you can't admit that fact. Also, it you had paid attention to posts discussing this very topic (ie PDML member preferred screen resolutions) in the past, you would have known your assumptions were wrong. Even though you say you put the gallery together for the PDML, and several members commented that the shots were a bit large, you seem unwilling to simply say OK, I'll know better next time. Instead you've basically said Screw you! Upgrade your hardware. Kisses, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:01:40 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: 1) What size screen do you use For photoshop work, a 19 inch at 1280x1024 For daily work and most browsing, a laptop with 15 inch 1024x768 (NOT running Mac, Windows or Linux , so no Flash either :-) 2) What resolution do you prefer? 1280x1024 (but that is not available on the laptop :-) 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. On the laptop, about 900 wide and 700 high. (Browser uses minimal space after 'full screen = F11' in Firefox) 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 600 at the longest edge minimum, maximum 750 high 1000 wide 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Yes Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
Responses interspersed. John Coyle Praxis Data Solutions (www.epraxisdata.com) Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML PDML@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:01 PM Subject: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) 1024x768 at the moment, but my system is due for an upgrade soon and I'll go to at least one size up 2) What resolution do you prefer? For a web image, probably 96dpi matches most screens 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 800 high, just! 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? Not a big concern, I'm on broadband, but I would hesitate to look at anything over 1.5MB unless I felt the repuation of the author might justify it. 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Not necessarily: it's easy enough to Ctrl- to zoom out. Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PEOW:Tribute/Farwell to Mom ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
David, Paul, Kenneth, Boris, Godfrey, Bruce, Walter and Marnie, Thanks so much for your prayers and words of encouragement. It means alot. Even though we've only met through conversation I can feel the love. My mom passed very peacefully early yesterday morning as I laid near her side. She was very comfortable, having been in the loving arms of family and friends during the final days of her life. She knew she is loved by everyone who had the pleasure of meeting her. I'm so glad we brought her home. JayT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Is it possible to buy a Pentax lens in Sydney?
Stephen, Just for interest both BH Adorama have the lens in stock but are both closed for Passover. My problems with BH were not of their making - they were due to a computer breakdown between them and the Commonwealth bank Credit Card system. However they would have had the sale IF they had been willing to take a backorder. Adorama did take a back order so they got the sale :) I know I would be cancelling the order in Oz and buying from either of the USA sources. It is not the fault of the shop but they are probably surprised you have not already gone overseas - they would blame Kennedy's and not you. Rod ___ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Rod, I made a small purchase from BH with absolutely no problems. So I am confident that if I had ordered from them, I would have had the lens since January. It amazes me that there apparently have not been any in the country since November. I have been told varies times for availability: 10-12-6 before xmas middle of January 14-2-7 End of March And now end of April I first tried to order this lens in October! I have no problem with the store that actually ordered the lens for me, it's not their fault. So I am sticking with them. I do have a problem with the other stores, who simply neglected to give me a price. But I can now see why they maybe simply frustrated with Kennedys. There appears to be something seriously wrong with distribution. Stephen At 19:33 3/04/2007, you wrote: Stephen, I decided to get a FA 50mm f/1.4 mid March this year. As I had problems with BH authentication of my VISA payment attempts on the web orders and they would not accept a backorder in my phone contact after the small quantity available one USA night were sold b4 the store opened I went to Adorama. The lens was shown as back-ordered on their web site. I phoned and a very helpful customer service operator helped me with information on when the Credit Card is charged and shipping cost policies on part shipments. I then emailed the sales person she specified with the details of my multipart order with and a copy (as requested) to her. I then went to bed as it was about 3am :) The following day I forwarded by email - again to the same customer service person - my credit card authentication, scans of front and back of card and the first page of a recent bill to authenticate the address etc. The actual ordering was on the USA Friday morning and the lens was shipped via UPS on the following USA Monday and it arrived on the following Friday (local time) at my home in a Melbourne suburb. If the lens had not become available and there were significant items in the rest of the order their policy is to ship the other items and NOT to charge the card for delayed items until the item(s) is(are) shipped - they also bear any extra shipping costs involved. The lens cost me about US$220 and about US$35 for shipping which was considerably less than I found on web prices in Oz. Especially when the shipping costs were shared over the other items. My only loss is that if there is a warranty problem with the lens I may have to send it back to the USA for warranty service or possibly pay full rates for local service - this is a risk I am prepared to take with a lens. Hope this is of interest and help to you in deciding what to do in your current frustrating situation Rod -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
On 4/4/07, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This approach is the wrong way round really. The ideal size across the diagonal for a picture should be about half the viewing distance. The recommended viewing distance for a computer screen is about 30 inches (75cm). 75cm! My deck is only 75cm deep. In that case I'm sitting way too close. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Just Starting to Simmer
It's making me hungry too. Looks like it needs salt :-)...or a big tablespoon of Vegemite. Cheers, Dave On 4/4/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sometimes puttering around the kitchen is almost as enjoyable as reading the PDML. http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/vegstock.html Made with the little Sony DSC-S85 In this case comments, suggestions, and rotten tomatoes are especially welcome and appropriate. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
1) What size screen do you use 1x30 + 2x20 2) What resolution do you prefer? 2560 X 1600 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. see above. i use two other display for all the controls 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? eh? 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? most programs auto-size images, so this question is irrelevant. Shel mishka -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Harriman Reservoir
The land is still muddy. You need to treat the midtones independently of the highlights. You can do that with the shadow/highlight tool or with curves if you're working in PhotoShop. Paul On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:51 AM, Russell Kerstetter wrote: Here is a new, brighter version. It is still a little dark, but much more than this and the clouds are just a white mess. http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/spare.html Thanks again to those who commented. Russ On 4/2/07, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shel and Godders- Thanks for taking the time to show me some alternative solutions. I like both of your different takes, I also like that you were able to brighten the whole thing up without losing the cloud detail. I fiddled around for a while this evening, but was not able to duplicate our results. I can brighten it up some, but by the time I start to lose cloud detail the water in the lake is still too dark. But that may be the price I have to pay for using free software :) So I will have to mess around with this some more again tomorrow evening and see what I can come up with. Thanks again. Russ On 4/2/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your original was rendered extremely dark, Russell. It's a simple landscape scene ... rendered up with a bit bit of balancing between water and sky, you get this rather nice, rather serene feel out of it. I took the liberty of doing a couple of edits to give you an idea where I'd go with it... It includes your original so you can see the differences easily. http://homepage.mac.com/godders/rk2882/ This is a case where if I was using Lightroom I could likely do most of what I did with its tools, and presuming I had the RAW file to work with, but with just an 8bit image file to work with Photoshop allows the kind of gentle, selective editing required to bring this up. 1- Don't underexpose. Determine where the brightest elements are that you want to retain detail in and expose correctly for that ... Placing exposure properly like that takes a little time to figure out and if you're not sure you should bracket exposure around it. The histogram shows you an approximation based on values in the JPEG preview that is rendered for every file, but if you're capturing in RAW you can work with what looks like a little bit of highlight overexposures on the histogram. It's not rigorously calibrated, you have to work with it to understand what you're seeing. 2- Yes, this is a problem. Your screen looks overly bright compared to the ambient light and that's tricking your eye. Better to calibrate and profile the screen in modest, normal room light and work that way so that your eyes and the screen are at proper luminance values. I calibrate my screen for 140 lumens, gamma 1.8 and 5500K white point in normal, indirect room illumination. Move any light that glares on the screen to a different position so that's not a problem. This will make a huge difference in how your photos come out. Godfrey On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Russell Kerstetter wrote: Thanks Bruce, PJ, Paul, Markus Shel and Brian for being honest. When I look at it objectively, I agree that it is mostly an uninteresting picture. Maybe next time I will try the 'Auto Compose' function on my DL. I have been told several times, that my pictures are too dark. To be clear, we are talking a few stops dark, but not black or anything like that, right? I think there are two issues here (if anyone cares to comment further): 1) Foremost, I think I have a tendency to underexpose, specifically on shots like this. I really like detail in the clouds and am afraid of losing it even when the clouds are not the most important aspect of the picture. IIRC the histogram for this shot had the highlights touching the first bar from the right (which is a half-stop right?) but I think that what you are seeing on your screen is probably darker than just a half-stop. 2) I usually work in a dark room because I hate glare off the screen. I have been running my mac on gamma 1.8 instead of 2.2, but from what I am hearing I think that is a negligible part of my problem. Russ (here to learn) On 4/1/07, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a reservoir/lake near my mother-in-law's house. Also this is the first photo I have processed with iPhoto. I was using Lightroom beta, iPhoto definately has less features and some irritating limitations, but it does have the 'touch-up' tool, which is pretty handy. http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/IMGP2882.html Honest comments please, thanks for looking. Russ -- Legacy Air, Inc. 11900 Airport Way Broomfield Colorado 80021 (303) 404-0277 fax (303) 404-0280 www.legacy-air.com -- Legacy Air, Inc. 11900 Airport Way Broomfield Colorado 80021 (303) 404-0277 fax (303) 404-0280 www.legacy-air.com --
Re: PEOW:Tribute/Farwell to Mom ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Jay Taylor wrote: My mom passed very peacefully early yesterday morning as I laid near her side. She was very comfortable, having been in the loving arms of family and friends during the final days of her life. She knew she is loved by everyone who had the pleasure of meeting her. I'm so glad we brought her home. My condolences on your loss. Godfrey Further west than West, Beyond the lines of the world, Further east than East, We meet again: And dance upon the burning Wind. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:47 AM, Bob W wrote: This approach is the wrong way round really. The ideal size across the diagonal for a picture should be about half the viewing distance. The recommended viewing distance for a computer screen is about 30 inches (75cm). So the maximum size of your picture should be about 15 inches (37cm) across the diagonal. This size means you can take in the whole picture from the viewing distance without having to 'scan' across it with your eyes (or scroll with your viewer), but the picture is not so small that you start to lose details and have to strain. So your picture (in 135 format) should be about 16x24 (40x60cm) for this viewing distance. Assuming 90 dots per inch resolution and a 1:1 mapping, your picture should be 1440x2160 = 31 megabytes. That rules out almost all monitors and line speeds for optimum viewing. Sure, fine theory. But the recommended viewing distance is hopeless for my eyesight and comfort ... I have my computer glasses tuned for a comfortable 23 viewing distance. Farther away than that and text on screen is hopeless unless I make it too big to be useful. For optimum viewing therefore you need to decide for yourself what is the target screen size and resolution, and make the largest picture you can that fits, allowing the audience to take in the whole thing without scanning or scrolling. The audience will just have to lean a bit closer to appreciate the fine detail of the picture. Yup. What detail is visible anyway. An A3 print is so much nicer to examine closely. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:01 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use Main display: 20-inch LCD Secondary display 19-inch CRT 2) What resolution do you prefer? Main: 1680 x 1050 Secondary 1280 x1024 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. About 1500 x 900 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? Minimum: 600 on the long side. Maximum: about 1400 on the long side. 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Perhaps, if they were ridiculously large, but a small amount of scrolling is just a minor annoyance and I tolerate it. Paul Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Harriman Reservoir
Yes. You need better tools. Adjustment layers and masking is the way to go on this sort of image processing problem. G On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:54 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: The land is still muddy. You need to treat the midtones independently of the highlights. You can do that with the shadow/highlight tool or with curves if you're working in PhotoShop. Paul On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:51 AM, Russell Kerstetter wrote: Here is a new, brighter version. It is still a little dark, but much more than this and the clouds are just a white mess. http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/spare.html Thanks again to those who commented. Russ On 4/2/07, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shel and Godders- Thanks for taking the time to show me some alternative solutions. I like both of your different takes, I also like that you were able to brighten the whole thing up without losing the cloud detail. I fiddled around for a while this evening, but was not able to duplicate our results. I can brighten it up some, but by the time I start to lose cloud detail the water in the lake is still too dark. But that may be the price I have to pay for using free software :) So I will have to mess around with this some more again tomorrow evening and see what I can come up with. Thanks again. Russ On 4/2/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your original was rendered extremely dark, Russell. It's a simple landscape scene ... rendered up with a bit bit of balancing between water and sky, you get this rather nice, rather serene feel out of it. I took the liberty of doing a couple of edits to give you an idea where I'd go with it... It includes your original so you can see the differences easily. http://homepage.mac.com/godders/rk2882/ This is a case where if I was using Lightroom I could likely do most of what I did with its tools, and presuming I had the RAW file to work with, but with just an 8bit image file to work with Photoshop allows the kind of gentle, selective editing required to bring this up. 1- Don't underexpose. Determine where the brightest elements are that you want to retain detail in and expose correctly for that ... Placing exposure properly like that takes a little time to figure out and if you're not sure you should bracket exposure around it. The histogram shows you an approximation based on values in the JPEG preview that is rendered for every file, but if you're capturing in RAW you can work with what looks like a little bit of highlight overexposures on the histogram. It's not rigorously calibrated, you have to work with it to understand what you're seeing. 2- Yes, this is a problem. Your screen looks overly bright compared to the ambient light and that's tricking your eye. Better to calibrate and profile the screen in modest, normal room light and work that way so that your eyes and the screen are at proper luminance values. I calibrate my screen for 140 lumens, gamma 1.8 and 5500K white point in normal, indirect room illumination. Move any light that glares on the screen to a different position so that's not a problem. This will make a huge difference in how your photos come out. Godfrey On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Russell Kerstetter wrote: Thanks Bruce, PJ, Paul, Markus Shel and Brian for being honest. When I look at it objectively, I agree that it is mostly an uninteresting picture. Maybe next time I will try the 'Auto Compose' function on my DL. I have been told several times, that my pictures are too dark. To be clear, we are talking a few stops dark, but not black or anything like that, right? I think there are two issues here (if anyone cares to comment further): 1) Foremost, I think I have a tendency to underexpose, specifically on shots like this. I really like detail in the clouds and am afraid of losing it even when the clouds are not the most important aspect of the picture. IIRC the histogram for this shot had the highlights touching the first bar from the right (which is a half-stop right?) but I think that what you are seeing on your screen is probably darker than just a half-stop. 2) I usually work in a dark room because I hate glare off the screen. I have been running my mac on gamma 1.8 instead of 2.2, but from what I am hearing I think that is a negligible part of my problem. Russ (here to learn) On 4/1/07, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a reservoir/lake near my mother-in-law's house. Also this is the first photo I have processed with iPhoto. I was using Lightroom beta, iPhoto definately has less features and some irritating limitations, but it does have the 'touch-up' tool, which is pretty handy. http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/IMGP2882.html Honest comments please, thanks for looking. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Final Four wrap-up
You spell pretty well for no sleep. Maybe i should try that. LOL Sounds like quite the set upp to shoot these events. Just wonder how long before the big out fits use remote only cameras and trip everything from the booth. Then you'll see a lot od Canons for sale. :-) Dave On 4/3/07, cbwaters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I made it through another big one. We had a very successful event and there were no incidents that would inspire long story telling sessions at GFM like last year(sorry). I WAS on TV again this year, but only briefly with no commentary from the CBS announcers (Thank God!). I'm working on about two hours sleep so I may be just a little more incoherent than normal (oh my). Since nobody was interested in how an event like the Final Four is shot, I'll be brief and summarize the cool stuff I saw. All of the big photo groups had several locations that were all wired into computer networks. Like last time, they all have remote unmanned cameras that are triggered with switches at the manned camera locations. Almost all the cameras and locations were wired into a computer network so they could transmit the photos back to their computers at the digital photo work area. So, a shooter on the court trips either the camera in his hand or any of several other cameras he's working with (in the seating area, under the announcer's table, in the catwalk, on the backboard, taped to the floor right on the baseline, etc) and the image falls out of the camera on a firewire into a gizmo with an IP address that is on the network. All the images from IP addresses attached to cameras associated with a given photographer are fed into a folder or folders on the server so we know who took the picture. The local network they built on-site is connected to the corporate network in say, New York. So as the photos are chosen, cropped, and captioned on-site, they're then available to the company within minutes to be put on websites or sold to clients worldwide. Pretty nifty, if you ask me. Here are a couple links. I'm in at least two of the photos from the final game on SI's site. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/ click on the NCAA Tittle Game or Final Four Action- Semifinals links http://lpe.ajc.com/gallery/view/sports/2007/finalfour/0402ncaachamp/ Oh, nobody shooting Pentax, of course. I wasn't allowed to shoot... I didn't have the appropriate arm-band :( Cory -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
First of all, thanks to Shel for starting this thread, and thanks to everyone who's replied so far... and to everyone who is going to reply before it's over ;-) This is actually valuable real-world information that I'm going to be able to use in my web design class. The PDML, which comprises mainly photographers with an above-average equipment list, probably isn't representative of the Internet as a whole, but I expect it could be a good upper average benchmark to work with. Incidentally, one thing I've noticed from the results in general so far that *is* trypical of web users in general is that people *hate* horizontal scrolling. For those interested in more general information: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen_resolution.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
Quoting Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 19 inch LCD 2) What resolution do you prefer? 1280 x1024 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. About 800 pixels high 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? Min: About 600 pixels high Max : About 800 pixels high 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Probably - depends on the quality of the images. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
Bob i cannot agree with you more. Since finmding an email client, that has blocking that works, i can now actually sleep 3-4 hour per night. I don't miss them at all. Dave On 4/3/07, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark, I've had a peaceful and happy pdml experience since blocking JCO messages a month or two ago. Suggest you do the same. He seeks an audience. Regards, Bob S. On 4/3/07, Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me ask again: Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive messages add any value at all to the PDML? --Mark J. C. O'Connell wrote: ALL CAPS MEANS I AM PISSED OFF. If you actually read what is being said in the posts I am replying to you would understand. I dont start these things but people simply refuse to not get personal when they dont have to and they do it FIRST. I just reply in kind. Like calling me elitest schmuck because I use and recommend a much better screen setup even AFTER I told them it cost less than $200 NEW. Thats really not making any sense whatsoever. Its a personal attack to attempt to win a losing argument, plain and simple... jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Cheapskate Challenge
I didn't see anywhere that previous PESO's didn't apply, so I'll enter this in the cheap bastard challenge (photographical specs on page) http://www.ee.vt.edu/~mythtv/PESO/4/ Software used includes -OS: Centos (RedHat Enterprise clone) Linux 4.4, custom 2.6.20 kernel -ICC Profiler for camera: LPROF (part of LCMS color management library) -RAW converter: DCRAW (to 16-bit ProRGB tiff) -Panorama tools: autopano-sift for automatic control point creation hugin for GUI pano fine-tuning pano pano-tools for warping/rendering pano into tiffs enblend for blending tiffs into one -Final adjustments: Cinepaint -Image resizer for web: ImageMagick -File transfer application: scp (part of openssh) -HTML editor: vi Total cost of all software: $0.00 Cost of *ist-DS:$800 (2.2 years ago) Cost of K50/1.4:$9.95 (pawn shop) Cost of computer difficult to compute due to significant re-use of previous components roughly $600 2 years ago. Cheers, -Cory On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, John Coyle wrote: Couldn't resist a challenge! http://tinyurl.com/3dyzyg Technical data on the page John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:10 AM Subject: Cheapskate Challenge I've been thinking lately about the cost of doing photography and finishing photographs for web publication. A recent, erm, thread got me steamed up enough to post this. Basically, how much can you accomplish without spending any more money than it cost you to obtain your hardware? First some assumptions and then the rules. Assumptions: 1. You have access to a computer with an operating system installed and a connection to the Internet. Said computer is capable of running photo editing software and displaying the images on a screen. 2. You have access to a working digital camera or a scanner that you can connect to the computer. The rules: 1. You can use the software that came with your computer. Your computer probably came with an OS installed. If it didn't, whatever OS is currently installed is fine. OSX, Windows, Linux, whatever. From what I understand, the Mac has some basic photo editing software installed by default. Most Linux distros do, too. All of this is fine. 2. You can use the software that came with your camera or scanner. If you had to buy a third party application to get your scanner or camera to talk to your computer that's fine, too. 3. Since most of us like to print photos from time to time, you can use the software that came with your printer. In my case the Epson R320 came with Elements 2.0, so that's allowed. 4. You can use any freely available software, open source or otherwise. e.g. - Irfanview, Lightzone for Linux, Picasa, the GIMP, etc. Trial versions, software that watermarks your photos until you pay for the real thing, etc. are not allowed. You should be able to use the software indefinitely (and legally, so no warez) without having to shell out extra cash. To sum up, if it came with your hardware, is absolutely necessary for operating your hardware, or is freely available (no strings attached) it's allowed. Nothing else. Within these limitation try to produce something you're proud to call your own. When discussing digital (or digitally scanned) photographs with someone who's never done it before, you should be able to show them the photo and say something like All you need is your computer, your camera, and whatever software came with them. In an attempt to add some credibility to the challenge, I should state that I have submitted two photographs to the Pentax Gallery. One of them was accepted. I shot the photograph on a K100D, JPEG, and edited it with Picasa on a PC running Windows XP. It was a PESO a few weeks ago and can be seen here: http://picasaweb.google.com/sdloveless/PDMLPESO/photo#5035527265195980162 If you're interested in playing along, simply post a link to your photo(s) in a reply to this message, or mark it as a Cheapskate Challenge photo in a separate thread. Let us know what software you used to process/edit the photo. Compare it to the software you would normally use. If you're not interested, I won't be offended. If you think I need to revise the assumptions or rules please let me know. If you think this is a ridiculous waste of time I'd like to hear about that, too. Have fun! -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 2x21 Sony-based CRT montitors 2) What resolution do you prefer? 1600x1200 on each, logically merged into a 3200x1200 desktop. 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. Roughly 3100x1100 (or 1500x1100 on one screen) 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 1024x768/1500x1100 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Yes. Scrolling sucks, so my current resolution setup is the minimum acceptable for me. Currently looking for a 3rd monitor... -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Calm
Glad you liked it. Thanks for looking Cheers, Dave On 4/4/07, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is and I like it. Well composed. Thanks for the look. Jack --- David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_027.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Calm
Good :-) Thanks for looking Cheers, Dave On 4/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_027.htm = That is very nice. I like it a lot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PEOW:Tribute/Farwell to Mom
I am glad she went peacefully. Marnie aka DoeLet's please remove my email address from the thread. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Harriman Reservoir
Thanks. Russ On 4/4/07, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice clouds now. Russell Kerstetter wrote: Here is a new, brighter version. It is still a little dark, but much more than this and the clouds are just a white mess. http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/spare.html Thanks again to those who commented. Russ On 4/2/07, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shel and Godders- Thanks for taking the time to show me some alternative solutions. I like both of your different takes, I also like that you were able to brighten the whole thing up without losing the cloud detail. I fiddled around for a while this evening, but was not able to duplicate our results. I can brighten it up some, but by the time I start to lose cloud detail the water in the lake is still too dark. But that may be the price I have to pay for using free software :) So I will have to mess around with this some more again tomorrow evening and see what I can come up with. Thanks again. Russ On 4/2/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your original was rendered extremely dark, Russell. It's a simple landscape scene ... rendered up with a bit bit of balancing between water and sky, you get this rather nice, rather serene feel out of it. I took the liberty of doing a couple of edits to give you an idea where I'd go with it... It includes your original so you can see the differences easily. http://homepage.mac.com/godders/rk2882/ This is a case where if I was using Lightroom I could likely do most of what I did with its tools, and presuming I had the RAW file to work with, but with just an 8bit image file to work with Photoshop allows the kind of gentle, selective editing required to bring this up. 1- Don't underexpose. Determine where the brightest elements are that you want to retain detail in and expose correctly for that ... Placing exposure properly like that takes a little time to figure out and if you're not sure you should bracket exposure around it. The histogram shows you an approximation based on values in the JPEG preview that is rendered for every file, but if you're capturing in RAW you can work with what looks like a little bit of highlight overexposures on the histogram. It's not rigorously calibrated, you have to work with it to understand what you're seeing. 2- Yes, this is a problem. Your screen looks overly bright compared to the ambient light and that's tricking your eye. Better to calibrate and profile the screen in modest, normal room light and work that way so that your eyes and the screen are at proper luminance values. I calibrate my screen for 140 lumens, gamma 1.8 and 5500K white point in normal, indirect room illumination. Move any light that glares on the screen to a different position so that's not a problem. This will make a huge difference in how your photos come out. Godfrey On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Russell Kerstetter wrote: Thanks Bruce, PJ, Paul, Markus Shel and Brian for being honest. When I look at it objectively, I agree that it is mostly an uninteresting picture. Maybe next time I will try the 'Auto Compose' function on my DL. I have been told several times, that my pictures are too dark. To be clear, we are talking a few stops dark, but not black or anything like that, right? I think there are two issues here (if anyone cares to comment further): 1) Foremost, I think I have a tendency to underexpose, specifically on shots like this. I really like detail in the clouds and am afraid of losing it even when the clouds are not the most important aspect of the picture. IIRC the histogram for this shot had the highlights touching the first bar from the right (which is a half-stop right?) but I think that what you are seeing on your screen is probably darker than just a half-stop. 2) I usually work in a dark room because I hate glare off the screen. I have been running my mac on gamma 1.8 instead of 2.2, but from what I am hearing I think that is a negligible part of my problem. Russ (here to learn) On 4/1/07, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a reservoir/lake near my mother-in-law's house. Also this is the first photo I have processed with iPhoto. I was using Lightroom beta, iPhoto definately has less features and some irritating limitations, but it does have the 'touch-up' tool, which is pretty handy. http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/IMGP2882.html Honest comments please, thanks for looking. Russ -- Legacy Air, Inc. 11900 Airport Way Broomfield Colorado 80021 (303) 404-0277 fax (303) 404-0280 www.legacy-air.com -- Legacy Air, Inc. 11900 Airport Way Broomfield Colorado 80021 (303) 404-0277 fax (303) 404-0280 www.legacy-air.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net
Re: PESO: Calm
Thank you sir. Thanks for looking commenting. Cheers, Dave On 4/4/07, Fernando Terrazzino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's certainly calm. I like it. Nice Composition. http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_027.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Calm
Thank you Shel. High praise indeed. Cheers, Dave On 4/4/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David ... at first glance I'd have to say this is a great shot. I didn't even look for technical flaws - I just like the pic very much. It's one of the most pleasing pics I've seen on the list recently. Shel [Original Message] From: David Savage http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_027.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
On 4/4/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use crt, 17 1024 x 768 samsung syncmaster 753 is think, i'm not at home. I have a similar one for the old onsite computer it's 3 years newer than the above and i thing its the synmaster 755. 2) What resolution do you prefer? Same 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. About 800-900 across the top. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 800 across the top seems to be best for my screen. 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? No. I scroll at least once to see the picture, if i like it, i'll scroll, but it is a PITA,which i have been quilty of on occasion. Dave B Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: GESO: Photos taken in near total darkness...
I think they turned out fine. SA bit of motion blur helps add to the being there effect. I have a similar one in May. Now i have the K10D, i think i'll do some in available light and fast primes with SR. Dave On 4/2/07, Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you ever bring a camera with to a show only to find out that there wasn't ANY LIGHTING on the darned stage? I just saw a band last weekend where the fastest shutter speed I could use (with the DS) was 1/15 of a second, at ISO 1600, with an F2.8 lens cranked wide open. It was so dark that half the time I could not even tell if I had the darned frame in focus. With that in mind, I got some shots that I guess you could call moody if you wanted to be generous. I shot about 418 frames and these 18 shots are all that I was left with after the selection/editing process. RAW would have made more usable images, but 418 images in RAW mode? Not really practical! With that in mind, for some sick reason, I thought I would share the results. The bass player likes 'em, anyways (And it's a fun band) http://charles.robinsontwins.org/photos/2007/NewStandards/index.html -Charles -- Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org I am riding in the MS-TRAM this summer. Please consider sponsoring me! http://charles.robinsontwins.org/mstram.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Calm
Thanks Jan. Cheers, Dave On 4/4/07, Jan van Wijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi David, Completely agree with Shel here, great shot! Regards, JvW On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:25:48 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: David ... at first glance I'd have to say this is a great shot. I didn't even look for technical flaws - I just like the pic very much. It's one of the most pleasing pics I've seen on the list recently. Shel [Original Message] From: David Savage G'day All, While searching through my archives recently I came across this one that I thought I'd share (~110kb): http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_027.htm -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
On 4/3/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 12 Powerbook TFT 2) What resolution do you prefer? my maximum resolution: 1024x768 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 590px tall, 1000px wide 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? I don't mind a small amount of scrolling... so the min size is 590px tall, max about 750px. 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? As I stated, i don't mind a small amount of scrolling. but i want to get a good idea of the image without scrolling... -- Cheers, [EMAIL PROTECTED] MichaelHamilton.ca -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Calm
Thanks Godders, Cheers, Dave On 4/4/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lovely work, David. Beautifully done and well presented. G On Apr 3, 2007, at 8:55 AM, David Savage wrote: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_027.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Calm
Great composition, beautiful color. Excellent work. Paul On Apr 3, 2007, at 11:55 AM, David Savage wrote: G'day All, While searching through my archives recently I came across this one that I thought I'd share (~110kb): http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_027.htm As always any and all comments much appreciated.. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Calm
G'day Scott, I cropped the worst of the offending reflections, and didn't think the remaining were worth cloning out. Thanks for looking and commenting. Cheers, Dave On 4/4/07, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Savage wrote: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_027.htm Absolutely gorgeous. The title couldn't be more accurate. I think the reflections at the top are a bit distracting, but other than that it's just about perfect. The water around the branches and just below the duck is excellent. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Calm
On 4/4/07, ann sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Savage wrote: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_027.htm Dave, I love this! a stunning composition - glad you unearthed it Thank you Ann. I was actually trying to shoot just the dead plant, but the ducks and other water birds kept getting in the way, so I made do. :-) Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: GESO: Photos taken in near total darkness...
On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:28, David J Brooks wrote: I think they turned out fine. SA bit of motion blur helps add to the being there effect. I have a similar one in May. Now i have the K10D, i think i'll do some in available light and fast primes with SR. I found myself wondering if the K10D with its SR would have helped in this situation... and then I worried about that somewhat-stripey noise I've seen in some low-light, poorly-exposed examples. And I thought to myself: What am I doing here, if not shooting totally underexposed frames at high ISO? Would the K10D just make these unusable or are those flawed samples?? Anyone with the K10D care to comment on the forgiveness of this camera in less-than-optimal low-light situations? -Charles -- Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org I am riding in the MS-TRAM this summer. Please consider sponsoring me! http://charles.robinsontwins.org/mstram.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Calm
Thank you Paul. Cheers, Dave On 4/4/07, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great composition, beautiful color. Excellent work. Paul On Apr 3, 2007, at 11:55 AM, David Savage wrote: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_027.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PEOW:Tribute/Farwell to Mom ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Jay Taylor wrote: My mom passed very peacefully early yesterday morning as I laid near her side. She was very comfortable, having been in the loving arms of family and friends during the final days of her life. She knew she is loved by everyone who had the pleasure of meeting her. I'm so glad we brought her home. *Sigh*... My condolences... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Calm
Thanks again to all who looked and commented. Seems I did alright on this occasion And for the record, this shot was declined by the Pentax Gallery. :-) Cheers, Dave On 4/3/07, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_027.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: GESO: Photos taken in near total darkness...
The advantages of SR are considerable. And K10D banding is only a problem when a shot is grossly underexposed. I own both the D and the K10D. The K10D is a better low-light camera. Paul On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Charles Robinson wrote: On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:28, David J Brooks wrote: I think they turned out fine. SA bit of motion blur helps add to the being there effect. I have a similar one in May. Now i have the K10D, i think i'll do some in available light and fast primes with SR. I found myself wondering if the K10D with its SR would have helped in this situation... and then I worried about that somewhat-stripey noise I've seen in some low-light, poorly-exposed examples. And I thought to myself: What am I doing here, if not shooting totally underexposed frames at high ISO? Would the K10D just make these unusable or are those flawed samples?? Anyone with the K10D care to comment on the forgiveness of this camera in less-than-optimal low-light situations? -Charles -- Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org I am riding in the MS-TRAM this summer. Please consider sponsoring me! http://charles.robinsontwins.org/mstram.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
Responses interspersed. -P Shel Belinkoff wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 17 2) What resolution do you prefer? 1024x760 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 800x568 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 800(H) - 600(V) 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Yes - unless they held something of great interest for me Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
Mark Roberts wrote: Incidentally, one thing I've noticed from the results in general so far that *is* trypical of web users in general is that people *hate* horizontal scrolling. I concur. I really don't mind vertical scrolling, because I have this wheel on the mouse horizontal scrolling upsets me ;-). Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PEOW:Tribute/Farwell to Mom ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
You did the right thing. May she rest in peace. Paul On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Jay Taylor wrote: My mom passed very peacefully early yesterday morning as I laid near her side. She was very comfortable, having been in the loving arms of family and friends during the final days of her life. She knew she is loved by everyone who had the pleasure of meeting her. I'm so glad we brought her home. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Fuck you! You don't know me or my situation. As it happens, my DSLR was a gift. And I cannot afford to upgrade my computer gear. I am pretty much unable to work because of some medical issues. And, even if I had the extra money for a higher quality display, I'd probably us the money for a new lens or two and to pay some bills. You seem to forget that I mentioned a need to sell some equipment a while ago, and we discussed - off list - what you might be interested in. I was totally stunned when you replied that you couldn't buy everything I was considering selling. How can anyone like you - a serious lens collector - not be able to afford five or six K-mount lenses. I just don't believe you. SCHMUCK! Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] nope, I guess you dont understand the difference between choosing to not buy something ( which is fine ) and claiming not being able to afford to buy it. I dont buy the argument that ANY DSLR camera and lens system owners ( this is often over a grand) and users cant afford a $200 PC display in 2007. It makes no sense to me at all. And even if your stuff was a gift, you would be an extremely rare exception, not the rule... Like I said, you haven't a clue to my financial status and capabilities. You have no knowledge of how I came to own any of the digital photo gear that I own - for all your dumb, cracker ass knows they were gifts, or I stole 'em off the back of a truck. You have the intelligence of a carrot. Back into the kill file for you ... and you were doing so well there for a while. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
WHAT? I clearly stated that if you really couldnt afford a sub $200 PC AND you were a DSLR/LENS system owner, you WOULD BE the very rare exception, not the rule. I dont see how you can be giving me shit about saying that. Secondly, what dont you believe from me? I dont get the K mount lens comment, I have already stated I have have a bunch in earlier threads... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:00 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Fuck you! You don't know me or my situation. As it happens, my DSLR was a gift. And I cannot afford to upgrade my computer gear. I am pretty much unable to work because of some medical issues. And, even if I had the extra money for a higher quality display, I'd probably us the money for a new lens or two and to pay some bills. You seem to forget that I mentioned a need to sell some equipment a while ago, and we discussed - off list - what you might be interested in. I was totally stunned when you replied that you couldn't buy everything I was considering selling. How can anyone like you - a serious lens collector - not be able to afford five or six K-mount lenses. I just don't believe you. SCHMUCK! Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] nope, I guess you dont understand the difference between choosing to not buy something ( which is fine ) and claiming not being able to afford to buy it. I dont buy the argument that ANY DSLR camera and lens system owners ( this is often over a grand) and users cant afford a $200 PC display in 2007. It makes no sense to me at all. And even if your stuff was a gift, you would be an extremely rare exception, not the rule... Like I said, you haven't a clue to my financial status and capabilities. You have no knowledge of how I came to own any of the digital photo gear that I own - for all your dumb, cracker ass knows they were gifts, or I stole 'em off the back of a truck. You have the intelligence of a carrot. Back into the kill file for you ... and you were doing so well there for a while. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
YOU ARE CLUELESS, these old cars have MUCH MORE fine detail to see then you are guessing, I KNOW, as I am privy to the full size originals, And as I reduced them in size they looked worse and worse. These arent like today's blob cars... Secondly, these were NOT sent to the general public, they were sent to a PHOTO group, and I stand by my earlier comments that a photo group has a higher standard of quality and a higher than average PC display capability so it makes no sense to DUMB DOWn/DEGRADE the photos any more than necessary. I dont see the point of sendin these to low spec displays in the first place, they are not going to be able to appreciate them anyway if aize over-reduced. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:19 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... At 02:59 PM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: THANK YOU- YOU FINALLY GET IT. YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING SCREW YOU - UPGRADE YOUR HARDWARE Why? Because its ridiculous to be telling me to reduce my images size AND QUALITY any further when they display fine on my SUB $200 display which is not extraordinary, not state of the art not even remotely expensive. I am not going to cater to very old crappy display resolution setups if it means I have to degrade the images for everyone, even those with reasonably modern resolutions. Sorry, but that's the wrong attitude to take when displaying images for public consumption (this includes the PDML). If people have to change a setting or buy a new piece of hardware, then the pictures ain't worth the effort. Certain types of photos benefit from increased resolution, a gnarled old tree, the aged steel beams of an old bridge, basically anything with texture. Pictures of shinny cars don't suffer nearly as much for being down sized for web viewing. They just don't have the fine detail to loose. SECONDLY, I DO NOT AGREE that higher resolution setups mean you have to degrade ANY pc usage. I have found that the higher resolution setups I have gone to over the years GREATLY ENHANCED the entire PC usage experience, NOT just photo viewing. More workspace means more information at a glance, less scrolling of webpages INCLUDING TEXT ONLY WEBPAGES, ETC. I think many people here could be mislead by your comments thinking that higher resolution displays are only good for viewing photos. It makes just about everything you do on a PC easier to do, THE VERY THING THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINERS WERE ASKING FOR...So thats why my reply was, and still is : UPGRADE YOUR PC DISPLY RESOLUTION. It for your own benefit, not mine... JCO There is no right or wrong. This is a personal preference thing. For me to be able to comfortably read text at 1600x1200 I have to bump up the font size to 120 DPI, thus negating the benefit of the extra resolution. Belive me I've tried it, and it doesn't work for me. D. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:27 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach.. . At 01:39 AM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED? Yes. I like ICE CREAM!! THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION THATST THE PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP OR EXPECT ME TO DUMB DOWN/DEGRADE MY IMAGES TO SUIT YOUR SHIT DISPLAY. You know sweet F.A. about my system. Image processing is only 1 of many things I use my computer for. 1600x1200 may be great for Photoshop, but I find it useless for web browsing, Word, Excel CAD. I've compromised and settled on 2 19 monitors running at 1280x1024 each. Your just angry because you've found out your assumptions regarding PDML screen resolutions were incorrect, and you can't admit that fact. Also, it you had paid attention to posts discussing this very topic (ie PDML member preferred screen resolutions) in the past, you would have known your assumptions were wrong. Even though you say you put the gallery together for the PDML, and several members commented that the shots were a bit large, you seem unwilling to simply say OK, I'll know better next time. Instead you've basically said Screw you! Upgrade your hardware. Kisses, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: GESO: Photos taken in near total darkness...
I agree about the benefits of SR, but I took some shots last night with the *istD, and some this evening with the K10D, both using ISO 1600. The shots were all correctly exposed at around 1/6 second. I was comparing them just now and those from the D are unsurprisingly somewhat cleaner noise wise. Cheers, Dave (although the slow write speed of the D had me pulling what's left of my hair out ;-) On 4/4/07, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The advantages of SR are considerable. And K10D banding is only a problem when a shot is grossly underexposed. I own both the D and the K10D. The K10D is a better low-light camera. Paul On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Charles Robinson wrote: On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:28, David J Brooks wrote: I think they turned out fine. SA bit of motion blur helps add to the being there effect. I have a similar one in May. Now i have the K10D, i think i'll do some in available light and fast primes with SR. I found myself wondering if the K10D with its SR would have helped in this situation... and then I worried about that somewhat-stripey noise I've seen in some low-light, poorly-exposed examples. And I thought to myself: What am I doing here, if not shooting totally underexposed frames at high ISO? Would the K10D just make these unusable or are those flawed samples?? Anyone with the K10D care to comment on the forgiveness of this camera in less-than-optimal low-light situations? -Charles -- Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org I am riding in the MS-TRAM this summer. Please consider sponsoring me! http://charles.robinsontwins.org/mstram.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
DUH, then simply get a 20 high resolution LCD for cheap. I never insisted that anyone had to get a 19 and 20 would be a problem. You are arguing the absurd here, just to argue from what I can see. Its hard to get, 14,15,17 monitors now too, display average sizes move forward, AS DO average RESOLUTIONS, even while the prices continue to falll... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:52 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... There are essentially no desktop LCD's that exceed 1280x1024 in sizes smaller than 20. 20 and up displays have come down in price a lot recently, but they still command a fairly large premium over a 19 1280x1024 display, with little gain for most users. Also there's been plenty of LCD options over 1280x1024 resolution for the last 5 years. They just weren't cheap. There's been a good selection of 20+ LCD's that run higher resolutions as long as I've been following LCD display technology (which is since Apple introduced the 20 Cinema Display around 5 years ago). The selection hasn't changed much (1-2 panels at any one time from each major brand) but the pricing has. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: HUH? I never recommedend any specific display technology or told anyone to buy a CRT, I recommended higher resolution displays and TODAY there are a whole bunch of LCDS that DO go much higher than 1280x1024 and for cheap too. YOU are out of touch. At the time I bought this CRT/CARD setup, there were virtually no LCDs that went higher than 1280x1024 but now today there are many many out there. That was the main reason I went with CRT, I wanted/needed the higher resolution that LCDS didnt offer THEN, not now though... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:59 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using obsolescent display technology. Those 19 CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19 LCD's. Almost all of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20 or 24 panel) and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the great HDTV thread). -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: EXCUSE ME? this all started by a bunch of people telling me what I should do, namely reduce the quality of the images in that web gallery so they would be easier to view with low spec displays. So dont tell me I have a freaking attitude for telling them what to do in reply ( which is upgrade their displays ) when they started by telling me to degrade my images for their low spec displays. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... I think people don't like being told what they should do, what they can afford, that they're stupid for not using the same or higher quality gear that JCO uses, and so on. It's not just about JCO's choice decision to post pics his way, it's his friggin attitude in telling people what they SHOULD do, and discounting the needs and personal choices others make. Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, he can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look at it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all this e-bullying. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Yes John. D. On 4/4/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YOU ARE CLUELESS, these old cars have MUCH MORE fine detail to see then you are guessing, I KNOW, as I am privy to the full size originals, And as I reduced them in size they looked worse and worse. These arent like today's blob cars... Secondly, these were NOT sent to the general public, they were sent to a PHOTO group, and I stand by my earlier comments that a photo group has a higher standard of quality and a higher than average PC display capability so it makes no sense to DUMB DOWn/DEGRADE the photos any more than necessary. I dont see the point of sendin these to low spec displays in the first place, they are not going to be able to appreciate them anyway if aize over-reduced. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:19 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... At 02:59 PM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: THANK YOU- YOU FINALLY GET IT. YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING SCREW YOU - UPGRADE YOUR HARDWARE Why? Because its ridiculous to be telling me to reduce my images size AND QUALITY any further when they display fine on my SUB $200 display which is not extraordinary, not state of the art not even remotely expensive. I am not going to cater to very old crappy display resolution setups if it means I have to degrade the images for everyone, even those with reasonably modern resolutions. Sorry, but that's the wrong attitude to take when displaying images for public consumption (this includes the PDML). If people have to change a setting or buy a new piece of hardware, then the pictures ain't worth the effort. Certain types of photos benefit from increased resolution, a gnarled old tree, the aged steel beams of an old bridge, basically anything with texture. Pictures of shinny cars don't suffer nearly as much for being down sized for web viewing. They just don't have the fine detail to loose. SECONDLY, I DO NOT AGREE that higher resolution setups mean you have to degrade ANY pc usage. I have found that the higher resolution setups I have gone to over the years GREATLY ENHANCED the entire PC usage experience, NOT just photo viewing. More workspace means more information at a glance, less scrolling of webpages INCLUDING TEXT ONLY WEBPAGES, ETC. I think many people here could be mislead by your comments thinking that higher resolution displays are only good for viewing photos. It makes just about everything you do on a PC easier to do, THE VERY THING THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINERS WERE ASKING FOR...So thats why my reply was, and still is : UPGRADE YOUR PC DISPLY RESOLUTION. It for your own benefit, not mine... JCO There is no right or wrong. This is a personal preference thing. For me to be able to comfortably read text at 1600x1200 I have to bump up the font size to 120 DPI, thus negating the benefit of the extra resolution. Belive me I've tried it, and it doesn't work for me. D. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:27 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach.. . At 01:39 AM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED? Yes. I like ICE CREAM!! THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION THATST THE PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP OR EXPECT ME TO DUMB DOWN/DEGRADE MY IMAGES TO SUIT YOUR SHIT DISPLAY. You know sweet F.A. about my system. Image processing is only 1 of many things I use my computer for. 1600x1200 may be great for Photoshop, but I find it useless for web browsing, Word, Excel CAD. I've compromised and settled on 2 19 monitors running at 1280x1024 each. Your just angry because you've found out your assumptions regarding PDML screen resolutions were incorrect, and you can't admit that fact. Also, it you had paid attention to posts discussing this very topic (ie PDML member preferred screen resolutions) in the past, you would have known your assumptions were wrong. Even though you say you put the gallery together for the PDML, and several members commented that the shots were a bit large, you seem unwilling to simply say OK, I'll know better next time. Instead you've basically said Screw you! Upgrade your hardware. Kisses, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Jeez Adam, you've got to see a good 19 crt and video card sometime. I'm using a Hitachi SuperScan Elite 721, with a GForce video card. I run at 1600x1200 with nary a flicker. It blows away any LCD I've ever seen for detail and at 1280x1024 is crisper than any LCD to my eyes. I only wish I could duplicate the subtlety's I see on screen in a print. I'm going to weep real tears when this baby dies and I have to replace it with an LCD. Adam Maas wrote: Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using obsolescent display technology. Those 19 CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19 LCD's. Almost all of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20 or 24 panel) and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the great HDTV thread). -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: EXCUSE ME? this all started by a bunch of people telling me what I should do, namely reduce the quality of the images in that web gallery so they would be easier to view with low spec displays. So dont tell me I have a freaking attitude for telling them what to do in reply ( which is upgrade their displays ) when they started by telling me to degrade my images for their low spec displays. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... I think people don't like being told what they should do, what they can afford, that they're stupid for not using the same or higher quality gear that JCO uses, and so on. It's not just about JCO's choice decision to post pics his way, it's his friggin attitude in telling people what they SHOULD do, and discounting the needs and personal choices others make. Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, he can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look at it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all this e-bullying. -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. A poll to make JCO angry, but I'll bite 1) What size screen do you use laptop standalone = 15 at work plugged into a 19 LCD Home PC = 19 LCD and 15 LCD 2) What resolution do you prefer? The higher the better, but I'm limited to 1024x768 on the laptop alone or 1280x1024 connected to my 19LCD Home PC = 1280x1024 on 19 and 1024x768 on the second LCD Really I'd prefer a bigger LCD and 1600x1200 but can't justify the cost. 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. I've no idea but less than 1280 (size of the display) 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 800 wide or 600 high 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? hell yes -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re:
While I can understand the desire for flashy design in some instances, and such designs sometimes work, photo sites with too much design are a real turn off for me. I'm at a site to look at pictures, maybe get some technical or biographical background, not to see how clever some web designer can be. In short, the simpler the better when it comes to viewing photos. Shel [Original Message] From: David Savage As sometimes happens, you can get so wrapped up in a project, and showing how innovative you can be, that sometimes you get carried away and put in unnecessary flashy things when simple works and looks better. We sometimes suffer from that in the design office I work in. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: GESO: Photos taken in near total darkness...
On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:14, Paul Stenquist wrote: The advantages of SR are considerable. And K10D banding is only a problem when a shot is grossly underexposed. I own both the D and the K10D. The K10D is a better low-light camera. Nice to know, as it is my plan to upgrade this fall. FWIW, though, most of these pictures would qualify in my opinion as having been grossly underexposed, hence my concern! -Charles -- Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org I am riding in the MS-TRAM this summer. Please consider sponsoring me! http://charles.robinsontwins.org/mstram.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Or cheaper still, present your photos at a slightly smaller resolution. Then it doesn't cost anyone anything. D. On 4/4/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DUH, then simply get a 20 high resolution LCD for cheap. I never insisted that anyone had to get a 19 and 20 would be a problem. You are arguing the absurd here, just to argue from what I can see. Its hard to get, 14,15,17 monitors now too, display average sizes move forward, AS DO average RESOLUTIONS, even while the prices continue to falll... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:52 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... There are essentially no desktop LCD's that exceed 1280x1024 in sizes smaller than 20. 20 and up displays have come down in price a lot recently, but they still command a fairly large premium over a 19 1280x1024 display, with little gain for most users. Also there's been plenty of LCD options over 1280x1024 resolution for the last 5 years. They just weren't cheap. There's been a good selection of 20+ LCD's that run higher resolutions as long as I've been following LCD display technology (which is since Apple introduced the 20 Cinema Display around 5 years ago). The selection hasn't changed much (1-2 panels at any one time from each major brand) but the pricing has. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
I barely remember the Who, that's why I haven't kill filed JCO yet, (and I didn't have too much trouble with Brad Dobo so I guess in most cases I've thick skinned). Minelli Flavio wrote: Hey, wow. I missed all this... Does any of you remember The Who and the ferocius bantering of him by that Romanian witty fellow whose name I can't seem to remember? Take it easy, men. There are much worse things than this. Ciao, Flavio -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:38 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: The PDML List Demographic and JCO screw you, I dont seek anything but the truth ... CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you www.telecomitalia.it -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
yes, you can run SLIGHTLY smaller fonts on a really good LCD than you can on a really good CRT, but its nowhere near enough difference to make up for the huge difference between 1280x960 and 1600x1200 in workspace. Bottom line is you can do/see more with a really good CRT running at 1600x1200 than ANY display running at 1280x960. The bottom line is NET resolution, and I contend that a really good CRT running at 1600x1200 has higher NET resolution than ANY 1280x960 display. Add to that the increased contrast range ( better shadow details ) and generally better color accuracy ( although this gap is closing), It is not as you make it appear to be. And secondly any monitor with better NET resolution is going to be much more useful for a whole bunch of PC applications than just editing photos. Even web browsing, I can easily read some entire web pages, that you cant without scrolling, that is BETTER in that regard, even for ALL TEXT web pages. This is the very thing you called frustrating annoying because of the necessary scrolling. One of the very first things I was absolutely delighted about when I upgraded to 1600x1200 was how much more enjoyable web browsing became. I can see much more without scrolling. Sometimes more QTY. of entire photos without any scrolling. And things like thumbnail pages, I can see way more thumbs on a single screen without any visible loss of quality of those thumbs...HIGHER DISPLAY NET RESOLUTION IS SIMPLY BETTER than lower NET display resolution... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:47 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution I've seen a lot of monitors, good and bad. For general use, a good LCD panel that's crisp, has a decent response time and a contrast ratio over 600:1 is significantly better (and easier on the eyes) than any CRT. For editing, the CRT's still a bit better (better blacks, higher resolutions), but not enough to beat the LCD for all-round use. Only way I'd run a CRT now is on a dedicated editing box that does nothing else. As to text, you're still getting similar amounts of text on the screen as you can run smaller fonts on a lower-res display. It's the physical size of the font that matters to readability, and that places a hard limit on how small the font can get onscreen (you can get more text on a higher res display but you risk eyestrain. As someone who gets payed to look at a display for 8+ hours a day, I can't risk that). -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: if your saying your 1280x800 lcd screen looks better than any CRT running at 1600x1200 fine ( have you seen them all?) , but there is no way it can display nearly as much information like text etc. you need the pixels to do that...and you dont have nearly as many to work with.. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:15 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution 1. 15.4 16:10 Laptop screen (replaced my 21 CRT running at 1856x1392, miss teh resolution, but the LCD is far more crisp, which makes up for a lot. Looks way better than any 19 CRT running at 1600x1200) 2. 1280x800 (max res) 3. 1000x700 or so 4. 800-1000 horizontal, 5-700 vertical 5. yes -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 2) What resolution do you prefer? 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Just Starting to Simmer
Aussies... David Savage wrote: It's making me hungry too. Looks like it needs salt :-)...or a big tablespoon of Vegemite. Cheers, Dave On 4/4/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sometimes puttering around the kitchen is almost as enjoyable as reading the PDML. http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/vegstock.html Made with the little Sony DSC-S85 In this case comments, suggestions, and rotten tomatoes are especially welcome and appropriate. -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use We have two workstations. One has a 17 SyncMaster 753df, the other is a 19 Trinitron. 2) What resolution do you prefer? 1024x768 on the 17, 1280x1024 on the Trinitron. 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. I don't know. I've never checked. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? I prefer a maximum height of 800, width of 1200. Anything with the long edge smaller than 500 is usually too small. 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Yes. It's easy enough to right click and select view image, but sometimes edge detail gets a bit jagged. I'll make exceptions for panoramic photos, but if someone wants to post very large image files, there should be an intermediate file for browser viewing. e.g - picasaweb automatically sizes the photo for your available real estate, and offers an option to view the original file. There are other applications that do something similar. If viewing web pages and images forces me to conform to someone's idiotic ideas about web design, I'll just surf somewhere else. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
In a message dated 4/4/2007 8:02:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I barely remember the Who, that's why I haven't kill filed JCO yet, (and I didn't have too much trouble with Brad Dobo so I guess in most cases I've thick skinned). === Ditto. However, while I understand Doug's desire not to moderate, maybe he should reconsider at least mild moderation. I wonder how many people have left over the last year because of one person. Marnie aka Doe ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, while I understand Doug's desire not to moderate, maybe he should reconsider at least mild moderation. I wonder how many people have left over the last year because of one person. Sorry. I'll try to be nice. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Just Starting to Simmer
:-) Cheers, Dave On 4/5/07, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aussies... David Savage wrote: It's making me hungry too. Looks like it needs salt :-)...or a big tablespoon of Vegemite. Cheers, Dave On 4/4/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sometimes puttering around the kitchen is almost as enjoyable as reading the PDML. http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/vegstock.html Made with the little Sony DSC-S85 In this case comments, suggestions, and rotten tomatoes are especially welcome and appropriate. -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Just Starting to Simmer
LOL I don't use salt in stock or broth, preferring to season the final soup or whatever dish the stock will be used in separately. As for Vegemite, why didn't I think of that! Slapping forehead Someone in the UK (in another venue) suggested Marmite. I tried that stuff _once_ and that was enough. Vegemite and Marmite are similar, yes? Shel [Original Message] From: David Savage It's making me hungry too. Looks like it needs salt :-)...or a big tablespoon of Vegemite. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Sometimes puttering around the kitchen is almost as enjoyable as reading the PDML. http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/vegstock.html Made with the little Sony DSC-S85 In this case comments, suggestions, and rotten tomatoes are especially welcome and appropriate. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Just Starting to Simmer
On 4/4/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL I don't use salt in stock or broth, preferring to season the final soup or whatever dish the stock will be used in separately. As for Vegemite, why didn't I think of that! Slapping forehead I know. It's so obvious :-) Someone in the UK (in another venue) suggested Marmite. I tried that stuff _once_ and that was enough. Vegemite and Marmite are similar, yes? Yes. They're both made from the yeast by-product of the beer brewing process. Funny thing is I love Vegemite, but can't stand Marmite. Cheers, Dave [Original Message] From: David Savage It's making me hungry too. Looks like it needs salt :-)...or a big tablespoon of Vegemite. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Sometimes puttering around the kitchen is almost as enjoyable as reading the PDML. http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/vegstock.html Made with the little Sony DSC-S85 In this case comments, suggestions, and rotten tomatoes are especially welcome and appropriate. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Just Starting to Simmer
In a message dated 4/3/2007 11:13:22 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sometimes puttering around the kitchen is almost as enjoyable as reading the PDML. http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/vegstock.html Made with the little Sony DSC-S85 In this case comments, suggestions, and rotten tomatoes are especially welcome and appropriate. Shel = That's nice, Shel. Makes a nice abstract, good colors. And it would never have occurred to me to shoot something like that. Marnie aka Doe ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
Scott Loveless wrote: If viewing web pages and images forces me to conform to someone's idiotic ideas about web design, I'll just surf somewhere else. Mark! Oops. Got it. ;-) I think that one will go into my selection of course material along with the Savage Principle. Hmm, Savage and Loveless. Anyone see a trend here? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Just Starting to Simmer
Thanks Marnie I've been thinking about combining my interest in food and cooking with photography. Might be able to get some interesting pics without having to travel too far from home. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sometimes puttering around the kitchen is almost as enjoyable as reading the PDML. http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/vegstock.html Made with the little Sony DSC-S85 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
PESO - Yosemite Color
Bad thing about going to Yosemite in the fall, last October, 1/2 of the roads in the valley were closed. Good thing about going then, the fantastic fall color. I took some macro shots of leaves and was thrilled with none. So I took one and played with it. A photographic follows -- than means -- WARNING, it is artified. Don't look if you don't like that sort of thing. And, nope, I will not be showing the original photograph. http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/leaves.htm I think I have this close to where I would like it. Comments welcome. Marnie aka Doe ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Cheapskate Challenge
Obviously you don't care about web quality images you posted a size that I don't have to scroll ! When will you guys ever learn? VBG Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cheapskate Challenge http://www.primelensphoto.com/peacock.jpg Captured in RAW, edited in iPhoto saved to jpg. K10D, Pentax-A 400mm f5.6, ISO800, f9.5, 1/60, Av mode. Decent shot of the peacock next door, but I'm still waiting for the shot. Trouble is, he doesn't venture into the direct sun very often so staying in the shade is keeping the lighting flat. Also, I've noticed unacceptable chromatic aberration with the A 400mm f5.6 wide open which is bothersome. So, I had to shoot at a higher ISO to stop the lens down. I was surpirsed that the shot was this sharp at 1/60 second even though I was using the Wimberely Sidekick on my tripod. Does anyone know for sure if the FA400mm f5.6 is free (or virtually free) of CA wide open? If so, I might swap mine out for one. Not being able to use this lens wide open limits its usefullness. -Brendan --- Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been thinking lately about the cost of doing photography and finishing photographs for web publication. A recent, erm, thread got me steamed up enough to post this. Basically, how much can you accomplish without spending any more money than it cost you to obtain your hardware? First some assumptions and then the rules. Assumptions: 1. You have access to a computer with an operating system installed and a connection to the Internet. Said computer is capable of running photo editing software and displaying the images on a screen. 2. You have access to a working digital camera or a scanner that you can connect to the computer. The rules: 1. You can use the software that came with your computer. Your computer probably came with an OS installed. If it didn't, whatever OS is currently installed is fine. OSX, Windows, Linux, whatever. From what I understand, the Mac has some basic photo editing software installed by default. Most Linux distros do, too. All of this is fine. 2. You can use the software that came with your camera or scanner. If you had to buy a third party application to get your scanner or camera to talk to your computer that's fine, too. 3. Since most of us like to print photos from time to time, you can use the software that came with your printer. In my case the Epson R320 came with Elements 2.0, so that's allowed. 4. You can use any freely available software, open source or otherwise. e.g. - Irfanview, Lightzone for Linux, Picasa, the GIMP, etc. Trial versions, software that watermarks your photos until you pay for the real thing, etc. are not allowed. You should be able to use the software indefinitely (and legally, so no warez) without having to shell out extra cash. To sum up, if it came with your hardware, is absolutely necessary for operating your hardware, or is freely available (no strings attached) it's allowed. Nothing else. Within these limitation try to produce something you're proud to call your own. When discussing digital (or digitally scanned) photographs with someone who's never done it before, you should be able to show them the photo and say something like All you need is your computer, your camera, and whatever software came with them. In an attempt to add some credibility to the challenge, I should state that I have submitted two photographs to the Pentax Gallery. One of them was accepted. I shot the photograph on a K100D, JPEG, and edited it with Picasa on a PC running Windows XP. It was a PESO a few weeks ago and can be seen here: http://picasaweb.google.com/sdloveless/PDMLPESO/photo#5035527265195980162 If you're interested in playing along, simply post a link to your photo(s) in a reply to this message, or mark it as a Cheapskate Challenge photo in a separate thread. Let us know what software you used to process/edit the photo. Compare it to the software you would normally use. If you're not interested, I won't be offended. If you think I need to revise the assumptions or rules please let me know. If you think this is a ridiculous waste of time I'd like to hear about that, too. Have fun! -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
On 4/4/07, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, while I understand Doug's desire not to moderate, maybe he should reconsider at least mild moderation. I wonder how many people have left over the last year because of one person. Sorry. I'll try to be nice. I'm already nice. :-D Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
I guess it would be nice if I participated in my own poll ;-)) 1) A 19-inch CRT 2) 1024 x 768 3) I think it's about 900px or 1000px wide, depending on the browser setup used 4) 800w x 560h or so is just about perfect. I don't mind a little taller as I can expand the height of the screen easily enough. I prefer not to use automatic resizing in the browser. Sometimes the results are pretty strange 5) The broad answer is yes. I don't mind scrolling occasionally, but doing it for every photo gets tiresome. It's especially annoying when people post galleries. Shel [Original Message] 1) What size screen do you use 2) What resolution do you prefer? 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
1. 17 Dell and a 23 Mac, 1280x1024 and 1920x1200 resolution respectively. 2. the highest resolution possible 3. on the 17 probably nothing more than about 1000~1200 wide and no more than 800 tall. On the 23, no more than 1800 wide and 1000 pixels tall. 4, Generally I like to view images with at least 1000 pixels on a side. But 800 or more is usually fine. 5. scrolling is alright as long as the next, previous, and other buttons don't change position so much that it becomes ridiculous. -Brendan --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 2) What resolution do you prefer? 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
1) What size screen do you use 17 2) What resolution do you prefer? 1024X768 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 900X600 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 900X600 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Yes Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 2) What resolution do you prefer? 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
JC, You still haven't answered my original question: Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive messages add any value at all to the PDML? --Mark J. C. O'Connell wrote: I think your more concerned with CAPITOL LETTERS than your are with the meaning of the posts or the thoughts expressed. I dont think thats the most important thing to be concerned with.. jco -Original Message- From: pdml-bounces at pdml.net [mailto:pdml-bounces at pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark Erickson Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:03 PM To: pdml Subject: Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO Let me ask again: Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive messages add any value at all to the PDML? --Mark J. C. O'Connell wrote: ALL CAPS MEANS I AM PISSED OFF. If you actually read what is being said in the posts I am replying to you would understand. I dont start these things but people simply refuse to not get personal when they dont have to and they do it FIRST. I just reply in kind. Like calling me elitest schmuck because I use and recommend a much better screen setup even AFTER I told them it cost less than $200 NEW. Thats really not making any sense whatsoever. Its a personal attack to attempt to win a losing argument, plain and simple... jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Cheapskate Challenge
tee hee hee -Brendan --- Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously you don't care about web quality images you posted a size that I don't have to scroll ! When will you guys ever learn? VBG Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cheapskate Challenge http://www.primelensphoto.com/peacock.jpg Captured in RAW, edited in iPhoto saved to jpg. K10D, Pentax-A 400mm f5.6, ISO800, f9.5, 1/60, Av mode. Decent shot of the peacock next door, but I'm still waiting for the shot. Trouble is, he doesn't venture into the direct sun very often so staying in the shade is keeping the lighting flat. Also, I've noticed unacceptable chromatic aberration with the A 400mm f5.6 wide open which is bothersome. So, I had to shoot at a higher ISO to stop the lens down. I was surpirsed that the shot was this sharp at 1/60 second even though I was using the Wimberely Sidekick on my tripod. Does anyone know for sure if the FA400mm f5.6 is free (or virtually free) of CA wide open? If so, I might swap mine out for one. Not being able to use this lens wide open limits its usefullness. -Brendan --- Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been thinking lately about the cost of doing photography and finishing photographs for web publication. A recent, erm, thread got me steamed up enough to post this. Basically, how much can you accomplish without spending any more money than it cost you to obtain your hardware? First some assumptions and then the rules. Assumptions: 1. You have access to a computer with an operating system installed and a connection to the Internet. Said computer is capable of running photo editing software and displaying the images on a screen. 2. You have access to a working digital camera or a scanner that you can connect to the computer. The rules: 1. You can use the software that came with your computer. Your computer probably came with an OS installed. If it didn't, whatever OS is currently installed is fine. OSX, Windows, Linux, whatever. From what I understand, the Mac has some basic photo editing software installed by default. Most Linux distros do, too. All of this is fine. 2. You can use the software that came with your camera or scanner. If you had to buy a third party application to get your scanner or camera to talk to your computer that's fine, too. 3. Since most of us like to print photos from time to time, you can use the software that came with your printer. In my case the Epson R320 came with Elements 2.0, so that's allowed. 4. You can use any freely available software, open source or otherwise. e.g. - Irfanview, Lightzone for Linux, Picasa, the GIMP, etc. Trial versions, software that watermarks your photos until you pay for the real thing, etc. are not allowed. You should be able to use the software indefinitely (and legally, so no warez) without having to shell out extra cash. To sum up, if it came with your hardware, is absolutely necessary for operating your hardware, or is freely available (no strings attached) it's allowed. Nothing else. Within these limitation try to produce something you're proud to call your own. When discussing digital (or digitally scanned) photographs with someone who's never done it before, you should be able to show them the photo and say something like All you need is your computer, your camera, and whatever software came with them. In an attempt to add some credibility to the challenge, I should state that I have submitted two photographs to the Pentax Gallery. One of them was accepted. I shot the photograph on a K100D, JPEG, and edited it with Picasa on a PC running Windows XP. It was a PESO a few weeks ago and can be seen here: http://picasaweb.google.com/sdloveless/PDMLPESO/photo#5035527265195980162 If you're interested in playing along, simply post a link to your photo(s) in a reply to this message, or mark it as a Cheapskate Challenge photo in a separate thread. Let us know what software you used to process/edit the photo. Compare it to the software you would normally use. If you're not interested, I won't be offended. If you think I need to revise the assumptions or rules please let me know. If you think this is a ridiculous waste of time I'd like to hear about that, too. Have fun! -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
RE: PESO - Yosemite Color
Hi, That one really doesn't come together for me. The colors aren't very colorful - I was expecting reds, yellow, orange, and other colors, and the texture just hurts my eyes. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pdml@pdml.net Date: 4/4/2007 9:06:35 AM Subject: PESO - Yosemite Color Bad thing about going to Yosemite in the fall, last October, 1/2 of the roads in the valley were closed. Good thing about going then, the fantastic fall color. I took some macro shots of leaves and was thrilled with none. So I took one and played with it. A photographic follows -- than means -- WARNING, it is artified. Don't look if you don't like that sort of thing. And, nope, I will not be showing the original photograph. http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/leaves.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
ARE YOU DEAF, IT COST EVERYONE, namely much lower image quality! If I could send them smaller and maintain quality, of course I would, but I cant! jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:54 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Or cheaper still, present your photos at a slightly smaller resolution. Then it doesn't cost anyone anything. D. On 4/4/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DUH, then simply get a 20 high resolution LCD for cheap. I never insisted that anyone had to get a 19 and 20 would be a problem. You are arguing the absurd here, just to argue from what I can see. Its hard to get, 14,15,17 monitors now too, display average sizes move forward, AS DO average RESOLUTIONS, even while the prices continue to falll... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:52 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... There are essentially no desktop LCD's that exceed 1280x1024 in sizes smaller than 20. 20 and up displays have come down in price a lot recently, but they still command a fairly large premium over a 19 1280x1024 display, with little gain for most users. Also there's been plenty of LCD options over 1280x1024 resolution for the last 5 years. They just weren't cheap. There's been a good selection of 20+ LCD's that run higher resolutions as long as I've been following LCD display technology (which is since Apple introduced the 20 Cinema Display around 5 years ago). The selection hasn't changed much (1-2 panels at any one time from each major brand) but the pricing has. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
yes I do. the CAPS are for emphisis, and I dont use them all the time, only when needed. I dont take the stance there is never any need for CAPS and hence should never be used. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Erickson Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:37 PM To: pdml Subject: Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO JC, You still haven't answered my original question: Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive messages add any value at all to the PDML? --Mark J. C. O'Connell wrote: I think your more concerned with CAPITOL LETTERS than your are with the meaning of the posts or the thoughts expressed. I dont think thats the most important thing to be concerned with.. jco -Original Message- From: pdml-bounces at pdml.net [mailto:pdml-bounces at pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark Erickson Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:03 PM To: pdml Subject: Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO Let me ask again: Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive messages add any value at all to the PDML? --Mark J. C. O'Connell wrote: ALL CAPS MEANS I AM PISSED OFF. If you actually read what is being said in the posts I am replying to you would understand. I dont start these things but people simply refuse to not get personal when they dont have to and they do it FIRST. I just reply in kind. Like calling me elitest schmuck because I use and recommend a much better screen setup even AFTER I told them it cost less than $200 NEW. Thats really not making any sense whatsoever. Its a personal attack to attempt to win a losing argument, plain and simple... jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
1) 17 2) 1152x864 3) about 900x600; maybe even 1024x786 depending on ads, menus etc... 4) probably 900x600 maximum 300x450 minimum...anything less than that is a thumbnail 5) only on the horizontal; I tolerate having to scroll vertically since my monitor is oriented horizontally. in fact I hate to scroll horizontally to view or read anything Bong On 4/4/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 2) What resolution do you prefer? 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Bong Manayon http://www.bong.uni.cc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: PESO - Yosemite Color
I overall like it. But... I find the dark brown leaf stems somehow throw off the composition. I know from experience that it's painstaking to get the exact right composition with so many elements in the scene (assuming this was shot up through the leaves?). They seem superfluous and to somehow clutter up and distract from the lovely colors and shapes in the rest of the image. So take this as an overall positive Possibly since this is artified as you say, lightening or replacing the color of those dark brown elements could make a difference. Those close to the center could likely be cloned out with the almost white highlights seen in the background. That's my thoughts Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: PESO - Yosemite Color Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:59:52 EDT Bad thing about going to Yosemite in the fall, last October, 1/2 of the roads in the valley were closed. Good thing about going then, the fantastic fall color. I took some macro shots of leaves and was thrilled with none. So I took one and played with it. A photographic follows -- than means -- WARNING, it is artified. Don't look if you don't like that sort of thing. And, nope, I will not be showing the original photograph. http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/leaves.htm I think I have this close to where I would like it. Comments welcome. Marnie aka Doe ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
1) 17 2) 1024 x 768 3) aprox 950 x 633 4) aprox 950 x 633 5) Yes Tim Typo Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: 4. april 2007 06:02 To: PDML Subject: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in a couple of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it may be time to poll the topic again. 1) What size screen do you use 2) What resolution do you prefer? 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen without undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real estate eaten up by the browser. 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less inclined to view additional images from that poster? Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Cheapskate Challenge
Although I find this rather strange exercise, but here is my attempt: If you're interested in playing along, simply post a link to your photo(s) in a reply to this message, or mark it as a Cheapskate Challenge photo in a separate thread. Let us know what software you used to process/edit the photo. Compare it to the software you would normally use. If you're not interested, I won't be offended. If you think I need to revise the assumptions or rules please let me know. If you think this is a ridiculous waste of time I'd like to hear about that, too. Oh, and upload is done with Core FTP Light Edition 1.3c which is also free ware. http://boris.isra-shop.com/misc/cheapskate.html Enjoy. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size Resolution
1) 15 and 17 2) 1024x768 3) 970x648 4) min 800x600 max 970x648 5) Yes -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
You're a BOOB. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com J. C. O'Connell wrote: yes I do. the CAPS are for emphisis, and I dont use them all the time, only when needed. I dont take the stance there is never any need for CAPS and hence should never be used. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Erickson Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:37 PM To: pdml Subject: Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO JC, You still haven't answered my original question: Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive messages add any value at all to the PDML? --Mark J. C. O'Connell wrote: I think your more concerned with CAPITOL LETTERS than your are with the meaning of the posts or the thoughts expressed. I dont think thats the most important thing to be concerned with.. jco -Original Message- From: pdml-bounces at pdml.net [mailto:pdml-bounces at pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark Erickson Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:03 PM To: pdml Subject: Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO Let me ask again: Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive messages add any value at all to the PDML? --Mark J. C. O'Connell wrote: ALL CAPS MEANS I AM PISSED OFF. If you actually read what is being said in the posts I am replying to you would understand. I dont start these things but people simply refuse to not get personal when they dont have to and they do it FIRST. I just reply in kind. Like calling me elitest schmuck because I use and recommend a much better screen setup even AFTER I told them it cost less than $200 NEW. Thats really not making any sense whatsoever. Its a personal attack to attempt to win a losing argument, plain and simple... jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
