In a message dated 7/18/2006 7:42:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll be pleased to see your treatment if you'd like. :))
Jack
===
As promised.
http://members.aol.com/eactivist/wildoats2.jpg
But I think the adjustments I made are so minor that there is little real
On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:55 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=137
http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=138
I like the extra streaks at the left of the first one, but I also
think that the second one works very well.
I think I'd prefer a
No - that didn't work at the time I tried it - that was a
broken link to a page on the Macromedia web site. It has
now been replaced by a working link to a page on the Adobe
site (and the link now says Download Macintosh or Windows
Beta). As I said, the email was alittle premature; they
hadn't
On Jul 19, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Tom Reese wrote:
For those who haven't seen the Pentax collars, the foot has a
removable metal plate with a standard tripod thread in the center
of it. The foot also has two smaller holes that could be useful to
stabilize the lens if anyone made a QR plate
PJ,
I like the first one much better than the second. For me it just has
more interest throughout the frame. I don't see the girl as the
subject so much in this one as the setting.
If the distant island wasn't there it would not work as well, but I
just sense something special about the
On 18.07.2006, at 21:33 , Mark Roberts wrote:
My other Limiteds (43, 31, 77) are all f/1.9 or faster. That's a lot
more than a third of a stop! F/2.0 and under is Limited territory for
me. I'd *consider* the upcoming 70/2.4 if it were under $500 (and if
I didn't already have the 77!)
Yes,
.-)
That was a nicely phrased warning. I think something like Warning:
naked child would only make things worse for those who DID look.
OK, maybe I should have warned you, sorry about that. It´s just that
the thought didn´t occure to me. I´ve seen naked children running
around in many
Den 19. jul. 2006 kl. 06.38 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In a message dated 7/18/2006 3:24:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Just a summer picture:
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=247689
*istD and DA 14mm 2.8
DagT
===
Gotta say my first
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/07/18 Tue PM 10:47:01 GMT
To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: ZX-5n
On 18/7/06, Walter Hamler, discombobulated, unleashed:
I am considering selling my only film camera body as I am so happy with
digital. If anyone is interested I will
Shouldn't you be working instead of browsing the PDML?
vbg
Dave (at work)
On 7/19/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that it's a beautiful photo of an innocent child. But that
being said, I don't want to lose my job. So a warning would be nice.
Not Office Friendly is a
At 02:59 PM 19/07/2006, Sylwek wrote:
On 18.07.2006, at 21:33 , Mark Roberts wrote:
My other Limiteds (43, 31, 77) are all f/1.9 or faster. That's a lot
more than a third of a stop! F/2.0 and under is Limited territory for
me. I'd *consider* the upcoming 70/2.4 if it were under $500 (and
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Mark Roberts wrote:
Walter Hamler wrote:
I am considering selling my only film camera body as I am so happy with
digital. If anyone is interested I will give you a good price.
Is film dead?
I dunno, but my MZ-S on eBay has had 7 bids and met the $500.00
reserve price
On 19.07.2006, at 11:06 , David Savage wrote:
They're cheaper because they're slower.
I bet if they had made it f1.9, it would be similarly priced to
it's full
frame big brothers. Admittedly it would be physically larger
weightier as
well
Exactly - that's what we're talking about :-)
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, David Savage wrote:
At 02:59 PM 19/07/2006, Sylwek wrote:
On 18.07.2006, at 21:33 , Mark Roberts wrote:
My other Limiteds (43, 31, 77) are all f/1.9 or faster. That's a lot
more than a third of a stop! F/2.0 and under is Limited territory for
me. I'd *consider* the
On 7/19/06, Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19.07.2006, at 11:06 , David Savage wrote:
They're cheaper because they're slower.
I bet if they had made it f1.9, it would be similarly priced to
it's full
frame big brothers. Admittedly it would be physically larger
Nice work Mark.
My faves are Fungus and Twig Lichen and Leaves.
Your not a sad gid but a fun guy ;-)
BTW I like the updated website
Cheers,
Dave
On 7/12/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After yesterday's discovery of that old fungus shot, I decided to
revamp my fungus photo
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/07/19 Wed AM 09:36:45 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SV: 21mm limitted is a jewel ...
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, David Savage wrote:
At 02:59 PM 19/07/2006, Sylwek wrote:
On 18.07.2006, at 21:33 , Mark
David Savage wrote:
Nice work Mark.
My faves are Fungus and Twig Lichen and Leaves.
Your not a sad gid but a fun guy ;-)
BTW I like the updated website
I'm glad you've taken a lichen to it ;-)
--
Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
--
PDML
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/07/19 Wed AM 11:22:27 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: More Fungus!
David Savage wrote:
Nice work Mark.
My faves are Fungus and Twig Lichen and Leaves.
Your not a sad gid but a fun guy ;-)
BTW I like
I agree, going to try this shot again with the tops of the towers to see
what I can get.
-Adam
Jens Bladt wrote:
Ceautiful picture. The contrats dark/bright buildings adds depth.
Since it's favorite subject, it would be nice to also see the top of the two
towers ;-)
Regards
Jens Bladt
Rick, I include a hard link to a larger version in each post just for
guuys like you. Try the second link. And thanks for liking the shot.
-Adam
Rick Womer wrote:
Great shot, Adam. Old v new, but with the lighting
and atmospheric conditions just right.
But jeez, could you post your shots
mike wilson wrote:
I'm not allowed to view this page at my college. Why?
Well, some of the fungi shown on my site are under 18 years old...
Can you view other parts of my web site or just this page?
We're talking about this, right?
http://www.robertstech.com/fungus.htm
(Perhaps I mis-typed the
On Jul 19, 2006, at 5:50 AM, David Savage wrote:
I hope that's not the case for any future limited lenses. If it is,
then I doubt I'll buy any of them. I'm not tempted by either the 21 or
70. I want fast primes, not small.
There are these three other Limited lenses available, just for you.
On 7/19/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 5:50 AM, David Savage wrote:
I hope that's not the case for any future limited lenses. If it is,
then I doubt I'll buy any of them. I'm not tempted by either the 21 or
70. I want fast primes, not small.
There are
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/07/19 Wed PM 12:26:02 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: More Fungus!
mike wilson wrote:
I'm not allowed to view this page at my college. Why?
Well, some of the fungi shown on my site are under 18 years
Thanks, Marnie. Me too.
Jack
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/18/2006 8:08:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Came upon this scene some time back and quickly pulled over (I
usually
just slow down G) for a quick hand held grab.
Clouds (not jet con
istDL, 200mm f/4 SMC, iso 800. The image is cropped about 50%.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/newtmaker/IMGP24115x7cropweb.jpg
Walt
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Jul 19, 2006, at 8:36 AM, David Savage wrote:
I hope that's not the case for any future limited lenses. If it is,
then I doubt I'll buy any of them. I'm not tempted by either the 21
or
70. I want fast primes, not small.
There are these three other Limited lenses available, just for
On Jul 19, 2006, at 8:03 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
I agree, going to try this shot again with the tops of the towers to
see
what I can get.
I was going to say, the elements that are close to being whole but that
get cut off at the top and bottom of the frame both distract me -- half
a step
I'll apologize for belaboring dial-up systems and hope I'll eventually
get the idea.
Thanks for encouraging remarks.
Jack
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/18/2006 9:57:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce,
I'll just go ahead and embarrass myself (my
I may fiddle with it and try a new upload. I sorta hate putting up the
same shot numerous times and asking for guidance.
But then, I may just move on.
Your version seems a little 'flat' to me. I should have given you more
to work with.
Thanks.
Jack
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message
Thanks, David,
You're in the majority with your choice. While I didn't enhance it at
all, I agree that the saturation seems borderline high. The grasses do
have sort of a golden hue to the eye at times.
Jack
--- David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:55 AM, Jack Davis
Bruce Dayton wrote:
I've looked at this one a couple of times. Funny, but I like it the
way it was presented, but I also like it with the upper portion
cropped off, just leaving the boats. It makes for a totally different
picture and very cool one at that.
Nice job!
--
Bruce
hehe
I've sent several emails to both your addresses but apparently they
aren't getting through.
Have you received the 1.7x AF converter I shipped to you?
--
Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
There are these three other Limited lenses available, just for you. ;)
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
--
Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
An interesting shot from space:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060719.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: Calling Powell Hargrave!
I've sent several emails to both your addresses but apparently they
aren't getting through.
HAR!!!
The impossible to email man is getting some of his own back...
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
You should be ashamed.
Mark Roberts wrote:
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
There are these three other Limited lenses available, just for you. ;)
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and
That's a lovely shot.
Walter Hamler wrote:
istDL, 200mm f/4 SMC, iso 800. The image is cropped about 50%.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/newtmaker/IMGP24115x7cropweb.jpg
Walt
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
--
PDML
I haven't. but maybe Powel has...
Mark Roberts wrote:
I've sent several emails to both your addresses but apparently they
aren't getting through.
Have you received the 1.7x AF converter I shipped to you?
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Nice catch! Held up great for such a heavy crop @ 800 ISO.
Jack
--- P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's a lovely shot.
Walter Hamler wrote:
istDL, 200mm f/4 SMC, iso 800. The image is cropped about 50%.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/newtmaker/IMGP24115x7cropweb.jpg
In a message dated 7/19/2006 6:08:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll apologize for belaboring dial-up systems and hope I'll eventually
get the idea.
Thanks for encouraging remarks.
Jack
===
Later when I watched some other pictures take a long time to load, realized
Excellent. He's studying you.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Walter Hamler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
istDL, 200mm f/4 SMC, iso 800. The image is cropped about 50%.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/newtmaker/IMGP24115x7cropweb.jpg
Walt
--
PDML
Mark Roberts wrote:
David Savage wrote:
Nice work Mark.
My faves are Fungus and Twig Lichen and Leaves.
Your not a sad gid but a fun guy ;-)
BTW I like the updated website
I'm glad you've taken a lichen to it ;-)
--
Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, P. J. Alling wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
You should be ashamed.
Absolutely. They are silver.
But I can (sort of) see where porn comes into play: the black cap
reminds me of Cleese in his socks in A Fish
On 7/19/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
Not as porntastic as yours but here's my mixed bag...
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/IMGP5070.jpg
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
I couldn't resist trying another (and last) upload with a larger file.
I realize it's contrasty, but as I explained before, it suits my taste
for this image. I know it won't be to everyone's palate.
Last request for comments. Thanks.
Jack
http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=140
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/07/19 Wed PM 02:43:11 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SV: 21mm limitted is a jewel ...
On 7/19/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
Not
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/07/19 Wed PM 02:43:11 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SV: 21mm limitted is a jewel ...
On 7/19/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
Not
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 10:36:45AM +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, David Savage wrote:
At 02:59 PM 19/07/2006, Sylwek wrote:
On 18.07.2006, at 21:33 , Mark Roberts wrote:
My other Limiteds (43, 31, 77) are all f/1.9 or faster. That's a lot
more than a third of
On 7/19/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just mean that when the DA Limited lineup overlaps directly on the FA
lineup (I'm thinking of the 40 - 43 and 70 - 77) and in those instances
the lenses are smaller and slower, I don't think you have to panic --
they're not bigger and
At 11:29 PM 19/07/2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
Just look at how obese that 31mm lens looks compared to even its 43
and 77 mm siblings, never mind the DA21. Pornographic indeed. ]'-)
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
Just look at how obese that 31mm lens looks compared to even its 43
and 77 mm siblings, never mind the DA21. Pornographic indeed. ]'-)
I had the 31 and didn't like it much although it
Very nice, indeed! I'd love to get an owl shot like this - or even to
see an owl. I must be out at the wrong times.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Wednesday, July 19, 2006, 5:44:07 AM, you wrote:
WH istDL, 200mm f/4 SMC, iso 800. The image is cropped about 50%.
WH
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Perhaps another reason that the DA Limiteds are being designed for
compactness and quality rather than speed is that the DSLRs they are
designed to work with produce so much cleaner results at ISO 400 to
1600 than the film SLRs that the prior
I said something about PESOs, didn't I? Well, here is one:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=plenen
There was just *something* about her expression... Not sure if I managed
to capture it, as usual.
Comments welcome.
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Perhaps another reason that the DA Limiteds are being designed for
compactness and quality rather than speed is that the DSLRs they are
designed to work with produce so much cleaner results at ISO 400 to
1600 than the
Seems each time I decide to upload an image I recall it was shot at
least a few years ago. (True of a number of things)
Driving around Lake Tahoe when, suddenly, the light was different.
Next pull-off was, fortunately, where this was shot. I really just
stopped to check out what was going on with
On 7/18/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
Well, Sigma does make a 20mm f1.8 just for folks like you.
But it's bigger than the DS.
Yep, it's a monster, but I have it. Tack sharp, fast, focuses closely.
Lots of fun, even if it does weigh a ton.
But
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
David Savage wrote:
Nice work Mark.
My faves are Fungus and Twig Lichen and Leaves.
Your not a sad gid but a fun guy ;-)
BTW I like the updated website
I'm glad you've taken a lichen to it ;-)
I'm afraid this might mushroom into
Mark Roberts wrote:
I've sent several emails to both your addresses but apparently they
aren't getting through.
Have you received the 1.7x AF converter I shipped to you?
Well, that explains why i now have a 1.7 tele i did not order.
Thanks
You did!
Was it something she just read? A far off sound?
No way of deciding, obviously, but it's the curiosity it provokes
that's intriguing.
The background roadway/walkway doesn't add, but not a real problem for
me.
Jack
--- Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I said something about
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: SV: 21mm limitted is a jewel ...
Not as porntastic as yours but here's my mixed bag...
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/IMGP5070.jpg
Go have a nice little cry.
This is an old picture
I tend to shoot, so far, my IR shots with the R72 fillter, at somewere around
F 4 and shutter of 1/30 or 1/20.
This gives me a histo with mostly midrange pixels, say from 50/60 to 180 plus
or minus. If
i try and get a
good mountain histo 0 to 240 or as close as
http://picasaweb.google.com/sdloveless/July2006/photo#4953492787365543954
Taken from a bridge near Jersey Shore, PA. PZ-1, 28-80 power zoom,
Fuji Superia 800. This is one of my first few photos with a
polarizer. All comments and critiques are greatly appreciated.
--
Scott Loveless
Email was sent to you from my Nanaimo Gallery account which usually gets
through.
I received a notice that I have a parcel so the converter is at the post
office I think. Will find out this afternoon.
Money order was sent to you last Friday.
Any way you can make your email system more
I was just now sitting in my office, and I hear something tapping on the
window. I gently open the louvered shades and this is what I see. A
turkey hen with two chicks, maybe even the same one I was so frustrated
trying to get a good shot of with the SMC-P FA 28-200mm is standing not
three
We know and you still suck...
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: SV: 21mm limitted is a jewel ...
Not as porntastic as yours but here's my mixed bag...
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/IMGP5070.jpg
Go have a nice little cry.
Powell Hargrave wrote:
Email was sent to you from my Nanaimo Gallery account which usually gets
through.
I received a notice that I have a parcel so the converter is at the post
office I think. Will find out this afternoon.
Money order was sent to you last Friday.
Any way you can make your
A large part of a wider maximum aperture is easier focusing, weather
autofocus or manual an F2 lens will lock a lot faster than an F3.5. My
SMC Takumar 35mm f3.5 gives excellent results on film and digital but
it's a PITA to achieve precise focus, under anything other than the
brightest
Driving from Astoria, OR to the Olympic Peninsula, WA, we passed
through Aberdeen, WA. Thought later I should have gone back to the car
and gotten a flash just to say I'd tried it.
The foreground being a homogeneous tone strikes me as the way I would
have chosen it anyway. Just didn't give myself
I know, I said last birds for awhile...if we could define awhile as a
very short period of time, I complied grin. It's just that these
two were hanging around during my morning walk this morning.
Pentax *istD, Tokina AT-X SD 400/5.6, Handheld
ISO 400, 1/500 sec @ f/5.6
This shot just brings to mind a voodoo doll just made and ready to be
used. The other strange thought that came to me was Marvin the
Martian.
Pentax *istD, Tokina AT-X SD 400/5.6, Handheld
ISO 200, 1/750 sec @ f/5.6
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3177a.htm
Comments welcome.
--
Bruce
All she wanted to tell you was that she is in control of when she'll
allow herself to be photographed. :)
Another reminder of how it always pays to keep a camera close by.
Beautiful grounds around you place of work.
Very nice shot. Will be fun to PS, as you said.
Jack
--- P. J. Alling [EMAIL
On 7/19/06, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You should be ashamed.
I assure you:
I met him and I know him. Mark Roberts has no shame.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Like it. Can imagine the scene in the Fall with placid river
reflections.
While I like seeing all of the far right tree, I'd probably wind up
either cropping off or cloning out the rather bright building.
Thanks for the peek.
Jack
--- Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Toralf,
I can see what you mean about the expression. It does seem to kind of
hang on to you and make you keep looking. Almost like you are trying
to see what she is seeing/thinking. I like this one in BW. Thanks
for sharing.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Wednesday, July 19, 2006, 9:06:01
Love the image in general. I pulled it down and played with
saturation just a bit - if you bring up the saturation a little, some
really warm orange hues come up nicely - I rather like it, gives it a
warmer morning feeling.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Wednesday, July 19, 2006, 9:16:18 AM, you
Hello Scott,
I mostly like it. The issues can be most dealt with in a crop. I
find the left bank to be of no value to the picture, and the left side
of the sky kind of hazes out. So I would crop the left side off.
Also the sky is not really very strong and doesn't need that much
showing. So I
On 7/19/06, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://picasaweb.google.com/sdloveless/July2006/photo#4953492787365543954
Taken from a bridge near Jersey Shore, PA. PZ-1, 28-80 power zoom,
Fuji Superia 800. This is one of my first few photos with a
polarizer. All comments and critiques
This one I have mixed feelings about. It almost feels like there are
two subjects vying for my attention. The foreground logs and the
waterfront buildings. I would almost pick one or the other and make
that subject more dominant. Either cut out the sky/waterfront or most
of the logs in the
Adam, I've started putting that static link right in the picture's
description box on Flickr, so that anyone can just click to see the
larger version.
*UncaMikey
--- Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick, I include a hard link to a larger version in each post
just for guuys like you. Try
On Jul 19, 2006, at 10:19 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Perhaps another reason that the DA Limiteds are being designed for
compactness and quality rather than speed is that the DSLRs they are
designed to work with produce so much cleaner results at ISO 400 to
1600 than the film SLRs that the prior
I'm sure the DA 21mm, unlike the DA 40mm, won't work very well for 35mm
film, but has anyone tried it, just for grins? Any test shots out
there?
*UncaMikey
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
On 19/7/06, Powell Hargrave, discombobulated, unleashed:
[regarding Mark]
Any way you can make your email system more permeable?
MARK!!!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML
On 19/7/06, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
Bit of pixelation on the window.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
You've been shooting digital too long, that's a window screen...
Cotty wrote:
On 19/7/06, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
Bit of pixelation on the window.
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run
I like this as shot. The foreground logs could have stood on their own, but I
like the way they point to the shoreline. The dark foreground is appropriate.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This one I have mixed feelings about. It
On Jul 19, 2006, at 10:56 AM, UncaMikey wrote:
I'm sure the DA 21mm, unlike the DA 40mm, won't work very well for
35mm
film, but has anyone tried it, just for grins? Any test shots out
there?
I haven't seen anything yet, Mike. The DA21 is just getting into the
market and DSLR buyers are
I like this. Peaceful and pleasant. I wouldn't crop out the left bank. It
establishes that this is a river, rather than just the shore of a lake or pond.
I would burn in the sky on the left side of frame, and I would crop a little
off the top as Bruce suggested below.
Paul
--
Bruce,
Appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks,
Jack
--- Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one I have mixed feelings about. It almost feels like there are
two subjects vying for my attention. The foreground logs and the
waterfront buildings. I would almost pick one or the other and
Thanks, Bruce. I just set the light balance to the scene 'til it feels
best to me. It's quietly subdued with only a hint of peach tone
throughout the water.
Certainly appreciate your taking the time to forward comments.
Jack
--- Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Love the image in general.
I certainly could have lobbed off the far shore line buildings, but
found them sorta quaint. In this setting, I don't feel the the logs are
strong enough on their own.
Obvious I suppose, but My feeling is, that they need each other.
Jack
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like this as shot. The
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
My testing of the Sigma 20/1.8 showed it to have poorer wide-open
resolution and contrast than the Canon EF20/2.8.
In addition to your point re contrast, we discussed T-stops the other
day too. I would be very interested to see the T-stop of the
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that you cannot see how a shot is
framed with an f/2.8 maximum aperture vs an f/2 or f/1.8, Mark.
Well it's true. What else can I say?
What lens faster than the 20/2.8 have you gone to with similar FoV?
FA*24/2.0 - which isn't that
Relevant, perhaps not, but certainly interesting. Quite a few people
seem to have both film and digital, and I was just curious if anyone
had tried it. I have to admit, I am tempted by the new K100D, and
compactness is very important to me. Not a big deal, in any event, I
suspect someone will
I'm afraid this might mushroom into another pun thread
Well we'll just have to weed out the good from the bad.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More Fungus!
Mark Roberts wrote:
David Savage wrote:
Nice work Mark.
My
On 7/19/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems each time I decide to upload an image I recall it was shot at
least a few years ago. (True of a number of things)
Driving around Lake Tahoe when, suddenly, the light was different.
Next pull-off was, fortunately, where this was shot. I
I was idly doing some insurance stuff, and I got to wondering if any of my 67
gear still had value on the used market and if I was over-insuring it.
I realize that lenses like the 105mm f2.4 are quite common and virtually
value-less, but did late lenses like the 75mm f2.8 AL retain any value?
Nice capture of an elusive hombre.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Walter Hamler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO - Owl
istDL, 200mm f/4 SMC, iso 800. The image is cropped about 50%.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/newtmaker/IMGP24115x7cropweb.jpg
Walt
--
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
