I'd use it, but I'm not close enough for a simple drop-off. Try your
local schools or www.freecycle.org
Cheers,
Paul
chuck wrote:
Really, I'd rather drop it off at a charity shop than go thru the
ebay hassles.
Just looking to unload it on someone who would use it.
Not looking for the
Bob Blakely wrote:
You guys are pretty
Mark!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
At least now we know the answer to What if they gave a war and nobody
came but that guy?
P. J. Alling wrote:
Aside from this guy's occasional rants, he seems to explain the issue of
DOF on APS-C digital cameras and makes a good case for FF sensors, for
reasons entirely apart from noise and
Or the MZ-S and other recent models are still finding use.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting. It suggests that we aren't likely to part with our Spotmatics,
but MZ-S and other recent models? Put 'em on ebay.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: William Robb
It wants more space on the sides and bottom.. maybe it'd do well in a square
format.
The only other things that stick out are the tilt to the right, the whatever in
the
upper left, and the hot spot on the bread. Otherwise it's a lovely still-life.
Cheers,
Paul
Walter Hamler wrote:
I have this problem where wide-angle landscapes shot in portrait
orientation feel like two photos with lower part looking down and the
upper part looking out. They never come together as a cohesive whole.
Despite that I like this photo a great deal. The subtlety in colors and
composition are
In the US you can exhibit photos of people all you want without proving
anything. The
problems typically come up when you use a photo in a way that may endorse
something. See
http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf
Igor Roshchin wrote:
Bill,
I am not sure about
Neither the model or National Geographic own the photo, the photographer
does. (By default that is, yes alternate arrangements are [too] often
made.) It's the owner who gets to put it up on their website, or sell
prints, or license it for use in National Geographic (print edition
only,
That's just a cop-out to never have to decide what's right and what's wrong.
Bran Everseeking wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:22:55 -0800
Paul Crovella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But law shouldn't matter in any of this. The photographer should be
able to do the right thing without having his
It's also the case that where other shots have been done before that this one
in
particular has been done before to death and this shot has no interest
whatsoever to set
it above the rest of the cliches.
At best there's a couple pretty colors in the background but that's nothing to
save it
It's an amusing abstract. Made me smile.
Cheers,
Paul
John Celio wrote:
http://www.neovenator.com/2007/11/you-have-good-thanksgiving-i-sure-did.html
I'm having a hard time describing why I love this photo. My description on
the blog post doesn't quite do it.
Your feelings about the
The thick, out-of-focus stick is distracting, but bringing it into focus
doesn't help. It's the thickness of it that makes it seem ungainly among
the reeds.
Cheers,
Paul
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Thanks for the clarification!
It's interesting ... that's three comments on this list preferring
That works for me.
Cheers,
Paul
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Based on your and Paul's responses, and studying the photo a bit
further, what I think works is to soften the intensity of the large
dark twig by a bit to reduce its weight in the scene. That achieves
the idea I had in mind.
The shadows are from where only one flash (+ambient) is illuminating,
the area around the shadow is being lit by both.
Jack Davis wrote:
Only for the sake of discussion (actually I can't discuss the question,
only raise it), why don't two lights (540 flash units for example) wash
out or
In 6-8 years people will have come to expect HD video, which I believe
is shot at around 10MP. (At least that's what the Red was shooting at
last time I looked.)
Cheers,
Paul
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Waay to much trouble to use film for this one. You'd have to scan all
the images, and that
There's too much tension with his foot _almost_ touching the edge of the
frame. Some more space on that side would've done it good.
Nice tones though.
Cheers,
Paul
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Only a few weeks to go in 2007...
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/48.htm
Comments,
PEF to fit more on the card and convert to compressed DNG automagically
while importing to the computer.
Cheers,
Paul
Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote:
Hi,
Which do you use as K10D Raw, PEF or DNG?
Antti-Pekka
Antti-Pekka Virjonen
Computec Oy
There are plenty of shots in there were he hasn't cut off anything at
all, though he easily could have, so it's not like he's just looking to
chop off body parts.
I don't see any indication that any of the crops produce anything other
than a desired effect - including, occasionally,
sharpness is a bourgeois concept
-hcb
Mark Roberts wrote:
William Robb wrote:
From: .timbercode
Depends how you define sharp :D Mirror bokeh is fine with me :D I like
donuts!
Sharp is defined as having high resolution.
sharpness is really a combination of resolution and acutance.
I'm pretty jazzed that this release is supposed to fix the bug where it deems
PEF files
over 16MB to be corrupt.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I downloaded and installed it last night. Their site is being
hammered ... download speed was about 10K bytes per second vs my more
usual 170K bytes
P. J. Alling wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Cotty wrote:
A misunderstanding after he had too much to drink?
What, the bike led him on? Didn't shout no?
He spoke too soon...
meh, whatever turns your crank
This
That building in 47e is surprisingly difficult to photograph. I know
there are interesting compositions in it, but just have a hell of a time
trying to pull them out. It looks like you've suffered the same fate
here. The picture is almost good. It wants to be good. But it missed.
Cheers,
Paul
Putting the horizon straight through the middle isn't always a bad thing, and
isn't
necessarily here either. You did it with intention and if it's accomplished
your goals
don't worry about what anyone else thinks.
What I see it doing here is juxtaposing a static composition with active
Tom, you're part right. Enjoying art means participating in it and it's
interpretation.
Abstract art especially so. What the viewer brings to the table is important
and a photo
never stands on its own.
If a photo gets someone to think, to consider it, to make associations, and to
participate
nerve and visual cortex.
Tom C.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul
Crovella
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:44 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: PESO 2007 - 46b - GDG
Tom, you're part right. Enjoying art means
That's terrific :)
Jack Davis wrote:
Timely bit of nature which appears to portend an upcoming event..in
much of the world.
Shot as a lark only, but comments welcome!
Jack
http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=255
K10D, FA 80~320 (@ 240), ISO 200, 1/3000 @ f/8.0
Geez, you're right. It's a wonder they ever even went digital at all.
Brendan MacRae wrote:
--- Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thibouille wrote:
Maybe let's imagine the following situation:
You have lots of pics to take and you can't take
the time to change
cards otherwise you
with arguments like yours through rational
discourse
I've instead chosen to just have a little fun at your expense. Life's too short
to get
dragged into the mire.
Cheers,
Paul
Brendan MacRae wrote:
--- Paul Crovella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geez, you're right. It's a wonder they ever even
went
Use the date of creation of the work - i.e. the year you took the picture.
Cheers,
Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Yeah, I've been busy offlist and not participating here much, just
glancing at most-recent threads every so often. Sorry about that.
Hope tochange it soon ...)
My ex-housemate
Copyright protection begins automatically at creation, though you're right that
it's
most common for the year of the copyright notice to read the year of the first
publication of the work.
Cheers,
Paul
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Nov 1, 2007, at 1:09 PM, Paul Crovella wrote:
Use the date
That's quite nice as is. If you do more to it please keep it restrained.
Cheers,
Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 10/31/2007 11:43:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Oct 31, 2007, at 9:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Congratulations on your incredible foresight. But keep in mind that just
because you
can't figure out out to utilize a tool doesn't mean the tool isn't useful.
Cheers,
Paul
Brendan MacRae wrote:
Rght.
Welcome my friends to the Land of Highly Improbable
Hypotheticals.
If my skill as
It's a decent shot though I wish there was a bit more building there to
support the cage.
Cheers,
Paul
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
From Alcatraz ... a severe place.
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/44c.htm
Comments, critique, etc always appreciated.
best,
Godfrey
--
You're equating a person's account of first hand experience with
unsupported conjecture.
Cotty wrote:
On 28/9/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've yet to see a wide-angle shot taken with
a FF sensor that doesn't have soft or dark edges and corners.
snip /
The sentence is as
John Celio wrote:
They can afford to charge more for Pentax because they're not such hot
sellers.
You're saying BH works opposite the principle of supply and demand?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
they don't sell is ludicrous.
Paul Crovella wrote:
John Celio wrote:
They can afford to charge more for Pentax because they're not such
hot sellers.
You're saying BH works opposite the principle of supply and demand?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman
Adam Maas wrote:
Paul Crovella wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
Pentax lenses, which are in lower supply and demand, have a restricted
number of sellers
Adam, yes, *that* is supply and demand. The supply is low and while the
demand isn't huge, it's big enough in relation to supply to keep prices up
The Socialists tend to be those who remain immersed in or at least associated
with one or more Universities for a large part of their lives. Why IS that?
(That's a rhetorical question...)
Suppose they can't make it on their own, without the crutch of claiming
membership in some ivy-covered
I use my shirt. :/
-paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think with protective coverings, the cure is worse than the ailment. I just
clean mine with a microfiber cloth and lens cleaning spray. Looks good as new.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Scott Loveless
Paul Stenquist wrote:
That's certainly not true in the US. Socialists are almost all
academics or students. The working class socialists are a relic of
the 1930s.
Paul
I am? I should really be retired by now.
-paul
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Republican rhetoric cracks me up. Frightened of higher education and
peer-reviewed research they attack it for not following their own
political fashion.
The more time one tends to be in Academia, the more likely one will
become a Utopian of whatever bent is politically fashionable.
-Adam
Adam Maas wrote:
I'm hardly a Republican (hell, I'm not even American).
Well I'll tell ya, you'd fit right in!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
By US standards that would make me a moderate democrat
Which may as well be republican. The democratic party in this country
hasn't represented the left in a long time.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
There is a great deal of Buddhist philosophy, but Buddhism is indeed
a religion. People who claim otherwise typically have some general
aversion to religion but find themselves agreeing with, or least being
not so bothered by, Buddhism. They still want to be angry with
religion so to reconcile
I vote to keep the windsurfer. It's a fantastic detail in a lovely shot.
I think it's great that something occupying so little of the photo is
commanding so much attention. Without it you've got just another picture
of the SF Bay. (In a related story:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/36577
45 matches
Mail list logo
