Re: GESO: Wedding Rookie
In a message dated 4/6/2009 8:14:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, n...@neovenator.com writes: http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1230 You will not be seeing the many photos that I hate (which is the vast majority of them), even though the bride liked them all. I learned VOLUMES shooting this wedding. There are so many woulda coulda shoulda photos! I've got a long list of things to do differently next time. Comments welcome, but I know they're not perfect and pretty cliche. Please ignore the green hose and beige plastic box in the barn photos that I completely missed at the time. My self-esteem regarding this shoot is in a constant state of flux, shifting between Gosh this turned out well, and Holy crap I am going to die of embarassment. John == I think they're all pretty nice, especially the first one of her by the window -- nice shot. I like the one of her outside by the old building, but wish she was either looking at the camera or another direction -- it looks like she's deliberating avoiding looking into the camera. The green hose isn't that much of a biggie to me. You did good. They look better than amateur. :-) And if the bride liked them all, that's what matters. Marnie aka Doe :-) - Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. **Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare0003) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: GFM numbers?
In a message dated 4/6/2009 9:26:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tbei...@sbcglobal.net writes: 15 so far, this is the list I have: Stan Halpin Mark Roberts, and son Scott Loveless John Sessoms Christine Aguila, and husband Cory (maybe) Nico Lurker Don Delurker Mat M. Stenquist (maybe) Bob Sullivan, and wife Ted Beilby Marnie Parker - Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. **Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare0003) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Peso water the grass
David J Brooks wrote: Now i just have to figure out what neighbour has my seed. Rather late on this one but, completely out of context, Mark! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO - Wallingford Bridge
I wanted to take a shot toward the town from the car park at the other end of the bridge. The problem was that right below where I took this photo were two canoes/Canadiens tied up, with huge BRIGHT red-orange lifejackets in them. Not the sort of spring color I was after... Rick http://photo.net/photos/RickW --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Cotty cotty...@mac.com wrote: We took the bus from Oxford to the old market town of Wallingford, and walked a 6 mile loop from there on Sunday. The first bridge there was built by the Romans; this version is a modern knockoff from 1809. I decided to play with the fisheye on this one; I'm not sure what I think of it. There's some CA in the upper right that I couldn't completely get rid of in Lightroom. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8916413size=lg (K10D and DA 10-17) Interesting! I sometimes park opposite and wolf down a Maccy D's from Benson, pausing during a mad dash between Oxford and Reading. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Earthquake in Central Italy
Thanks for the update! My friend in Viareggio said they just barely felt it, their young son awakened but didn't know why. I've been thinking of all those displaced and killed by the quake. A sad day. Also the historical architecture that has been destroyed. Godfrey Some of Cartier-Bresson's most famous pictures were taken in Aquila degli Abruzzi, as it was then known. The town drew a lot of photographers because it was quite remote until relatively recently, and people continued to dress in distinctive local clothing for a long time after such things had been homogenized elsewhere. Set against the beautiful architecture it must have been a wonderful sight, and a beautiful place. I do hope it can be restored - because of the photographs I have always wanted to go there. Scroll down on this page to see the best known: http://hanulh.egloos.com/1408823 Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a formula for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to test your assertion. I have provided a formula which shows quite clearly that you are wrong. The calculation uses coc as a factor. The formula for coc depends on viewing distance and print size, therefore by changing either of these the coc changes. If the coc changes, the depth of field changes. You can't argue with the numbers. Give us a formula which shows you are right, then people might start to take you seriously. Jose NO WAY JOSE. you can never change the dof after the shot, DOF is an in camera thingy... you have to change the in camera image magnification or f-stop to change the image DOF. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net Coc is always a factor. You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and the depth of field changes. Bob The question was regarding relative DOF, COC is not a factor. The only way to increase DOF from whatever your reference is, is to decrease IN CAMERA magnification or increase f-stop number. All that other stuff is moot. You cant change the relative DOF of an image after you shoot it. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Larry Colen Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote: So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition says yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion? To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in focus use the following formulae: dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)] df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)] Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of confusion is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than CoC (pixel size). where c = circle of confusion U = subject distance F = focal length f = f-number To calculate the circle of confusion c = (v * D) / (1000 * S) where v = film format / image size D = viewing distance S = print size Source: The Professional Guide to Photo Data, 3rd edition, by Richard Platt. Very easy with a spreadsheet. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Phishing spam
Unfortunately, it's enough to be member of the PDML if the infected party is using a POP3/IMAP/Exchange client to read the List, rather than using webmail. The mail address of a poster is stored in the header of all mails and can be scavenged from the inbox and/or sent elements by the 'bot. Brings even more pertinence to batting down the hatches... :-) Jostein 2009/4/6 Bob W p...@web-options.com: I received some phishing spam on this email address today. I only use it for PDML and for replies to offlist emails from PDMLers. In the PDML archives the email addresses are hidden. Ergo, a PDMLer who has contacted me offlist, or one of their other correspondents, has had their address book raided by spyware. Please batten down the hatches. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
DA* 60-250/4 official date, Tokina 12-24 review and May surprise ?
* It seems this lens finaly would be formaly announced 24th april (2009 lol). http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036message=31519318 http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/56427-its-official-da-60-250-launch-date-24th-april.html * DPR (for what its worth) tested the Tokina 12-24 which after all is pretty much a DA12-24 (opticaly). http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tokina_12-24_4_n15/ * There are a number of sources indicating a little surprise in for May from Pentax and is not the 60-250. There's no other clue: lens, body, accessory... We shall see if there's anything at all ;) -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- Photo: K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... Thinkpad: X23+UB,X60+UB Programing: D7 user (trying out D2007) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Tarke Homestead
I did a BW conversion and varied the light in both versions, but I kept coming back to an exposure that recorded the ravages realized due to age and weather. I may attempt to get closer to the near front corner of the house and try for some drama. Thanks for commenting. Jack --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: From: Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com Subject: Re: Tarke Homestead To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 9:05 PM Once again, I wish the light was softer. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com Subject: PESO: Tarke Homestead Beautiful calm 78F afternoon. Had to get out and around for awhile. Am including a link to a long since abandoned homestead on Tarke Rd. So completely overgrown and impenetrable from the front that I had no option but this side view. Seems I can't resist such remnants of the past. Jack K10, DA60~45 http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=403 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Mark's FAQ
I've updated the GFM Nature Photography Weekend FAQ a little: A few more photos, a couple of more links to other PDML photo galleries of the event and a downloadable map. http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=58 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
Afyer 35 years of experience, I dont need no stinking formula, everybody knows the depth of field is image locked once you make the exposure. To change it ( increase or decrease the relative depth of field ), you have to change the in-camera magnification or fstop before shooting. You cant manipulate more or less image DOF ***after the exposure ***. Making a print larger or smaller doesnt change DOF, nor does declaring a the COC bigger or larger. To increase or decrease the image DOF you have make changes BEFORE the exposureAFTER is impossible. While not a formula, its a rule, DOF is proportional to f-number and inversely proportional to in-camera image magnification. Relative DOF = (f-stop number)/(in camera image magnification). These are the only two factors that increase or decrease relative DOF. These cannot be changed after the exposure. NOTE how, COC, Format, focal length, print size, etc do not matter. ONLY in-camera magnification changes and/or f-ratio changes can increase or decrease the relative DOF. Its very basic. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bob W Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:03 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Trading resolution for depth of field Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a formula for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to test your assertion. I have provided a formula which shows quite clearly that you are wrong. The calculation uses coc as a factor. The formula for coc depends on viewing distance and print size, therefore by changing either of these the coc changes. If the coc changes, the depth of field changes. You can't argue with the numbers. Give us a formula which shows you are right, then people might start to take you seriously. Jose NO WAY JOSE. you can never change the dof after the shot, DOF is an in camera thingy... you have to change the in camera image magnification or f-stop to change the image DOF. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net Coc is always a factor. You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and the depth of field changes. Bob The question was regarding relative DOF, COC is not a factor. The only way to increase DOF from whatever your reference is, is to decrease IN CAMERA magnification or increase f-stop number. All that other stuff is moot. You cant change the relative DOF of an image after you shoot it. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Larry Colen Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote: So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition says yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion? To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in focus use the following formulae: dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)] df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)] Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of confusion is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than CoC (pixel size). where c = circle of confusion U = subject distance F = focal length f = f-number To calculate the circle of confusion c = (v * D) / (1000 * S) where v = film format / image size D = viewing distance S = print size Source: The Professional Guide to Photo Data, 3rd edition, by Richard Platt. Very easy with a spreadsheet. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: You can't argue with the numbers. OR A BRICK WALL. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
You're actually saying if one zoom out (reduce the magnification of the subject) and crop back to the desired composition the DOF will be increased, right? So the pic taken with the zoom at 35mm will present greater DOF than the one taken at 70mm, after you enlarge both to the same subject size, right? ...so the K20d has greater DOF than the *ist DS, right? I love numbers... :-) LF JC OConnell escreveu: depth of field is determined solely by in camera magnification and working fstop. So cropping/format is not a factor but changing lenses from a given distance will affect DOF, likewise moving further away with the same lens and stopping down more will also both increase DOF. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Larry Colen Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:35 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Trading resolution for depth of field Perhaps someone has already done the math, or the experimentation, and can just give me the answers. Scott's pictures of his Nishiki inspired me to shoot some of my mongrel legnano. I rode it to lunch today, and on the way back to the office was getting some shots of it with some lupin by the side of the trail. I didn't have quite as much depth of field as I'd like, so I decided to try zooming way out and then just cropping. Smaller sensor, shorter lens, more depth of field. If the equation is linear, I should get the same DOF by downresing (downrezzing?) a longer lens over the whole sensor, as I would using a shorter lens and cropping. This would also mean that a K20 would have a lot less DOF than my K100 at the same focal length, assuming that they were blown up large enough that the sensor resolution became a factor. So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition says yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion? -- Luiz Felipe luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on a viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect to the ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct, but each is discussing an entirely different matter. Let it go. On Apr 7, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Bob W wrote: Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a formula for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to test your assertion. I have provided a formula which shows quite clearly that you are wrong. The calculation uses coc as a factor. The formula for coc depends on viewing distance and print size, therefore by changing either of these the coc changes. If the coc changes, the depth of field changes. You can't argue with the numbers. Give us a formula which shows you are right, then people might start to take you seriously. Jose NO WAY JOSE. you can never change the dof after the shot, DOF is an in camera thingy... you have to change the in camera image magnification or f-stop to change the image DOF. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net Coc is always a factor. You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and the depth of field changes. Bob The question was regarding relative DOF, COC is not a factor. The only way to increase DOF from whatever your reference is, is to decrease IN CAMERA magnification or increase f-stop number. All that other stuff is moot. You cant change the relative DOF of an image after you shoot it. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Larry Colen Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote: So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition says yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion? To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in focus use the following formulae: dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)] df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)] Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of confusion is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than CoC (pixel size). where c = circle of confusion U = subject distance F = focal length f = f-number To calculate the circle of confusion c = (v * D) / (1000 * S) where v = film format / image size D = viewing distance S = print size Source: The Professional Guide to Photo Data, 3rd edition, by Richard Platt. Very easy with a spreadsheet. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
No point in hurling insults. JCO is right in respect to the ability of a lens to resolve. Bob is correct in regard to viewing a print that's hanging on a wall. On Apr 7, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Matthew Hunt wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: You can't argue with the numbers. OR A BRICK WALL. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
YES - right. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Luiz Felipe Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:33 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field You're actually saying if one zoom out (reduce the magnification of the subject) and crop back to the desired composition the DOF will be increased, right? So the pic taken with the zoom at 35mm will present greater DOF than the one taken at 70mm, after you enlarge both to the same subject size, right? ...so the K20d has greater DOF than the *ist DS, right? I love numbers... :-) LF JC OConnell escreveu: depth of field is determined solely by in camera magnification and working fstop. So cropping/format is not a factor but changing lenses from a given distance will affect DOF, likewise moving further away with the same lens and stopping down more will also both increase DOF. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Larry Colen Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:35 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Trading resolution for depth of field Perhaps someone has already done the math, or the experimentation, and can just give me the answers. Scott's pictures of his Nishiki inspired me to shoot some of my mongrel legnano. I rode it to lunch today, and on the way back to the office was getting some shots of it with some lupin by the side of the trail. I didn't have quite as much depth of field as I'd like, so I decided to try zooming way out and then just cropping. Smaller sensor, shorter lens, more depth of field. If the equation is linear, I should get the same DOF by downresing (downrezzing?) a longer lens over the whole sensor, as I would using a shorter lens and cropping. This would also mean that a K20 would have a lot less DOF than my K100 at the same focal length, assuming that they were blown up large enough that the sensor resolution became a factor. So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition says yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion? -- Luiz Felipe luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO: And the mouse said to the elephant...
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/770012/display/16612744 Enjoy, Ralf Nice catch. You couldn't have asked for better placement of the two machines. Christian -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead
Thanks, Marnie. I could have climbed the fence and gotten a low shot from the near front corner of the house. Maybe I'll consider going back. I varied the light and fiddled with BW, but this version simply best exposed the scene. As I mentioned in another post, I want this sort of subject to be well lit to allow a 'study' of its textures and detail. Jack --- On Mon, 4/6/09, eactiv...@aol.com eactiv...@aol.com wrote: From: eactiv...@aol.com eactiv...@aol.com Subject: Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead To: pdml@pdml.net Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 10:54 PM In a message dated 4/6/2009 4:28:18 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jdavi...@yahoo.com writes: JD Beautiful calm 78F afternoon. Had to get out and around for awhile. JD Am including a link to a long since abandoned homestead on Tarke Rd. JD So completely overgrown and impenetrable from the front that I JD had no option but this side view. JD Seems I can't resist such remnants of the past. JD Jack JD K10, DA60~45 JD http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=403 === I think it's an okay photo, as is, Jack (sort of like some okays I've shown lately ;-)). But it might be really grabbing with different light/angle. HTH, Marnie aka Doe :-) - Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. **Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare0003) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
NO I DISAGREE. Image DOF is the RELATIVE sharpness of objects in front of, and behind, the actual plane of focus. TO INCREASE OR DECREASE this relative sharpness you have to change the incamera magnification or f-stop. PRINT SIZE has nothing to do with changing the DOF of an image. While you can argue all day long that making a print smaller and smaller increases the perceived DOF, I dont, because all it does is make it harder to see the **same DOF**, its doesnt actually change the image DOF at all. Furthermore, I disagree with using the term critial to define DOF. Its not critical, its what it is, and thats simply the difference in sharpness of foreground and background objects relative to objects in the plane of focus. It doesnt have to be some critical barely perceivable difference, sometimes its huge and obvious. but in any case, if you want to increase or decrease that DOF, you need to know what CHANGES it, and what DOES NOT. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:35 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on a viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect to the ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct, but each is discussing an entirely different matter. Let it go. On Apr 7, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Bob W wrote: Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a formula for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to test your assertion. I have provided a formula which shows quite clearly that you are wrong. The calculation uses coc as a factor. The formula for coc depends on viewing distance and print size, therefore by changing either of these the coc changes. If the coc changes, the depth of field changes. You can't argue with the numbers. Give us a formula which shows you are right, then people might start to take you seriously. Jose NO WAY JOSE. you can never change the dof after the shot, DOF is an in camera thingy... you have to change the in camera image magnification or f-stop to change the image DOF. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net Coc is always a factor. You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and the depth of field changes. Bob The question was regarding relative DOF, COC is not a factor. The only way to increase DOF from whatever your reference is, is to decrease IN CAMERA magnification or increase f-stop number. All that other stuff is moot. You cant change the relative DOF of an image after you shoot it. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Larry Colen Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote: So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition says yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion? To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in focus use the following formulae: dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)] df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)] Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of confusion is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than CoC (pixel size). where c = circle of confusion U = subject distance F = focal length f = f-number To calculate the circle of confusion c = (v * D) / (1000 * S) where v = film format / image size D = viewing distance S = print size Source: The Professional Guide to Photo Data, 3rd edition, by Richard Platt. Very easy with a spreadsheet. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
I agree on no need to get personal. But print size has zero to do with changing DOF. Smaller or larger, you cant change the image DOF with printing techniques. In camera magnification and f-number are the only factors... JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:36 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field No point in hurling insults. JCO is right in respect to the ability of a lens to resolve. Bob is correct in regard to viewing a print that's hanging on a wall. On Apr 7, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Matthew Hunt wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: You can't argue with the numbers. OR A BRICK WALL. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Paul Stenquist wrote: This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on a viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect to the ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct, but each is discussing an entirely different matter. Let it go. ... but as I'm sure we will discover, only one is correct. ;-) -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, PPSEL-IA* * Research Associate, Vibrations and Acoustics Laboratory * * Mechanical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
This theoretical crap is boring. Quite wasting your time mass debating the theory go put it into practice by taking some interesting photos. DS 2009/4/7 JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net NO I DISAGREE. Image DOF is the RELATIVE sharpness of objects in front of, and behind, the actual plane of focus. TO INCREASE OR DECREASE this relative sharpness you have to change the incamera magnification or f-stop. PRINT SIZE has nothing to do with changing the DOF of an image. While you can argue all day long that making a print smaller and smaller increases the perceived DOF, I dont, because all it does is make it harder to see the **same DOF**, its doesnt actually change the image DOF at all. Furthermore, I disagree with using the term critial to define DOF. Its not critical, its what it is, and thats simply the difference in sharpness of foreground and background objects relative to objects in the plane of focus. It doesnt have to be some critical barely perceivable difference, sometimes its huge and obvious. but in any case, if you want to increase or decrease that DOF, you need to know what CHANGES it, and what DOES NOT. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:35 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on a viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect to the ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct, but each is discussing an entirely different matter. Let it go. On Apr 7, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Bob W wrote: Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a formula for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to test your assertion. I have provided a formula which shows quite clearly that you are wrong. The calculation uses coc as a factor. The formula for coc depends on viewing distance and print size, therefore by changing either of these the coc changes. If the coc changes, the depth of field changes. You can't argue with the numbers. Give us a formula which shows you are right, then people might start to take you seriously. Jose NO WAY JOSE. you can never change the dof after the shot, DOF is an in camera thingy... you have to change the in camera image magnification or f-stop to change the image DOF. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net Coc is always a factor. You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and the depth of field changes. Bob The question was regarding relative DOF, COC is not a factor. The only way to increase DOF from whatever your reference is, is to decrease IN CAMERA magnification or increase f-stop number. All that other stuff is moot. You cant change the relative DOF of an image after you shoot it. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Larry Colen Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote: So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition says yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion? To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in focus use the following formulae: dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)] df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)] Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of confusion is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than CoC (pixel size). where c = circle of confusion U = subject distance F = focal length f = f-number To calculate the circle of confusion c = (v * D) / (1000 * S) where v = film format / image size D = viewing distance S = print size Source: The Professional Guide to Photo Data, 3rd edition, by Richard Platt. Very easy with a spreadsheet. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Re: GESO: Wedding Rookie
First, I like them. Some - ok, most - could be enhanced, but then it's very easy to do that on a desk, looking at ease from pic to pic and discovering some major issue we didn't see live. :-) First (now the first photo), I'd crop heavy, losing the cut stems from the flowers and anything above her head. I'd lose the end of the veil and probably some of the back of her arm. Second (yes, the second photo), I'd probably lose the sidekicks, lots of floor and ceiling - or flip the camera for start. Like very much the way they tower above anyone else, but the floor disrupts that feeling. Third - not so easy to improve, since I also like the idea. Longer lens from a slightly greater distance, maybe? Would it be possible?? Fourth, very close to perfect (I like the idea too), maybe if he would be either holding her hand or offering his hand to her?? Fifth, the one with the green hose... crop it out, not because it is that awful, but because the moment the bride and groom kiss everything else fades away... or at least should. ;-) John, much better than my first wedding photos, not as good as your next... and not a worry since the bride smiled. As long as they're happy, don't lose sleep over some pic you could have done otherwise. The next pic will always be better. LF John Celio escreveu: http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1230 You will not be seeing the many photos that I hate (which is the vast majority of them), even though the bride liked them all. I learned VOLUMES shooting this wedding. There are so many woulda coulda shoulda photos! I've got a long list of things to do differently next time. Comments welcome, but I know they're not perfect and pretty cliche. Please ignore the green hose and beige plastic box in the barn photos that I completely missed at the time. My self-esteem regarding this shoot is in a constant state of flux, shifting between Gosh this turned out well, and Holy crap I am going to die of embarassment. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/calemp http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Luiz Felipe luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
Correct, either you CAN change image DOF via printing or you CANT. Forget the former. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:58 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Paul Stenquist wrote: This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on a viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect to the ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct, but each is discussing an entirely different matter. Let it go. ... but as I'm sure we will discover, only one is correct. ;-) -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, PPSEL-IA * * Research Associate, Vibrations and Acoustics Laboratory * * Mechanical Engineering * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: No point in hurling insults. JCO is right in respect to the ability of a lens to resolve. Bob is correct in regard to viewing a print that's hanging on a wall. What criterion do you use to define the ability of a lens to resolve? Where does that criterion come from? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
PESO - Proud Parents
Sunday was a beautiful spring day (unlike today when we awoke to freaking snow on the ground!). I wondered if this was baby's first spring day out to the Market? http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-parents.html Comments always welcome. cheers, frank ps: note the circle of confusion and dof which is from the camera only... ;-) -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
THEORETICAL CRAP? Screw you, this is REAL WORLD BASIC photograhpy techniques. I would think that any photographer needs to know how to control DOF. You cant just go take pictures without some basic knowledge of what controls what in your images. And the fundemental knowledge of what can be changed later and what can't certainly doesnt hurt either. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:58 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field This theoretical crap is boring. Quite wasting your time mass debating the theory go put it into practice by taking some interesting photos. DS 2009/4/7 JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net NO I DISAGREE. Image DOF is the RELATIVE sharpness of objects in front of, and behind, the actual plane of focus. TO INCREASE OR DECREASE this relative sharpness you have to change the incamera magnification or f-stop. PRINT SIZE has nothing to do with changing the DOF of an image. While you can argue all day long that making a print smaller and smaller increases the perceived DOF, I dont, because all it does is make it harder to see the **same DOF**, its doesnt actually change the image DOF at all. Furthermore, I disagree with using the term critial to define DOF. Its not critical, its what it is, and thats simply the difference in sharpness of foreground and background objects relative to objects in the plane of focus. It doesnt have to be some critical barely perceivable difference, sometimes its huge and obvious. but in any case, if you want to increase or decrease that DOF, you need to know what CHANGES it, and what DOES NOT. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:35 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on a viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect to the ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct, but each is discussing an entirely different matter. Let it go. On Apr 7, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Bob W wrote: Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a formula for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to test your assertion. I have provided a formula which shows quite clearly that you are wrong. The calculation uses coc as a factor. The formula for coc depends on viewing distance and print size, therefore by changing either of these the coc changes. If the coc changes, the depth of field changes. You can't argue with the numbers. Give us a formula which shows you are right, then people might start to take you seriously. Jose NO WAY JOSE. you can never change the dof after the shot, DOF is an in camera thingy... you have to change the in camera image magnification or f-stop to change the image DOF. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net Coc is always a factor. You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and the depth of field changes. Bob The question was regarding relative DOF, COC is not a factor. The only way to increase DOF from whatever your reference is, is to decrease IN CAMERA magnification or increase f-stop number. All that other stuff is moot. You cant change the relative DOF of an image after you shoot it. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Larry Colen Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote: So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition says yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion? To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in focus use the following formulae: dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)] df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)] Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of confusion is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than CoC (pixel size). where c = circle of confusion U = subject distance F = focal length f = f-number To calculate the circle of confusion c = (v * D) / (1000 * S) where v = film format / image size D = viewing distance S = print size Source: The Professional Guide to Photo Data, 3rd edition, by Richard Platt. Very easy with a spreadsheet.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
I dont agree with that terminology, it's his not mine. DOF is relative sharpness of foreground and background objects in an image compared to the objects in the plane of focus. ( just my working terminology FWIW). JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Hunt Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:12 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: No point in hurling insults. JCO is right in respect to the ability of a lens to resolve. Bob is correct in regard to viewing a print that's hanging on a wall. What criterion do you use to define the ability of a lens to resolve? Where does that criterion come from? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: THEORETICAL CRAP? Screw you, this is REAL WORLD BASIC photograhpy techniques. I would think that any photographer needs to know how to control DOF. You cant just go take pictures without some basic knowledge of what controls what in your images. And the fundemental knowledge of what can be changed later and what can't certainly doesnt hurt either. I think the point is that we don't need to know numbers, equations or theories to know that the wider the aperture the narrower the dof and vice-versa. Working with post-processing programmes lets you know what can be changed later and what can't. I agree with you, BTW, that DOF is a function of camera, not processing, and the thought that these things can be applied or altered in photoshop is wrong-headed (but that's just me). But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want, until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too. But we can't forget what the underlying theory is about: going out and taking photos! ;-) cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Whatever floats your boat sweetie. 2009/4/7 JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net: Screw you -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: GESO: Wedding Rookie
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:14 PM, John Celio n...@neovenator.com wrote: http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1230 You will not be seeing the many photos that I hate (which is the vast majority of them), even though the bride liked them all. I learned VOLUMES shooting this wedding. There are so many woulda coulda shoulda photos! I've got a long list of things to do differently next time. Comments welcome, but I know they're not perfect and pretty cliche. Please ignore the green hose and beige plastic box in the barn photos that I completely missed at the time. My self-esteem regarding this shoot is in a constant state of flux, shifting between Gosh this turned out well, and Holy crap I am going to die of embarassment. I like these! From the moody bride in the window shot to the playful bride and groom peeking around the corner shot, it's all good! I'm sure they'll be pleased with these. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:17 AM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: I dont agree with that terminology, it's his not mine. DOF is relative sharpness of foreground and background objects in an image compared to the objects in the plane of focus. ( just my working terminology FWIW). So, if a certain object in the foreground is half as sharp (or twice as blurred) as an object in the plane of focus, is it within the DOF? What if it's a third as sharp? A quarter? Where do you draw the line? To define the DOF, you need a concept of acceptable sharpness or acceptable circle of confusion. These criteria typically arise from assumptions about the final print (film size, print size, viewing distance...). In our previous discussion, I provided a number of reputable citations discussing the origin of these criteria. If you had read them, instead of screaming unsubstantiated assertions back at me, we wouldn't have to go through this again. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com: But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want, until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too. But we can't forget what the underlying theory is about: going out and taking photos! Amen! All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web. I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but mediocre, pool myself. DS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
...there IS a light at the end... LF Doug Brewer escreveu: David Savage wrote: 2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote: I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but mediocre, pool myself. Wow, Flickr really does have a pool for everything. LOL Here's my latest boring photo: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3319/3420399349_fc22fbab94_o.jpg :-) DS cool. she flashed you. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Luiz Felipe luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: GESO: Wedding Rookie
No idea why but I like 6255. Toine 2009/4/7 John Celio n...@neovenator.com: http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1230 You will not be seeing the many photos that I hate (which is the vast majority of them), even though the bride liked them all. I learned VOLUMES shooting this wedding. There are so many woulda coulda shoulda photos! I've got a long list of things to do differently next time. Comments welcome, but I know they're not perfect and pretty cliche. Please ignore the green hose and beige plastic box in the barn photos that I completely missed at the time. My self-esteem regarding this shoot is in a constant state of flux, shifting between Gosh this turned out well, and Holy crap I am going to die of embarassment. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/calemp http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
Im NOT the guy who was demanding formulae. As far as fstop goes, yes most people know that stopping down increases DOF and opening up decreases it, but the only other factor that affects DOF, in-camera image magnification, is not very well known. That's mainly why I posted on this thread. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of frank theriault Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:21 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: THEORETICAL CRAP? Screw you, this is REAL WORLD BASIC photograhpy techniques. I would think that any photographer needs to know how to control DOF. You cant just go take pictures without some basic knowledge of what controls what in your images. And the fundemental knowledge of what can be changed later and what can't certainly doesnt hurt either. I think the point is that we don't need to know numbers, equations or theories to know that the wider the aperture the narrower the dof and vice-versa. Working with post-processing programmes lets you know what can be changed later and what can't. I agree with you, BTW, that DOF is a function of camera, not processing, and the thought that these things can be applied or altered in photoshop is wrong-headed (but that's just me). But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want, until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too. But we can't forget what the underlying theory is about: going out and taking photos! ;-) cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
2009/4/7 Doug Brewer d...@alphoto.com: David Savage wrote: 2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote: I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but mediocre, pool myself. Wow, Flickr really does have a pool for everything. LOL Here's my latest boring photo: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3319/3420399349_fc22fbab94_o.jpg :-) DS cool. she flashed you. I remotly controlled it too. The Jedi mind trick is an amazing thing. DS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
you are trying to define some sort of absolute DOF which really doesnt exist unless you consider a certain COC as perfect. The entire thread and original post was all about the relative DOF ( how to increase or decrease DOF in an image relative to ANY reference DOF ). JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Hunt Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:27 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:17 AM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: I dont agree with that terminology, it's his not mine. DOF is relative sharpness of foreground and background objects in an image compared to the objects in the plane of focus. ( just my working terminology FWIW). So, if a certain object in the foreground is half as sharp (or twice as blurred) as an object in the plane of focus, is it within the DOF? What if it's a third as sharp? A quarter? Where do you draw the line? To define the DOF, you need a concept of acceptable sharpness or acceptable circle of confusion. These criteria typically arise from assumptions about the final print (film size, print size, viewing distance...). In our previous discussion, I provided a number of reputable citations discussing the origin of these criteria. If you had read them, instead of screaming unsubstantiated assertions back at me, we wouldn't have to go through this again. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
Its important to remember, that while good technique cant improve a bad image, bad technique CAN destroy a good image. Technique isnt everything, but it doesnt hurt to get it right. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:28 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field 2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com: But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want, until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too. But we can't forget what the underlying theory is about: going out and taking photos! Amen! All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web. I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but mediocre, pool myself. DS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
This is true. 2009/4/7 JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net: Its important to remember, that while good technique cant improve a bad image, bad technique CAN destroy a good image. Technique isnt everything, but it doesnt hurt to get it right. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:28 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field 2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com: But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want, until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too. But we can't forget what the underlying theory is about: going out and taking photos! Amen! All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web. I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but mediocre, pool myself. DS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:49 AM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: you are trying to define some sort of absolute DOF which really doesnt exist unless you consider a certain COC as perfect. Actually, I'm claiming the opposite. That any definition depends on assumptions of the acceptable circle of confusion, and therefore is not absolute. The entire thread and original post was all about the relative DOF ( how to increase or decrease DOF in an image relative to ANY reference DOF ). But your claims regarding relative DOF are only valid if the image format (film size, crop factor, whatever you want to call it) is constant. A change in format leads to a change in allowable CoC, which you're dropping on the floor. If you dispute that the allowable CoC is different for different formats, then you are the one who is claiming there's an absolute DOF. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Hunt The entire thread and original post was all about the relative DOF ( how to increase or decrease DOF in an image relative to ANY reference DOF ). But your claims regarding relative DOF are only valid if the image format (film size, crop factor, whatever you want to call it) is constant. A change in format leads to a change in allowable CoC, which you're dropping on the floor. If you dispute that the allowable CoC is different for different formats, then you are the one who is claiming there's an absolute DOF. === NO NO NO NO, My post is ALL INCLUSIVE. The only thing that affects (increases or decreases) the image DOF is : (the image magnification in-camera) (f-stop used). Format, crop factors, COC, print size, etc, blah blah blah have ZERO effect on DOF. That is the common myth I am trying to dispell. Its all about image magnification and f-stop and THATS IT. Changing the format, film size, COC means nothing..ONLY changes to the image magnification and f-stop change the DOF. JCO -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:47 AM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: Im NOT the guy who was demanding formulae. As far as fstop goes, yes most people know that stopping down increases DOF and opening up decreases it, but the only other factor that affects DOF, in-camera image magnification, is not very well known. That's mainly why I posted on this thread. Fair enough... cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead
In this respect we are on the same wave length. It's the type of image that either triggers a rewind of our migratory existence or imparts a mortality melancholy. Some try to find pictorial drama while others are comfortable lapsing into a pensive stream of trenchant thought of the life journey. Thanks, Frank! Jack --- On Tue, 4/7/09, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: From: frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com Subject: Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:33 AM On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote: Beautiful calm 78F afternoon. Had to get out and around for awhile. Am including a link to a long since abandoned homestead on Tarke Rd. So completely overgrown and impenetrable from the front that I had no option but this side view. Seems I can't resist such remnants of the past. Jack K10, DA60~45 http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=403 I like this one. I generally like abandoned homes, especially ones like this that look like they've been this way for decades. I love the fact that this one's becoming overgrown - as if nature's swallowing it up and soon there'll be nothing left. I guess it just shows how temporary and fleeting our time on this earth is. Things that we think of as permanent don't last as long as we imagine. Lovely shot. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More RAW software
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:52 AM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 4/5/2009 7:01:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pentko...@gmail.com writes: Found the old email and link. http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-elements-curves.html Site is still active, but it looks like it supports up to version 5 only. Dave B === I've now tried the Smart Curve PSE plug-in and it's simply great. Marnie aka Doe :-) And you can't beat the price (none). Don't tell me I actually helped some one here.:-) I'm usually the one looking for help; LOL Dave - Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. **Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare0003) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field- IMAGE MAGNIFICATION
For the sake of clarity, I neglected to post the definition of in-camera image magnification (M). in-camera image magnification is the ratio of object size to image size. Longer lenses and shorter object distances increase magnification, shorter lenses and longer distances decrease magnification. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO - Proud Parents
I see a circle of cute and happy. ;) DOF appears quite appropriate to me. Bloom on the white hood doesn't even bother me. Really nice, Frank! Jack --- On Tue, 4/7/09, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: From: frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com Subject: PESO - Proud Parents To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:13 AM Sunday was a beautiful spring day (unlike today when we awoke to freaking snow on the ground!). I wondered if this was baby's first spring day out to the Market? http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-parents.html Comments always welcome. cheers, frank ps: note the circle of confusion and dof which is from the camera only... ;-) -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO - Proud Parents
On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:13 AM, frank theriault wrote: Sunday was a beautiful spring day (unlike today when we awoke to freaking snow on the ground!). I wondered if this was baby's first spring day out to the Market? http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-parents.html Cute hat! ];-) ps: note the circle of confusion and dof which is from the camera only... LOL Most of my circle of confusion begins in the mind. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO - Proud Parents
Nice moment Frank. To my eye the crop works great, placing the three adult faces as a frame for the baby. And it has the cute-baby-with-bear-ears appeal ;-) On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: Sunday was a beautiful spring day (unlike today when we awoke to freaking snow on the ground!). I wondered if this was baby's first spring day out to the Market? http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-parents.html Comments always welcome. cheers, frank ps: note the circle of confusion and dof which is from the camera only... ;-) -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Mark's FAQ
Earthquakes, Canadians, what kind of place is this. Dave On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Mark Roberts msrobert...@ysu.edu wrote: I've updated the GFM Nature Photography Weekend FAQ a little: A few more photos, a couple of more links to other PDML photo galleries of the event and a downloadable map. http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=58 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Mark's FAQ
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Earthquakes, Canadians, what kind of place is this. Well, the Canadians could always fall in the gaping fissures formed by the earthquakes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that photo of yours as desktop background for a while? I tried to laugh quietly but my co-workers perceived the tears in my eyes and I had to show them the thread. They also would like to use the photo as background for a while... LF David Savage escreveu: This is true. 2009/4/7 JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net: Its important to remember, that while good technique cant improve a bad image, bad technique CAN destroy a good image. Technique isnt everything, but it doesnt hurt to get it right. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:28 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field 2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com: But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want, until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too. But we can't forget what the underlying theory is about: going out and taking photos! Amen! All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web. I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but mediocre, pool myself. DS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Luiz Felipe luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Dave 2009/4/7 Luiz Felipe luiz.fel...@techmit.com.br: ...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that photo of yours as desktop background for a while? I tried to laugh quietly but my co-workers perceived the tears in my eyes and I had to show them the thread. They also would like to use the photo as background for a while... LF David Savage escreveu: This is true. 2009/4/7 JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net: Its important to remember, that while good technique cant improve a bad image, bad technique CAN destroy a good image. Technique isnt everything, but it doesnt hurt to get it right. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:28 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field 2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com: But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want, until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too. But we can't forget what the underlying theory is about: going out and taking photos! Amen! All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web. I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but mediocre, pool myself. DS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wedding Rookie
- Original Message - From: John Celio Subject: GESO: Wedding Rookie http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1230 You will not be seeing the many photos that I hate (which is the vast majority of them), even though the bride liked them all. I learned VOLUMES shooting this wedding. There are so many woulda coulda shoulda photos! I've got a long list of things to do differently next time. Comments welcome, but I know they're not perfect and pretty cliche. Please ignore the green hose and beige plastic box in the barn photos that I completely missed at the time. My self-esteem regarding this shoot is in a constant state of flux, shifting between Gosh this turned out well, and Holy crap I am going to die of embarassment. You survived and the bride liked the work. Treat it as the victory it is. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Oh I informed the model of your request this was her reply: OH MAN I take that as a f*king compliment!! You've helped brighten someone's day. :-) Cheers, Dave 2009/4/7 Luiz Felipe luiz.fel...@techmit.com.br: ...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that photo of yours as desktop background for a while? I tried to laugh quietly but my co-workers perceived the tears in my eyes and I had to show them the thread. They also would like to use the photo as background for a while... LF -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
David Savage wrote: I remotly controlled it too. The Jedi mind trick is an amazing thing. DS yes, it often helps you see the light at the end of the tunnel... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
...it is... (with all respect, please...) David, you can't possibly imagine the kind of laughter around here on the account of select excerpts the thread AND the photo. Thanks for your (and her) kind permission. :-) LF David Savage escreveu: Oh I informed the model of your request this was her reply: OH MAN I take that as a f*king compliment!! You've helped brighten someone's day. :-) Cheers, Dave 2009/4/7 Luiz Felipe luiz.fel...@techmit.com.br: ...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that photo of yours as desktop background for a while? I tried to laugh quietly but my co-workers perceived the tears in my eyes and I had to show them the thread. They also would like to use the photo as background for a while... LF -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Luiz Felipe luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Mark's FAQ
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Earthquakes, Canadians, what kind of place is this. Well, the Canadians could always fall in the gaping fissures formed by the earthquakes. Actually, the contingency plan involves _pushing_ them into the fissures. -- Scott Loveless Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008 http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wedding Rookie
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:28:15AM -0600, William Robb scripsit: You survived and the bride liked the work. Treat it as the victory it is. Mark! -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 09:28:28PM +0800, David Savage wrote: 2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com: But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want, until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too. But we can't forget what the underlying theory is about: going out and taking photos! Amen! All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web. I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but mediocre, pool myself. I've done quite a few of those, but they aren't nearly as frustrating as the brilliant photos that were ruined because of a technical error, of which I have quite a few. For sufficiently small values of brilliant that is. Also nice shot of the glowing bunghole. did you do that by timing the flash? Or by aiming a mirror? If you did it with a mirror, you might be able to achieve a similar effect by just taping a mirror to the jeans so her hand didn't need to be there. -- The fastest way to get your question answered on the net is to post the wrong answer. Larry Colen l...@red4est.comhttp://www.red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
2009/4/7 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com: On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 09:28:28PM +0800, David Savage wrote: 2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com: But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want, until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too. But we can't forget what the underlying theory is about: going out and taking photos! Amen! All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web. I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but mediocre, pool myself. I've done quite a few of those, but they aren't nearly as frustrating as the brilliant photos that were ruined because of a technical error, of which I have quite a few. For sufficiently small values of brilliant that is. Also nice shot of the glowing bunghole. did you do that by timing the flash? Or by aiming a mirror? If you did it with a mirror, you might be able to achieve a similar effect by just taping a mirror to the jeans so her hand didn't need to be there. She's actually holding a flash was just being goofy, struck this pose and wouldn't you know my shutter went off :-) It's one of many shots I took during the lighting test for a group shot. Me the camera were set up on the roof, the on camera flash was in wireless master mode and the flashes that the models were holding were in wireless slave mode (ie the on camera flash triggered the flashes below) Because we were using a mix of Nikon, Canon Minolta flashes, Nkon CLS optical triggers, we couldn't get the to all go off at the same time. The final shot was still fun: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3650/3406984942_4162539cb9_b.jpg I'm the one in red on the left with the radio shutter release in hand :-) :-) DS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 09:32:48PM +0800, David Savage wrote: 2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote: I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but mediocre, pool myself. Wow, Flickr really does have a pool for everything. LOL Here's my latest boring photo: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3319/3420399349_fc22fbab94_o.jpg Yes, since you ask - I *do* think the sun shines out of ... :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Can we watch the language on list, SOMETIMES? Thanks. - Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. **Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare0003) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Mark's FAQ
Scott Loveless wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Earthquakes, Canadians, what kind of place is this. Well, the Canadians could always fall in the gaping fissures formed by the earthquakes. Actually, the contingency plan involves _pushing_ them into the fissures. Sort of like pushing virgins into volcanoes to appease the gods? Probably not. BTW: Doug Brewer has contributed a photo to the FAQ. Scroll down to just below the map thumbnail for a shot of Nico, Doug and myself on the mountain. http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=58 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO - Wallingford Bridge
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Rick Womer rwomer1...@yahoo.com wrote: We took the bus from Oxford to the old market town of Wallingford, and walked a 6 mile loop from there on Sunday. The first bridge there was built by the Romans; this version is a modern knockoff from 1809. I decided to play with the fisheye on this one; I'm not sure what I think of it. There's some CA in the upper right that I couldn't completely get rid of in Lightroom. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8916413size=lg (K10D and DA 10-17) The fisheye works beautifully, Rick. Beautiful, idyllic scene, beautifully shot. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO - Proud Parents
In a message dated 4/7/2009 6:13:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, knarftheria...@gmail.com writes: Sunday was a beautiful spring day (unlike today when we awoke to freaking snow on the ground!). I wondered if this was baby's first spring day out to the Market? http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-parents.html Comments always welcome. cheers, frank ps: note the circle of confusion and dof which is from the camera only... ;-) Nice shot. Not surprised you spotted it -- the bunny ears. Marnie aka Doe :-) - Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. **Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare0003) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
David Savage wrote: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3650/3406984942_4162539cb9_b.jpg I'm the one in red on the left with the radio shutter release in hand :-) Casual Friday in Australia, huh? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Mark's FAQ
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Mark Roberts msrobert...@ysu.edu wrote: Scott Loveless wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Earthquakes, Canadians, what kind of place is this. Well, the Canadians could always fall in the gaping fissures formed by the earthquakes. Actually, the contingency plan involves _pushing_ them into the fissures. Sort of like pushing virgins into volcanoes to appease the gods? Probably not. More like hoping they get stuck before they fall too far and the rest of us can use their heads as stepping stones. BTW: Doug Brewer has contributed a photo to the FAQ. Scroll down to just below the map thumbnail for a shot of Nico, Doug and myself on the mountain. http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=58 Excellent! -- Scott Loveless Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008 http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Mark's FAQ
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Scott Loveless sdlovel...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Earthquakes, Canadians, what kind of place is this. Well, the Canadians could always fall in the gaping fissures formed by the earthquakes. Actually, the contingency plan involves _pushing_ them into the fissures. That's assuming we get out of the chairs long enough. Dave -- Scott Loveless Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008 http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Mark's FAQ
Mark Roberts wrote: BTW: Doug Brewer has contributed a photo to the FAQ. Scroll down to just below the map thumbnail for a shot of Nico, Doug and myself on the mountain. http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=58 Nico, Cory and you. Doug would have been the guy behind the camera. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Mark's FAQ
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Scott Loveless sdlovel...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Mark Roberts msrobert...@ysu.edu wrote: BTW: Doug Brewer has contributed a photo to the FAQ. Scroll down to just below the map thumbnail for a shot of Nico, Doug and myself on the mountain. http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=58 I have a hard time climbing a 6' step ladder, thus you won't see me in any attic window photos.:-) Dave Excellent! -- Scott Loveless Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008 http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: GESO: Wedding Rookie
I like the ones you have chosen to show up John. The bride in window worked out well, and i like the peak a boo shot around the barn. Dave On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:14 PM, John Celio n...@neovenator.com wrote: http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1230 You will not be seeing the many photos that I hate (which is the vast majority of them), even though the bride liked them all. I learned VOLUMES shooting this wedding. There are so many woulda coulda shoulda photos! I've got a long list of things to do differently next time. Comments welcome, but I know they're not perfect and pretty cliche. Please ignore the green hose and beige plastic box in the barn photos that I completely missed at the time. My self-esteem regarding this shoot is in a constant state of flux, shifting between Gosh this turned out well, and Holy crap I am going to die of embarassment. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/calemp http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: GESO: Wedding Rookie
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Clone out the hose and box. It's five minutes of work. Paul I'd have to take a week of work to do that.:-) Dave -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Peso water the grass
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:06 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Thursday was, b-e-a utiful. Plus 14 C and lots of sun. The weather channel called for a bit of rain today, so i decided Thursday would be a good day to lay down some grass seed, have it get some moisture and get a good start to hide all the bare spots. http://www.flickr.com/photos/djbrooks/3409895891/ Now i just have to figure out what neighbour has my seed. K10D DAF 50-2.8 LR2 when i got it to work correctly You didn't know it, Dave, but you were just getting ready for the skating rink that's in your back yard today! But you'll have to shovel off the now first. It was fun riding to work with that 50 kmh sidewind, especially going over bridges with ice on the roadbed! I'd like to see your yard today! cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO - Proud Parents
I like the DOF her Frank. Also i like how you have the LHS framed up with the other lady. Dave On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: Sunday was a beautiful spring day (unlike today when we awoke to freaking snow on the ground!). I wondered if this was baby's first spring day out to the Market? http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-parents.html Comments always welcome. cheers, frank ps: note the circle of confusion and dof which is from the camera only... ;-) -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO - Wallingford Bridge
I like it Rick. The curve could be the fish eye, or it was built like that, makes you think. Dave On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Rick Womer rwomer1...@yahoo.com wrote: We took the bus from Oxford to the old market town of Wallingford, and walked a 6 mile loop from there on Sunday. The first bridge there was built by the Romans; this version is a modern knockoff from 1809. I decided to play with the fisheye on this one; I'm not sure what I think of it. There's some CA in the upper right that I couldn't completely get rid of in Lightroom. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8916413size=lg (K10D and DA 10-17) Rick -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead
My kinda house.:-) I like the bit of fence in the fore ground. Dave On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote: Beautiful calm 78F afternoon. Had to get out and around for awhile. Am including a link to a long since abandoned homestead on Tarke Rd. So completely overgrown and impenetrable from the front that I had no option but this side view. Seems I can't resist such remnants of the past. Jack K10, DA60~45 http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=403 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Peso water the grass
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:51 PM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:06 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Thursday was, b-e-a utiful. Plus 14 C and lots of sun. The weather channel called for a bit of rain today, so i decided Thursday would be a good day to lay down some grass seed, have it get some moisture and get a good start to hide all the bare spots. http://www.flickr.com/photos/djbrooks/3409895891/ Now i just have to figure out what neighbour has my seed. K10D DAF 50-2.8 LR2 when i got it to work correctly You didn't know it, Dave, but you were just getting ready for the skating rink that's in your back yard today! But you'll have to shovel off the now first. It was fun riding to work with that 50 kmh sidewind, especially going over bridges with ice on the roadbed! I'd like to see your yard today! LOL. It looks like it did all winter, under snow.:-) Funny thing is, Sunday was nice so i went for my first big bicycle ride of the year. Rattled off 10k after my third outing. Now, 10cm of snow and icy roads. Dave cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO's Some Black an white
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:56 AM, 27...@comcast.net wrote: I added a few black and white photos to my newest folder.They were all shot with Tri-x film and I made 11 x 14 prints of them. I photographed each print with the K20D and 100mm F2.8 Pentax Macro lens. Here is a link to one in the group.. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8918271 That's a wonderful shot. Excellent lighting and smile. and for you girly fans here is a link to Heather Thomas, different than Heather Locklear. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8918275 Nice. Dave Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO - 'A shadow of its former self'
Good shot. Like the tree trunk back ground. Lots of detail in the leaf. Dave On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Check put http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html Taken with a K20D, 600mm f4.0 SMC FA lens, 1/4000 sec, f 8.0, 1600 ISO Comments apporeciated. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO's Some Black an white
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:56 AM, 27...@comcast.net wrote: I added a few black and white photos to my newest folder.They were all shot with Tri-x film and I made 11 x 14 prints of them. I photographed each print with the K20D and 100mm F2.8 Pentax Macro lens. Here is a link to one in the group.. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8918271 and for you girly fans here is a link to Heather Thomas, different than Heather Locklear. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8918275 Each is a lovely shot in it's own way (and for different reasons). cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT - new look
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Doug Brewer d...@alphoto.com wrote: I got tired of looking at my same old blog design, so I re-did it, modifying a different theme. If you like, please head over to http://www.drivingtheflies.com and have a look. Thanks, I still don't see the flies. But it looks good! cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT - new look
frank theriault wrote: On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Doug Brewer d...@alphoto.com wrote: I got tired of looking at my same old blog design, so I re-did it, modifying a different theme. If you like, please head over to http://www.drivingtheflies.com and have a look. Thanks, I still don't see the flies. But it looks good! cheers, frank are you sure you don't see the flies? thanks for looking -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Bummer !
Newer spec is out, SDXC and btw, file format is exFat (based on middle aged FAT as usual). Vista SP1 already support exFat by the way. -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- Photo: K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... Thinkpad: X23+UB,X60+UB Programing: D7 user (trying out D2007) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT - Video testing
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Cotty cotty...@mac.com wrote: Hi gang, Just testing a flash video encoder, any volunteers? http://www.seeingeye.tv/pages/video.html less than a minute of dark house fire shots, just need to know if you can see it :-) The word Fire on the big red trucks (sorry, lorries) is backwards. Other than that, it all looks good! cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT - new look
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Doug Brewer d...@alphoto.com wrote: are you sure you don't see the flies? thanks for looking There they are, on the right! I feel better about it now. Still looks great. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Aussie Casual Friday
On Apr 7, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: David Savage wrote: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3650/3406984942_4162539cb9_b.jpg I'm the one in red on the left with the radio shutter release in hand :-) Casual Friday in Australia, huh? Brilliant! Godfrey -- www.gdgphoto.com www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/sets twitter.com/godfreydigiorgi -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead
Thanks, David! I included that just for you.. ;)) Jack --- On Tue, 4/7/09, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: From: David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com Subject: Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:55 AM My kinda house.:-) I like the bit of fence in the fore ground. Dave On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote: Beautiful calm 78F afternoon. Had to get out and around for awhile. Am including a link to a long since abandoned homestead on Tarke Rd. So completely overgrown and impenetrable from the front that I had no option but this side view. Seems I can't resist such remnants of the past. Jack K10, DA60~45 http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=403 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote: I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but mediocre, pool myself. Wow, Flickr really does have a pool for everything. LOL Here's my latest boring photo: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3319/3420399349_fc22fbab94_o.jpg :-) DS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO's Some Black an white
Cleverly done, Frank. Love the Christmas light scene. Knowing your photo prowess, I must assume you intend the HDR effect on Heather's.(?) Jack --- On Tue, 4/7/09, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: From: frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com Subject: Re: PESO's Some Black an white To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 10:09 AM On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:56 AM, 27...@comcast.net wrote: I added a few black and white photos to my newest folder.They were all shot with Tri-x film and I made 11 x 14 prints of them. I photographed each print with the K20D and 100mm F2.8 Pentax Macro lens. Here is a link to one in the group.. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8918271 and for you girly fans here is a link to Heather Thomas, different than Heather Locklear. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8918275 Each is a lovely shot in it's own way (and for different reasons). cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
Sir, MY burden of proof is no greater than yours. If you cant provide any reliable proof that my contention is not true, then your word is no better than mine. I dont need any more proof to support my contention than you need to support yours. This is very simple. DOF is all about magnfication and f-stop. I did supply the formula, relative DOF = F-stop number/MAGNIFICATION. INCREASING F-STOP NUMBER OR DECREASING IMAGE MAGINIFICATION increases the image relative DOF. Conversely, DECREASING THE F-STOP NUMBER OR INCREASING THE MAGNIFICATION decreases the image relative DOF. If you dont believe me, do some experiments. I have, its called about 35 years of practical experience to back up what I have read in theory. This isn't my theory, this is the correct theory that I have read and found to be true over the years. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bob W Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:00 PM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Trading resolution for depth of field The entire thread and original post was all about the relative DOF ( how to increase or decrease DOF in an image relative to ANY reference DOF ). But your claims regarding relative DOF are only valid if the image format (film size, crop factor, whatever you want to call it) is constant. A change in format leads to a change in allowable CoC, which you're dropping on the floor. If you dispute that the allowable CoC is different for different formats, then you are the one who is claiming there's an absolute DOF. === NO NO NO NO, My post is ALL INCLUSIVE. The only thing that affects (increases or decreases) the image DOF is : (the image magnification in-camera) (f-stop used). Format, crop factors, COC, print size, etc, blah blah blah have ZERO effect on DOF. That is the common myth I am trying to dispell. Its all about image magnification and f-stop and THATS IT. Changing the format, film size, COC means nothing..ONLY changes to the image magnification and f-stop change the DOF. You seem very certain about this, but you won't provide us with any objective criteria, such as a formula, by which the people who disagree with you can come to any conclusion. Why not? Why don't you provide us with some evidence, then we'll shut up about it? Give us a depth of field formula in which all the terms are constant, except for image magnification in camera and f-stop, and in which viewing distance and coc have ZERO effect. Go on, be a sport. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: peso - thinking inside the box
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:24 PM, ann sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com wrote: http://annsan.smugmug.com/gallery/2526444_XRhmm/1/507669324_Wedby/Medium I have some nerve peso-ing when I've hardly been here - but anyway... have at it HAR! Ashley look pretty darned happy in her new box. Wonderfully captured. Love the way you have the box at an angle (not square to the frame). cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: peso - thinking inside the box
Cute stuff, Ann. Thanks for posting! Jack --- On Tue, 4/7/09, ann sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com wrote: From: ann sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com Subject: peso - thinking inside the box To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 12:24 PM http://annsan.smugmug.com/gallery/2526444_XRhmm/1/507669324_Wedby/Medium I have some nerve peso-ing when I've hardly been here - but anyway... have at it ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO 2009 - 047 - GDG
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi ramar...@mac.com wrote: Evening walk and I caught this inspiration... http://homepage.mac.com/godders/047-halfmoon.jpg Half Moon Overhead - Sunnyvale 2009 Panasonic G1 + Olympus G.Zuiko 40mm f/1.4 ISO 200 @ f/2 @ 1/320 second Very nice! cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO: Connections #2
Thanks Paul! On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: I missed this one. I like it. Quite a group of characters there. I especially like the guy on the left who's apparently on the verge of passing out:-). Nice moment, with two conversations going on. Well rendered. Paul On Apr 7, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Fernando wrote: Thanks Frank! I'm guessing Little Italy, possibly looking down Grace from College? Nope, you got this one wrong ;-) Roncesvalles, I believe 5 blocks north of Queen. I love that street, is really picturesque and lively (when the sun comes out that is). Unfortunately is a long walk from home. On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Fernando fer.p...@gmail.com wrote: Spring arrived on Toronto on Sunday (is already gone BTW) and I had the chance to go for a nice stroll. Part of the human interactions series that I've been shooting for a while already, and that has been renamed to connections, and that is far from finished. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/3418994249/sizes/o/ Pentax K20D and DA21 That's a hell of a shot, Fernando. I'm somewhat surprised that no one else has commented on it in the past 18 hours or so. The different facial and body expressions (including hand gestures!) of the two groups talking, all seemingly oblivious of the fellow sleeping, the rail setting them off from the sidestreet, the neighbourhood in the background. Great juxtaposition between the animated conversations and the sleeper and the quiet-looking houses. Beautiful geometries and composition. All in all a terrific street photo! I'm guessing Little Italy, possibly looking down Grace from College? cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: peso - thinking inside the box
LOL ... I like it, the subject and then the picture make a very amusing joke. :-) G On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:24 PM, ann sanfedele wrote: http://annsan.smugmug.com/gallery/2526444_XRhmm/1/507669324_Wedby/Medium I have some nerve peso-ing when I've hardly been here - but anyway... have at it -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
At least it's not Godders and I this time ;-) -Adam On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote: Bzzz. On Apr 7, 2009, at 07:06 , JC OConnell wrote: NO NO NO NO, My post is ALL INCLUSIVE. The only thing that affects (increases or decreases) the image DOF is : (the image magnification in-camera) (f-stop used). Format, crop factors, COC, print size, etc, blah blah blah have ZERO effect on DOF. That is the common myth I am trying to dispell. Its all about image magnification and f-stop and THATS IT. Changing the format, film size, COC means nothing..ONLY changes to the image magnification and f-stop change the DOF. Joseph McAllister Lots of gear, not much time http://gallery.me.com/jomac http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: Cotty cotty...@mac.com Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On 7/4/09, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: Let it go. Mark Mark ! Just 'Mark', Mark. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
sharpness has to be defined to define a particular DOF. But when you want to increase or decrease DOF, the whole sharpness/COC thing washes out, only camera f-stops and camera image magnification changes get you there. Im not buying into the argument that if you make anything tiny enough the image DOF is increased or if you make it the size of a billboard the DOF is reduced. Its not, the definition I have been using since the beginnning of thread is that image DOF is all relative, not absolute, and its the relative sharpness of the out of focus planes that can only be changed with mag/fstop. Print size doesnt affect that. JC O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Hunt Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:14 PM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: Smaller prints dont have more DOF, they're just harder to see clearly! And that's what determines depth of field: The appearance of sharpness. Every derivation of DOF begins with that criterion. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Apr 7, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Cotty wrote: On 7/4/09, Luiz Felipe, discombobulated, unleashed: ...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that photo of yours as desktop background for a while? I tried to laugh quietly but my co-workers perceived the tears in my eyes and I had to show them the thread. They also would like to use the photo as background for a while... It will brighten up the orifice for sure. -- Unfortunately, everyone will get behind in their work. Reminds me of the butcher that backed into a meat grinder. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
