Re: Enablement: smc-Takumar 50mm f/4 macro w/ extension tubes

[Lon Williamson]

I know what you mean about the 70-300 AF focusing.  The manual focus
version, alas, no longer made, was not nearly as bad mechanically.
My MF version has developed some creep, though

Mike Hamilton wrote:

> All I can say is "wow".  This is my first Takumar, and I'm simply
> amazed at the build quality of this lens..
> 
> I've sold my Sigma 70-300 zoom to pay for this, and I am infinitely
> happy that I did.  I was never happy with that lens - the zoom ring
> was too stiff, the auto focus was noisy and couldn't focus very well,
> and the manual focus was too loose.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Obscure unit conversions

[Lon Williamson]

Bob Shell wrote:
> I'm doing some research and keep coming across odd units of measure  
> that I need to convert to more common ones.  For example, in  
> measurements of concentration of dissolved solids I'm used to using  
> mg/L but came across a French research paper that has everything in  
> nanoMoles!  I have searched the Internet in vain looking for  
> something to give me the conversion factor.
> 
> Anyone here know a resource that would give me the info to do these  
> conversions?
> 
> Bob
> 
Somewhere I found "covert.exe" for windows that is a very complete 
package, and is a small program (one file at installation).

-Lon

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Interest in developing a software around photograhy?

[Lon Williamson]

Thibouille wrote:
> I have to produce a software as a final evaluation of my computer
> sciences studies.

> Exif/ipct collecting from files?
> 
How about a full Exif for pentax cameras, including maker's marks?
I've not seen anything like that before.  Might be suitable for an
undergrad kind of thing, but might be too light weight for MS or PhD.

-Lon

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS- A challange to the list?

[Lon Williamson]

Good trial to see if you want an f/8 mirror lens?
BTW, I find mirror lenses very difficult to focus.

Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I sold my 105 some time ago. I could try it with a 90. But I would  
> never focus any lens at f8. What's the point?
> Paul
> On Nov 15, 2006, at 7:49 PM, William Robb wrote:
> 
> 
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Paul Stenquist"
>>Subject: Re: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS- A challange to the list?
>>
>>
>>
>>>I tried it with a 135/2.5 and a 35/2.0 on my *istD, both at f4. As I
>>>suspected, it was much easier to focus the 135. Finding critical
>>>focus on that lens was easy. The 35 appeared to be "in focus" at a
>>>wide range of settings. Finding critical focus was more difficult.
>>>But I already knew that. I've been doing it for more than 40 years.
>>
>>Try stopping down to f/8 and try with a 105 rather than a 135.
>>I was surprised myself, I wasn't expecting to repeat Shel's
>>observations.
>>I wasn't able to repeat it with my LX, MX or ME Super.
>>I do have one of the accessory screens in my istD, though I don't know
>>if it has a different tooth compared to the stock screen.
>>
>>William Robb
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>PDML@pdml.net
>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> 
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS- A challange to the list?

[Lon Williamson]

If I keep the camera at a constant distance from the
subject, I agree with you.  But if the subject has the
same magnifaction in the finder, I don't.
You haven't mentioned that yet in this new diatribe.

-Lon

J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I never said it was always a "problem", I said its
> harder to manually the wider you go. Secondly, it
> doesn't matter whether its prime or zoom,
> the difference is the same because its
> DOF related and the DOF is the same for
> for primes and zooms at the same focal
> lengths. Lastly I use the zoom example
> because its the easiest and fastest
> way to make the comparison, changing
> primes makes for a slow change and the
> comparison is harder to make and more
> error prone due to the time difference
> between the comparisons. Its similar
> to audio testing, its better if you
> can compare back and forth instantly
> rather than relying on memory well after
> the first sampling. Its also a good
> example because I believe everybody
> knows its true. No one has posted otherwise
> on the entire list. If there was no
> difference between focussing difficulties
> of a wide and a tele at the same aperture,
> how can you account for the fact that
> zooms are easier to focus at the long end?

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The danged final survey results, and thanks for all the fish.

[Lon Williamson]

And there has nebber nebber ebber been a sensical Cotty.
Wink

Cotty wrote:

>On 30/10/06, Lon Williamson, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>  
>
>>Nonsensical responses:
>>==
>>Cotty (there will be no K1D)
>>
>>
>
>
>Love it !  :-)
>
>  
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Test Message from my Cat

[Lon Williamson]

I was awaiting your orders, Sir.  Now loading the blunderbuss to counter the
invasion

Joseph Tainter wrote:

>jw2904387 e87dc x 19893o-127e olu1e818e xmshsl201[ w2j4
>n1989210
>0256smsx-1036
>
>NAKJE SY
>
>-
>
>Let us know when they produce the works of Shakespeare.
>
>Joe
>  
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The danged final survey results, and thanks for all the fish.

[Lon Williamson]

Thine will shall be done.

Lasse Karlsson wrote:

>Thanks for posting the results, Lon.
>
>If possible, you can add my name to the "aye":s.
>
>Thanks,
>Lasse
>  
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: lens quick change Q?

[Lon Williamson]

Yup, cheap rubbert hoods for those that didn't come with something.
Unlike some others, I keep my hoods mounted.  And for the most part,
my hoods work somewhat or nicely with caps.  I won't swap hoods to save
space in a camera bag.  Those who differ with me probably have systems that
work fine for them.

Dave Kennedy wrote:

>Sounds like most people use the hoods to protect the lens, which begs
>the question: do you use hoods on *all* your lenses? I currently only
>have hoods on my DA18-55, and DA50-200. I don't have hoods for the
>primes.
>  
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: lens quick change Q?

[Lon Williamson]

My macros have an external hood.  In the case of the Phoenix 100mm/f3.5, 
even with a
well-recessed front element, such a thing seems justified.  For the SMC 
lenses, it can't hurt
and it can help and if I dump the lens, theres something on the front to 
take impact and
mebbe keep it working well for another year or two.

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

>All my lenses have a lens hood fitted on them semi-permanently with  
>the exception of the A50/2.8 Macro, which has such a deeply inset  
>front element that for most purposes a hood is unnecessary.
>
>I use screw in metal lens hoods for every lens that was not supplied  
>with at least a rigid plastic lens hood. B&H Photo stocks "generic"  
>screw-in metal lens hoods (usually Kalt brand) for very reasonable  
>money (about $10 apiece). There are also tons of applicable lens  
>hoods available in good dealers' used bits bins ... I use a Nikon  
>HN-7 and an Olympus Zuiko 28/3.5 for two of my lenses (FA135 and DA21  
>respectively) that I purchased for about $1 apiece that way.
>
>Good metal lens hoods for tele, normal and wide angle field of view  
>from B+W and other top brands cost $25-40. I have one of those in  
>tele model on the FA77.
>
>Godfrey
>
>
>On Oct 24, 2006, at 6:24 AM, Dave Kennedy wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Sounds like most people use the hoods to protect the lens, which begs
>>the question: do you use hoods on *all* your lenses? I currently only
>>have hoods on my DA18-55, and DA50-200. I don't have hoods for the
>>primes.
>>
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

The JCO survey - I need a prize.

[Lon Williamson]

Heck folks, I'm usually a lurker but I DID start  "The JCO survey".
It was intended as a survey, but I'm now thinking it is one of the largest,
stupidest, and most bitter threads yet spawned here.

I think I deserve a prize.

Thistles thrown at twenty paces?
Pizza without sauce or cheese?
Rocks in my socks?
Being doomed to listen to JCO forever?

Penitent, I am, I am...

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Lon Williamson]

I find this to be true on my M bodies.  You can't just use your fore or mid
finger to twist the shutter dial easily.  My KX bodies, however, don't
have as much friction that way.  I think this depends on the body.
I have 3 MX bodies and 4 KX bodies, so I suspect I have a reassonable
sampling of the two.  All of my MX bodies are equally stiff on shutter dial,
and all the KXen are equally smooth; noticably better than the MXs.


J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> <>...And aperture rings on lenses and the aperture rings
> Were and are much easier to adjust manually than
> The shutter speed dial with your eye to the finder.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Lon Williamson]

Shel,  consider the ZX-M.  Not an exensive camera.  I've used it, and 
purchased it.
It has the bits you mentioned.  It's actually kinda sweet.

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

>Yes, I understand that, but I wonder of JCO grasps the concept.  I knew a
>number of people in the automotive business many years back, and they'd
>watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a
>million units adds up quickly enough.  Listening to these guys discuss
>costs was an amazing experience.  One conversation centered about spacing
>bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four instead of five
>bolts.  Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt (which
>seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units
>needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt during
>manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole.
>
>John Celio pointed out that the mechanism is more complicated than some may
>realize, and while the actual cost of parts may be trivial, the cost of the
>steps needed to include those parts also must be included, as you say. 
>Plus there's the time involved, and the possibility that there may be more
>rejected items, and inventory and storage/shipping costs.  The truth is, we
>_don't_ know the true cost of including the item on contemporary DSLR
>camera bodies.  We're just not privy to that information.
>
>I think JCO, with his continued harping on the cost being $5.00 is just
>blowing smoke.  It's a number he pulled from the air, based on some
>abstract calculation that he came up with.  For all we know, including the
>aperture simulator on contemporary cameras, especially after the design has
>been set to not include the item, may cost more than the inclusion of shake
>reduction.  Are you listening, John.  There's a lot more to the true cost
>of an item than the small cost of materials.  And just because the
>peripheral costs may not have been very great on K-bodied cameras, those
>numbers may be completely different for the DSLR.
>
>BTW, Leica found out about the cost of the need for precision manual
>assembly, and their newer cameras were designed to eliminate as much of
>that type of work as possible.
>
>Shel
>
>  
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: I have to start a blog

[Lon Williamson]

Mark Roberts wrote:
And what part of "Frank Theriault and Doug Brewer" didn't you understand?
 
Well, most of it.  Frank wears bunny ears and Doug runs a list.
My understanding of life is that they should both chop more wood.
It is good for anyone's soul but mine.
I'm lazy..

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Concave Sensor?

[Lon Williamson]

Film is flat, too.  Most of the time.

John Francis wrote:

>On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:32:46AM -0700, Jack Davis wrote:
>  
>
>>Would it make sense to develop a concave sensor? Finest possible focus
>>would then be possible due to a constant light path distance across the
>>sensor.
>>Varying focal lengths a problem? Somewhat accommodated by a sensor that
>>moves in and out?
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>
>
>It only makes sense if you don't expect to use it with any lenses
>currently in use, all of which are designed for a flat sensor.
>
>
>  
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often.....

[Lon Williamson]

I started this here thread as a survey.  It is depressingly long running.

JCO, many of the people here who have lambasted you would LIKE
TO HAVE decent K/M lens support.  Most think it ain't gonna happen.
And, I like you, would like to see it.  Look at Wm  Robb's lenses to see
why he actually voted AYE.  Mark Roberts doesnt think it's important,
nor does G. G.

We're all a little different.  Hell, I'm loading buckshot in the ole 
Blunderbluss
just in case some Whippersnapper appears on my front door to present me
with some danged progress.

I apologize to the list members who have found this thread 
difficult..but..

A flagship is a flagship,  and if there's a K1D in the future, it should 
be as
complete as the LX was in its day.

I'm not trying to prolong the debate.  I just happen to have a pile of 
K/M lenses,
and a smattering of  A lenses (50mm/f1.7, 35-70/f4, 100mm).  Like JCO, 
I'd be happy as
yer average Pig In The Proverbial Mud to use them with no significant 
penalty on
a FLAGSHIP body.

(relurking now, as Nurse Druckett tells me I need some Meds Right 
Now and
she should know.)


-Lon

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: Happy Birthday, Bill Owens

[Lon Williamson]

Bill, you'll outlast us all, cane or walker be danged.
So blow out a pile of candles, if you haven't already.

>On 10/18/06, Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Yesterday was Bill's birthday, though I got myself too involved in my
>>day to remember to post something about it. Sorry, Bill.
>>
>>Given what Bill has been through the last couple years, I think this
>>milestone is worthy of grand celebration. Please join me in wishing Bill
>>many, many happy returns.
>>
>>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

The danged final survey results, and thanks for all the fish.

[Lon Williamson]

JCO, please don't act up again.  The list, and probably
Pentax, understands your position... 


Here's pretty much what I will send to Pentax USA and
Pentax Japan:

Recently I conducted a survey on a popular mail list
related to Pentax camera products.  Two thirds of the
respondents, who represent a small percentage of the
total members on the list, responded.  It's worth
noting that two thirds of those who did respond think
it's worthwhile to use newer lenses and older lenses -
even those without an "A" setting - in the old fashioned
way.  Voters are listed by the names they use on that list.


--



On the offhand chance that Pentax peeks at this list,
I propose the following survey question:

Would you consider an aperture sensor permitting
(for K,M, and all other lenses with aperture rings)
CW metering, open aperture metering in manual and Av modes
a _highly_ desirable feature on a flagship "K1D" DLSR body?

Note the emphasis on the word "highly"

Your answer should be aye, don't care, or nay.


Aye: Total 33
=
Adam Maas
Antti-Pekka Virjonen
Bob Sullivan
Bob W.
Boris Liberman
Brendan MacRae
Cory Papenfuss
Dario Bonazza
Frank Theriault
Gabriel Cain
George Sinos
Gonz
J. C. O'Connell
J. Munro
Jan van Wijk
Jens Bladt
Jim Apilado
Jim King
Kostas Kavoussanakis
Lon Williamson
Marnie aka Doe
Mike Wilson
P. J. Alling
Rob Studdert
Ryan Brooks
Scott Loveless
Shel Belinkoff
Stanley Halpin
Thibouille
Tim Osleby (via private email)
Tom C.
Vince MacBournie
William Robb

Don't Care: 5
=
Dag T doesn't care, 1 M lens, no K lenses
Dave Savage doesn't care
John Francis:  No, not at $100 more
Paul Stenquist - originally "aye" vote, then waffled.
Perry Pellechia, maybe... depends on cost.

Nay: 6
==
Bill Owens - no, buisness decision
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Juan Buler
Lawrence Kwan
Lucas Rijinders - but wouldn't buy a flagship body.
Mark Roberts

Nonsensical responses:
==
Cotty (there will be no K1D)
Christian (there will be no K1D)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - loss of a PDML member

[Lon Williamson]

His soul is in my prayers.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Lon Williamson]

It's a thingie visible inside the body's mount that lets you use open 
aperture metering on
any lens with an aperture ring.  Almost all film bodies had this 
feature, and many permited
both metered manual and aperture priority shooting modes with such lenses.

Absence of  this thingie on the DLSRs means you can only use stop-down 
metering with
K/M lenses.

J and K Messervy wrote:

>I'm skimming all of these posts and still have no idea what the hell an 
>aperture simulator is.  I guess it can't be too important if I never knew I 
>needed it.
>  
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux

[Lon Williamson]

I don't think the number of k/m lenses should limit the survey; I do 
suspect
it influences a person's vote, like it did for JCO on on end of the spectrum
and Godfrey on the other.

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

>Why three?  Why not one, or two?
>
>Define good?
>
>Are you now being elitist?  Which K/M lenses that, if owned, should
>preclude someone from commenting here.
>
>Shel
>
>
>
>  
>
>>[Original Message]
>>From: J. C. O'Connell 
>>
>>
>
>  
>
>>IMHO, anyone who doesn’t have at least more than a few ( say 3? )
>>K/M lenses, especially good ones, shouldn’t even be commenting
>>On the matter. Of course you wouldn’t care if you don’t have
>>A signifigant number of lenses losing key functions.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux

[Lon Williamson]

I'll word it carefully.  Everyone will see it before it is sent.  I may 
leave out the names
of respondents and any reference to PDML.  I sure don't want the 
listmeister upset at me.

-Lon

Doug Brewer wrote:

>Lon, please do not presume to speak for the list. If you wish to 
>communicate your desires to Pentax, and I encourage you to do so if you 
>feel so moved, please communicate your desires as a Pentax user, or a 
>group of Pentax users, but don't try to pass it off as the unified 
>position of the PDML, because we can all see that it isn't.
>
>Doug
>
>  
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux - a change to cutdown on list traffic

[Lon Williamson]

My guess is that you have several useful A/F/FA/DA etc type lenses.
I don't.   I want Av and fully metered manual mode if  I'm gonna shell
out hundreds to a few thousand for a body.  It's my money and my
decision, right?  Wink.-Lon

Christian wrote:

>Lon Williamson wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I'd like a DLSR, but I'd sure hate to replace all my lenses as long as I 
>>can see
>>welll enough to manual focus.
>>
>>
>
>YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPLACE YOUR LENSES!  They DO work on the DSLR bodies. 
>  ARGH! :-)
>
>  
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux - a change to cut down on list traffic

[Lon Williamson]

In order to cut down on list traffic, anyone still wanting to respond
should, perhaps, email me privately.  I notice old antagonisms
developing as a result of my little survey.   It was not my intention
to provide an arena for that.

In a few days I'll present a final summary and a request for any corrections
or additions, again asking for an off-list response.

I'm hoping, biased as I am, that the results will provide a little incentive
for full k-mount compatibility in any future flagship DLSR.  My reasons
are of course, selfish.  When the divorce went through, wifey took all the
F/FA stuff and some A lenses and the AF bodies, and I kept all the K/M stuff
a few A lenses, and the manual focus bodies.  She kept the p-TTL flashes,
I got the TTL and manual flashes.

I'd like a DLSR, but I'd sure hate to replace all my lenses as long as I 
can see
welll enough to manual focus.

But I suspect I'd buy at least a wide AF prime or zoom along with the 
flagship.

My list traffic always shows subscribers email addresses; the one that 
shows up
in my posts is the one to contact me with.

Keep those opinions coming, folks.  Hopefully off-list.

-Lon

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: What would you take?

[Lon Williamson]

My rule of thumb is, when in doubt of what you'll shoot, always take a 
fast lens.
I could count on the fingers of one hand the times I've not taken a 
50/1.4 with me.
All my other lenses are f2.8 or slower, though.

>>David Savage wrote:
>>
>>
>>>G'day All,
>>>
>>>I'm going up north tomorrow (Dampier) for work. I'm only up there for
>>>the day (carry on bag only) and a couple of hours work to do. So when
>>>I'm done my times pretty much my own until the flight back.
>>>
>>>That being the case I thought I "might" take a light kit (ie D + 1
>>>lens) up with me just in case there's something worth taking pictures
>>>of (just think marine infrastructure, read earth, 36 degrees C & no
>>>golden hour). The question is if I do decide to, which lens to take?
>>>
>>>- FA 50mm f1.4
>>>- FA 31mm f1.8
>>>- FA 77mm f1.8
>>>- FA 100mm f2.8
>>>- FA 28-105mm f4-5.6
>>>- DA 16-45 f4.0
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>
>  
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux

[Lon Williamson]

I'm thinking more in terms of ratio of responses than absolute numbers.  
So far it looks like
about 70 percent of the respondents think that k/m lens compatibility 
would be
"_HIGHLY_ desirable" in a flagship body.

Of course, the more people that respond, the more likely the results 
extrapolate to the other
myriads of  experienced Pentax users who have better things to do than 
wade through the daily
PDML.

Get your vote out there, lurkers and occasional posters!

graywolf wrote:

>If they don't they are marketing imbeciles. Oh, wait, this is Pentax we 
>are talking about...
>
>Look at it this way there are about 600 regular list members, and 
>sometimes as many as 1800 counting the floaters who come and go. Now if 
>each of them has some influence on what 10 friends and reletives buy 
>that is a substantial number of sales to be won or lost based upon what 
>this list thinks. We are in fact Pentax's flag-wavers what we think is 
>important, whatever they think.
>
>  
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

K1D aperature simulator survey, part Deaux

[Lon Williamson]

I'm going to wait another day or two to finalize this survey.
I'm sorry it brought JCO back to argumentative life, but this is a 
chance for the list
to show Pentax what we want.  Check results below to see if I have your 
response
recorded correctly; only post to PDML if I didn't get it right.  And you 
fence sitters
(Annasan, greywolf, Tainter, Cotty, Frank T, and many others) can still 
let your
opinion be heard.  Just respond to this topic with Aye Nay or Don't Care.

Thanks.-Lon


K1D aperature simulator survey:  results so far:


Original query:

On the offhand chance that Pentax peeks at this list,
I propose the following question:

How many people here would consider an aperature
simulator permitting (for K,M, and all other lenses with
aperature rings) CW metering, open aperature metering
in manual and Av modes a _highly_ desirable feature on
the K1D?

Results so far, as I understand responses:

Yea:
Lon Williamson
Dario Bonazza
Boris Liberman
Bob Sullivan
Scott Loveless
Ryan Brooks
Shel Belinkoff
William Robb
P. J. Alling
Thibouille
J. Munro
Adam Maas
Jens Bladt
Tim Osleby
J. C. O'Connell
Vince MacBournie
Kostas Kavoussanakis
Mike Wilson
Cory Papenfuss
Marnie aka Doe
Antti-Pekka Virjonen
George Sinos
Rob Studdert

Undecided:
Perry Pellechia, maybe... depends on cost.
John Francis:  No, not at $100 more
Paul Stenquist - yes, then waffled
Kostas Kavoussanakis responded, not sure of vote.
Dave Savage doesn't care

No:
Mark Roberts probably "no":   MARK!
Juan Buler - No
Bill Owens - no, buisness decision
Lawrence Kwan - No

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Lon Williamson]

I'm not sure that protecting new lens sales by prohibiting open 
aperature metering
for K and P lenses makes sense.  Most people I know with AF cameras WANT
AF lenses, and some, like my ex wife, can no longer reliably perform 
manual focus
(eye problems).  But IF the K1D is produced and IF it is a flagship, my 
suspicion
is that Pentax will sell more bodies with true K/M lens compatibility 
without impacting
modern AF lens sales.  If anything, I suspect they'll sell more modern 
lenses, especially
super wide angle..

BTW, I'm collecting names of all who have responded to the survey, 
whether Aye,
Don't Give A Fig, or Nay.  I'm hoping to email and snail mail Pentax USA 
and Pentax
Japan results.

Be prepared for a Survey Part Deaux

Love you bunch of K-mount fools.  -Lon

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: K10D - RAW -> JPEG in Camera

[Lon Williamson]

Shel, the only other thing I can think of is to send timely PJ or other 
type stuff out very soon after you shoot,
not necessarily to family/friends.

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

>A friend who has ordered a K10D asked me what benefit there is to
>converting a RAW file to a JPEG file in camera.  I offered a few ideas, but
>I sometimes tend to miss the obvious or some subtleties.  So, can anyone
>offer up some benefits to this feature.
>
>Personally, I think it can be quite useful in some situations, such as when
>travelling and you want to make some prints locally but don't have your
>computer with you.  You can make a custom JPEG and print it at a kiosk or
>instant print place quickly and easily.  Or you can make a custom JPEG,
>instead of relying on the camera default, to send via email or burn on to a
>CD and send to friends/family, also with no need for computer and image
>processing software.  What else?
>  
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Lon Williamson]

Paul, according to stuff we've all read recently, the K1D should exceed 
the K10D.
The 10D is hi-amateur (whatever that means) and the 1D is pro.  Hell, 
I'm thinking
LX + 10D.BTW, I'm  collecting respones to the JCO survey and intend to
bring the results to Pentax's attention..  I'm gonna ask all the folks 
who vote "yea"
to list their old glass and why they still want to use it.

Yrs Truly,   Lon

Paul Stenquist wrote,  in part:

> Hell yes,  
>I'd like the simulator. But I'd rather see Pentax continue to  
>introduce new glass. And they'll only do that if there is sales  
>potential.
>  
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO Survey

[Lon Williamson]

And if JCO doesn't respond positively to the survey, I, for one,
am gonna feel hornswaggled   wink.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>Add another to the JCO list.
>
>JCO RULES!
>  
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

The JCO survey

[Lon Williamson]

On the offhand chance that Pentax peeks at this list,
I propose the following question:

How many people here would consider an aperature
simulator permitting (for K,M, and all other lenses with
aperature rings) CW metering, open aperature metering
in manual and AV modes a _highly_ desirable feature on
the K1D?

Put my name as the first on the list.


-Lon


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: k10d and manual-aperture lenses?

[Lon Williamson]

P. J. Alling has a legitimate gripe, but remember that the K10D is not 
the flagship.
Perhaps the coming  flagship, the so called K1D, will finally permit 
manual/AV with
pre-A lenses.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PUG again

[Lon Williamson]

It seems to me that the recent spate of messages about PUG resulted in a 
healthy number of photos.
Maybe we should all gripe a bit a week before the due date.  Sorry I 
didn't contribute this month.

Tom C wrote:

> Hi Adelheid,
> Respectfully, none of the comments on that topic was ever intended to 
> make you a subject of the discussion and I was extremely careful to 
> avoid that.  I'm sorry you are feeling frustrated.
> I think the conversation was healthy overall - not futile bickering.  
> It may lead to more participation and to higher quality submissions.
> I'm sure all who have participated in the past or will in the future, 
> appreciate your efforts.
>
>> From: "AvK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>> To: "Pentax Discuss" 
>> Subject: PUG again
>> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:54:15 +0200
>>
>> Hi folks,
>> you know that i am very quiet on this list, because i simply don't 
>> have the time to post.
>> I hack out every month the time from my busy schedule to make the PUG.
>> Ok i have automated it quite a bit and i am willing to do it for some 
>> time to come. If the ones who have the time to bicker about the PUG 
>> would spend this time to contribute it would be better spent time in 
>> my humble opinion.
>> I am bit frustrated, so don't take this comment as a reason for a new 
>> round of bickering.
>> Best
>> Adelheid
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO - MIssed Opportunity

[Lon Williamson]

One of the most difficult AND one of the most expensive.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>
>
>Having tried a tiny bit of bird photography, and my awareness and admiration 
>just goes up for those that actually do it well. I think it's one of the 
>subgenres of photography that can be ranked as difficult to very difficult -- 
>much 
>more difficult than some other subgenres. 
>
>Just my .02 cents.
>  
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: What Were You Trying to Say?

[Lon Williamson]

Yeah, and if one shoots that way, one can count on a few comments like
"I would have reframed to avoid the _distracting_highlights_ in the 
upper left.."
etc. etc.

Ya like it or ya don't, I'm beginning to feel.

>frank theriault wrote:
>  
>
>>Boris' recent PESO (or was it a PAW?) featured at least two questions
>>along the lines of the above subject line.
>>
>>Which got me to thinking:  What difference does it make?  I very often
>>take photos which, ~at the time I take them~, I have no idea "what I'm
>>trying to say".  I just take them, look at them later, and if I like
>>them, I print them.
>>
>>Is that wrong?
>>
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: First K100D review with samples

[Lon Williamson]

I've read with interest what PDMLers say about Pentax antishake,
but I remember reading, I think on DPreveiw, about the Optio A10
where antishake results were inconsistent.  Mind, many think those
folks have a bias against Pentax.  I would guess the DLSRs that are
a' coming would have better implementations.  I'm not gonna consider
them until I hear the "early adopters" here (and thank goodness we have
some) post THEIR reports HERE.

Meanwhile, film cams and an Optio SV.

Heck, I don't need nothing new til something BREAKS.  Grin.

-Lon

Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
> Translated. Includes interesting interview with one of developers.  
> Ken was right - SR was in development for about 20 years!!! And  
> results are very good, even with shutter speeds 3 stops lower than it  
> would be normally required.
> http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=ja~en&u=http%3A%2F% 
> 2Fkakaku.com%2Farticle%2Fad%2F06%2Fk100d%2Findex.html
> 
> Cheers,
> Sylwek


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Photo Submission

[Lon Williamson]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I was asked to submit five cat photos to the ASPCA. I put up a small
> gallery from which five have to be selected. Perhaps you can take a moment
> and let me
> know which 5 you prefer. Thanks!
>  
> http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/SPCA_Gallery/

Mantle shot or the yellow tabby.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Mac software question

[Lon Williamson]

I haven't used Macs since the Quadra days, but Norton Utilities
was sold for Macs in those days and did have a hard disk scrubbing
utility; essentially multiple writes to each empty sector.

-Lon

Mark Roberts wrote:

> I know of several Windows freeware apps for secure - or at least more
> secure - file deletion. I need to do some hard drive scrubbing for a
> couple of clients with Macs. Can someone point me toward equivalent
> software for the Mac platform?


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

[Lon Williamson]

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> LOL ... That's exactly what I said in the first response to this  
> thread .. :-)
> 
> Godfrey
> 
> On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:55 AM, Lon Williamson wrote: 
>>Try shooting jpg as if you were shooting slide film.  In my  
>>experience,
>>they're quite similar.

Yeah, I know that now.  Usually I read through responses, see my
position covered, and then don't post at all.  I didn't read through
things yesterday.

Lon


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

[Lon Williamson]

Some of us can ONLY shoot jpeg.  Lower end Optios spring to mind
'cause I gots one.  I think jpeg is kinda neat; makes me think about
exposure much more than using neg film in a "real" camera.

Thank heavens for manual exposure in the SV.  Makes balancing the
flash and ambient much easier.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Question About "Kit" Lenses

[Lon Williamson]

Yup..  every "zoom" I've owned has changed focus slightly from
wide to long.  I use a simple solution for fixed subjects:  focus
at the long end and pray that greater DOF as I zoom wider will
compensate.  I'm pleased with this simple approach using the 3 zooms
I still own.  But I have never printed larger than 8x10; I do a lot
of 5x7s.  Your milage may vary.

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> 'One of the things I've encountered is that some lenses,
> improperly called zooms, are actually variable focal length lenses, and by
> that I mean the lens will change focus as the focal length changes, and has
> to be refocused for accurate results.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Aperture repair on a M lens?

[Lon Williamson]

I read long ago that the M35 f2.8 was prone to
grease causing the aperature to stick.  When I bought
mine, it had a sluggish aperature.  Local repair was
under $40, and the repairman did report grease as the
cause.  Hope this helps.

-Lon

Re: Another one bites the dust.

[Lon Williamson]

Good Luck, Mr. Robb

You mentioned there's a few things on your job plate for the
next few months.  Photo related?

-Lon

Re: When will we see a *consumer* DSLR

[Lon Williamson]

Bob, as an owner of an SV, I'd like to know why she prefers
the S/S4.  Size?

Bob Sullivan wrote:

Anybody had an Optio S or S4 serviced?
Are repairs expensive?
My daughter wants the S4 back in return for the new SV we bought her.
I would like to find an old S4 or S, maybe even a broken one.
But the repair cost has made me cautious.
Regards,  Bob S.

Re: OT: Seeking Book Recommendations

[Lon Williamson]

Jane Bown - Faces: the Creative Process Behind Great Portraits

A great BW photographer who used a meterless Oly SLR and carried
a lightbulb in her purse as her only accessory.

-Lon

David Savage wrote:

G'day All,

OK, if you were to recommend just 2 books on or about photography,
preferably not technical  I have enough of those, which would they be.
Street, landscape, whatever, it doesn't matter, I like them all.

The reason I'm asking is I'm I've been in a bit of a photo funk
lately, and I need some inspiration. A change of scenery would be
better, but that just ain't gonna happen :-).

Cheers,

Dave S

--
"All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy." -
Spike Milligan

Re: Photographing fishes & frogs

[Lon Williamson]

I recall a book I borrowed from the library about shooting pets that
had a few pages about a photographer that specialized in aquarium shots.
As I recall, he hand held a macro lens with rubber hood, the hood edges
touching the aquarium glass.  Flash was directed from above, on a cord
attatched to the camera.  For very small subjects, plexiglass or other
clear sheets were used to "cage" the subjects.  And the guy cleaned the
aquarium glass first.  He missed shots from focus, as well.

You may be able to buy a dioptre that takes your macro to life size
from Phoenix or Cosina - I have the Phoenix version of your lens and it
came with a nice 2-element dioptre.

Hope that helps.  -Lon

Thibouille wrote:

I have a couple aquariums (I should say aquirii, I know) here with
fishes & 2 little frogs (ask my wife why :).
I tried to take a couple pictures of these but it seems really difficult.
My tripod could help but usually those things were not waiting for me
so, not the tripod isn't that useful.

Tried to snap a couple with my SMCP-FA 100 3.5 Macro and with my
SMCP-FA 50 1.4 with stacked macro filters (how do one name those
things, I don't remember) but I came up with mostly boring out of
focus pics.

Any advices?

--
Thibouille
--
*ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...

Re: First success

[Lon Williamson]

LOL.  Huge static problem there with that bug.
Pancho's been reading your posts, Boris.
So have I.


Pancho Hasselbach wrote:


Congratulations, Boris, you nailed that bug!

Only thing is, so caught in the moment, it looks somewhat - static...

SCNR,
Pancho

Re: First success

[Lon Williamson]

Hurrah Boris.  Nice shot.
Now don't let this "go to your head."

I doubt it will.

-Lon

Re: Why dustproblems ? (WasRE: *ist D vs DS2, some questions)

[Lon Williamson]

The bad pixels are "built in" to your sensor, and everyone has them in a 
different location.  It's not hard to make a photoshop action that will

minimize them at a certain capture size.  Email me for details.

-Lon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron Reynolds wrote:

Dave, that's from your D.  The spots I'm asking about are on the player's chin, 
on the jersey logo and on the Nikon sign.  So they're not dust -- how does one 
get these bad pixels in the first place, and how does one get rid of them?

Re: Talking photography - dynamics

[Lon Williamson]

I had a flash image in my noggin of Wm Robb in a bad mood.
Even though I don't know him.  grin.
\Cotty wrote:


On 28/3/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:

Who is "the Satan" and how does he differ from the one true Satan?

Why do I suddenly get a vision of Godders sat at his Mac, a pair of
horns on his head and a barbed tail lashing to and fro...

Re: Talking photography - dynamics

[Lon Williamson]

And I always thought you existed to swerve.
Hoist the topsails, then spanker.

Cotty wrote:

I exist to serve :-)

Re: Anyone have experience with this Slik Tripod

[Lon Williamson]

Ken, this is a truism.  But if the lens is short enough and the tripod
with post extension is "good enough", I do it without thinking twice.
Mind you, once I have even a K135 f2.5 on the pod, I tend to go into
"big glass mode".  But heck, an M50 f1.4?  Yeah, extend if you want to.

-Lon

Kenneth Waller wrote:

To my way of thinking, if you have to extend the center post your tripod 
is too short.

Center post extension just increases tripod head "instability/movement".
All my three tripods have no center post Bogen 3221, Gitzo 1548 & 1410.

Re: Anyone have experience with this Slik Tripod

[Lon Williamson]

Dave, the 300 does have a double lock.  Trust me on this.
It has a thick set of shoulders, much like some of the older Bogens.
The lock you're not seeing is a screw in-line with the center post.
And Bogen 3-D heads will let you get down and dirty with reversed
centerposts.  I own the Bogen 3028, and it will almost let you rest
the camera on the grass on an inverted post.  Trust those that use!

-Lon

Dave Brooks wrote:


Humm. Nether of your two post's made it to my inbox, so i cut this from the 
archives.

Thanks for the info Lon.

I wonder if i have an older brouchere, as i only see one lock on the 300. I 
wonder if the 700 has it to.

Thats good to know anyway. I might go with the 700 and not have to worry about 
a bushing. I took a look at the net, Googled Bogen 3D heads, and found a few 
reviews and stores. Unless i'm looking at the wrong ones, i just cannot see in 
my mind how they can turn upside down. for low macro.
I'm sure they can but :-)

Dave Brooks

---------
Lon Williamson
Tue, 28 Mar 2006 05:16:39 -0800

Oh, one thing I forgot:  the 300/400 locks the centerpost with
TWO adjustments, making post extension much more secure.
My 3021 is very bouncy with even an inch of extension.

David J Brooks wrote:

Just pondering over the Slik Pro 700DX or the 400Dx models. They both have adjustable multi position legs and spread out quite close to the ground. Also removable centre column. 



David J Brooks
Equine, Pets, Bands, Rural Landscape Photography in York Region
www.caughtinmotion.com
Pentax istD, PZ-1, Nikon D1 D2H

Re: Anyone have experience with this Slik Tripod

[Lon Williamson]

Oh, one thing I forgot:  the 300/400 locks the centerpost with
TWO adjustments, making post extension much more secure.
My 3021 is very bouncy with even an inch of extension.

David J Brooks wrote:

Just pondering over the Slik Pro 700DX or the 400Dx models. They both 
have adjustable multi position legs and spread out quite close to the 
ground. Also removable centre column.

Re: Anyone have experience with this Slik Tripod

[Lon Williamson]

I have the 300 DX pro, which is quite similar to the 400Dx.
There is an optional short centerpost, which I purchased, and
the centerpost is reversible.

I consider the 300 to be a much better tripod than the Bogen 3001,
which I've also used.  I currently own a 3021, but use the Slik
much more often because it has good stability, better ergonomics to
my way of seeing things, and is much smaller and lighter.

The 400 you're considering has, I believe, flip leg locks, a two
piece centerpost (making the purchase of a short post unnecessary)
and leg pads.  Had it been available when I purchased the 300, I'd
probably have purchased the 400.

If you're planning to do a lot of reversed post shooting, it's a lot
easier using one of the Bogen 3D heads, and those won't mate to a 
300/400 without using a reducing bushing.  They will fit the 700.

The Bogen 3D heads have enough articulation to let you shoot without
the camera upside down.

David J Brooks wrote:
Just pondering over the Slik Pro 700DX or the 400Dx models. They both 
have adjustable multi position legs and spread out quite close to the 
ground. Also removable centre column.


Any one with experience with either model or the Pro series over all. 
Also what do you need extra if you reverse the column to mount a camera.


Thinking this for a replacement for the Manfotto 028(its the companies 
anyway) and for a better way for macro.


Dave

Equine Photography in York Region

Re: Using a two axis rail as a substitute for custom pano heads - crazy or viable with modest lens lengths?

[Lon Williamson]

Toine, yeah, the SV does have an assist function, the tripod mount
is off center, and I guess I'd try to put the middle of the lens in the
center of the tripod for a first go.  I'd experiment with it now, except
that there's still plenty else more useful to learn about the SV.
Thanks for the input.  In a week or two, I'll monkey with it.

-Lon

Toine wrote:


The Optio SV probably has a panorama assist function and is small
enough to use without a special panorama head.  Handheld pano's or any
tripod head with a pano base is ok. The nodal point is somewhere in
the middle. If your lucky the tripod connector is in the lens axis, if
not a small bracket is needed to shift the tripod connector to the
lens axis.
You need software like autopano, panoramafactory or ptgui. The
software blends any small parallax errors.
Things get more tricky when using wideangle or fisheye lenses.

Re: Using a two axis rail as a substitute for custom pano heads - crazy or viable with modest lens lengths?

[Lon Williamson]

Point well taken, but I already have a two axis rail.  So I guess I'm 
really asking experienced pano folks if what I've got would be "good 
enuff"  - one of my favorite phrases.


-Lon

Jostein wrote:

I think www.reallyrightstuff.com has some rails for the very purpose. 
IIRC, there's a PDF manual there too.


Jostein

- Original Message ----- From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Using a two axis rail as a substitute for custom pano heads - 
crazy or viable with modest lens lengths?



I've read that the nodal point is usually somewhere near the aperature 
blades of a lens.  It seems to me, that with modest length lenses, 
doing either vertical or horizontal panos would be kind of easy to do 
with a two axis rail.  The L-R axis could compensate for any 
off-lens-axis tripod mount on a camera, and the Forward-Backward axis 
could be used to position the lens nodal point more or less over the 
center of the tripod post.  Anyone tried this?


I'm looking forward to experimenting with such shots with my Optio SV.

BTW, it seems to me that pano shots would be one heck of a lot easier 
with a pan/tilt head than a ball head, even a ball head with a pano 
base.  This would be particularly true for vertical panos or 2-D panos.


Comments invited.

Re: Bailing out.

[Lon Williamson]

Live and let live.

Paul Stenquist wrote:
 This whiney film nostalgia is nice, but it's bullshit.

Re: Bailing out.

[Lon Williamson]

Interesting post, that.  My only SLRs are still film and likely to
remain that way.  I'm still playing with a newly acquired Optio, having
just "bailed in".  Anyone who thinks a fairly new digi P&S is simple
just doesn't understand things.  With a film camera, I take a different
approach; this I can see already.  Each film shot, the way I do it,
should be a potential "keeper".  Never mind the batting average; that's 
what I want to feel most of the time when pressing the most important 
button: the shutter button.


I've shot a few hundred shots with the Optio, have sent a few to the
computer (mostly to judge noise vs ISO, sharpness, etc.) and have
printed NONE shared NONE and have been satisfied with NONE (although
this last NONE is not quite true - the shots so far are insipid "let's 
learn what it can do" snaps.


Maybe that "cost per shot" of film really helps, maybe I'm too used to 
it and to old to change, or maybe I don't understand digital yet.


If you wanna go back to film and enlarger, you certainly have my 
blessings, although that may be a curse.  grin.


-Lon


Kevin Waterson wrote, in part:

... I have decided not to play the digital game and instead
spend my time on furthering the art of photography. Whilst film is still
available I can use that, perhaps I will pick up an 8x10 or 4x5 and go
back to the good ol' days of coating my own plates (provided the chemicals
used are not classified as WMDs and I am arrested as a terrorist)

Using a two axis rail as a substitute for custom pano heads - crazy or viable with modest lens lengths?

[Lon Williamson]

I've read that the nodal point is usually somewhere near the aperature 
blades of a lens.  It seems to me, that with modest length lenses, doing 
either vertical or horizontal panos would be kind of easy to do with a 
two axis rail.  The L-R axis could compensate for any off-lens-axis 
tripod mount on a camera, and the Forward-Backward axis could be used to 
position the lens nodal point more or less over the center of the tripod 
post.  Anyone tried this?


I'm looking forward to experimenting with such shots with my Optio SV.

BTW, it seems to me that pano shots would be one heck of a lot easier 
with a pan/tilt head than a ball head, even a ball head with a pano 
base.  This would be particularly true for vertical panos or 2-D panos.


Comments invited.

-Lon

Re: Updated PDML Logo.Should be final now

[Lon Williamson]

LOL.  Mr. Brooks, never try for concordance, even on this
nice list.  Tell 'em to shut up, place their orders, and
praise what is given.  BTW, make mine puce

-Lon

David J Brooks wrote:

Do you KNOW how long that outline took me.??Now more.

Re: OT - Windows on a Mac

[Lon Williamson]

Yeah it was awkward.  As I recall, you had to create one large file
on disk that became the FAT16 drive.  My neighbor had one of those
cards in his machine for his wife to use.  Kinda like installing
the freebie BeOs on a Wintel machine.

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:


On Mar 17, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Lon Williamson wrote:


Hell, in the mid 90s Apple had a hardware solution:  a 386 card,
if I remember correctly.  And someone at the same time had a software-
only solution.  This is back in the 68K processor days.



Yes, but two separate computers in a single box, each running on its  
own memory and processor, is a totally different thing from having a  
single hardware setup that can boot multiple OSes.

Re: OT - Windows on a Mac

[Lon Williamson]

Yup.  Softwindows it was.  Never ran it.  I had my Mac,
but always had access to PCs within a year or two of their introduction.
Ahh XT and a 10MB hard drive for something like 4 or 5 grand in 
1985.


Paul Stenquist wrote:

I used SoftWindows on an early Power Mac



On Mar 17, 2006, at 7:07 PM, Lon Williamson wrote:


Hell, in the mid 90s Apple had a hardware solution:  a 386 card,
if I remember correctly.  And someone at the same time had a software-
only solution.  This is back in the 68K processor days.

Re: OT - Windows on a Mac

[Lon Williamson]

Hell, in the mid 90s Apple had a hardware solution:  a 386 card,
if I remember correctly.  And someone at the same time had a software-
only solution.  This is back in the 68K processor days.

Cotty wrote:


On 17/3/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:


Of course. I had Windows and Mac OS X running on the same hardware  
four years ago when I was at Apple.



Are you still bound by the non-disclosure agreement you signed back then ? ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: OT Another PS Question

[Lon Williamson]

Go back to CS and enable Maximize Backwards Compatibility for file 
saves.  It might help.


-Lon

Dave Brooks wrote:


Hi Troops.

Do earlier versions of PS have problems opening up files from newer versions.?

The logo i'm doing was done on the ibook (PSCS)G4 OSX. I saved as a Jpg ( I 
didi not merge any layers)and moved it to my PC Windows XP Home SP 2.
When i went to open in PS 7 it gave me an eror of not enough memeory to open. 
The file is only 68K.
However it would open in PSEL3 but i could not do anything to it as it said the 
layers were locked.

Any tips.?

I have one more thing to add to the logo, and now i have problems??? Go 
fiqure.LOL I 'll finish it in CS on the ibook, just curious whats happening 
here.

Dave


David J Brooks
Equine, Pets, Bands, Rural Landscape Photography in York Region
www.caughtinmotion.com
Pentax istD, PZ-1, Nikon D1 D2H

Re: Tel Aviv

[Lon Williamson]

I agree with Frank.  A few previous posts referenced "trite
technique".  I think that can freeze us (group pressure being
applied) from experimenting further.

For example, I used to think that pictures taken deliberately
"unsquare" (ie camera tilted noticably off plumb square) were
trite.  I still think most are.  But I've seen people use the
technique effectively, even though the hit rate might go down.

If you like the effect, Boris, keep experimenting.  Once in a while
you'll snag a really nifty one.  Please yourself.  I've tried this
kind of photo before and I think this beats anything I've done...
but then I ain't no danged good.

-Lo

frank theriault wrote:


On 3/15/06, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hi!

I am starting to realize that most of my photography is very static.
Here I've tried to be slightly less static...

http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=12495

Your honest and brutal feedback is as usual sought after and appreciated.



I like it.  I must say, I usually exect "smooth" lines from these
sorts of time exposures.  At first the "jiggly" lines were a bit
off-putting, but the more I look the more I like.

Cool shot!!

cheers,
frank

Re: bad luck and enablement

[Lon Williamson]

I understand this about Macro entirely.  Some people can use flash
and handhold, and that makes sense when trying to "freeze a bumblebee"
or something similar, but if I can slow down, take my time, and use
a tripod, manual focus works far better for me on static subjects.

-Lon

Jack Davis wrote:


I have no personal experience with the A* 200 macro, only the A* 100.
I've, however, read some good reviews.
Personally, I prefer to manually focus when doing macro work. It
tolerates my hyper-selective penchant to fuss with the scene without
fighting me.

Jack

Re: PESO - Cool Jazz

[Lon Williamson]

Not satisfied with missed focus, Frank is now combining it with
too-slow-shutterspeeds.  Artsy.  Grin.  I like it Frank, but even though
sharpness is a bullshit concept, I do wish the horn player's face
was a tad sharper.  I've taken plenty like this one, myself.

And like you, I prefer to shoot and see what the heck happens rather
than git skeered.

-Lon

frank theriault wrote:


I suppose it's a bit unseemly for me to make comment (or am I making
excuses) about a photo that I'm posting, but I'll do it anyway.

I know this isn't terribly sharp, as it was handheld about about
1/15th or 1/30th, aperture wide-open, and I think I missed the focus a
bit.  The lighting with the spot on Tim the trumpet player was tough. 
Still, there's a dynamic I like about this one.  Not one of my best,

but not one of my worst, either:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4221415&size=lg

I'd be interested in knowing if you think the obvious technical
deficiencies are overcome by the image itself.  Thanks for commenting.

Re: More Kennyboy quotes

[Lon Williamson]

Here's a quote from Ken's filter section.  In fact, it is the
first paragraph:

"The selection of the proper filter is actually far more important than 
any choice of lens or camera."


To be fair, much of what is on his site is interesting.  My take is that
KennyBoy cannot be bothered to write an essay in one or two settings.
The site feels like each paragraph on any page was written two months
later than its preceeding paragraphs, and without reading the precedent,
and authored by someone a little hyperactive.

Hell, he might be a nice guy.  I do like some of his photos.

-Lon

Re: ACDSee Pro - anyone using it?

[Lon Williamson]

I have Picture Window Pro, and have run it a few times.
I think had I stumbled onto it before photoshop, I'd be
using it happily.  But I'm so USED to layers, and PWP ain't
got 'em.  And right now I don't want to learn another editing
program well.  Norman Koren (spelling on last name?) has a web
site that argues in favor of Picture Window Pro.  Those of you
interested in a 16bit IccAware editor aimed at photographers
might want to peruse his site as well as the PWP site.

All my spare time right now is squarely centered on the new
OptioSV I purchased.  Learning to use this little puppy effectively
is gonna take a long long long time.  And, I think, worthwhile time.

-Lon

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

From the PWP site:


Picture Window Pro is an extremely powerful image editor 
that has every feature serious photographers require. Among them, 


Full support for ICC color management.
 
Full support for 48-bit color and 16-bit B&W files. 
This allows repetitive edits with no loss of quality. 

Outstanding masking capabilities for adjusting portions 
of an image, including creating masks based on image properties
. 
A wide array of geometrical transformations, including resizing, 
cropping, rotation, warping, perspective correction (equivalent 
to lens tilt), lens distortion (barrel and pincushion) correction, and 
lateral chromatic aberration (color fringing) correction. 


http://www.normankoren.com/PWP_intro.html


Shel

Initial Observations: OptioSV after 1 week, and some questions.

[Lon Williamson]

Though I've had a web cam and that ilk before, the OptioSV is the
first digicam I've purchased that can do prints.

It only does JPEGs, which, I discovered, are as fickle as slide film
with regard to exposure.  However, the LCD helps a bunch, so I've
paridoxically learned more about metering slide film than I ever thought
I would.

I adore the size, but something this small is HARD to handhold.  It
just ain't got enough heft or surface.  Glad I didn't buy the original
OptioS; although I looked at it, that sucker was/is tiny.

The SV is sluggish, but still quicker than say, the KX or MX for
many types of shots.

And I find it amusing that at the wide end, I have f2.8 to 8, but at
the long end, 4.7 (certainly respectable) to ONLY f8, so it is somehow
not a true variable aperature lens.  Shouldn't I have a higher-than-8
stop at the long end?  Bug or feature?

Does anyone have any feel for how JPEG quality (three, two, one stars)
compares to the DLSRs with regard to JPEG artifacts?  Same amount of
compression?  I'm talking compression, folks, not noise.  The tiny
in the SV seems to make it usable without something like NeatImage only
at ISO 50-100.

Anyone find manual focusing on a small LCD to be anything but a gimmick?

How tight is the spot metering, and how many segments ins multisegment
in the Optio line?


Any responses or observations on use of similar Optios much appreciated.

-Lon

Re: Attention Yahoo Email account holders

[Lon Williamson]

Yup.  Keeping something like this list going cannot be "fun".
Altruist definition:  Doug Brewer.


Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Thanks for your attention to this and for running the list, Doug. I know a
lot of us, myself included, have come to depend upon and appreciate the
work that you do for the PDML.  Thanks so much.

Shel

How many hot pixels is too many

[Lon Williamson]

My new SV has two areas that seems consistently corrupted.
Sstisfactory for a 5MP sensor?

-Lon

Re: FS tak a 2x

[Lon Williamson]

As we get old, we get senile.  I argue with myself about
brown vs white sugar on my oatmeal every morning.  Sometimes
the debate lasts til noon.

-Lon

Aaron Reynolds wrote:

AAARGH.  Why can I never remember to change the reply-to address?

Re: HELP on SD card with USB interface and Win98SE

[Lon Williamson]

Nope.  I got a film scanner, mouse, two printers, and a Wacom
tablet all going thru USB.  Besides, 98SE shipped with USB drivers,
and both my mashines support USB in CMOS setup.

Doug Franklin wrote:

I think you need Win98 USB drivers from Microsoft's web site.

HELP on SD card with USB interface and Win98SE

[Lon Williamson]

Ok ok ok ok.
So I've been fooling with the OptioSv for hours and decided
it might be a keeper.  I got another several days to return it.
Yesterday was snapping, chimping, reading the manual, etc.

Today I decided to move a few shots to the computer, Win98Se is
all I have except for even older Macs and PCs.

I bought some 512MB SansDisk SD cards that have a hinge that exposes
a USB port.  Neat.  They don't work.

The CD that came with the OptioSv installs ACDSee, which puts an icon
in the system tray that presumably scans for the camera attached.
Haven't tried attaching the cam; wanted to use the USB on the SD card.
Nadda.  Recognized by Windows as device "Gemini" and no drivers found.

The guy at the store I bought this from says he can use these cards
on Win98 once he installed Pentas istDL software.

Anyone got a clue before I start pounding the Internet and wasting yet
more hours dealing with *&)$#(*)% Windows installation problems?

(pant pant pant pant).  I'm ok now.  marginally.  Tonight might end up
being a Vodka night.  Pant pant pant.

Respectfully yrs, Lon

Re: OT: it just won't stop

[Lon Williamson]

I hate aging.  Take very good care, Collin.
-Lon

Doug Brewer wrote:

yeesh, it doesn't, does it? Get well, Collin.

Re: I understand Shel's rage on DS2, I can't find an Optio60. Any comments on the OptioSV?

[Lon Williamson]

Thanks, Dario.  Less purple fringe than the Optio60, and less noise,
I think.  I downloaded every one of your JPGs and looked at them.
Thanks.  I owe you.

-Lon

Dario Bonazza wrote:


SVi @ 50 ISO, 35mm, F3.6
http://www.dariobonazza.com/provv/SVi_50_35mm_F3.6.jpg

SVi @ 200 ISO, 135mm, F4.7
http://www.dariobonazza.com/provv/SVi_200_135mm_F4.7.jpg

Re: Pentax Optio60 vs OptioSV - I bought the SV

[Lon Williamson]

Yes, I think two 512s were overkill, but I bought them
in part because I've read that you can buy an SD>CF converter,
and I'm thinking future.  The other thing is I kind of pent
buying rages up and want to get MORE than I think I'm gonna need.

I understand your point, though, especially when the novelty runs
out.

-Lon

Bob Sullivan wrote:

I think you'll enjoy the Optio SV.
And one 512MB card will take a while to fill,
even with max quality pix.
Extra battery was a smart choice...
Welcome to the digital world.
Regards,  Bob S.

Re: MZ-S and old flashes

[Lon Williamson]

Last time I saw a comprehensive camera review, all the ZX cameras
would tolerate a 300V signal across the hotshoe from flashes.  Not
sure about the MZ-S.  Ask Pentax.  I'd be surprised if it didn't,
because it is film.

Pete Ziminski wrote:


How do I know if my flashes will not damage my MZ-S. For example, will
my 25yr old Vivitar 283 work?

Pete

Re: The Quintessential Mistake

[Lon Williamson]

Yup.  Been there, done that.
And undoubtably will do it again.

Jon Myers wrote:


I did that once. Grabbed my K-1000 and went for a
hike... had been out a while when I noticed the rewind
knob wasn't turning when I advanced the film. I
assumed it hadn't loaded properly, so I opened the
back. There wasn't any film in it at all! 

OptioSV - damn it's small

[Lon Williamson]

Having previously only shot film, it is worthwhile to note
that the OptioSV and others of it's ilk are smaller than
my danged Olympus XA, and get smaller and smaller when you
toss in a few rolls of film.  In terms of cuddly size, this
thing rocks.

Still love the XA, though. -Lon

Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.

[Lon Williamson]

A definate advantage of a tripod and remote release.  It can make
a difference.

William Robb wrote:
I learned to not look through the viewfinder by shooting portraits on 
sheet film.
By not having the camera between the photographer and subject, it is 
possible to catch some wonderful expressions. Peole seem more relaxed 
when they are talking to someone who doesn't have a camera growing out 
of his face.

Pentax Optio60 vs OptioSV - I bought the SV

[Lon Williamson]

This is the first camera, Pentax or otherwise,
that I bought new for MySelf.  Today.
Accesories: two 512MB cards, a spare battery,
and a cute little Lowepro case.

The cards I bought I did for one reason:  the
salesman showed me they can be pulled a bit to
reveal a USB interface.  No reader needed.  Neat.

Initial impressions:  faster than that first
Altoids Tin Optio S.  Some VERY goofy modes,
but the lens is all glass, SMC, and 36-180mm
(35mm equivalent).  It does M, Tv, and AV, but
only if you set it up to do so, and can't do
all three at once without punching into menus.
Two out of three ain't bad.

I bought locally, I know some of you gave helpful
advice about buying on line, but with something like
this I like to sniff it and fondle it and shoot it
before buying it.  I will never do Ebay again, and I'm
sure as hell not gonna buy from anyone but KEH sight-
unseen.

I wanted a tiny digital Pentax with an Optical Viewfinder for
trying to get into the PUG at the last minute.  This little
sucker is gonna deliver or I'm gonna kick it past the 50 yard line.

Despite a WHOLE lot more modes than anyone in his right mind
would need, I think I'm beginning to understand it.  I hope to
now post PESOs and PUGs.  With an OptioSV.  Geeenuwine pentax.
And new.

And I'm gonna buy that 10MP DLSR after the rest of you early
adopters have bought it and analyzed it.


Thanks for reading.---Lon

Re: Anyone used the cheapo Pentax Optio60?

[Lon Williamson]

Thanks, Juan.

-Lon

BTW, Juan and Lon rhyme.  Even though the spelling doesn't
indicate such.


Juan Buhler wrote:


I have it. It isn't bad at all for a $160 camera. The main image
quality problem is I think the jpeg compression--when combined with
the sensor noise, it can make some nasty artifacts that are hard to
get rid of, even with NeatImage or Noise Ninja. I wish these cameras
had a raw mode, it seems to me like it would be a free option to
offer.

I used the Optio to do some street shooting a while back. It's slow so
you have to try to anticipate when to press the shutter, which adds
quite a bit of randomness in the process.

Here is a Flickr set of some pictures I shot. Processed to B&W and
cropped to 3:2 aspect. You can see the full res images by clicking on
"all sizes" on each picture page:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbuhler/sets/1610069/

hth,

j

On 3/1/06, Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I know the Optio60 ain't got SMC.  My guess
is that it is sluggish and slow.  JPG only, etc.
But it's small, has an optical viewfinder, and
might be good enough to produce nice CRT-only
shots.  Cheap, too.  Comments?

-Lon

I understand Shel's rage on DS2, I can't find an Optio60. Any comments on the OptioSV?

[Lon Williamson]

Pentax USA still lists the Optio60 as being "available".
HA!

So I'm looking at the OptioSV, which does have manual, AV,
and TV, but buried in some damn menu.  Local cost, US$250.
Anyone used it?  Comments needed before I go to the store,
fiddle with a digicam awkwardly, and fork over some bucks.

-Lon

PS Dario:  thanks for the Optio60 sample pix.  I downloaded
them.  For the intended purposes I have, it would have been,
probably, a better camera than the OptioSV.

Re: Anyone used the cheapo Pentax Optio60?

[Lon Williamson]

Dario, do you mind sharing your likes/dislikes about
the Optio60?

Dario Bonazza wrote:


Untouched, straight from the camera JPEG's.

64 ISO, 35mm, F2.8:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/provv/60_64_35mm_F2.8.jpg

200 ISO, 105mm F4.8:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/provv/60_200_105mm_F4.8.jpg

Enjoy,

Dario

- Original Message - From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Anyone used the cheapo Pentax Optio60?



I know the Optio60 ain't got SMC.  My guess
is that it is sluggish and slow.  JPG only, etc.
But it's small, has an optical viewfinder, and
might be good enough to produce nice CRT-only
shots.  Cheap, too.  Comments?

-Lon

Re: WTB: mirror lens

[Lon Williamson]

John Mustarde used to show up regularly on the list, and had
a page about long telephotos, including a few 500mm mirror lenses.
As I recall, he raved about a specific Soligar or Spiratone, can't
remember which, as being good.  Google it; the page was up a year ago
as I recall.  One thing he mentioned is, that due to inherent low
contrast, a manufacturer's hood is not a luxury with these beasts.

I think you're gonna find them tricky.  I've got two 500mm mirrors,
both F8.  One is so old and big that it comes with a tripod foot and
has yelllow single coating (pre 1970, I think).  The other is much more
compact.

The #1 problem with these beasts is not donuts; it is focus.  I only
nail about 1 of every 4-5 shots, but my eyes are old.

Have fun.  My mirrors are strictly for fun; not suitable for 8x10 but
not too bad for 5x7 prints.

-Lon


Aaron Reynolds wrote:


Oh yes, I know... and this is why I was asking about used lenses, which are 
traditionally cheaper.

Buying a good used one for $100 is better than buying a lousy new one for $100.

-Aaron

-Original Message-

From:  mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

The problem is; the less you spend, the less you will think.

Re: Why is 35mm film sometimes called 135?

[Lon Williamson]

Now I know.  Thanks.

Bob Shell wrote:



On Mar 1, 2006, at 8:26 AM, Lon Williamson wrote:


I always wondered about this.  Being still a film-only user,
I'd like to know what "135" is derived from.


It's a Kodak film designation.  Kodak had a convention of three-digit  
film numbering, e.g.: 120, 620, 117, 828, etc.  They added the 1 at  the 
beginning so it would fit this three-digit system.

Anyone used the cheapo Pentax Optio60?

[Lon Williamson]

I know the Optio60 ain't got SMC.  My guess
is that it is sluggish and slow.  JPG only, etc.
But it's small, has an optical viewfinder, and
might be good enough to produce nice CRT-only
shots.  Cheap, too.  Comments?

-Lon

Why is 35mm film sometimes called 135?

[Lon Williamson]

I always wondered about this.  Being still a film-only user,
I'd like to know what "135" is derived from.

-Lon

Re: Some more new camera speculation

[Lon Williamson]

Weren't the early 645s pure mechanical coupling?  If so, given
that this is the beast that Pentax is taking into the Pro DLSR
arena, what are the chances that the 645 prototype at PMA does
retain mechanical couplings?  Anyone?

-Lon

John Forbes wrote:


Just what is the attraction of a 35mm-sized sensor on digital?

It's much more expensive, both for the body and the lenses (note how 
much  cheaper the DA macro lenses, for instance, are than the FA 
lenses).  There  are now good wide-angle options.


All the evidence suggests, and has for some time, that Pentax will not 
in  the near future, and probably never, produce a 24x36mm sensor in the 
K  mount.  If 24x36 is what your heart is set on, buy a Canon.


And for those who say that the market has abandoned the Pentax 645, how  
did they ever manage to sell the first 645?  There are still huge  
quantities of 645 lenses out there, and I for one will bet that as long 
as  the price and performance are OK, the 645D will be snapped up.

Re: OT: aquariums

[Lon Williamson]

For what it's worth, I shot at the Newport Aquarium near Cincinnati
Ohio one day.  The aisles were deliberately kept quite dark, no lighter
than the average movie theatre here in the USA.  The tanks therefore
looked bright, but they weren't.

I had either 400 or 800 speed film, can't remember
which, but I _think_ it was 800.  I took a few lenses with me, but
ended up using a 50mm f1.4 wide open, simply because it was the
fastest lens I had.  Many shots were in the 15th/30th second range,
not too bad since I had a monopod with me.  I didn't think the focal
length was too hampering; in fact a few times I wanted wider.

Definately take your fastest lens with you.

-Lon

Gautam Sarup wrote:

Tom,

I'm leaning more and more towards taking the Provia and pushing it
as you suggest.

I have a few more questions by now:

1. What lenses? I don't have too many choices.  The fastest Pentax
lens I have is a 50/1.4.  Is that likely to be too short?  On the tele. side
I have an 80-320 but that's not a fast lens (f4.5-5.6.)

2. Has anyone tried Ektachrome 1600?

Cheers,
Gautam


On 2/27/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Just another suggestion... I've shot 800 speed film at aquariums and even
that was marginal because of the dim lighting.  Even if you are able to
handhold it, the subjects are moving as well.  That's why I suggested
something that can be pushed significantly


Tom C.








From: "Gautam Sarup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: aquariums
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:51:39 -0800

Thanks for the suggestions.  Think I get a roll of Provia and K200
and shoot both at the aquarium in San Francisco.

Another question, since K200 is a daylight film would be behave
OK in the (presumably) flourescent lighting in a fish tank?  I made
the mistake of shooting K64 under artificial lighting once and everything
came out green.

Cheers,
Gautam

On 2/26/06, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Gautam Sarup wrote:



I'm planning a trip to the Monterey aquarium and would like advice on


what


slide film to use.  The only colour film I use regularly is K64 and
that's likely to
be too slow.

Suggestions will be appreciated.

Cheers,
Gautam





K200 - you can push it to 500, maybe more.

Re: PAW - Shy

[Lon Williamson]

Frank mentioned that this is in his Public Phone collection.
Personally, I think the US FBI should investigate this "apparently
harmless" Canadian.  PINKO bunnie ears, an intrest in
telecommunications, and a camera.  Terrorist tie ins?
Excessive use of catsup and/or vinegar on potatoes?  Bush would
lock him up in a blue second.

Not a bad shot, though.  I like Frank's style, mostly because
his pix, to me at least, seem to indicate he gets fun outta this stuff.
That's not all bad, by a long shot.

-Lon

Bruce Dayton wrote:

Mildly amusing.  I'm not much of a fan of the hand in the face shot -
probably because I have so many of them of my wife.

Re: *IST-D / DS & High speed action!

[Lon Williamson]

I am adamant that our own Mark Roberts can blast Ken away, if Mark
would Just Practise.  It's very very important.

grin.  -Lon

frank theriault wrote:

On 2/21/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

and polish your skin...


Now that's just *weird*.



You ~do~ know to whom I was referring, don't you?  The man with the
shiniest skin in history:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

cheers,
frank

Re: *IST-D / DS & High speed action!

[Lon Williamson]

I vote with Frank.  Polish your skin, you red haired debbil.

-Lon

Mark Roberts wrote:


"frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

and polish your skin...


Now that's just *weird*.

Re: Graphic Tablet Recommendations?

[Lon Williamson]

Tom, I just tried to look for my Wacom Graphire, purchased about 2000,
to see what model it is and couldn't find it.  It was the smallest and
cheapest at the time, probably under 100 US dollars.  It worked well.
But I didn't find it that useful for photography.  Mousing seemed about
as effective.  It had pressure sensitivity and a gazzilion presets.  Whu 
do you find a mouse inadequate?  I might be still using the table today,

but it just took up too much desk real estate (I have a small computer
desk).

-Lon

Tom C wrote:

I'm considering purchasing a graphics tablet for use with Photoshop.  
I've been looking at the WACOM Graphire 3 & 4 (6 x 8).


Does anyone have any anecdotal experience they can relay?  What's the 
difference between the '3' model and the '4' model?  It looks like the 
'4' is twice the price, but LPI, accuracy and sensitivity appear to be 
identical to the '3' (at least on the B&H website).


Any other manufacturers I might want to consider?

Thanks.

Tom C.

Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy

[Lon Williamson]

Yeah, you were missed.  I like your nick, for one thing, and folks
seemed to report from the mountain get togethers that you, and even
Wm Robb are good folks.  I believed that to be true of both of you
years ago.  Frank is a nice guy too, but I'm NOT into bunny ears.

Wish I could meet some of y'all.

-Lon

E.R.N. Reed wrote:

Dear Graywolf --

You definitely were missed. Before the religion discussion, there had 
been some queries as to your whereabouts and health.


ERNR 

Re: OT - PESO - Farm and Copse

[Lon Williamson]

I agree.  I'd frame and hang this one.  Very well done.

Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:

On 2006-02-18, at 11:01, Cotty wrote:





Wow! What a beatiful composition of trees on the hill and buildings  
below. Toned colours add much to the overall atmosphere. Very well  done 
Cotty!