Re: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Jostein Øksne]

Glad Gonz took my comnent the way I intended. The more the merrier. :-) 
Jostein 

Den 28. februar 2017 16.53.14 CET, skrev ann sanfedele :
>Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me
>
>ann
>
>On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
>> On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>> Number of photographers is now 42.
>> Ironic!
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[mike wilson]

Beaten only by the record (vinyl) and the film.  But the radio series.

You should give it a whirl, if the opportunity occurs.  The other stuff may have
spoiled it for you but it was exceptional for the time and holds up well.

> On 28 February 2017 at 19:58 Bob W-PDML  wrote:
> 
> 
> It's very tiresome. I read it to see what all the fuss was about. Thought it
> badly written and overrated.
> 
> > On 28 Feb 2017, at 17:08, ann sanfedele  wrote:
> > 
> > oh ggeez another Hitchhiker ref..   it's like a never read it.. and I did -
> > but, well, actually I didn't read it I listened to someone else read it..
> > perhaps more would have stuck if I had see the print...
> > 
> > and it was back in the 80's on Public radio.. sigh
> > 
> > ann
> > 
> > 
> >> On 2/28/2017 11:36 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
> >> A reference to THHGttG (Douglas Adams) where it is the answer to life,
> >> the universe and everything. Trouble is nobody knows what the question
> >> is, so it's kind of useless.
> >> 
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)#The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy
> >> 
> >> As to why that's ironic in this context, well that's a good question
> >> for which 42 is most likely the answer.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM, ann sanfedele  wrote:
> >>> Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me
> >>> 
> >>> ann
> >>> 
>  On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
>  On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
>  
> > Number of photographers is now 42.
>  Ironic!

-- 
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[mike wilson]

Does that mean we are Deep Thought?  (Looks around)  Naahh

> On 28 February 2017 at 13:36 Jostein Øksne  wrote:
> 
> 
> Number of photographers is now 42.
> Jostein 
> 
> Den 28. februar 2017 14.10.17 CET, skrev Mark Roberts
> :
> >The upload page is at http://www.robertstech.com/pdmlbook/upload.php
> >and it shuts down at midnight GMT tonight (that's 7:00 p.m. U.S. east
> >coast time and 4:00 p.m. U.S. west coast time).

-- 
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: March PUG - Last Call

[Steve Cottrell]

On 1/3/17, Brian Walters, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Theme: Geometric Shapes in Nature

It snow joke this.

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Production
--
_



-- 
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 - SnowBird, UT

[Igor PDML-StR]

Here is a quick panorama from the top of SnowBird ski resort near Salt 
Lake City in UT:

http://42graphy.org/misc/2017-02-panoramaSnowBird-small.jpg

I am thinking if I should cut a bit the building on the RHS.

All comments are welcome.


Igor


--
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: KP Update

[Malcolm Smith]

John wrote:

Is it a grip or a battery-grip? I thought the KP came with a set of
interchangeable grips.

The LX had an accessory grip, but I don't remember it being that expensive.
That's like $300.
+++

Battery grip.

The other grips come in small, medium and large. I can see people with small
hands using the medium, only the large works for me, goodness knows who will
use the small.

For now, I'll buy a spare battery rather than the battery grip. 

Malcolm

 


-- 
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Nicole Jacque]

I, unfortunately missed the deadline.  I was thinking it was midnight tonight.

:-/

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 6:39 PM, John  wrote:
> 
> Happily this year I was not struggling to meet the deadline ... nor
> straggling.
> 
> On 2/28/2017 8:10 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> The upload page is at http://www.robertstech.com/pdmlbook/upload.php
>> and it shuts down at midnight GMT tonight (that's 7:00 p.m. U.S. east
>> coast time and 4:00 p.m. U.S. west coast time).
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
> Religion - Answers we must never question.
> 
> -- 
> 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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[ann sanfedele]

Ah! thanks for that Larry --
Once I saw it as a book I turned it upsdie down...
ann

On 2/28/2017 9:00 PM, Larry Colen wrote:



ann sanfedele wrote:

oh ggeez another Hitchhiker ref.. it's like a never read it.. and I did
- but, well, actually I didn't read it I listened to someone else read
it..
perhaps more would have stuck if I had see the print...

and it was back in the 80's on Public radio.. sigh


If you heard it on radio, they weren't reading the book, that was the 
radio show the books were based on.



-- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) 
http://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: OT: LED Lights for Studio Work

[Bruce Walker]

I keep a large hunk of rip-stop, about a meter wide by 2.5 meters
long, folded in my kit bag when I shoot on location. I can tape it up
over a window to get lovely diffuse light for portraits. It cost me
under ten bucks.

I thought that if you created a box from white foamcore, cut "windows"
in it and glued (Elmers) rip-stop over them, you can point your desk
lamps at the windows and fill the box with diffuse light. Then shoot
through a front opening.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Mark C  wrote:
> That's a good idea. Several years ago I bought some white nylon and stapled
> it to a couple old 16 x 20 wooden frames - basically a DYI diffuser. I wish
> I had hung onto them - tossed them when purging the house of excess stuff.
>
>
> On 2/28/2017 6:34 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>>
>> Mark, here's an alternate diffusion suggestion: white rip-stop nylon
>> fabric from the fabric store. Quite cheap, very white, and fairly heat
>> resistant. It's essentially what soft boxes use.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Mark C  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm just doing desktop macro work with a couple of goose neck desk lights
>>> and small pieces of white foam core for reflectors. Incandescent bulbs
>>> are
>>> an option but the heat is a concern. I currently use wax paper to diffuse
>>> the lighting - would need to rethink that approach with hot lights. In
>>> the
>>> past I have used flashes, but need continuous light to take advantage of
>>> pixel shift.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/2017 11:29 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

 I agree that tungsten bulbs are generally quite good for faithful
 colour, and it's easy to colour correct for them.

 OTOH, they are hot as hell. :)  I once did a fashion shoot using a
 cheap $40 dual head 500W garage service light that I bounced off
 reflectors inside a retail store, and just about cooked everybody. But
 I loved the results.

 And one really nice thing about tungsten is that, like a lot of old
 film gear, nobody wants it and it's cheap. I was recently given a
 Lowel Tota in great shape, with a heat-resistant silver umbrella.
 Almost $200 new at B

 Those little common bayonet base tungsten halogen lamps with a 40
 degree beam spread are great if you are lighting up close, like for
 macro.


 On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Mark C  wrote:
>
> Thanks, Bruce. I'm not trying for exact color reproduction but just
> want
> consistent results and reasonably rich colors. Some of the bulbs I've
> tried
> produce muddy colors and some are difficult to adjust / color correct.
> I'll
> continue experimenting and will  take a look at the LED panels. I took
> a
> look at the LED bulbs sold by B and they did not seem to have
> remarkable
> CRI ratings but were a lot brighter than what I can find retail.
>
>   From what I read it sounds like tungsten bulbs are generally
> excellent
> at
> color reproduction, so there is always that route as well.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/27/2017 4:58 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>>
>> Whether you need to worry about CRI or not depends on how fussy you
>> are. If you are shooting products (including fashion) for a living you
>> would (or should, anyway) be fussy and CRI is critical. Also if you
>> shoot people and like your skin tones to be well rendered, or natural.
>>
>> So if you find that don't really care about CRI then any old light
>> sources will do and buying random LED bulbs until you get the results
>> you like will be fine.
>>
>> But if you, like me, really do care about CRI then I suggest you stick
>> to LED panels and bulbs that are made for photography. Avoid all the
>> consumer products (eg whatever's on sale at Walmart). LEDs that are
>> made for commercial store displays have better CRI because they care
>> about colour rendition for stuff they are selling. I have some of
>> those by way of Amazon and they have surprisingly nice light.
>>
>> See what B Photo or Adorama has available in your price range. The
>> 500 and 1000 LED panels are reasonably priced these days and put out a
>> lot of good light. Fotodiox is a more budget source with good strong
>> lights.
>>
>> Many photo LED panels use DC power, so definitely no flicker. AC
>> powered ones? Dunno.
>>
>> Where I notice CRI making a huge difference is when I shoot with a
>> calibrated colour workflow -- ie using a colour-checker card, and
>> calibrating the monitor with a colorimeter. Then I can really see what
>> normal consumer room lights do to skin versus shooting with strobes
>> that have a very high CRI. I can even tell the difference between
>> shooting with Profoto pack and head strobes and the less expensive
>> Paul 

Re: OT: LED Lights for Studio Work

[Larry Colen]

Mark C wrote:

Does anyone here have advice about selecting LED lights for studio work?


These seem to do pretty well:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01K4J1S0W/
I haven't noticed any weirdness in the color, but I mostly use them for 
macros rather than portraiture. Interestingly, when I dropped one and 
the glass broke, I ended up with just a flat panel of working LEDs.


Also, Costco sells LED "shop lights" for under $30, and I really want to 
experiment with some as hot strip lights.


I've tried several consumer bands with mixed results. I understand that
the color rendering index (CRI) rating is supposed indicate how well the
bulb displays colors, but my experience so far has not shows any strong
correlation between that actual results.

So far I've tried 4 different brands of bulbs, with the best results
coming from Earthtronic bulbs with a mediocre CRI 81 and the worst
coming from GE Reveal with a respectable CRI 93. IMO, the Reveal bulb
was the least accurate of all four brands that I tried in terms of color
rendition and also banded noticeably (do LEDs flicker?)

So - how do you tell what LED's will work the best - or it just trial
and error?

Mark




--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://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: PESO - Snow Day

[Larry Colen]

Looks pretty,  pretty damned cold.


Rick Womer wrote:

Well, it wasn’t really a snow day a couple of weeks ago. The forecast 4-6 
inches turned out to be an inch, and most of it was gone by late afternoon. I 
had taken my camera to work with me, though.

If the navigation is awkward, it’s the new photo.net.

https://www.photo.net/photo/18357967/way-to-work-feb-17

https://www.photo.net/photo/18357966/Frosted-Iron

https://www.photo.net/photo/18357968/Park-Pond-Feb-17

https://www.photo.net/photo/18357970/Garden-Path-Feb-17

https://www.photo.net/photo/18357969/Outdoors-Indoors

(K-5, DA 40/2.8 Ltd.)

Comments appreciated.

Rick






--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://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: KP Update

[P. J. Alling]

I think he's talking about the battery grip, seems about the right 
price.  The grip for the K-5/7 still sells for a bit more than the grip 
for a K-3 which was a bargain when it was first introduced.



On 2/28/2017 9:23 PM, John wrote:

Is it a grip or a battery-grip? I thought the KP came with a set of
interchangeable grips.

The LX had an accessory grip, but I don't remember it being that
expensive. That's like $300.


On 2/27/2017 11:35 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
I thought you might be amused to hear I got an e-mail telling me that 
a grip

for said camera will shortly be available at £259. A practical item, but
rather makes the small camera sales pitch redundant, and yet another 
camera

specific part.



Only the large grip works for me. Despite comments, it does what I 
wanted it

to do, but I might have preferred it cooked up as a K3 III.



It is curious that I have got used to a DSLR being a certain size and 
yet

still use an LX or K2 DMD without issue.



Malcolm










--
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: The K-1 kind of sucks for fast action

[P. J. Alling]

Stan, I've been using the O-ME53 for about 10 years.  Had the rubber 
fall apart on two of them.  I'm pretty sure that it will vignette 
heavily on a Full Frame viewfinder.  Of course it won't effect the 
photo, but it will make evaluating composition a bit of a pain.  I found 
it very helpful manually focusing, especially with the K20D in which I 
had a KatzEye screen installed.  I really wish that Ricoh sold a repair 
kit because I really hate to throw away good optics when something 
unrelated fails.



On 2/28/2017 8:50 PM, Stanley Halpin wrote:

On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:43 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:

Hi Stan,

Are you using single-point focus? I can usually slip around branches to shoot a 
bird in the bush if I carefully place the focus point on the bird’s head. With 
multi-point focus, the camera will always lock onto whatever is in the 
foreground.

Paul

On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:22 PM, Stanley Halpin  
wrote:...



Paul, I have focus mode set to AF-C, Spot, using back-button only.
Usually I find the 24-70 and 70-200 to be very quick and accurate - this time I 
think the target was too small, too many intervening branches, my screwup as 
much or more than the camera. But still I can totally relate every time Larry 
mentions his in-focus mic shots!

Do you (or anybody) use the O-ME53 magnifying eyecup? I bought this several 
camera models go and it has been migrating forward through the successive 
generations. The rubber eyecup is about to fall apart, I can’t decide if I 
should be thinking of ordering a replacement because I can’t really see all 
that much benefit.

stan



--
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 - Snow Day

[Rick Womer]

Well, it wasn’t really a snow day a couple of weeks ago. The forecast 4-6 
inches turned out to be an inch, and most of it was gone by late afternoon. I 
had taken my camera to work with me, though.

If the navigation is awkward, it’s the new photo.net. 

https://www.photo.net/photo/18357967/way-to-work-feb-17

https://www.photo.net/photo/18357966/Frosted-Iron

https://www.photo.net/photo/18357968/Park-Pond-Feb-17

https://www.photo.net/photo/18357970/Garden-Path-Feb-17

https://www.photo.net/photo/18357969/Outdoors-Indoors

(K-5, DA 40/2.8 Ltd.)

Comments appreciated.

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.

Re: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Mark Roberts]

John wrote:

>Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. 42 is the answer to the ultimate
>question - Life, the Universe & Everything.

My favorite bit in that part was when the computer says it's going to
reveal the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of Life, the
Universe and Everything and the Philosophers Union threatens a strike:
"And who, exactly, is that going to inconvenience?" asks the computer.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.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.

Re: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[John]

You probably listened to the radio play. I think that was the original
format. The books, TV series & movie all came later.

On 2/28/2017 12:04 PM, ann sanfedele wrote:

oh ggeez another Hitchhiker ref..   it's like a never read it.. and I
did - but, well, actually I didn't read it I listened to someone else
read it..
perhaps more would have stuck if I had see the print...

and it was back in the 80's on Public radio.. sigh

ann


On 2/28/2017 11:36 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

A reference to THHGttG (Douglas Adams) where it is the answer to life,
the universe and everything. Trouble is nobody knows what the question
is, so it's kind of useless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)#The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy


As to why that's ironic in this context, well that's a good question
for which 42 is most likely the answer.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM, ann sanfedele 
wrote:

Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me

ann

On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:

On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:


Number of photographers is now 42.

Ironic!



--
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.








--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[John]

Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. 42 is the answer to the ultimate
question - Life, the Universe & Everything.

On 2/28/2017 10:53 AM, ann sanfedele wrote:

Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me

ann

On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:

On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:


Number of photographers is now 42.

Ironic!






--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[John]

Happily this year I was not struggling to meet the deadline ... nor
straggling.

On 2/28/2017 8:10 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:

The upload page is at http://www.robertstech.com/pdmlbook/upload.php
and it shuts down at midnight GMT tonight (that's 7:00 p.m. U.S. east
coast time and 4:00 p.m. U.S. west coast time).




--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
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: KP Update

[John]

Is it a grip or a battery-grip? I thought the KP came with a set of
interchangeable grips.

The LX had an accessory grip, but I don't remember it being that
expensive. That's like $300.


On 2/27/2017 11:35 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:

I thought you might be amused to hear I got an e-mail telling me that a grip
for said camera will shortly be available at £259. A practical item, but
rather makes the small camera sales pitch redundant, and yet another camera
specific part.



Only the large grip works for me. Despite comments, it does what I wanted it
to do, but I might have preferred it cooked up as a K3 III.



It is curious that I have got used to a DSLR being a certain size and yet
still use an LX or K2 DMD without issue.



Malcolm







--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
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: The K-1 kind of sucks for fast action

[Paul Stenquist]

I'm not sure what the terminology is, but I know AF-c with a single point 
selected and a nine point range seems to work best for critters in the brush.  
I'll take a look at my camera tomorrow and confirm. Autofocus is tricky and 
occasional misses in a busy environment are inevitable.

Paul via phone

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Stanley Halpin  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:43 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Stan,
>> 
>> Are you using single-point focus? I can usually slip around branches to 
>> shoot a bird in the bush if I carefully place the focus point on the bird’s 
>> head. With multi-point focus, the camera will always lock onto whatever is 
>> in the foreground.
>> 
>> Paul
>>> On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:22 PM, Stanley Halpin  
>>> wrote:...
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> Paul, I have focus mode set to AF-C, Spot, using back-button only.
> Usually I find the 24-70 and 70-200 to be very quick and accurate - this time 
> I think the target was too small, too many intervening branches, my screwup 
> as much or more than the camera. But still I can totally relate every time 
> Larry mentions his in-focus mic shots!
> 
> Do you (or anybody) use the O-ME53 magnifying eyecup? I bought this several 
> camera models go and it has been migrating forward through the successive 
> generations. The rubber eyecup is about to fall apart, I can’t decide if I 
> should be thinking of ordering a replacement because I can’t really see all 
> that much benefit.
> 
> stan
> -- 
> 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: OT: LED Lights for Studio Work

[Mark C]

That's a good idea. Several years ago I bought some white nylon and 
stapled it to a couple old 16 x 20 wooden frames - basically a DYI 
diffuser. I wish I had hung onto them - tossed them when purging the 
house of excess stuff.


On 2/28/2017 6:34 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

Mark, here's an alternate diffusion suggestion: white rip-stop nylon
fabric from the fabric store. Quite cheap, very white, and fairly heat
resistant. It's essentially what soft boxes use.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Mark C  wrote:

I'm just doing desktop macro work with a couple of goose neck desk lights
and small pieces of white foam core for reflectors. Incandescent bulbs are
an option but the heat is a concern. I currently use wax paper to diffuse
the lighting - would need to rethink that approach with hot lights. In the
past I have used flashes, but need continuous light to take advantage of
pixel shift.

Mark


On 2/28/2017 11:29 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

I agree that tungsten bulbs are generally quite good for faithful
colour, and it's easy to colour correct for them.

OTOH, they are hot as hell. :)  I once did a fashion shoot using a
cheap $40 dual head 500W garage service light that I bounced off
reflectors inside a retail store, and just about cooked everybody. But
I loved the results.

And one really nice thing about tungsten is that, like a lot of old
film gear, nobody wants it and it's cheap. I was recently given a
Lowel Tota in great shape, with a heat-resistant silver umbrella.
Almost $200 new at B

Those little common bayonet base tungsten halogen lamps with a 40
degree beam spread are great if you are lighting up close, like for
macro.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Mark C  wrote:

Thanks, Bruce. I'm not trying for exact color reproduction but just want
consistent results and reasonably rich colors. Some of the bulbs I've
tried
produce muddy colors and some are difficult to adjust / color correct.
I'll
continue experimenting and will  take a look at the LED panels. I took a
look at the LED bulbs sold by B and they did not seem to have
remarkable
CRI ratings but were a lot brighter than what I can find retail.

  From what I read it sounds like tungsten bulbs are generally excellent
at
color reproduction, so there is always that route as well.

Mark





On 2/27/2017 4:58 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

Whether you need to worry about CRI or not depends on how fussy you
are. If you are shooting products (including fashion) for a living you
would (or should, anyway) be fussy and CRI is critical. Also if you
shoot people and like your skin tones to be well rendered, or natural.

So if you find that don't really care about CRI then any old light
sources will do and buying random LED bulbs until you get the results
you like will be fine.

But if you, like me, really do care about CRI then I suggest you stick
to LED panels and bulbs that are made for photography. Avoid all the
consumer products (eg whatever's on sale at Walmart). LEDs that are
made for commercial store displays have better CRI because they care
about colour rendition for stuff they are selling. I have some of
those by way of Amazon and they have surprisingly nice light.

See what B Photo or Adorama has available in your price range. The
500 and 1000 LED panels are reasonably priced these days and put out a
lot of good light. Fotodiox is a more budget source with good strong
lights.

Many photo LED panels use DC power, so definitely no flicker. AC
powered ones? Dunno.

Where I notice CRI making a huge difference is when I shoot with a
calibrated colour workflow -- ie using a colour-checker card, and
calibrating the monitor with a colorimeter. Then I can really see what
normal consumer room lights do to skin versus shooting with strobes
that have a very high CRI. I can even tell the difference between
shooting with Profoto pack and head strobes and the less expensive
Paul Buff lights.


On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Mark C  wrote:

Does anyone here have advice about selecting LED lights for studio
work?

I've tried several consumer bands with mixed results. I understand that
the
color rendering index  (CRI) rating is supposed indicate how well the
bulb
displays colors, but my experience so far has not shows any strong
correlation between that actual results.

So far I've tried 4 different brands of bulbs, with the best results
coming
from Earthtronic bulbs with a mediocre CRI 81 and the worst coming from
GE
Reveal  with a respectable CRI 93. IMO, the Reveal bulb was the least
accurate of all four brands that I tried in terms of color rendition
and
also banded noticeably (do LEDs flicker?)

So - how do you tell what LED's will work the best - or it just trial
and
error?

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.




--
PDML 

Re: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Larry Colen]

P. J. Alling wrote:

There seems to be an echo in here.


You can say that again.




--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Larry Colen]

ann sanfedele wrote:

oh ggeez another Hitchhiker ref.. it's like a never read it.. and I did
- but, well, actually I didn't read it I listened to someone else read
it..
perhaps more would have stuck if I had see the print...

and it was back in the 80's on Public radio.. sigh


If you heard it on radio, they weren't reading the book, that was the 
radio show the books were based on.



-- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://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: March PUG - Last Call

[Brian Walters]

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, at 11:50 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> I thought that I had a good candidate but it appears that it was man
> made.


Well, there are already a couple of submissions that might not pass the
'nature' test if strictly applied (ie - they are achieved from nature
but through human intervention), but I'm happy to let the submitters
decide if the submissions comply with the theme. 


Cheers

Brian

++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/


> 
> 
> On 2/28/2017 7:24 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
> > G'day all
> >
> > I'll be closing submissions on Friday evening (Mar 3) - Sydney time.
> >
> > Theme: Geometric Shapes in Nature
> >
> > As usual submit here:
> >
> > http://pug.komkon.org/submit/
> >
> > Full Submission Guidelines here:
> >
> > http://pug.komkon.org/general/autosubmit.html
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > ++
> > Brian Walters
> > Western Sydney Australia
> > http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.fastmail.com - Same, same, but different...


-- 
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: The K-1 kind of sucks for fast action

[Stanley Halpin]

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:43 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
> 
> Hi Stan,
> 
> Are you using single-point focus? I can usually slip around branches to shoot 
> a bird in the bush if I carefully place the focus point on the bird’s head. 
> With multi-point focus, the camera will always lock onto whatever is in the 
> foreground.
> 
> Paul
>> On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:22 PM, Stanley Halpin  
>> wrote:...
>> 
>> 

Paul, I have focus mode set to AF-C, Spot, using back-button only.
Usually I find the 24-70 and 70-200 to be very quick and accurate - this time I 
think the target was too small, too many intervening branches, my screwup as 
much or more than the camera. But still I can totally relate every time Larry 
mentions his in-focus mic shots!

Do you (or anybody) use the O-ME53 magnifying eyecup? I bought this several 
camera models go and it has been migrating forward through the successive 
generations. The rubber eyecup is about to fall apart, I can’t decide if I 
should be thinking of ordering a replacement because I can’t really see all 
that much benefit.

stan
-- 
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: The K-1 kind of sucks for fast action

[Paul Stenquist]

KC = LX sheesh!

Paul via phone

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
> 
> I've found the K-1 quite easy to focus manually, and my vision is no longer 
> good. I'll have to try it vs. the KC one of these days, but I think it will 
> compare favorably. Of course I haven't used my KC in 15 years, and my memory 
> might be failing me.
> 
> Paul via phone
> 
>> On Feb 28, 2017, at 7:49 PM, P. J. Alling  wrote:
>> 
>> I am of the opinion that a good manual focus screen is invaluable because AF 
>> just sucks under those circumstances.  Too bad Pentax no longer makes a good 
>> manual focus screen.
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/28/2017 4:22 PM, Stanley Halpin wrote:
 On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:58 AM, Larry Colen  wrote:
 
 … I just went through the photos of one of the bands from this weekend, 
 having shot a bit with the 80-200 on the K-3, with wider primes on the K-1 
 that night, and was reminded of just how well the K-3 can focus on 
 microphones.
 
>>> Common Mergansers swimming/fishing on the river by our house a couple of 
>>> days ago. I grabbed the K-1 + 70-200/2.8, carefully slipped outside and did 
>>> a few snappies without spooking them. Then I heard the unmistakable sound 
>>> of a Belted Kingfisher. Finally spotted it through a gap in the bushes. I 
>>> got a wonderful in focus shot of the bushes. If you knew what to look for 
>>> you could see the out of focus Kingfisher further back.
>>> 
>>> Canon at one point had an AF mechanism based on the position/direction of 
>>> your eyeball as you looked through the viewfinder - a guy who worked for me 
>>> had one, was quite proud of owning such advanced technology. Which, he 
>>> admitted, didn’t work very well. But that notion needs to be revisited.
>>> 
>>> stan
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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: The K-1 kind of sucks for fast action

[Paul Stenquist]

I've found the K-1 quite easy to focus manually, and my vision is no longer 
good. I'll have to try it vs. the KC one of these days, but I think it will 
compare favorably. Of course I haven't used my KC in 15 years, and my memory 
might be failing me.

Paul via phone

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 7:49 PM, P. J. Alling  wrote:
> 
> I am of the opinion that a good manual focus screen is invaluable because AF 
> just sucks under those circumstances.  Too bad Pentax no longer makes a good 
> manual focus screen.
> 
> 
> On 2/28/2017 4:22 PM, Stanley Halpin wrote:
>>> On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:58 AM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>>> 
>>> … I just went through the photos of one of the bands from this weekend, 
>>> having shot a bit with the 80-200 on the K-3, with wider primes on the K-1 
>>> that night, and was reminded of just how well the K-3 can focus on 
>>> microphones.
>>> 
>> Common Mergansers swimming/fishing on the river by our house a couple of 
>> days ago. I grabbed the K-1 + 70-200/2.8, carefully slipped outside and did 
>> a few snappies without spooking them. Then I heard the unmistakable sound of 
>> a Belted Kingfisher. Finally spotted it through a gap in the bushes. I got a 
>> wonderful in focus shot of the bushes. If you knew what to look for you 
>> could see the out of focus Kingfisher further back.
>> 
>> Canon at one point had an AF mechanism based on the position/direction of 
>> your eyeball as you looked through the viewfinder - a guy who worked for me 
>> had one, was quite proud of owning such advanced technology. Which, he 
>> admitted, didn’t work very well. But that notion needs to be revisited.
>> 
>> stan
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: March PUG - Last Call

[P. J. Alling]

I thought that I had a good candidate but it appears that it was man made.


On 2/28/2017 7:24 PM, Brian Walters wrote:

G'day all

I'll be closing submissions on Friday evening (Mar 3) - Sydney time.

Theme: Geometric Shapes in Nature

As usual submit here:

http://pug.komkon.org/submit/

Full Submission Guidelines here:

http://pug.komkon.org/general/autosubmit.html


Cheers

Brian

++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/





--
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: The K-1 kind of sucks for fast action

[P. J. Alling]

I am of the opinion that a good manual focus screen is invaluable 
because AF just sucks under those circumstances.  Too bad Pentax no 
longer makes a good manual focus screen.



On 2/28/2017 4:22 PM, Stanley Halpin wrote:

On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:58 AM, Larry Colen  wrote:

… I just went through the photos of one of the bands from this weekend, having 
shot a bit with the 80-200 on the K-3, with wider primes on the K-1 that night, 
and was reminded of just how well the K-3 can focus on microphones.


Common Mergansers swimming/fishing on the river by our house a couple of days 
ago. I grabbed the K-1 + 70-200/2.8, carefully slipped outside and did a few 
snappies without spooking them. Then I heard the unmistakable sound of a Belted 
Kingfisher. Finally spotted it through a gap in the bushes. I got a wonderful 
in focus shot of the bushes. If you knew what to look for you could see the out 
of focus Kingfisher further back.

Canon at one point had an AF mechanism based on the position/direction of your 
eyeball as you looked through the viewfinder - a guy who worked for me had one, 
was quite proud of owning such advanced technology. Which, he admitted, didn’t 
work very well. But that notion needs to be revisited.

stan





--
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[P. J. Alling]

I think I liked celery better...


On 2/28/2017 3:14 PM, Ken Waller wrote:

Should be "So Pentax cameras/users are the answer to every thing"!

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Ken Waller" 
Subject: Re: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours



So Pentax cameras/users are the answer to celery thing !


-Original Message-

From: Steve Cottrell 
Subject: Re: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:


Number of photographers is now 42.


Ironic!

--


Cheers,
 Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Production
--
_






--
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.

March PUG - Last Call

[Brian Walters]

G'day all

I'll be closing submissions on Friday evening (Mar 3) - Sydney time. 

Theme: Geometric Shapes in Nature

As usual submit here:

http://pug.komkon.org/submit/

Full Submission Guidelines here:

http://pug.komkon.org/general/autosubmit.html


Cheers

Brian

++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/


-- 
--

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - IMAP accessible web-mail


-- 
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: LED Lights for Studio Work

[Bruce Walker]

Mark, here's an alternate diffusion suggestion: white rip-stop nylon
fabric from the fabric store. Quite cheap, very white, and fairly heat
resistant. It's essentially what soft boxes use.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Mark C  wrote:
> I'm just doing desktop macro work with a couple of goose neck desk lights
> and small pieces of white foam core for reflectors. Incandescent bulbs are
> an option but the heat is a concern. I currently use wax paper to diffuse
> the lighting - would need to rethink that approach with hot lights. In the
> past I have used flashes, but need continuous light to take advantage of
> pixel shift.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 2/28/2017 11:29 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>>
>> I agree that tungsten bulbs are generally quite good for faithful
>> colour, and it's easy to colour correct for them.
>>
>> OTOH, they are hot as hell. :)  I once did a fashion shoot using a
>> cheap $40 dual head 500W garage service light that I bounced off
>> reflectors inside a retail store, and just about cooked everybody. But
>> I loved the results.
>>
>> And one really nice thing about tungsten is that, like a lot of old
>> film gear, nobody wants it and it's cheap. I was recently given a
>> Lowel Tota in great shape, with a heat-resistant silver umbrella.
>> Almost $200 new at B
>>
>> Those little common bayonet base tungsten halogen lamps with a 40
>> degree beam spread are great if you are lighting up close, like for
>> macro.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Mark C  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, Bruce. I'm not trying for exact color reproduction but just want
>>> consistent results and reasonably rich colors. Some of the bulbs I've
>>> tried
>>> produce muddy colors and some are difficult to adjust / color correct.
>>> I'll
>>> continue experimenting and will  take a look at the LED panels. I took a
>>> look at the LED bulbs sold by B and they did not seem to have
>>> remarkable
>>> CRI ratings but were a lot brighter than what I can find retail.
>>>
>>>  From what I read it sounds like tungsten bulbs are generally excellent
>>> at
>>> color reproduction, so there is always that route as well.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/27/2017 4:58 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

 Whether you need to worry about CRI or not depends on how fussy you
 are. If you are shooting products (including fashion) for a living you
 would (or should, anyway) be fussy and CRI is critical. Also if you
 shoot people and like your skin tones to be well rendered, or natural.

 So if you find that don't really care about CRI then any old light
 sources will do and buying random LED bulbs until you get the results
 you like will be fine.

 But if you, like me, really do care about CRI then I suggest you stick
 to LED panels and bulbs that are made for photography. Avoid all the
 consumer products (eg whatever's on sale at Walmart). LEDs that are
 made for commercial store displays have better CRI because they care
 about colour rendition for stuff they are selling. I have some of
 those by way of Amazon and they have surprisingly nice light.

 See what B Photo or Adorama has available in your price range. The
 500 and 1000 LED panels are reasonably priced these days and put out a
 lot of good light. Fotodiox is a more budget source with good strong
 lights.

 Many photo LED panels use DC power, so definitely no flicker. AC
 powered ones? Dunno.

 Where I notice CRI making a huge difference is when I shoot with a
 calibrated colour workflow -- ie using a colour-checker card, and
 calibrating the monitor with a colorimeter. Then I can really see what
 normal consumer room lights do to skin versus shooting with strobes
 that have a very high CRI. I can even tell the difference between
 shooting with Profoto pack and head strobes and the less expensive
 Paul Buff lights.


 On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Mark C  wrote:
>
> Does anyone here have advice about selecting LED lights for studio
> work?
>
> I've tried several consumer bands with mixed results. I understand that
> the
> color rendering index  (CRI) rating is supposed indicate how well the
> bulb
> displays colors, but my experience so far has not shows any strong
> correlation between that actual results.
>
> So far I've tried 4 different brands of bulbs, with the best results
> coming
> from Earthtronic bulbs with a mediocre CRI 81 and the worst coming from
> GE
> Reveal  with a respectable CRI 93. IMO, the Reveal bulb was the least
> accurate of all four brands that I tried in terms of color rendition
> and
> also banded noticeably (do LEDs flicker?)
>
> So - how do you tell what LED's will work the best - or it just trial
> and
> error?
>
> Mark
>
>
> --
> 

Re: OT: LED Lights for Studio Work

[Mark C]

I'm just doing desktop macro work with a couple of goose neck desk 
lights and small pieces of white foam core for reflectors. Incandescent 
bulbs are an option but the heat is a concern. I currently use wax paper 
to diffuse the lighting - would need to rethink that approach with hot 
lights. In the past I have used flashes, but need continuous light to 
take advantage of pixel shift.


Mark

On 2/28/2017 11:29 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

I agree that tungsten bulbs are generally quite good for faithful
colour, and it's easy to colour correct for them.

OTOH, they are hot as hell. :)  I once did a fashion shoot using a
cheap $40 dual head 500W garage service light that I bounced off
reflectors inside a retail store, and just about cooked everybody. But
I loved the results.

And one really nice thing about tungsten is that, like a lot of old
film gear, nobody wants it and it's cheap. I was recently given a
Lowel Tota in great shape, with a heat-resistant silver umbrella.
Almost $200 new at B

Those little common bayonet base tungsten halogen lamps with a 40
degree beam spread are great if you are lighting up close, like for
macro.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Mark C  wrote:

Thanks, Bruce. I'm not trying for exact color reproduction but just want
consistent results and reasonably rich colors. Some of the bulbs I've tried
produce muddy colors and some are difficult to adjust / color correct.  I'll
continue experimenting and will  take a look at the LED panels. I took a
look at the LED bulbs sold by B and they did not seem to have remarkable
CRI ratings but were a lot brighter than what I can find retail.

 From what I read it sounds like tungsten bulbs are generally excellent at
color reproduction, so there is always that route as well.

Mark





On 2/27/2017 4:58 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

Whether you need to worry about CRI or not depends on how fussy you
are. If you are shooting products (including fashion) for a living you
would (or should, anyway) be fussy and CRI is critical. Also if you
shoot people and like your skin tones to be well rendered, or natural.

So if you find that don't really care about CRI then any old light
sources will do and buying random LED bulbs until you get the results
you like will be fine.

But if you, like me, really do care about CRI then I suggest you stick
to LED panels and bulbs that are made for photography. Avoid all the
consumer products (eg whatever's on sale at Walmart). LEDs that are
made for commercial store displays have better CRI because they care
about colour rendition for stuff they are selling. I have some of
those by way of Amazon and they have surprisingly nice light.

See what B Photo or Adorama has available in your price range. The
500 and 1000 LED panels are reasonably priced these days and put out a
lot of good light. Fotodiox is a more budget source with good strong
lights.

Many photo LED panels use DC power, so definitely no flicker. AC
powered ones? Dunno.

Where I notice CRI making a huge difference is when I shoot with a
calibrated colour workflow -- ie using a colour-checker card, and
calibrating the monitor with a colorimeter. Then I can really see what
normal consumer room lights do to skin versus shooting with strobes
that have a very high CRI. I can even tell the difference between
shooting with Profoto pack and head strobes and the less expensive
Paul Buff lights.


On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Mark C  wrote:

Does anyone here have advice about selecting LED lights for studio work?

I've tried several consumer bands with mixed results. I understand that
the
color rendering index  (CRI) rating is supposed indicate how well the
bulb
displays colors, but my experience so far has not shows any strong
correlation between that actual results.

So far I've tried 4 different brands of bulbs, with the best results
coming
from Earthtronic bulbs with a mediocre CRI 81 and the worst coming from
GE
Reveal  with a respectable CRI 93. IMO, the Reveal bulb was the least
accurate of all four brands that I tried in terms of color rendition and
also banded noticeably (do LEDs flicker?)

So - how do you tell what LED's will work the best - or it just trial and
error?

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.





--
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.

PESO: Old Jetty

[David Mann]

Another one from my early morning walk a couple of weeks ago (actually it's the 
next pic I took).

This old jetty has fallen into a state of disrepair and has been declared 
unsafe.  There are more modern facilities at the yacht club a few minutes walk 
away so it's probably being left to decay.

http://gallery.multi.net.nz/photo/1040/#peso

Cheers,
Dave


-- 
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: The K-1 kind of sucks for fast action

[Paul Stenquist]

Hi Stan,

Are you using single-point focus? I can usually slip around branches to shoot a 
bird in the bush if I carefully place the focus point on the bird’s head. With 
multi-point focus, the camera will always lock onto whatever is in the 
foreground.

Paul
> On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:22 PM, Stanley Halpin  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:58 AM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>> 
>> … I just went through the photos of one of the bands from this weekend, 
>> having shot a bit with the 80-200 on the K-3, with wider primes on the K-1 
>> that night, and was reminded of just how well the K-3 can focus on 
>> microphones.
>> 
> 
> Common Mergansers swimming/fishing on the river by our house a couple of days 
> ago. I grabbed the K-1 + 70-200/2.8, carefully slipped outside and did a few 
> snappies without spooking them. Then I heard the unmistakable sound of a 
> Belted Kingfisher. Finally spotted it through a gap in the bushes. I got a 
> wonderful in focus shot of the bushes. If you knew what to look for you could 
> see the out of focus Kingfisher further back.
> 
> Canon at one point had an AF mechanism based on the position/direction of 
> your eyeball as you looked through the viewfinder - a guy who worked for me 
> had one, was quite proud of owning such advanced technology. Which, he 
> admitted, didn’t work very well. But that notion needs to be revisited.
> 
> stan
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: How to adapt Sigma 8-16mm for Pentax K1

[Larry Colen]

Jos de Fotograaf wrote:

You're right: the hood is permanently attached. Your suggestion to
remove it completely will be my back-up solution if my cutting fails.

The front lens is extremely ball shaped, that makes it vulnerable in
practical use.

My step one will be to cut away from the hood just keeping enough to
avoid the lens toughing the table if I put the lens on the table with
front lens down.

If in that stage I can reach FF coverage down to 12 mm, I am satisfied
for the time being.


Could you maybe post some pictures showing the vignetting? Maybe of a 
grid so that you can quantify the difference you make comparing with in 
progress photos?


Do you maybe want to try trimming one corner of the petal hood so you 
can compare with the original and see if it is making a difference in 
that one corner?  Perhaps the lower left because that one is likely to 
be down no matter whether you are holding the camera and landscape or 
portrait mode?


--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://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: The K-1 kind of sucks for fast action

[Stanley Halpin]

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:58 AM, Larry Colen  wrote:
> 
> … I just went through the photos of one of the bands from this weekend, 
> having shot a bit with the 80-200 on the K-3, with wider primes on the K-1 
> that night, and was reminded of just how well the K-3 can focus on 
> microphones.
> 

Common Mergansers swimming/fishing on the river by our house a couple of days 
ago. I grabbed the K-1 + 70-200/2.8, carefully slipped outside and did a few 
snappies without spooking them. Then I heard the unmistakable sound of a Belted 
Kingfisher. Finally spotted it through a gap in the bushes. I got a wonderful 
in focus shot of the bushes. If you knew what to look for you could see the out 
of focus Kingfisher further back.

Canon at one point had an AF mechanism based on the position/direction of your 
eyeball as you looked through the viewfinder - a guy who worked for me had one, 
was quite proud of owning such advanced technology. Which, he admitted, didn’t 
work very well. But that notion needs to be revisited.

stan


-- 
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Bob W-PDML]

It was better before

> On 28 Feb 2017, at 20:16, Ken Waller  wrote:
> 
> Should be "So Pentax cameras/users are the answer to every thing"!
> 
> Kenneth Waller
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Ken Waller" 
> Subject: Re: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours
> 
> 
>> So Pentax cameras/users are the answer to celery thing !
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Steve Cottrell 
>>> Subject: Re: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours
>>> 
>>> On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>> 
 Number of photographers is now 42.
>>> 
>>> Ironic!
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Cotty
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
>>> ||  (O)  |Web Video Production
>>> --
>>> _
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Ken Waller]

Should be "So Pentax cameras/users are the answer to every thing"!

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "Ken Waller" 

Subject: Re: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours



So Pentax cameras/users are the answer to celery thing !


-Original Message-

From: Steve Cottrell 
Subject: Re: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:


Number of photographers is now 42.


Ironic!

--


Cheers,
 Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Production
--
_



--
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Bob W-PDML]

I blame the internet -et-et-et

> On 28 Feb 2017, at 20:01, P. J. Alling  wrote:
> 
> There seems to be an echo in here.
> 
> 
>> On 2/28/2017 2:56 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote:
>> Douglas Adams used it in his book as the answer to the question of life. He 
>> chose 42 apparently because a straw poll of his friends showed it to be the 
>> most boring number of all. Ironically, given the success of the book, it has 
>> become an interesting number. It also turns out that mathematically it's not 
>> especially boring, and indeed it is impossible for a number to be 
>> mathematically boring because if one were found, that would be interesting, 
>> paradoxically, and perhaps ironically.
>> 
>>> On 28 Feb 2017, at 15:54, ann sanfedele  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me
>>> 
>>> ann
>>> 
 On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
 On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
 
> Number of photographers is now 42.
 Ironic!
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[P. J. Alling]

There seems to be an echo in here.


On 2/28/2017 2:56 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote:

Douglas Adams used it in his book as the answer to the question of life. He 
chose 42 apparently because a straw poll of his friends showed it to be the 
most boring number of all. Ironically, given the success of the book, it has 
become an interesting number. It also turns out that mathematically it's not 
especially boring, and indeed it is impossible for a number to be 
mathematically boring because if one were found, that would be interesting, 
paradoxically, and perhaps ironically.


On 28 Feb 2017, at 15:54, ann sanfedele  wrote:

Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me

ann


On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:


Number of photographers is now 42.

Ironic!



--
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[P. J. Alling]

There seems to be an echo in here.


On 2/28/2017 2:56 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote:

Douglas Adams used it in his book as the answer to the question of life. He 
chose 42 apparently because a straw poll of his friends showed it to be the 
most boring number of all. Ironically, given the success of the book, it has 
become an interesting number. It also turns out that mathematically it's not 
especially boring, and indeed it is impossible for a number to be 
mathematically boring because if one were found, that would be interesting, 
paradoxically, and perhaps ironically.


On 28 Feb 2017, at 15:54, ann sanfedele  wrote:

Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me

ann


On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:


Number of photographers is now 42.

Ironic!


--
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Bob W-PDML]

It's very tiresome. I read it to see what all the fuss was about. Thought it 
badly written and overrated.

> On 28 Feb 2017, at 17:08, ann sanfedele  wrote:
> 
> oh ggeez another Hitchhiker ref..   it's like a never read it.. and I did - 
> but, well, actually I didn't read it I listened to someone else read it..
> perhaps more would have stuck if I had see the print...
> 
> and it was back in the 80's on Public radio.. sigh
> 
> ann
> 
> 
>> On 2/28/2017 11:36 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>> A reference to THHGttG (Douglas Adams) where it is the answer to life,
>> the universe and everything. Trouble is nobody knows what the question
>> is, so it's kind of useless.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)#The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy
>> 
>> As to why that's ironic in this context, well that's a good question
>> for which 42 is most likely the answer.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM, ann sanfedele  wrote:
>>> Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me
>>> 
>>> ann
>>> 
 On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
 On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
 
> Number of photographers is now 42.
 Ironic!
 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Bob W-PDML]

Douglas Adams used it in his book as the answer to the question of life. He 
chose 42 apparently because a straw poll of his friends showed it to be the 
most boring number of all. Ironically, given the success of the book, it has 
become an interesting number. It also turns out that mathematically it's not 
especially boring, and indeed it is impossible for a number to be 
mathematically boring because if one were found, that would be interesting, 
paradoxically, and perhaps ironically.

> On 28 Feb 2017, at 15:54, ann sanfedele  wrote:
> 
> Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me
> 
> ann
> 
>> On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
>> On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
>> 
>>> Number of photographers is now 42.
>> Ironic!
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Bob W-PDML]

Douglas Adams used it in his book as the answer to the question of life. He 
chose 42 apparently because a straw poll of his friends showed it to be the 
most boring number of all. Ironically, given the success of the book, it has 
become an interesting number. It also turns out that mathematically it's not 
especially boring, and indeed it is impossible for a number to be 
mathematically boring because if one were found, that would be interesting, 
paradoxically, and perhaps ironically.

> On 28 Feb 2017, at 15:54, ann sanfedele  wrote:
> 
> Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me
> 
> ann
> 
>> On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
>> On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
>> 
>>> Number of photographers is now 42.
>> Ironic!
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Steve Cottrell]

On 28/2/17, Bruce Walker, discombobulated, unleashed:

>As to why that's ironic in this context, well that's a good question
>for which 42 is most likely the answer.

Bingo!

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Production
--
_



-- 
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[ann sanfedele]

oh ggeez another Hitchhiker ref..   it's like a never read it.. and I 
did - but, well, actually I didn't read it I listened to someone else 
read it..

perhaps more would have stuck if I had see the print...

and it was back in the 80's on Public radio.. sigh

ann


On 2/28/2017 11:36 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

A reference to THHGttG (Douglas Adams) where it is the answer to life,
the universe and everything. Trouble is nobody knows what the question
is, so it's kind of useless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)#The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

As to why that's ironic in this context, well that's a good question
for which 42 is most likely the answer.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM, ann sanfedele  wrote:

Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me

ann

On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:

On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:


Number of photographers is now 42.

Ironic!



--
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Bruce Walker]

A reference to THHGttG (Douglas Adams) where it is the answer to life,
the universe and everything. Trouble is nobody knows what the question
is, so it's kind of useless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)#The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

As to why that's ironic in this context, well that's a good question
for which 42 is most likely the answer.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM, ann sanfedele  wrote:
> Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me
>
> ann
>
> On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
>>
>> On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>> Number of photographers is now 42.
>>
>> Ironic!
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.



-- 
-bmw

-- 
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: LED Lights for Studio Work

[Bruce Walker]

I agree that tungsten bulbs are generally quite good for faithful
colour, and it's easy to colour correct for them.

OTOH, they are hot as hell. :)  I once did a fashion shoot using a
cheap $40 dual head 500W garage service light that I bounced off
reflectors inside a retail store, and just about cooked everybody. But
I loved the results.

And one really nice thing about tungsten is that, like a lot of old
film gear, nobody wants it and it's cheap. I was recently given a
Lowel Tota in great shape, with a heat-resistant silver umbrella.
Almost $200 new at B

Those little common bayonet base tungsten halogen lamps with a 40
degree beam spread are great if you are lighting up close, like for
macro.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Mark C  wrote:
> Thanks, Bruce. I'm not trying for exact color reproduction but just want
> consistent results and reasonably rich colors. Some of the bulbs I've tried
> produce muddy colors and some are difficult to adjust / color correct.  I'll
> continue experimenting and will  take a look at the LED panels. I took a
> look at the LED bulbs sold by B and they did not seem to have remarkable
> CRI ratings but were a lot brighter than what I can find retail.
>
> From what I read it sounds like tungsten bulbs are generally excellent at
> color reproduction, so there is always that route as well.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/27/2017 4:58 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>>
>> Whether you need to worry about CRI or not depends on how fussy you
>> are. If you are shooting products (including fashion) for a living you
>> would (or should, anyway) be fussy and CRI is critical. Also if you
>> shoot people and like your skin tones to be well rendered, or natural.
>>
>> So if you find that don't really care about CRI then any old light
>> sources will do and buying random LED bulbs until you get the results
>> you like will be fine.
>>
>> But if you, like me, really do care about CRI then I suggest you stick
>> to LED panels and bulbs that are made for photography. Avoid all the
>> consumer products (eg whatever's on sale at Walmart). LEDs that are
>> made for commercial store displays have better CRI because they care
>> about colour rendition for stuff they are selling. I have some of
>> those by way of Amazon and they have surprisingly nice light.
>>
>> See what B Photo or Adorama has available in your price range. The
>> 500 and 1000 LED panels are reasonably priced these days and put out a
>> lot of good light. Fotodiox is a more budget source with good strong
>> lights.
>>
>> Many photo LED panels use DC power, so definitely no flicker. AC
>> powered ones? Dunno.
>>
>> Where I notice CRI making a huge difference is when I shoot with a
>> calibrated colour workflow -- ie using a colour-checker card, and
>> calibrating the monitor with a colorimeter. Then I can really see what
>> normal consumer room lights do to skin versus shooting with strobes
>> that have a very high CRI. I can even tell the difference between
>> shooting with Profoto pack and head strobes and the less expensive
>> Paul Buff lights.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Mark C  wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone here have advice about selecting LED lights for studio work?
>>>
>>> I've tried several consumer bands with mixed results. I understand that
>>> the
>>> color rendering index  (CRI) rating is supposed indicate how well the
>>> bulb
>>> displays colors, but my experience so far has not shows any strong
>>> correlation between that actual results.
>>>
>>> So far I've tried 4 different brands of bulbs, with the best results
>>> coming
>>> from Earthtronic bulbs with a mediocre CRI 81 and the worst coming from
>>> GE
>>> Reveal  with a respectable CRI 93. IMO, the Reveal bulb was the least
>>> accurate of all four brands that I tried in terms of color rendition and
>>> also banded noticeably (do LEDs flicker?)
>>>
>>> So - how do you tell what LED's will work the best - or it just trial and
>>> error?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.



-- 
-bmw

-- 
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: LED Lights for Studio Work

[Mark C]

Thanks, Bruce. I'm not trying for exact color reproduction but just want 
consistent results and reasonably rich colors. Some of the bulbs I've 
tried produce muddy colors and some are difficult to adjust / color 
correct.  I'll continue experimenting and will  take a look at the LED 
panels. I took a look at the LED bulbs sold by B and they did not seem 
to have remarkable CRI ratings but were a lot brighter than what I can 
find retail.


From what I read it sounds like tungsten bulbs are generally excellent 
at color reproduction, so there is always that route as well.


Mark




On 2/27/2017 4:58 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

Whether you need to worry about CRI or not depends on how fussy you
are. If you are shooting products (including fashion) for a living you
would (or should, anyway) be fussy and CRI is critical. Also if you
shoot people and like your skin tones to be well rendered, or natural.

So if you find that don't really care about CRI then any old light
sources will do and buying random LED bulbs until you get the results
you like will be fine.

But if you, like me, really do care about CRI then I suggest you stick
to LED panels and bulbs that are made for photography. Avoid all the
consumer products (eg whatever's on sale at Walmart). LEDs that are
made for commercial store displays have better CRI because they care
about colour rendition for stuff they are selling. I have some of
those by way of Amazon and they have surprisingly nice light.

See what B Photo or Adorama has available in your price range. The
500 and 1000 LED panels are reasonably priced these days and put out a
lot of good light. Fotodiox is a more budget source with good strong
lights.

Many photo LED panels use DC power, so definitely no flicker. AC
powered ones? Dunno.

Where I notice CRI making a huge difference is when I shoot with a
calibrated colour workflow -- ie using a colour-checker card, and
calibrating the monitor with a colorimeter. Then I can really see what
normal consumer room lights do to skin versus shooting with strobes
that have a very high CRI. I can even tell the difference between
shooting with Profoto pack and head strobes and the less expensive
Paul Buff lights.


On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Mark C  wrote:

Does anyone here have advice about selecting LED lights for studio work?

I've tried several consumer bands with mixed results. I understand that the
color rendering index  (CRI) rating is supposed indicate how well the bulb
displays colors, but my experience so far has not shows any strong
correlation between that actual results.

So far I've tried 4 different brands of bulbs, with the best results coming
from Earthtronic bulbs with a mediocre CRI 81 and the worst coming from GE
Reveal  with a respectable CRI 93. IMO, the Reveal bulb was the least
accurate of all four brands that I tried in terms of color rendition and
also banded noticeably (do LEDs flicker?)

So - how do you tell what LED's will work the best - or it just trial and
error?

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.






--
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[ann sanfedele]

Ok - have to ask - why is 42 ironic?  please 'splain it to me

ann

On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:

On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:


Number of photographers is now 42.

Ironic!




--
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[P. J. Alling]

But isn't all of life ironic in some way?


On 2/28/2017 10:00 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:

On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:


Number of photographers is now 42.

Ironic!




--
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Ken Waller]

So Pentax cameras/users are the answer to celery thing !


-Original Message-
>From: Steve Cottrell 
>Subject: Re: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours
>
>On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>Number of photographers is now 42.
>
>Ironic!
>
>-- 
>
>
>Cheers,
>  Cotty
>
>
>___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
>||  (O)  |Web Video Production
>--
>_


-- 
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Gonz]

I better submit something to disturb that... :D

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Steve Cottrell  wrote:
> On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>Number of photographers is now 42.
>
> Ironic!
>
> --
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
> ||  (O)  |Web Video Production
> --
> _
>
>
>
> --
> 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.



-- 
-- Reduce your Government Footprint

-- 
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Steve Cottrell]

On 28/2/17, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Number of photographers is now 42.

Ironic!

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Production
--
_



-- 
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Jostein Øksne]

Number of photographers is now 42.
Jostein 

Den 28. februar 2017 14.10.17 CET, skrev Mark Roberts 
:
>The upload page is at http://www.robertstech.com/pdmlbook/upload.php
>and it shuts down at midnight GMT tonight (that's 7:00 p.m. U.S. east
>coast time and 4:00 p.m. U.S. west coast time).
> 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
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: D FA★ 85mm F1.4

[Collin Brendemuehl]

>I sold my FA* 85/1.4 to help finance the purchase of the 31/43/77mm Limited
set way back when they first came out. I will find it hard to
>justify buying the new D FA* 85/1.4 as long as my 77/1.8 is still
functional. And the 70-200/2.8 (and 24-70/2.8) each give me additional
>capability in that general range. Not that I won’t be tempted, but I don’
t really need it. And the 77/1.8 takes up so little space in the camera
bag...

The one compelling reason I can come up with is for the better interaction
of the newer coatings to the sensor.
It seems that they're all made to play well together.
Of course there's always correcting/improving it in PS/LR. And then there's
not needing to correct/improve it in PS/LR.


-- 
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: PDML 2017 Book Upload - last hours

[Mark Roberts]

The upload page is at http://www.robertstech.com/pdmlbook/upload.php
and it shuts down at midnight GMT tonight (that's 7:00 p.m. U.S. east
coast time and 4:00 p.m. U.S. west coast time).
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.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.

Re: PESO: Curvaceous

[Daniel J. Matyola]

Thanks, Paul.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:

> Very nice. Ginger and Hawaii are a classic pairing. I like th shape.
>
> > On Feb 27, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Daniel J. Matyola 
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Malcolm and Alan.
> >
> > Yes, most red ginger grow straight as an arrow (or an arrow head.).  Most
> > grow in the sun.  This plant was in a shaded area between a condo
> building
> > and a covered walkway.  Still, most of the ones growing in that location
> > were still quite straight.  This was an exceptional growth pattern, but
> to
> > my eye a pleasing one.
> >
> > Dan Matyola
> > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Malcolm Smith  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> >>
> >> Alpinia purpurata specimen on the grounds of the Kamaole Sands Resort on
> >> Maui.
> >> There were many red ginger blooms, but the graceful curves on this one
> >> caught my eye.
> >>
> >> https://www.photo.net/photo/18355680/Ginger
> >> K-5 IIs, smc FA 100mm Macro F2.8
> >> Comments are invited and appreciated.
> >> ___
> >>
> >> Another great picture Dan.
> >>
> >> Not liking photo.net update, and it's not growing on me. Why did they
> >> change
> >> it? I thought it was really good before.
> >>
> >> Malcolm
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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.
>
-- 
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: D FA★ 85mm F1.4

[Paul Stenquist]

And DA or DA* lenses, which are quite compact and intended for the compact 
APS-C cameras.

Paul via phone

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:58 AM, Alan C  wrote:
> 
> So if you want small(er) lenses, stick to screw drive or MF?
> 
> Alan C
> 
> -Original Message- From: P. J. Alling
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 5:55 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: D FA★ 85mm F1.4
> 
> Well they all have internal focusing motors and probably internal
> aperture motors.  Those will take up a certian amount of room. Then
> there's the extra lens elements to correct for sharpness robbing
> aberrations.  So be careful what you ask for I guess. Face it lenses
> will be bigger.  Sure it frees up design but that freedom will most
> likely be used to make manufacture easier, more than anything else.
> 
> 
>> On 2/27/2017 10:33 AM, Gonz wrote:
>> Wow, what the hell happened?  I think I'll stick with the smaller
>> lenses, even if manual.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Bill  wrote:
 On 2/25/2017 10:00 PM, Bill wrote:
> On 2/24/2017 7:37 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> 
> 
> Bill wrote:
>> It looks like Ricoh is serious. Now they are planning a D FA★ 85mm F1.4.
>> Fun times.
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/cpplus-2017/d-fa-85mm-f14-on-the-horizon.html
>> 
>> 
> That lens is taking serious aim at my pocketbook.
> 
> Are they only announcing the 50 and 85 this weekend?
> 
 That's all I've seen so far. They are promising at the moment that for
 2017 or later, they will introduce a wide angle single focus (this is
 single focal length (that's a prime lens, if Dodo is still reading)) :),
 a large aperture standard prime, a large aperture medium telephoto
 prime, a large aperture ultra wide angle prime and a fish-eye zoom.
 
 See the road-map here:
 
 
 http://www.photographyblog.com/news/pentax_lens_roadmaps_at_photokina_2016/
 
 I'm excited about the 50. The standard lens is my favorite walk around,
 though this one is big enough that I might not like it so much, and I
 already have an A*85/1.4, which is excellent, so the 85 is only somewhat
 interesting to me.
 I saw a mock up of the new 50mm sitting beside the FA50/1.4, the new one
 looks to be about 3 times the size of the old one.
>>> 
>>> Here's the picture:
>>> 
>>> https://pageshot.net/images/c6310f79-2aca-47f4-8bd8-6c3fbd0835d0.png
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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. 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: D FA★ 85mm F1.4

[Alan C]

So if you want small(er) lenses, stick to screw drive or MF?

Alan C

-Original Message- 
From: P. J. Alling

Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 5:55 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: D FA★ 85mm F1.4

Well they all have internal focusing motors and probably internal
aperture motors.  Those will take up a certian amount of room. Then
there's the extra lens elements to correct for sharpness robbing
aberrations.  So be careful what you ask for I guess. Face it lenses
will be bigger.  Sure it frees up design but that freedom will most
likely be used to make manufacture easier, more than anything else.


On 2/27/2017 10:33 AM, Gonz wrote:

Wow, what the hell happened?  I think I'll stick with the smaller
lenses, even if manual.


On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Bill  
wrote:

On 2/25/2017 10:00 PM, Bill wrote:

On 2/24/2017 7:37 PM, Larry Colen wrote:



Bill wrote:
It looks like Ricoh is serious. Now they are planning a D FA★ 85mm 
F1.4.

Fun times.


https://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/cpplus-2017/d-fa-85mm-f14-on-the-horizon.html



That lens is taking serious aim at my pocketbook.

Are they only announcing the 50 and 85 this weekend?


That's all I've seen so far. They are promising at the moment that for
2017 or later, they will introduce a wide angle single focus (this is
single focal length (that's a prime lens, if Dodo is still reading)) :),
a large aperture standard prime, a large aperture medium telephoto
prime, a large aperture ultra wide angle prime and a fish-eye zoom.

See the road-map here:


http://www.photographyblog.com/news/pentax_lens_roadmaps_at_photokina_2016/

I'm excited about the 50. The standard lens is my favorite walk around,
though this one is big enough that I might not like it so much, and I
already have an A*85/1.4, which is excellent, so the 85 is only somewhat
interesting to me.
I saw a mock up of the new 50mm sitting beside the FA50/1.4, the new one
looks to be about 3 times the size of the old one.


Here's the picture:

https://pageshot.net/images/c6310f79-2aca-47f4-8bd8-6c3fbd0835d0.png


--
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. 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
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: The K-1 kind of sucks for fast action

[Larry Colen]

P. J. Alling wrote:

I'm pretty sure it's the bus speed of the camera. Everything I've read
about it implies that the K-1 can only take advantage of a middling fast
card. I think the best high speed Pentax is the K-3 or K-3II maybe the
KP will clear it's buffer faster, or equal the K-3 with better
autofocus, but I'm not going to bet the farm it will the specifications
don't look all that promising.


Yeah, going from the K-1 to the K-3 is like going from a Shelby to a 
miata. It has a lot more power at the expense of agility.  I know that 
they downgraded the USB on the K-1 to USB2, I wonder if that is related 
to the slower bus.


I just went through the photos of one of the bands from this weekend, 
having shot a bit with the 80-200 on the K-3, with wider primes on the 
K-1 that night, and was reminded of just how well the K-3 can focus on 
microphones.


--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://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.