Yet another in the boathouse series...
Probably some distortion here, the horizon seems to be trailing down to
the right and the building leans to the left.
Oh well. I'm too lazy and tired to correct it tonight.
http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_boathouse3.html
As usual comments are
On 29/4/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
If your screen was calibrated and you then output an file converted to
sRGB with embedded sRGB profile, I would see virtually no shift in
Safari as Safari always honors profiles. Without a profile, it's
rendering your file relative to
Yes it is - very interesting, thanks.
Aristotle provides the earliest known description of a camera obscura, from
about 350 BC.
A web page about Greek optics:
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Optics.htm
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Derby Chang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello John,
I couldn't have said it any better. I feel just about the same as
you.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Friday, April 29, 2005, 7:51:06 PM, you wrote:
JF On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 07:36:33PM -0600, Tom C wrote:
JF It sounds to me as though you had rather unreasonable expectations.
JF When
This one time, at band camp, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use iPhoto occasionally but only with finished JPEG images that I've
edited in Photoshop ... I use it to set up making inexpensive bound
books of photos.
I purchased Tiger today, will let you know how it goes
Kevin
On 4/28/05, Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just got back from the opening of the West Michigan Area Show at the
Kalamazoo Institute of Arts. This is an all media show, with works from 17
counties in west Michigan. I didn't win any prizes, but two of my photos
were accepted into the
-Original Message-
From: P. J. Alling
http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_boathouse3.html
I like this one, the hard, dark asphalt foreground and the
strong colour of the shed make a nice contrast to the soft fog.
--
Peter Williams
Sorry to all if you receive this email twice, I did not see it on the
list... greetings Markus
-Original Message-
From: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:43 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Tamron SP 70-150mm softfocus portrait lens?
I see
Sorry to all if you receive this email twice, I did not see it on the
list... greetings Markus
-Original Message-
From: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:14 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Digital printing kiosk quality
Hi Brian
thanks
IIRC, there are 5 FA zooms in the 645 lineup where 3 are f/4.5 and 2
are f/5.6
Of the primes, the following are f/2.8:
45mm, 55mm, 75mm, 150mm, and the 75mm and 150mm leaf-shutter lenses.
Cheers,
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I love it! Light leaks and all! That's a great shot, Mark. When I
hear people whining about their inferior equipment, and how it
limits their vision, I'll think of that photograph. I think Holgas
have a certain plasticity that other cameras don't have
For pro studio work, fast lenses are not important. Your comparing MF
to 35mm. All 35mm lenses are faster than all MF lenses in comparable
focal lengths. It's the nature of the beast.
On Apr 29, 2005, at 11:35 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Sorry, you're right 18mp, but the equivalent Canon glass in
The new release of Photoshop contains a feature called HDR (High Dynamic
Range) which allows for the creation of photos of 10, 12, 14, or more stops
of dynamic range. There's a brief explanation and tutorial of how this
works here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml
There
On Apr 29, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote:
I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about
printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and
miss it.
Shoot RAW with your *istD and convert in PSCS at the highest
interpolation setting. This will
I know one of you guys must haveone, could you give me an opinion of the
optical qualities please and what I'm likely to pay for one.
John
Tom C Opined.
But somehow I can't see it being anything other than middle of the road and
6 months to a 1 1/2 years behind competitors products.
The DSLR industry is maturing pretty quickly. The state of the art at the
moment is 16mp from a 35mm sized chip. I recall Rob saying that 18mp was
Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Apr 29, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote:
I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about
printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and
miss it.
Shoot RAW with your *istD and convert in PSCS at the highest
On Apr 29, 2005, at 9:36 PM, Meredith Markham wrote:
I use a PC, not a Mac, but I use Photoshop CS to edit
my photos and ACDSee 7.0 to manage them. IMHO, ACDSee
is the best photo/media organizer right now...you can
even do basic manipulations in single or batch mode.
However, I don't think it is
13 x19 is super B sized paper for ink jet printing. I actually print
at about 12.5 x 18.2 and leave a border. That's approximately full
frame on an *istD image. If you look at portfolio sizes available in
your camera store, you'll probably see some 13x 19 books. It's
becoming a standard for
That Holga photograph is lovely, Mark. Classic values, composition and
well presented.
Godfrey
On 4/28/05, Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just got back from the opening of the West Michigan Area Show at the
Kalamazoo Institute of Arts. This is an all media show, with works
from 17
Good composition of a soft appealing scene.
IMO, all I would change would be to gently lighten the
house wall.
The small white 'thing' in the water and the
'muddy'(too bad) left foreground area are somewhat
distracting.
Darkening the distant tree line slightly might improve
the overall balance.
On Apr 29, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote:
I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about
printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and
miss it. To reach 35mm pixel freedom..:-), I may have to do few
upgrades.
I find that prints made from
Yesterday I met Albano here in Buenos Aires. We hadn't met before, and
knew each other only from this list. We had lunch, talked about other
people on the list (mostly good stuff! :) , took some pictures, and
then went to see a Cartier-Bresson exhibit.
Here is Albano showing off his LX keyring:
Congratulations, Frank! Sounds like it will be an excellent show. It's great
that your work is getting out to a non-virtual audience!
Congrats again -
MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You're right fast lenses are not important for studio work, but you're
missing the point. If the Canon will do the job and lets face it 16mp
vs 18mp is less of a difference than 6mp vs 8mp, and all other things
being equal, which they're not, the Canon wins on most of the buzz
words. If
I don't have one, but from what I've gathered it's a fine lens, and
relatively rare. Based on that information
I'd say you're likely to pay an arm and a leg, possibly with an ear or
two thrown in.
John Whittingham wrote:
I know one of you guys must haveone, could you give me an opinion of the
On 29/4/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
I downloaded the pictures to analyze them. You didn't embed profiles.
In the Windows and Mac OS comparison images, on my calibrated screens
(both the PBG3 and the iMac G4 20) the Windows image has overly bright
highlights and good
I believe he's talking inches, and 13x19 is the ratio of 35mm or APS-C.
Keith Whaley wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Apr 29, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote:
I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried
about printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with
Excellently put, Godfrey, 100% agree with you
Regards
Albano
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 29, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Christian wrote:
First let me preface this with a few statements.
Christian,
What I'm wondering is why one would have to justify
to the
Hi Rob Studdert,
I am a newbe to this discusion group so please exuse me if I am not responding
to this email correctly.
Unfortunately given your statement above it's difficult to tell just where
you
are coming from. Do you believe that you have mastered BW conversion from
direct digital
Globe Theatre Cafe is booked for 6.30pm next Saturday, May 7th. YIKES.
Time waits for no Pentaxian.
Hopefully meeting next weekend by the Thames in London are:
Stan
Jostein
Mike W
Mark Roberts
Gianfranco
NORM!
Adelheid
John Forbes
Steve Jolly
Billy Abbbot
Alistair the lurker
and of course me.
Derby, haven't you heard? Leaf film is dead
Norm
Derby Chang wrote:
This is pretty cool.
http://www.grand-illusions.com/roman.htm
Can anyone tell me if the Adobe DNG converter is a stand-alone application,
or does it function only as a PSCS plug-in?
An article I read, as well as Adobe's webpage for DNG
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html
had me believing that it was a stand-alone app, but when I linked to the
Thanks Shel, that's exactly what I wanted to hear :-)
regards,
Anthony Farr
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I use it as a stand alone program. It's not even on the same drive as
Photoshop.
Shel
I don't have one, but from what I've gathered it's a fine lens, and
relatively rare. Based on that information
I'd say you're likely to pay an arm and a leg, possibly with an ear
or two thrown in.
John Whittingham wrote:
I know one of you guys must haveone, could you give me an opinion
of the
Exactly what one would expect shooting with a
wide-angle lens. I would have moved closer to include
less of the grey crushed stone foreground. Otherwise,
very nice again.
Rick
--- P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet another in the boathouse series...
Probably some distortion here, the
Bored at home, so I did some scanning. Here are some of the results for
your delectation. Enjoy and comment if you see fit.
I'm still having problems getting the pictures suitably sized for the
fotocom site.
http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042978
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Apr 29, 2005, at 10:22 AM, mike wilson wrote:
... When are you next in the UK?
I'll be in the UK from May 25 to June 15. From June 2 to June 13 I'll be
on the Isle of Man, but I could arrange to meet between my arrival and
when I head for the Isle, long as I get to
Hi folks,
The May PUG is available on my website AND on the komkon server.
http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/05may
and http://pug.komkon.org
Cheers
Adelheid
Hi!
Most interested in comments on this one.
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/path.jpg (500k)
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/path-s.jpg (150k)
Shel, for starters, whatever I am going to say, it is *not* intended to
attack or offend, ok?
So, it is difficult for me, at my level, to decide
Hi!
Ignore the first three - no Pentax gear involved - last pic with A*85mm f/1.4
http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/spare6.html
Oh, the plasticity (TM) is very high on all these images :).
Seriously, Cotty, I could definitely learn a trick or two, or may be
even three from you.
Boris
Hi!
Or go to Canon for extra plasticity. ;) No offense Boris.
None taken... You owe me a buck :).
Boris
Hi!
Another in the series of mailboxes. This is just a first rough copy ... a
slightly different framing may appear in the final print. Both links lead
to the same pic. Just trying to see if and where the longer link gets
broken.
http://tinyurl.com/cmw4a
I tried once 20% extrapolation.
good conversion
What you mean by this?
I use ImageSize option in PS without any layers..is that not efficient?
Thanks
Ramesh
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Why and How I switched to
I assume you also do resampling..
what method you use for resampling?
Thanks
Ramesh
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:51:19 -0700
This is some excellent stuff yall! I'll check out the software
references and JPG file questions and respond off-line to avoid
dragging everyone else thru this. All this happend at a bad time that
I'm going to be away from the computer for a few days.I will be
responding with follow up
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 02:56:52AM +1000, Anthony Farr wrote:
Can anyone tell me if the Adobe DNG converter is a stand-alone application,
or does it function only as a PSCS plug-in?
The DNG converter is a stand-alone application, but it always seems
to come packaged with a version of the Adobe
i have found that Velvia scans at 4000dpi, good technique, and top quality
lenses are still better in detail, but that anything less than the best
technique and lenses and the *istD is better, when using the same lens.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL
I don't have one, but from what I've gathered it's a fine lens, and
relatively rare.
I'm really curious now, I've not managed to find a single image produced by
one, yet there's any number produced by the 15mm f/3.5 on the various
internet sites.
I'd say you're likely to pay an arm and a
I have the downloads already. I'll know in a day or so if a DNG made from a
RAF raw file is supported. However the Pixmantec website says that DNG is
supported without specifying any exceptions. If DNG is meant to be a
universal format then this would be disappointing, as well as inconsistent
Better to look for the A 20mm f2.8 as the 18mm is in fact a 19mm.
Thanks Andre, the A 20mm f/2.8 fetches good money, I've always missed the
bargain ones, is the 20mm really 20mm :)
John
Hi Mike
I really like the first one with *that look*.
The second one is an interesting view and the third does not a lot for me...
thanks for showing it
Markus
-Original Message-
From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:01 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Jeff Geilenkirchen wrote:
Does anyone here use iPhoto with the istD*? If so, how do you it?
If not, can anyone recommend some Photo management software I can use?
In the past I've been just dealing with managing it in the folders and
directories manually. I would really like to take advantage
You'll get superior results if you upsize your pic when you convert
rather than in PhotoShop. I almost always convert my *istD images as
144 megabyte 16-bit files. That gives me a lot to work with, and
they're the perfect size for making 360 dpi inkjets on 13 x 19 paper.
Of course I change the
If you can find one for $200.00, don't hesitate a moment - buy it! Think
in terms of $500+
I like mine quite a bit, generally preferring it over the 15mm only because
of size. I think the 15mm may be a bit sharper at the edges, but I can't
confirm that as I've not done a side-by-side,
I believe that. I've rarely shot Velvia, but I know it's reputation.
However, that puts the *istD in pretty good company.
On Apr 30, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Herb Chong wrote:
i have found that Velvia scans at 4000dpi, good technique, and top
quality lenses are still better in detail, but that
Markus Maurer wrote:
Hi Mike
I really like the first one with *that look*.
The second one is an interesting view and the third does not a lot for me...
thanks for showing it
I agree about the first. It's a pity that I cannot get a good scan of
the slide. The second did not work precisely as I
Good work as always. Thanks.
Adelheid v. K. wrote:
Hi folks,
The May PUG is available on my website AND on the komkon server.
http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/05may
and http://pug.komkon.org
Cheers
Adelheid
I like mine quite a bit, generally preferring it over the 15mm only because
of size. I think the 15mm may be a bit sharper at the edges, but I can't
confirm that as I've not done a side-by-side, head-to-head
comparison. I've only used a 15mm a couple of times.
It sounds great, I expect it
I missed the PUG deadline, (I was rebuilding my entire computer network
it seems), but I had this great concept, I even had a couple of shots,
not good ones but shots none the less. So here for everyones
edification or derision is my concept for the PUG theme this month.
One sold on e-bay recently, I think it went for $700+. I would have
loved to bid but it was way beyond my reach when I found it.
John Whittingham wrote:
I don't have one, but from what I've gathered it's a fine lens, and
relatively rare.
I'm really curious now, I've not managed to find
I spent an hour walking around downtown Birmingham, Michigan this
afternoon with the *istD and the thirty-year-old Vivitar Series 1
70/210/3.5. This snap was shot at f3.5, 1/1500, ISO 400, 210mm. I'm
growing quite fond of this ancient manual focus zoom.
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, John Whittingham wrote:
That rare, $200+?
Seeing as know your history, you may be able to find one at that price
:-) I think 3 times as much is more like it.
Kostas
Methinks this is a bogus comparison. Herb is comparing the results of
scanned film to original digital output. In another post Godfrey is
comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. Once the
image on a piece of film has been scanned, it's degraded. The pixels react
with
Some very nice pics here. I love John Forbes' entry. Fun shot, nicely
framed and well executed.
Paul
On Apr 30, 2005, at 3:40 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Good work as always. Thanks.
Adelheid v. K. wrote:
Hi folks,
The May PUG is available on my website AND on the komkon server.
Hi Shel,
It's not bogus. Its a comparison of what is accessible to most
photographers working with a normal budget. I can get nice drum scans
of film images at the local pro lab -- for $150 a pop. Optical prints,
on the other hand, are almost extinct. It's hard to find a lab that
doesn't work
I love the head-to-head comparison and the somewhat similar expression on
the two faces. The pic may be stronger by loosing about 1/4 or so of the
image off the bottom, allowing the viewer to concentrate more on the faces
and heads. I just moved the image up and down in the browser window to see
A softer image was not wanted. It was specifically intended to look, as
you say, overdone. The bright area is intended to be just as it is. The
crop and framing is exactly the way it was envisioned. Whether you care
for it or not is, of course, a very personal thing. The image was made to
I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried
about printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with
*istD, and miss it. To reach 35mm pixel freedom..:-), I may have
to do few upgrades.
I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the
same
Does anyone know if either CS or CS 2 will run okay on an AMD Athlon
1.33 Ghz processor?
Adobe refuses to answer an e-mail question about this. Instead I am
referred to the web site, where (for CS) only Intel processors are
listed. This includes Pentium IV, which is equivalent to the above
Better to look for the A 20mm f2.8 as the 18mm is in fact a 19mm.
Thanks Andre, the A 20mm f/2.8 fetches good money, I've always missed the
bargain ones, is the 20mm really 20mm :)
John
Yes.
Andre
No it's not, the leaf has to be alive...
Norman Baugher wrote:
Derby, haven't you heard? Leaf film is dead
Norm
Derby Chang wrote:
This is pretty cool.
http://www.grand-illusions.com/roman.htm
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx
Hmmm...
Think I've seen those kids before...
The first one seems to have less of a blue cast than the previous of
the same model, the red for danger shot.
http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/pcat/101540/display/2593413
The fisheye shot makes me dizzy (ok, I'm well through my second pint
of
Sure it is Paul. Just because most people do it these days doesn't mean
the film image isn't being degraded substantially along the path of digital
output. Let's just forget about using good scanners and good equipment
for the time being, how difficult is it to get slide film properly
I refuse to have an Intel box in my house, (lots of reasons lets not go
into it). I'm running Photoshop 5.5 on windows 98 on one AMD 2.5Ghz box
and Photoshop 7.0 on a Win2k AMD 3.5Ghz box. I've yet to run into any
Photoshop problems with either. I can't say that you'll have no
problems with
Jostein wrote:
Hmmm...
Think I've seen those kids before...
The first one seems to have less of a blue cast than the previous of the
same model, the red for danger shot.
http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/pcat/101540/display/2593413
Not sure if this is because it is a different film (rfd was
Joe,
Some time ago I joined the Adobe User-to-User forum (
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.ee6b366 ) where there are
quite a number of experts hanging out and discussing the program. Every
day some of the developers show up to join in the conversations. It's a
good place to visit
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
snip
What we have is the dumbing down of quality, pure and simple. And because
it's easier and cheaper to do things in such a way, it's become more
acceptable.
snip
I'm not sure it is even that. Easier? Well, if you were colour
printing before, maybe. Cheaper? Not a
Hi Joe,
Yes, I think it will run nicely on an Athlon. I've never heard of any
processor compatibility issues with AMD and Photoshop.
The processor frequency is certainly no problem. When travelling, I
run CS off a Intel Centrino 1,1 GHz.
Hope building your new machine goes smoothly.
Jostein
Sort of like, this original kodachrome is so much better than this print made
from a snapshot on a color copier. Grin!
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Methinks this is a bogus comparison. Herb is
Thanks Shel. Good suggestion.
Paul
On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:19 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I love the head-to-head comparison and the somewhat similar
expression on
the two faces. The pic may be stronger by loosing about 1/4 or so of
the
image off the bottom, allowing the viewer to concentrate more
You can put in a pretty nice color darkroom for the price of an ist-Ds, much less an
Imacon. However, I seem to remember this started as a digital BW thread, and if
you can not put in a small format BW darkroom today for $250 or so, your have not
been watching ebay.
graywolf
CS runs fine on my AMD Thunderbird 900MHZ
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Joseph Tainter wrote:
Does anyone know if either CS or CS 2 will run okay on an AMD Athlon
1.33 Ghz processor?
Adobe refuses to answer an e-mail
Digital compares favorably with a good film image. No, in fact, a 6.1
megapixel digital image is better than almost any 35mm film image.
That's true even with great scans and expert printing. As Herb notes,
perhaps only Velvia can equal or better it. It quickly becomes obvious
once you've
Another from today's walkaround. Again, this was shot wide open with
the Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5. Who says you can't get a nice constant
ap zoom for less than a hundred bucks?
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3322567
Hi Paul
a really fun photo and the Vivitar does indeed take sharp shots.
Can you try shooting with a 2x extender wide open with that zoom to let see
whether it is still usable and show me a photo?
I will soon have some swan shots with the A70-210mm and Pentax A2s extender
at 210mm F4 amd ISO 400
On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:47 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Cheaper? Not a chance. Gross capital investment is needed and then
there is the possibility of further expenditure. It only adds up if
you were using a lot of film previously.
I can't imagine not shooting a lot of film -- or a lot of digital.
i think that is mostly wishful thinking. when a scanner can pick up bubbles
in the emulsion that an optical enlargement can't, it's clear that the scan
is capturing more detail than any optical technique can deliver. as far as
color rendition, the mere act of using wet printing paper with much
I'll do that Markus. If I can get out tomorrow, I'll see what I can do
with the Vivitar and the A2X-S. In fact I saw a swan on the lake the
other day. I'll see if I can find him. If not, I may have to settle for
one of Frank's geese :-).
Paul
Paul
On Apr 30, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Markus Maurer
All comments appreciated.
http://oksne.net/paw/IMGP6258-sporehus.html
Thanks for looking, too.
Jostein
On 30/4/05, Adelheid v. K., discombobulated, unleashed:
Hi folks,
The May PUG is available on my website AND on the komkon server.
http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/05may
and http://pug.komkon.org
Cheers
Adelheid
Dag, that shot is fabulous. Butch Black's made me smile. Martin
Albrecht's shot is
On 1/5/05, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:
Seriously, Cotty, I could definitely learn a trick or two, or may be
even three from you.
Boris, that is the nicest thing anyone's ever said to date. I am in your debt.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
On 30/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
I spent an hour walking around downtown Birmingham, Michigan this
afternoon with the *istD and the thirty-year-old Vivitar Series 1
70/210/3.5. This snap was shot at f3.5, 1/1500, ISO 400, 210mm. I'm
growing quite fond of this ancient
On 30/4/05, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed:
All comments appreciated.
http://oksne.net/paw/IMGP6258-sporehus.html
Thanks for looking, too.
Oh. That is class.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
On 30/4/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042997
Interesting !
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Thanks Cotty.
On Apr 30, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 30/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
I spent an hour walking around downtown Birmingham, Michigan this
afternoon with the *istD and the thirty-year-old Vivitar Series 1
70/210/3.5. This snap was shot at f3.5, 1/1500, ISO
Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is pretty cool.
http://www.grand-illusions.com/roman.htm
Saw an article in the past year about an artist who does this kind on
chlorophyll photography on a large scale: He grows lawns, basically,
and uses them as canvasses for photos.
--
Mark Roberts
P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I refuse to have an Intel box in my house, (lots of reasons lets not go
into it). I'm running Photoshop 5.5 on windows 98 on one AMD 2.5Ghz box
and Photoshop 7.0 on a Win2k AMD 3.5Ghz box. I've yet to run into any
Photoshop problems with either. I can't
BW leaf film will be alive and well for a while yet. Film and developer
will always be in plentiful supply.
Just noticed, the camera is a K (shoe) mount.
P. J. Alling wrote:
No it's not, the leaf has to be alive...
Norman Baugher wrote:
Derby, haven't you heard? Leaf film is dead
Norm
Derby
Fair enough, to be honest I rarely use anything wider than 24mm on a 35mm
film camera, but it's always a benefit to have the option IMHO. My late
father had a saying there are two things you can't have too much of - tools
and books I'd have to add lenses to that (probably falls into the tools
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
