Re: LX focussing problem - update (long)
Alistair Lax wrote: A couple of months ago I mentioned my LX focus problem, where the top and bottom of the screen were out of focus in opposite directions. It proved surprisingly difficult to deal with, although the cause and solution turned out to be simple in concept and may be of interest. (snippage of long but excellent post) You're a very brave man, Alistair! But I'm very glad for you that you managed to fix the LX. ERNR
Re: K 50mm f1.4: My first post in 5 years!
Shel Belinkoff wrote: A few years ago Keppler did a comparison between a Pentax 50 (don't recall which one) and a Leica Summicron, long considered the standard for 50mm lenses. I also did a comparo of my 50's with my Summicron. It's hard to tell them apart until prints get past 16X enlargement. so you can make do with a Leica up to that point, huh? This is a smiley -- ;-)
Re: When will we see a *consumer* DSLR
Shel Belinkoff wrote: And there are times DSLR owners/users don't want a DSLR. There are quite a few people on this list who often use a small PS. Me, for instance -- well, I will again when Pentax CO returns my Optio. (I sent it in for service; it came back with a brand-new problem so it had to go back. This is awfully like what happened 2 years ago when I sent them my LX.) ERNR
Re: Who's Not Shooting Raw?
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi, I don't want to start a flame war, or get anyone's undies in knot. I'm just curious to know how many people are not shooting raw, and why that may be. Please, no flames or judgemental comment. We all know raw has advantages, and in some circumstances can be a better choice than shooting JPEGs. Shel Don't know if this is the sort of answer you're looking for, but I shoot raw only sometimes. I do it if I'm concerned that the lighting conditions are tricky (exposure or colour). If I am shooting large quantities of pictures in a familiar environment for other people to use in a Powerpoint presentation (this would be my regular Thursday night shoot of children's club activities, primarily) I go JPEG for the most part. Saves a lot of time over my pre-Fraser workflow; still saves a bit of time over my post-Fraser workflow. For obvious reasons, all my pictures with my walkaround Optio 550 are JPEGs. (The obvious reason being that the Optio 550 doesn't save raw files.)
Re: Opinions about ZX-7 MZ-7
Unca Mikey wrote: (among other things) As near as I can tell from pictures and the manual, the ZX-7 is the only Pentax SLR that allows Av mode using either the aperture ring on the lens or a selector on the body. No. The PZ-1 also does. Which suggests that the PZ-1p would too. There may be still more. :)
Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs
Unca Mikey wrote: A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the other way? Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc), how do you change the aperture when the lens is set on A or the lens does not have an aperture ring? Is there a way to directly change the aperture on the body? I assume you can affect aperture indirectly by changing shutter speed, but can you operate in Av mode? On the ZX-5n, you don't change the aperture from the body. Av mode and manual require an aperture ring, which you'll turn to set the aperture. I've always assumed the MZ-S was the same, but never actually used one. With the ZX-10, the PZ-1 (and, I suppose, some other bodies) the aperture can be changed by the user either from the body or with the aperture ring. Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX? If it doesn't have an aperture ring, I can't see any way it could be used on such a body. ERNR
Re: PC Inspector Image recovery info
Powell Hargrave wrote: Does anyone actually shoot TIFF with the D? Would not seem to be a good option as it is not as good as RAW and only slightly if any better that Jpeg and 10 times the file size. I never have. Only JPEGs and Raw files.
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Dave Kennedy wrote: For those of us who are running Elements with ACR or RSE, is there any real value in the Real World Camera Raw book for Photoshop? Yes. Although one for Photoshop Elements would be nice ... I went through my copy of the book with a pencil and annotated In Elements and Not in Elements as applicable. :D
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: To each their own. (snipped remainder) I think this applies to everybody's comments about mice, trackpads, etc., in this thread. It's all preferences and comfort, right?
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Somehow I knew about Aaron's shooting situation early on. Maybe from reading an earlier message, or from reading a message in this thread that others may have missed. Regardless, even after Aaron made his situation clear to all (perhaps even reiterating it), messages were still posted criticizing his choice and questioning his decision. Even if one were to think Aaron's a complete idiot for shooting JPEG, it's still his choice to do so in a venue that is unique and decidedly different than where most of us on this list shoot. And, considering his need for a speedy turnaround, and JPEG's being acceptable to the buyers, it makes perfect sense. Right! And if it's working for him, why shouldn't he keep doing that? ERN sometime Raw, sometime JPEG shooter
Re: Windows 98 x *ist DS
Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote: luispaulodesa a écrit : Hiya. My DS just arrived yesterday. Welcome to the crowd! One thing I miss is certainly all the dials available on the body, instead of through lcd menus, but looks like I'll have to deal with that. Maybe I am just an old fart, but hey, who the heck said that old dogs can't learn new tricks? ;) Count me on the old farts' list, then... Most settings are not so bad on the DS for my usage, but I hate to be forced to go through menues just to change the exposure metering mode (Matrix/Center-weighted/Spot: I miss my good old MZ-5(n) there) and between AF-C and AF-S (this I didn't have at all before, so I won't complain too much). You simply bought the wrong camera, then. What you want is an original *istD. This is a smiley :-) ERN
Re: PESO - Black Cat in the Coal Bin
On 4/5/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, there's really no coal bin at Casa Belinkoff, but there is a very dark corner in the basement. I went down there with Taylor with the idea of trying the pop-up flash on the istDS. I set compensation to -2.0, and took a few shots. The exposures were way off - rather under exposed, except for some highlights and bright areas. What the heck, I cleaned up a few spots, and, voila http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/coalbin.html I wasn't even going to post this, but it amused me and maybe someone else will get something from it. Shel Well, it *is* amusing, Shel, and I think a different artistic direction for you ... :D Or a fun shot, whichever way you want to say it. ERNR
Re: F v FA Lenses
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Assuming the same optical formula, is the only difference between the F and FA lenses the power zoom feature, or are there more differences? Any that really matter wrt use on the D cameras? Shel Well, at least some of the FA lenses aren't power-zoom lenses.
Re: OT - Eiffel Tower
Gonz wrote: frank theriault wrote: On 4/1/06, Igor Roshchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip BTW, probably not that many people know that Empire State Building withstood a B-25 bomber hitting it and being stuck in the building at the 79th floor in 1945. snip Actually I've known that since I was a kid. 4) The jets of 9/11 had just taken off and were about to embark on transatlantic flights, so they were as heavy with fuel as any jetliner is ever going to be, a fact that was planned on by the terrorists, From what I remember, this is incorrect. They were headed across the country, to the west coast, no? I recall it the same way. Headed to the west coast, so transcontinental flights, not transatlantic -- therefore, heavily laden with fuel (the rest of the comment applies anyway.)
Re: PESO - By the Tyne
Malcolm Smith wrote: Jostein wrote: http://www.oksne.net/paw/20060403-0139.html Beautiful. Malcolm I totally agree. ERNR
Re: LensWork -- Wow
Unca Mikey wrote: On Wednesday morning, a little after 9 am CST, I ordered those three books from LensWork. I came home from my lunchtime walkies today to find that the books waiting in my mailbox, here in Texas, delivered USPS Priority Mail. I'm impressed! *UncaMikey http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncamikey/ Told you they were fast.
Re: OT - Eiffel Tower
Tom C wrote: I haven't ever really thought about it as ugly or beautiful until now. I'd probably land on the positive side of it's aesthetics. It's hard to imagine Paris w/o it though. Like London w/o Big Ben, Seattle w/o the Space Needle, SF w/o the Pyramid, St. Louis w/o the arch, NYC w/o the Empire State Building. What I find kind of interesting about that list is that all those cities are older than the landmarks in question. You'd be imagining a situation that in fact has existed, for quite a while. Addition to the list, of course, would be San Antonio without the Alamo. :)
Re: *ist D vs DS2, some questions
Adam Maas wrote: Aaron Reynolds wrote: So I used Dave Brooks' *ist D last summer a bunch of times. Since then, I've used a DS and now own a DS2. I noticed a couple of things and thought I'd ask the list about them. ISO -- I thought the maximum ISO on the D was 1600. Was it raised with a firmware upgrade? Nope, it always was 3200. But I think you do have to change a default setting to get 3200. Maybe that's where the confusion comes from? ERNR
Re: istDS and istD shutter release sound?
Rick Womer wrote: Compared to my PZ-1, PZ-1p, and (especially) Super Programs, the istD shutter noise is a whisper. And as to the LX ... much as I love my LX ...
Re: Why dustproblems ? (WasRE: *ist D vs DS2, some questions)
Kenneth Waller wrote: This will probably leave some people on the list cross. not another one of those excruciating pun threads
Re: Bailing out.
Rob Studdert wrote: On 27 Mar 2006 at 23:11, Cotty wrote: When I was in training (nearly 30 years ago :-( we used many terms and acronyms but it is pointless me repeating them here as they would mean nothing to someone not involved in film production. I have never been in the telephone industry (whatever that is) nor the electronics industry. I have never heard of POTS until today. That doesn't mean that it has not been used here in the UK, obviously it has. I was curious because I do have a broad knowledge about most things - goes with the job - but I can tell you that POTS is not a term that is in general use by the vast majority of the general public here in Britain. You should get out more :-) And, I don't know about the majority of the general US public, but I never encountered the term until it showed up in this thread. Not a clue what it meant until translated. As an experiment, just asked the other half if he knew it. He did. Said, People in IT know it. (Yes, I know IT stands for Information Technology. Been married to him long enough to learn that one, anyway.)
Re: Talking photography - dynamics
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Mar 28, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Jostein wrote: Finally, did you ever read On Being a Photographer? Shel, I'm sorry I have deleted your recent reference to that book. Do you have an ISBN? Don't know what the ISBN is, but you can order it (and its sister publications, Single Exposures and Letting Go of the Camera) from http://www.lenswork.com. All three are excellent reading, very thoughtful and thought provoking. And if I might interject here, you *should* order On Being A Photographer from that source. Do not try Amazon. It took them about four months to finally commit to letting us know they couldn't deliver it. Ordered it from Lenswork.com and got it well within a week. (I haven't read the other two. Nor have I attempted to get them from Amazon.)
Re: OT: The Joy of Marketing
Bob W wrote: Bob W wrote: This is completely OT, but I feel obliged to pass it on. At work we sell services which include a web site that we develop and host for our clients. I have been helping put together a bid for a prospective new client, a very large and rich company that we are keen to get. One of their questions is 'does our website run under Netscape'. I stated that we hadn't tested it under Netscape, only IE. One of our marketing people got back to me: Marketing person: perhaps we haven't tested, but do we know that netscape works or doesn't work? Me: Without testing we can't know for sure, but I'd say it's 99.999% certain that it won't work with Netscape. Marketing person: I have put in We feel confident that our system will work with Netscape -- Cheers, Bob Mindsets like that are one of the reasons I no longer work in any industry that is mostly political... I'd report that guy to MY boss, and ask what, if anything, would be done about this example of intentional dishonesty... I'd probably end up quitting, rather than lend my name to a schlock outfit who doesn't give a damn about moral integrity in business dealings. Actually, the end of the story is rather dull. I assumed that she had misread my previous statement, so I asked for clarification. She confirmed my suspicion and we wrote an honest, yet somehow upbeat and inspiring, statement that put us in a good light. Bob It may be dull, but it's good to know.
Re: point and shoots
Godfrey DiGiorgi quoted and posted, among other things: The one sad thing about the digital PS market is there is no replacement for a Yashica T4 or Oly XA. There is and there isn't. The problem is that small, high resolution sensors are not particularly sensitive and responsiveness suffers due to relatively slow hardware. However, given the constraints, some of the recent pocketable size digicams can do nearly as well as those film cameras. Besides, they put more bells whistles onto some pocketable digital PS cameras than I ever managed to find on small, pocketable 35mm PS cameras. Stuff like manual exposure (*and* Tv *and* Av); manual focus (of a sort, but better than *none*, which is what many of the little 35s had to offer); a parallax-free WYSIWYG viewing option with the LCD (handy for close-ups and the aforementioned manual focus). A faster lens would be nice, but f/2.8 on the wide end is better than you'll find on many (I know, not all, but many) 35mm PS cameras. I don't think there's an outright better or worse in this situation, just different -- better in some ways, worse in others. I got the impression that Godfrey was saying something similar.
Re: Bailing out.
Aaron Reynolds wrote: Come on, we all know that reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away. Oh, Mark ... !
Re: Bailing out.
Bob W wrote: Constant repitition doesn't make something true. Mark! One more!
Re: Bailing out.
Mark Roberts wrote: I well remember some of my various realizations that other people see things in some fundamentally different ways. But true flamebait lurksin that territory so I won't go there! Mark, modesty had better not forbid the inclusion of this one.
Re: PESO - A Very Special Store
Shel Belinkoff wrote: What do you do with annoying children? Maybe you wanted a boy and got a girl? Perhaps you're at your wits end and don't know what to do with the little troublemaker ... http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/reseller.html Shel It can be soo tempting ... I shot a sign that said the same thing once, but it was nowhere near as interesting looking as the one you found. (Though you would probably also have made a better picture of the one I found, than I did.)
Re: Another bite of the golden cherry?
Cesar wrote: Mark Roberts wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This didn't reach the reserve. Maybe it will be offered again? http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7599625208rd=1sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AITrd=1 http://tinyurl.com/zjdyh Ooooh! Lizard skin! C'mon Cesar, break open the piggy bank and go for it! Maybe if it were not gold :-) I would be so afraid to use it and scratch it up. So, sorry, not for me. Anyway Mark, you know me, I am so understated that it would be out of character for me to have one. You, on the other hand, César Panama City, Florida Here I thought the answer to César, break open the piggy bank ... was, nothing in there, just bought a Leica.
Re: Bailing out.
Paul Stenquist wrote: On Mar 25, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology. b But you did in your earlier post. You said, If you want to shoot film, fine. I will certainly shoot with my screwmount Leica again and probably with my 6x7 as well. But in your earlier post, you suggested that there was nothing more to digtial than composition. Not true. I have a great darkroom: two enlargers for everything from 35mm to 4x5. Schneider Compuron S lenses., trays for 16 x 20, stainless steel developing tanks with Hewes reels. I still enjoy watching an image appear on paper. I even like the smell of fixer. But to suggest that digital photography isn't artistically rewarding is utter nonsense. RAW conversion and subsequent PhotoShop controls are the best photographic tools yet invented. This whiney film nostalgia is nice, but it's bullshit. Paul I got the impression he was saying he didn't find the digital process personally fulfilling, as in, for *him.* Which I can understand, even though I myself do not care for the smell of fixer ... :D
Re: PESO - Family Portrait
Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/famportrait.html Just a little something snapped with the ol' Sony Shel I like it!
Re: How do you select your camera for the day? was: OT: Non-Pentax eBay Auction Question
Paul Stenquist wrote: Ken didn't mean flat as in lacking contrast. He meant that he finds that analog prints have more of a three dimensional look. I don't see that, but he may well have a more discriminating eye. Gotta be the lenses. Y'know, the good Pentax glass that *can* be used on a Pentax DSLR ... ;-)
Re: ANSI character set and the PDML
Fred wrote: (quoting somebody else) Ever since late last year (when you changed servers IIRC?) the ANSI character set has not been displaying properly on the list (examples © copyright, ¢ cents, ° degree) They used to work, how come they don't anymore? Not Doug but your examples work perfectly for me (mail client Pegasus 4.31) Not Doug, either, but I can see 'em all (mail client The Bat V.2.04.7). Still not Doug, but I saw them fine. (Thunderbird)
Re: Cleaning of equipment
Leon Altoff wrote: (trimmed out the details) So what lengths do you go to to clean your camera when you take it places a good camera shouldn't go? If I must go places a good camera shouldn't go, I take the WR-90 and rinse it off in the kitchen sink when done. :D
Re: Cleaning of equipment
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Where shouldn't a good camera go? What do you do if you want better quality photos than can be had with the WR-90? I then conclude that where I'm going is a suitable environment for a good camera. In fact the only places I've taken the WR-90 that I wouldn't take any other camera are into swimming pools and water park rides. Sort of funny story -- some years ago my mother took a trip to Bermuda, and I lent her the WR-90 because it's a point shoot. She called me one day to say she'd been reading various tourist brochures and stuff of that sort, and read a caution about using cameras there because the air is very salty (proximity to sea.) So now she was worried about my camera that she'd borrowed. I said, I'm sure it'll be fine, but when you come back, we can wash it, just to be on the safe side. :D I still think it was a pretty strange thing to write in the tourist brochure. I read it myself after she came back, but I now don't remember the exact wording. However, with all my years of living on an island (admittedly, not Bermuda) I'd never read any such cautionary remarks about using cameras near the sea. Not *in* the sea or on the beach, mind you -- just in the area.
Re: CRASH! Always Wear Your Seat Belt ...
Shel Belinkoff wrote: I was slowly driving to a friend's house up in the Berkeley Hills. A woman, seemingly impaired in some way, drove into my lane and crashed head-on into me. She wasn't wearing her seat belt, and was driven to the hospital by an ambulance. She's badly bruised as her head went into the windshield. The medics looked me over, checked pulse and blood pressure (both were highly elevated), checked my reflexes and coordination, and felt that I was OK, but offered to take me to the hospital just in case. I declined. A friend drove up to meet me to give me a ride down to his house, where we had dinner, and after which I came home. I felt good enough to walk at a brisk pace to his car, which was at the end of the street. The street was closed to through traffic for a while. I may be a little sore around my shoulders tomorrow. I was wearing my seatbelt and shoulder harness. I can still feel where the shoulder harness pressed against my chest as it held me securely. Always wear your seatbelt. You will never know where or when an accident can happen - it can even happen on a peaceful, sunny, Sunday afternoon, on a quiet street. Be careful out there ... Shel Sorry to hear of your accident; glad you're not seriously hurt. Did your car survive? I know, even though you've escaped serious injuries, you're in for serious inconvenience ...
Re: Big Bald Bill
mike wilson wrote: From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/03/18 Sat PM 11:09:31 GMT To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Big Bald Bill On 18/3/06, Illinois Bill, discombobulated, unleashed: Now what you really wanted to see, the before, during and after shots! http://www.kanescience.com/baldiesmall.gif That's a happy face. Hey, I do that shave your head thing every 4 weeks. It's the only way I can keep the grey hairs at bay. How do you know they are still grey? Wife probably tells him.
Re: PESO: Strange
frank theriault wrote: Whatever the cause, cool shot!! Mark, may I suggest ... ?
Re: OT 4 months....
David J Brooks wrote: I told my wife, no camera equipment for 2006. So far i have ordered the D200, bought the Sigma 10-20 and am this close to getting the Tamron 90 macro for the Nikon mounts Damn i hate this list. lol This list is making you buy all that non-Pentax stuff? How? I'm puzzled ...
Re: OT Another PS Question
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I don't care what OS my phone runs as long as it works without annoying me... Godfrey Same here!!
Re: Pixelated Once Again
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Late this morning the big brown UPS van pulled up in front of Casa Belinkoff, and off jumped Carl, the regular delivery guy on this route, carrying a package from KEH which contained a LN- istDS with 5245 exposures showing on the clock. I had planned to get a new DS2 from Don's in Canada, but bad and good luck intervened. My car needs new fuel injectors, and about the time that was discovered a list-lurker pointed me to the KEH offering. So, for the price of a new DS2 I got a used DS and a car repair. It's now time to become refamiliarized with the camera. There seems to be a few things I've forgotten, plus the camera came with V1.0 of the firmware, which I never used, so some things were not quite the way they were remembered. Firmware has been updated to v2.0, and a new 1gb SD card is about to be ordered. However, I was thinking that I might get a faster 2gb card, which could be used to better advantage for future cameras, or at least allow the istDS to work at max speed and increase file xfer speed to the computer. Any downside to that idea other than there being so many more pics on the card making it possible to lose more photos if the card gets filled? Well, I'm stoked! There's a 31mm Ltd on loan that I can play with, and with a copy of Real World Camera Raw winging its way to La Casa as I type, it appears that I'm about ready to continue the exploration of digital photography. Shel Good for you, Shel! Enjoy yourself.
Re: Digital Plunge!
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Enjoy your new camera. Read the book Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2 by Bruce Fraser. It will teach you about RAW workflow better than any series of PDML discussions. Yes -- but if you order RWCR instead of purchasing it from a local shop, while you wait you might see what you can learn from the white papers on the Adobe site. Here's somewhere to start http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/ps_pro_primers.html
Re: More Kennyboy quotes
Cotty wrote: On 17/3/06, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed: He's not stupid, but he has a predisposition to making blanket statements and often trivializes aspects of a topic that he knows little about or does not care to write about. (re Kenny boy) So you reckon he'd fit right in here on the PDML ? ;-) Let's hope he doesn't decide to join us. :S
Re: MP vs MB
Jack Davis wrote: You must have missed my original post wherein I related having taken a few shots with a borrowed DL. I posed a question about jpg file size which led to A respondent suggesting I check out some RAW. Planning to do so this weekend using some of my own glass. Yes, apparently missed it (as I said, it got a little convoluted.) There's a cheap (not in time, but in money -- actually, free) option then. There are some nice Adobe white papers and tutorials available on the Adobe site regarding Raw workflow, and Bruce Fraser is the author or co-author of some of those white papers. Take a look here -- http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/ps_pro_primers.html Jack --- E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis wrote: If I do (wife lets me) go for the 10mp..or?, I'll definitely obtain the suggested book. I'm losing track of the whole story here. Do you already have a camera capable of recording Raw? If so, why wait before buying the book? If not, never mind ... ERNR __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: MP vs MB
Mark Roberts wrote: Adam Maas wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Do obtain a copy of Real World Camera Raw ... by Bruce Fraser. Recommendation seconded. Best RAW workflow book, by a large margin. Recommendation thirded :) All in favour -- Aye!
Re: Really Really OT: Hooray, finally, balanced film to digital comparison
Christian wrote: Derby Chang wrote: I'm sorry to cause potential mental harm to my beloved PDMLers. But I really laughed out loud when I read this. A few blank frames of 4x5 Fuji RVP custom made for Kenny vs D200 shots KENNY WARNING - do not click on this link if you have any form of kenny-allergy. You will break out in livid red spots. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d200-vs-4x5.htm Needless to add...this is highly :) At the risk of being flamed He DOES have some nice pictures there... I agree with you. Wonder whose they are?
Re: MP vs MB
Jack Davis wrote: If I do (wife lets me) go for the 10mp..or?, I'll definitely obtain the suggested book. I'm losing track of the whole story here. Do you already have a camera capable of recording Raw? If so, why wait before buying the book? If not, never mind ... ERNR
Re: ACDSee Pro - anyone using it?
Mark Stringer wrote: ACDSee Pro - Any comments for Pentax DSLR usage? I have ACDSee 7, hard drive failed and have used my limit on licenses. I'm sure they would give me another but I haven't tried. I'm still looking for the all in one like Adobe Lightroom enhanced with more Photoshop features. CS freaks me out. I'm just not ready to invest the time. ACDSee Pro may be an interlude or I may just stay with v 7 (8bit only) and Raw Shooter. Thanks! Mark Stringer Mark, In time-honoured mailing list/newsgroup etc. fashion, I can't answer your exact question but will make some semi-relevant, hopefully-useful comments. I'm using the ACDSee that came with my Optio (undoubtedly not any sort of Pro ACDSee,) and Photoshop Elements version 3. (Mostly I use the ACDSee to copy my images from my memory card to a folder on each of two hard drives, and to rename them so that Optio images and *istD images won't get confused (both come out of the camera named IMGP) but also for a quick look at JPEGs, since it starts up faster than Elements.) But anyway, my main point is, have you considered Photoshop Elements (version 3 or higher) -- not as complex (freaky) or pricey as CS but comes with Adobe Camera Raw? ERN
Re: Getting Cinepaint for linux
Thibouille wrote: Drunk Klingon ? ;) Redundancy?
Re: Getting Cinepaint for linux
Mat Maessen wrote: What distro are you using? If you're using one of the redhat-based distros, the yum tool may be able to help you with the dependencies. IIRC, cinepaint is in at least one of the third-party software repositories for Fedora Core. Once you get it set up, you can run yum install cinepaint and it'll sort out the dependencies for you. I miss the days when this was an English-language list ...
Re: Found a use for the Pentax Browser software!
Mark Roberts wrote: Mark Roberts wrote: I've been very conflicted with regards to the Adobe DNG universal RAW format. I've always liked a lot about it and after reading Bruce Fraser's Camera RAW for the Real World I *really* like it BTW folks: The full, official title of the book is Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS2 by Bruce Fraser (ISBN 0-321-33409-4). It looks like a small volume for the $39.99 asking price (no doubt available on the web for less) but it's worth every penny. I have seldom found so much valuable information packed into such a small space. And, what is more, it is very readable. ERN
Re: Getting Cinepaint for linux
Mat Maessen wrote: On 3/8/06, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I miss the days when this was an English-language list ... So, what do you think of the MTF numbers of the FA50/1.4 versus the FA43/1.9 LTD? ;-) -Mat :D
Re: PESO - Taylor, A New Cat in the Household
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yesterday Taylor arrived at Casa Belinkoff. He's a 7 month old black male cat who was rescued from an abandoned feral litter. He readily took to his new home, exploring the place and making himself comfortable. I put together a little gallery for a couple of friends, my sister, and my niece. I'm posting it here because a month or two back we were discussing using some programs for creating web galleries, one of which was Porta. This little gallery was made with Porta, and once the pics were sized and processed, it took all of one second to create the gallery. Porta is pretty easy to customize and modify. This particular gallery has been modified a bit, and I may decide to make a few more changes from the standard gallery. Anyway, here's Taylor - all pics made with an old Sony PS and the built-in flash. Nothing particularly good, just a few fun, personal snaps. http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/taylor/Album/ Shel My daughter enjoyed them. (Awww she said. Loves animals, that one.) The built-in flash on some of those lowly PS cameras really does a good job illuminating the scene, doesn't it? Wait a minute Shel! You used flash!!! Anyway, I wish you the best with your new family member. ERNR
Re: PESO - Taylor, A New Cat in the Household
mike wilson wrote: Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yesterday Taylor arrived at Casa Belinkoff. He's a 7 month old black male cat That's not Taylor. That's Samson, who, with his sister Delilah, gave me much pleasure for 19years. 'Lilah (a fluffy version of Sam) lasted for 21. I'm always seeing reincarnations of them. It's a pity my wife is allergic to cats. But, to equal things up a bit, I'm allergic to dogs. m Ay. The poor child.
Re: colour photography revisted
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Pancho Hasselbach wrote: Hi folks, I know about the running-eekbay-auctions thing, nevertheless I wanted to share this one with you: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7595673156 Pancho Cesar must be raising cash to pay for the Leica. Owww, my eyes, my eyes. I like skinned cameras but the teletubby blue is painful. D Teletubby blue? None of them is blue. Let alone that shade. ERNR who has small children ...
Re: *ist D on Linux PC - image processing software
John Francis wrote: among other things -- Have you ever tried to tell somebody that the PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK!! email they sent you is, in fact, a load of absolute rubbish? Strangely enough, yes -- I've done that three times to one particular sender. She never responds. What I don't understand is why she ever sent me anything again after the first time. Or the second ...
Re: speaking of digital camera wish-lists
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yeeha! Add a Tri-X mode and it would be perfect. And let's not overlook compatibility with manual focus lenses. Shel [Original Message] From: Juan Buhler A digital version of the ZX-M. That would be so great, and a really distinct product. It would actually be typical of Pentax to produce something like that, although I don't thin it will happen. To make it even more perfect: Include a full frame prism and mirror, and mark the sub-frame ccd area in the viewfinder. Now you can see outside of the picture, like with a rangefinder. If it's to have the same controls as the ZX-5n/ZX-M, it'll *have* to have the ability to use aperture rings.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Oh well, another fine theory ... Especially since I started with a rangefinder before going to an SLR, and although I still prefer a rangefinder on occasion, I don't actually consider it more natural. Just, as you say, different. Shel Belinkoff wrote: I started with an SLR before trying the Leica. I hated the Leica at first. Put it in the drawer and didn't use it for six or eight months. Finally, something someone said about allowing some time with the camera caught my attention, and I started using the camera again. After understanding it, and being a little more comfortable with it, I was sold. For certain types of photography it beats an SLR by a long mile. After using the Leica exclusively for a few months, going back to an SLR was like shooting in a tunnel. I was always worrying what might unknowingly appear in the negative. They are different, require somewhat different techniques, and are not best for all types of shooting. But for some types of photography, they excel. Shel [Original Message] From: E.R.N. Reed I wonder whether the people who consider the rangefinder more natural started on rangefinders before moving to SLRs?
Re: Is there a Sisterhood?
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Good thing Marnie's on vacation or you'd be labeled a sexist pig ... wouldn't that be a drag ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: Jostein Since Aaron so generously called the 645 a ladies' camera, I was wondering how many of us would qualify for a Sisterhood? :-) I'm not Marnie, but I thought Jostein's remark was quite chivalrously phrased. Aaron's reply would've been more likely (I suspect) to provoke a negative reaction! Nice pun ... ERNR who at one time wouldn't have minded having a 645
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Shel Belinkoff wrote: A couple of years ago I was watching a fellow shoot a portrait for cover for a local magazine. He was using a 'blad, and shot three rolls of what was essentially the same pose, changed the setup, and shot another three rolls of that scene. I talked with him a bit and asked why he shot so many frames of the same scene. Apart from saying that he looks for subtle variations in each picture, he also mentioned that with the mirror blackout he never really knows what he's got, so he shoots a lot of frames for insurance. I'm sure he'd have shot a lot of frames anyway, but perhaps the need to deal with unknown results due to mirror blackout caused an increase in the number shot. The rangefinder doesn't change the outcome but it does allow the photographer to be aware of what he's caught on film, and that knowledge can make the difference between a keeper or a tosser ;-)) I think he could've chosen either a better tool (rangefinder, as you say) or a better technique -- looking directly at the subject once he'd already checked his setup in the viewfinder. At least, that's how I was taught, so perhaps my teacher is better at this stuff than that guy is!
Re: Is there a Sisterhood?
David Savage wrote: What about those who shoot large format? There be Giants. If we follow this logic anything less than 8x10 falls into the Nancy boy category. What am I thinking? Logic on the PDML? Only if you don't know the L is for List.
Re: The Quintessential Mistake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First thing i changed on the istD when i got it was the file squence thing. Then the CF card thing.:-) First thing I changed was the firmware, but I've changed those other two items as well.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Tom C wrote: From: Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and extra competition and pressure will not help him at all. That line is Mark-bait if I ever saw it.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Cesar wrote: http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw? action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. 1950 ... a black dial IIIf. Very sweet old camera. Enjoy it! I bought a pair of these cameras, a IIf and IIc with Elmar 3.5cm and 5.0cm f/3.5 lenses, from Olden Camera in 1969 for $99, used them until about 1985 or so when the last one was lost over the Pacific. They were delightful old cameras. I inherited my father's IIIf kit too, but ultimately sold it to a collector as I didn't want to see it become worn with use (he treated it as a sacred object: it was as immaculate in 1982 as it was in 1953). He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Sometimes. I've had people go away smiling when I carried an old Nikon F or Canon FTb too. My Dad got some attention on a visit my children's school, 'cause of the Rollei hanging from his neck.
Re: Some more new camera speculation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's no reason to believe the Nikon would be lower noise. In fact, there's reason to suspect it would be higher noise. I don't recall anyone here ever saying they didn't want anything more than the D. Not only do you whine, you grow your own grapes. It's true of me; I may have actually said it at some point.
Re: Some more new camera speculation
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation I'm sure it will be a nice camera. I guess in the end, I am reacting to the categorization of a negative opinion as whining. Just because it's an opinion that's at odds with anothers does not make it a whine... nor does expressing concern regarding Pentax itself deserve to be categorized as saying the sky is falling. About all we know about this camera so far is that it has the Pentax name on it, presumably it will be a K-Mount based on that, and that it will have a ~10mp sensor. I find it difficult to make any categorizations about the thing based on what we know so far. Looks like it's coming in all-black, too. That means a pro camera, right? :D
Re: speaking of digital camera wish-lists
Aaron Reynolds wrote: I would be overjoyed if there was a new Pentax DSLR that basically had the same control set as the MZ-5n. Ditto I'd suggest making it black and chrome and calling it the Spotmatic D. err ... (Myself, I'd rather have an all-black version. Ditto Maybe shiny black with white letters, like the black Spotties.) I don't expect to see this camera, but I would certainly buy it if it existed. Ditto. Well, almost certainly. It *would* rather depend on the price. Otherwise, still happy with the *istD. ERNR
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Kenneth Waller wrote: Not to be argumentative - They definitely have a different feel to an SLR, Agreed you can see outside the taking frame, but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made I don't see how this is a concern, once you've pushed the release, you've decided that's what you want the finder view has an air of familiarity as it always remains the same magnification regardless of the FL of the lens. but again, its what's in the frame that I'm interested in I can see a rangefinders being more natural photographic equipment in that they are closer to the original/first camera YMMV I wonder whether the people who consider the rangefinder more natural started on rangefinders before moving to SLRs?
Re: Some more new camera speculation
Rob Studdert wrote: On 1 Mar 2006 at 11:21, Rob Studdert wrote: I really hate.. ..sending stuff to the list that was meant to be private :-( Seems to have happened to most of us at one time or another. (sent to the list on purpose)
Re: More pics on PMA
graywolf wrote: For you folks who wind up with both cameras you can get a SD to CFII adapter and standardize on SD cards. If you already have several CF cards ... ?
Re: what's the name of the new Pentax 10MP camera?
Cory Papenfuss wrote: Just a WAG on my part (nor do I give a sh*t), but: Will it be a *ist D2? Doubt it... too easily confused with D[LS]2 of the 6MP generations. From a camera company that sold an Optio 550 and an Optio S50 within a couple years of each other? I doubt that would bother them.
Re: what's the name of the new Pentax 10MP camera?
DagT wrote: My guess is: *istDx There'd be precedent for going with *istDn. Not that I think they should do that.
Re: what's the name of the new Pentax 10MP camera?
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Feb 24, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Well, it would be nice to have a name that's pronouncable so you can tell people what your camera is called when they ask. That's always been the biggest problem with the *ist name. Try Pentax or Canon. Only the geekies will demand a model name. ;-) I agree with Godfrey (meaning, I suppose, we've had similar conversations with people.) Most people want to know what brand and is it digital? So my usual reply is it's a Pentax DSLR. This takes care of about half the inquiries. Others require more details -- how much of a zoom does it have? To which I then explain that THIS lens on here right now is ... Oh, but I digress. I tell 'em Pentax DSLR. If I told them ist-dee they'd still say what's that since everybody else they see with a DSLR has a Canon, which is twice the size. ERN
Re: Congratulations, Ryan!
Sorry for not responding to this thread earlier -- but --- Congratulations, Ryan!
Re: Question: Should I buy an ist D?
Rick Womer wrote: Folks, I've been on the digital fence for some time, and had pretty much decided to buy the ist D successor when it becomes available. I'm getting itchy, though, since it doesn't look as though the new body will be here by summer. In May and June, a niece is getting married, I'm going to GFM, my son is graduating from high school, and my wife and I will be traveling in Europe. That's 50 rolls of Ektachrome right there, i.e. $500 with processing. I'm really not sure how I will feel about the digital workflow. It is possible that I will run screaming back to film. I really like my slides. S... I can probably pick up a used ist D for $700-800, looking at the recent prices on eBay and KEH. Worth it? You know you're just going to end up counting votes Yea and Nay, right? Mine's Yea. I've had an *istD for a year and a half now (bought new, so of course that means I paid way more for it than you're talking about spending.) Knowing what I know (now) about using the *istD, if faced with your choice I would buy it in a heartbeat. I have never seen, let alone used, the subsequent Pentax models, so I can't in any way compare the *istD to them in any meaningful (non-Rockwellian) way. ERNR
Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
graywolf wrote: In fact Occam's razor slices it to pieces. Did anyone miss me? Been busy with other things sigh, but had to come back and see what's happening. Seems that the ban on religion has been lifted? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Dear Graywolf -- You definitely were missed. Before the religion discussion, there had been some queries as to your whereabouts and health. ERNR
Re: Howdy All, I'm back!
Don Sanderson wrote: Did y'all miss me? Didn't think so ;-) Caught a little cold a couple of weeks ago, turned into the Flu, then to full Pneumonia. Yuck Phooey! ;-( Oh, dear! I'm very glad you're better now.
Re: PESO: Hiding From the Cold x 2
Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! I stopped in at Starbuck's this afternoon and took a few pics while I drank some burnt-bean coffee. (I'm not wild about their brew, but the local store is full of photo ops.). Plenty of people in the store as it was 12 degrees F outside. Of the two pics I shot, I prefer this one rendered as a high contrast BW: .http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4136905size=lg The other I like better in color: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4136912 Both are with the FA 50/1.4. The BW is f1.7 @ !/90th. The color pic is f3.5@ 1/90th. Both are ISO 400. Paul, the color one is well not bad... The b/w one is excellent. Are you sure they serve only coffee in Star Bucks? Yeah, y'know, I was wondering about that, too. I don't drink coffee at all, and I've found a few things to eat and drink in the Starbucks (plural) 'round here. g ERNR
Re: OT - PESO - Farm and Copse
Cotty shared: http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/landscapes/images/pic41.html Just want to add a Me, too! to the well-written compliments of Jens and Steady. ERN
Re: Poll: Best Photo Ever
I have continued to give this a lot of thought, and though I guess I probably won't be coming up with *a* Best Photo Ever, this is one of my top picks: http://grreed.home.texas.net/FamilyStuff/ERNR/deer.jpg
Re: PAW - Sunset at Point Elizabeth
On Feb 18, 2006, at 4:44 AM, David Mann wrote: I took this while on holiday on the West Coast in January 2000, a few days after I took the rainbow shot from my last PAW. http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=268t=1 Oh WOW!!!
Re: Misteries of Ken Rockwell
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: On 2006-02-18, at 16:47, Jens Bladt wrote: I don't understand. At dpreview it says that the D and DS have veiwfinders with 95% coverage and 0,95 magnification. My *ist D user manual says so too. What am I missing, please? Is Ken Rockwell talking about something different? Yes, Ken's reviews are usually quite far away from reality :-) Has he claimed to have actually seen any of the Pentaxes? I seem to remember he'd reviewed at least one of them unseen, but I don't remember if he'd applied the same rigorous testing process to all
Re: Enablement - this is a great list
Indeed -- it is a great list. I still remember that Rob S posted some LX screens for sale the very day I found out I needed one. I think the whole transaction, from his posting the FS to my having the screen in my possession, took about a week. Definitely less than two. (And later, when I decided to buy another one to put in my MX, I bought it from Peter of Sunny Brighton, conducting most of the negotiations by AOL Instant Messenger.)
Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
John Forbes wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:41:10 -, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:58:24 -, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I only know of one religion whose followers behave like that. I think I know a lot of the followers of said religion who wouldn't do it either, but there's an overwhelmingly large number of them that do. Are you saying that an overwhelmingly large number of people (presumably you mean Moslems) are prepared to blow themselves up? If that is what you meant, would you like an opportunity to rethink that statement? Because it is clearly nonsensical. Just how is it nonsensical to say that a lot of Moslems have blown themselves up on purpose? You didn't say a lot; you said an overwhelmingly large number. Even a lot is arguable, given the number of Moslems in the world, but an overwhelmingly large number is nonsensical. In fact, absurd. I know what I said the first time. I decided to say it a different way the second time since you apparently didn't understand it the first time. Seems you still don't. I said nothing about the number relative to how many Moslems there are, either time. But here's another way to look at relative numbers -- there are still more people in the world who aren't Moslem than people who are, and yet the suicide-bombers (i.e., people blowing themselves up on purpose in order to kill other people in the process) are just about all of them Moslem.
Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
John Forbes wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:09:00 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fra: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This one time, at band camp, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is actually irrelevant to the issue of whether God exists or not. This is a simple one. If you believe God exists, then yes, there is a God. If you do not believe God exists, then there is no God. But what then if you don't believe in a god, but also accepts that you may be wrong. And you end up ingoring the matter because it doesn't affect you life any way? DagT the agnostic .-) None of us can know for certain whether there is a god or not. If we are rational, we must conclude that there is very little hard evidence to support the view that a god exists, or existed, and therefore we are likely to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that there isn't a god, and never was. However, that still leaves us with no answer to the question of how the universe began. Those who believe in a god can sidestep that question, which is very convenient for them. No. Those who believe in a God can *answer* the question, not sidestep it. Throughout human history, more rational people have believed in God, or gods, than haven't. In all cultures. I am not suggesting that the minority of humans in modern times who conclude (for whatever) that there is no god are all irrational. I object to your implying that those of us who conclude (for whatever reason) that God (or gods) exist are not rational. That suggestion is both arrogant and ridiculous.
Re: Religion, Christ vs. the Other Guy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fra: E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Forbes wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:09:00 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what then if you don't believe in a god, but also accepts that you may be wrong. And you end up ingoring the matter because it doesn't affect you life any way? DagT the agnostic .-) None of us can know for certain whether there is a god or not. If we are rational, we must conclude that there is very little hard evidence to support the view that a god exists, or existed, and therefore we are likely to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that there isn't a god, and never was. However, that still leaves us with no answer to the question of how the universe began. Those who believe in a god can sidestep that question, which is very convenient for them. No. Those who believe in a God can *answer* the question, not sidestep it. Throughout human history, more rational people have believed in God, or gods, than haven't. In all cultures. I am not suggesting that the minority of humans in modern times who conclude (for whatever) that there is no god are all irrational. I object to your implying that those of us who conclude (for whatever reason) that God (or gods) exist are not rational. That suggestion is both arrogant and ridiculous. Why is it wrong to be irrational? Most of us to irrational things most of the time (such as choosing a partner), and as the scientific method can't give us any answer there is nothing wrong in using other ways do decide it (except for those who use it hurting other people). Nobody has ever made a truly rational proof of any such existence. Regarding your nonbelieving minority: According to the news today about 25% of all Norwegians believes in God... I never said it was wrong to be irrational, but I objected to the implication that rational people don't believe in God.
Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fra: E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Forbes wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:09:00 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what then if you don't believe in a god, but also accepts that you may be wrong. And you end up ingoring the matter because it doesn't affect you life any way? DagT the agnostic .-) None of us can know for certain whether there is a god or not. If we are rational, we must conclude that there is very little hard evidence to support the view that a god exists, or existed, and therefore we are likely to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that there isn't a god, and never was. However, that still leaves us with no answer to the question of how the universe began. Those who believe in a god can sidestep that question, which is very convenient for them. No. Those who believe in a God can *answer* the question, not sidestep it. Throughout human history, more rational people have believed in God, or gods, than haven't. In all cultures. I am not suggesting that the minority of humans in modern times who conclude (for whatever) that there is no god are all irrational. I object to your implying that those of us who conclude (for whatever reason) that God (or gods) exist are not rational. That suggestion is both arrogant and ridiculous. Why is it wrong to be irrational? Most of us to irrational things most of the time (such as choosing a partner), and as the scientific method can't give us any answer there is nothing wrong in using other ways do decide it (except for those who use it hurting other people). Nobody has ever made a truly rational proof of any such existence. Regarding your nonbelieving minority: According to the news today about 25% of all Norwegians believes in God... DagT Oh -- minority of humans in modern times was phrased badly. Initially I said that the majority of humans -- that is, throughout all history and all cultures -- tended to believe that there was a God (or gods.) So the people who don't, represent a minority of all; but they seem to be concentrated in this period of human history (i.e., modern times.) That said, Norway's not that big and isn't necessarily representative of the whole world ... :D
Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Good enough takes many forms, and is, of course, at times, subjective. IMO 6mp is enough for magazines and most print work. It's not good enough for some large, exhibition-sized prints. But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't go away when 35mm became popular. Digital is another format, not a replacement for all possible uses of everything else. (Kind of agreeing with you, I think.)
Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: E.R.N. Reed Subject: Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy No. Those who believe in a God can *answer* the question, not sidestep it. Throughout human history, more rational people have believed in God, or gods, than haven't. In all cultures. I am not suggesting that the minority of humans in modern times who conclude (for whatever) that there is no god are all irrational. I object to your implying that those of us who conclude (for whatever reason) that God (or gods) exist are not rational. That suggestion is both arrogant and ridiculous. Some just need evidence of something before we believe in it's existence. People are all looking at the same evidence. They're just coming to different conclusions.
Re: Religion, Christ vs. the Other Guy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fra: E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . Regarding your nonbelieving minority: According to the news today about 25% of all Norwegians believes in God... DagT Oh -- minority of humans in modern times was phrased badly. Initially I said that the majority of humans -- that is, throughout all history and all cultures -- tended to believe that there was a God (or gods.) So the people who don't, represent a minority of all; but they seem to be concentrated in this period of human history (i.e., modern times.) That said, Norway's not that big and isn't necessarily representative of the whole world ... :D True, but China is big and has a lot of buddhists and maybe still some communists who don't believe in any god, and India also have its share of buddhists, so maybe the US isn't representative either. In population the US is the same size as Indonesia, and EU is about 50% larger... .-) I didn't say anything about the US being representative. However, since you've changed the subject (again) -- The majority of the US population believe in God. (I don't have the statistics in front of me, but it's a substantial majority.) Indonesia is predominantly a Moslem country, so presumably atheists and agnostics aren't anything like a majority there. India, while having its share of Buddhists, (as you noted) also holds significant numbers of Christians, Moslems, Sikhs, various others I can't think of off the top of my head, and the majority of Indians are Hindus. By definition, Christians, Moslems and Sikhs believe in a God and Hindus believe in a lot of them. No atheist or agnostic majority there, either. We still haven't finished looking through Asia and haven't touched Africa yet ... Agree with you about China. Remember, in the post to which you replied, I was talking about *all* people who believe there is a God or gods, of whatever religion.
Re: Religion, Christ vs. the Other Guy
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: E.R.N. Reed Subject: Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy Some just need evidence of something before we believe in it's existence. People are all looking at the same evidence. They're just coming to different conclusions. What are you calling evidence? Be specific. The known universe and everything we've seen in it. Specific enough for you?
Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
Mishka wrote: according to Britannica, there's roughly 1 billion of non-believers. and, of course, the majority of people who have ever lived on earth live right now, OK, so although their numbers have increased drastically in modern times, the non-believers are still a minority of the human population.
Re: Poll: Best Photo Ever
I thought the original post was asking what's your best photo?
Re: Religion, Christ vs. the Other Guy
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: E.R.N. Reed Subject: Re: Religion, Christ vs. the Other Guy The known universe and everything we've seen in it. Specific enough for you? I'm an evolutionist. My explanation and yours are not the same. Finally. Agreement. I said, if you recall, that people are looking at the same evidence and drawing different conclusions.
Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Feb 17, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't go away when 35mm became popular. Digital is another format, not a replacement for all possible uses of everything else. Yes. No. Digital is not a format. Digital is a technology allowing a lot of different formats, just like film. I think we already have more digital formats available than film, don't you think? You can replace any film with the proper digital format. For that reason, most pros sell their film equipment and buy digital stuff capable to do the same job. IMO, 6MP APS roughly equals 35mm film (better in some respects, worse in others), 16MP FF roughly equals MF film (better in some respects, worse in others). And I think I've been fair. While I agree with you technically ... digital and film are capture mediums, not definitions of format ... the contrapoint YES NO was unnecessary and simply argumentative. ERN's meaning was clear. 6Mpixel does not equate to APS. It is a resolution. 6Mpixel is 6Mpixel, regardless of the format of the sensor. Different sensors have different qualities. Larger sensors have greater sensitivity than smaller sensors at the same SNR. When holding SNR constant, they are otherwise indistinguishable. Sensors with greater quantization space (16 bit vs 12 bit vs 8bit) produce more tonal gradation. Larger format sensor produce a different coupling of Field of View and Depth of Field in relation to focal length, similar to film camera format changes. Etc etc. But, again, ERN's meaning was clear even if imprecisely stated, and I agree with it. Thanks, Godfrey. For the record, then, my post should've read: But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't go away when 35mm became popular. Digital is another tool, not a replacement for all possible uses of everything else. ERN
Re: Pentax USA email address
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Pentax USA email address I'd like to drop Pentax USA an email. Can't find an address on their site. Anyone got an address for them? http://pentax.quicksupportlink.com//callform/pages/callform.asp?origin_us=true It's an indirect method of emailing them, but it should end up being the same thing. When someone replies, you will then have a direct email address. William Robb An alternative, also, would be to call them up (toll-free number on the website) and ask. Naturally, it would be nicest of all if they actually did post an email address on the site, but since they don't, these two seem like good ways to get one.
Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
John Forbes wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:59:43 -, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:41:10 -, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:58:24 -, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I only know of one religion whose followers behave like that. I think I know a lot of the followers of said religion who wouldn't do it either, but there's an overwhelmingly large number of them that do. Are you saying that an overwhelmingly large number of people (presumably you mean Moslems) are prepared to blow themselves up? If that is what you meant, would you like an opportunity to rethink that statement? Because it is clearly nonsensical. Just how is it nonsensical to say that a lot of Moslems have blown themselves up on purpose? You didn't say a lot; you said an overwhelmingly large number. Even a lot is arguable, given the number of Moslems in the world, but an overwhelmingly large number is nonsensical. In fact, absurd. I know what I said the first time. I decided to say it a different way the second time since you apparently didn't understand it the first time. Seems you still don't. I said nothing about the number relative to how many Moslems there are, either time. But here's another way to look at relative numbers -- there are still more people in the world who aren't Moslem than people who are, and yet the suicide-bombers (i.e., people blowing themselves up on purpose in order to kill other people in the process) are just about all of them Moslem. I didn't understand you because what you said was not what you meant. It seems you meant (I'm having to guess because even on your third try you're not clear) that the overwhelming majority of those who are prepared to blow themselves up are Moslem. Certainly an overwhelming majority of those who do so are Moslem, yes ... That might be true presently, nonsense, you said; absurd, you said; now you've made it as far as might be true presently -- but I would ask you to ask yourself how many countries in the world today are illegally occupied by a belligerent and brutish foreign power with a different religion. There is Afghanistan, occupied by Americans who are busy torturing captives in defiance of the Geneva Convention in Guantanamo Bay; Iraq, ditto; Palestine, occupied by crazed Israelis in defiance of UN resolutions (with the support of America); and Tibet, occupied by China. Just a reminder: Suicide bombers murdered large numbers of Americans in the USA *before* the US invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.
Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
Juan Buhler wrote: On 2/17/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I look at the world and the universe, and it's complexity, elegance, it's many systems, chemical, organic, etc., that are all intertwined and dependent and come to the conclusion there must be a maker. There may be no more hard proof than that, except that many scientists, the deeper they dig, the more evidence they find for a designer. Intelligent design is akin to saying the pyramids were built by aliens--otherwise, how could they have been built? Actually, no, the idea is they must have been built by somebody which is, AFAIK, widely believed to be the case. On the other hand, I haven't yet heard (you may be about to share) a theory that they came about by the random blowing of winds over the desert sands -- and so then, why should the incredibly more complex universe be explained that way?
Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Rob Studdert wrote: On 17 Feb 2006 at 8:46, E.R.N. Reed wrote: But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't go away when 35mm became popular. Digital is another format, not a replacement for all possible uses of everything else. (Kind of agreeing with you, I think.) I know what you mean but I'd argue heartily that a well scanned and post processed low grain 35mm film frame will be far superior to the output from the current Pentax DSLR and MF is leagues better again. I'm not disagreeing with that.
Re: Poll: Best Photo Ever
Tom C wrote: I actually can't distill down to a single favorite, probably because the subjects are so different. Maybe five, but not one. I can't either -- partly because I'm in the midst of a weeks-long project to archive and organize all my digital images (I think I've got about 25,000 into the catalogue now, and I'm not finished) and in the midst of all that I had a project on Sunday which resulted in my bringing home nearly 500 new images ... Just don't want to even *think* about picking a favourite in all that!! That said, it's an interesting idea and I would be interested in seeing what more decisive members of the group share. :D
