Bob Sullivan wrote:
Don,
You have to put your personal feelings aside.
We expressed concern for a friend who's country was going to war.
(And John, war is a descriptive term not a political statement.)
I think I'll have to disagree with that. War is of course descriptive
in one sense,
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
So, essentially what you are saying is that you want to retain the
data
exposed to the right past the gain phase because that can only scale
the values in a linear fashion, while the RAW conversion is non-
linear
Eric Featherstone wrote:
On 06/07/06, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was talking about the number of different voltage levels that may be
output from the sensor itself. That number is not necessarily 4096; it
is the analogue-to-digital converter that has 4096 different values
Toralf Lund wrote:
Eric Featherstone wrote:
On 06/07/06, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was talking about the number of different voltage levels that may be
output from the sensor itself. That number is not necessarily 4096; it
is the analogue-to-digital converter
Eric Featherstone wrote:
On 06/07/06, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Eric Featherstone wrote:
On 06/07/06, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was talking about the number of different voltage levels that may be
output from the sensor
I was talking about the number of different voltage levels that may be
output from the sensor itself. [ ... ]
I've thought about it for long enough ... a year or two ago.
There's no point in considering the A/D conversion as separate from
the sensor *because you can't do anything
Bob, you've not been paying attention ;-)) This has been discussed here
several times. I'll let Godders explain it because he does a much better
job than I with this technical stuff. [ ... ]
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
There are a couple of things
Negative film gives the lab about a stop of underexposure and about 3 stops
of over exposure before a good print can't be pulled from it, a jpeg has
about half that latitude.
Doesn't this mean that what we ought to keep in mind is
It is better to overexpose than underexpose
for
Toralf,
I assume you have looked at the foto video Nett pages.
Yep.
Unfortunately, unless they have employed some new staff lately, they
do not have neither compentence or interest in Pentax products. Two
times, they've tried to convince me that whatever Pentax has to offer,
it's
Negative film gives the lab about a stop of underexposure and about 3
stops
of over exposure before a good print can't be pulled from it, a jpeg has
about half that latitude.
Doesn't this mean that what we ought to keep in mind is
It is better to
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
But, but, isn't a similar trick available for digital? Can't you just
reduce the gain a bit and try to get an exposure in the middle (with
the same exposure) rather than aiming for an exposure to the right
But, but, isn't a similar trick available for digital? Can't you just
reduce the gain a bit and try to get an exposure in the middle (with
the same exposure) rather than aiming for an exposure to the right
(with a somewhat higher gain setting)?
- Toralf
No, because of the
I've been in touch with a local dealer about the FA-50/1.4, now. They
say they don't have it in stock, but will be happy to get it for me.
It's going to cost NOK 2550, though, which is equivalent to something
like US$410, I always expect prices to be quite a bit higher here than
in the US, but
Go to www.adorama.com, look for Pentax lenses. Notice the price after
rebate. Adorama has subtracted the rebate valid to 6 July *and* the one
valid *from* 1 July. But surely you won't get both? I'd check if I were
living in the US, though...
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
mike wilson wrote:
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/07/04 Tue AM 09:01:14 GMT
To: Pentax Discuss pdml@pdml.net
Subject: FA-50/1.4 (and 43 limited) price again...
I've been in touch with a local dealer about the FA-50/1.4, now. They
say they don't have it in stock
I've been in touch with a local dealer about the FA-50/1.4, now. They
say they don't have it in stock, but will be happy to get it for me.
It's going to cost NOK 2550, though, which is equivalent to something
like US$410, I always expect prices to be quite a bit higher here than
in the
Frustrating when a picture appears to slant more than it actually does,
but it's unavoidable at this crop.
If the curb were cropped off, a leveling tweak would take care of it.
Gotta say, if it has an it, it escapes me.
I don't know, it's not a picture I was particularly pleased with
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Point 3 isn't valid either. If lab processing is the way you want to
go, you can drop off a memory card at any halfway decent lab and pick
up your prints in a couple of hours. The minilab that used to process
my color neg film claims they can produce even nicer prints
Here is one I might have submitted to the last PUG:
http://www.foto.no/bildegalleri/
- as I asked myself I similar question to what is it? when I saw this.
I mean, what on earth is this all about? I'm still wondering...
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Toralf Lund wrote:
Here is one I might have submitted to the last PUG:
http://www.foto.no/bildegalleri/
Whoops. Sorry. That should be
http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=245087 of course.
- as I asked myself I similar question to what is it? when I saw
this. I mean
Just playing around with the gallery at www.foto.no... Here is another
entry:
http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bilder/vis_bilde.cgi?id=244960
This scene also intrigued me. Perhaps the picture itself needs some work?
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Custom labs will work with RAW, but it will cost you. It's the same
tradeoff that always existed between paying the piper or accepting just
good enough results.
Yes, but in the past the racers would at least start at the same spot.
You'd think that gave the
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I'm guessing the poster is a member of some minority group. However,
the sign is pointless without that information.
Exactly. And I didn't see a sign of any such information, to put it that
way...
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Point 3 isn't valid either. If lab processing is the way you want to
go, you can drop off a memory card at any halfway decent lab and pick
up your prints in a couple of hours. The minilab that used to process
my color neg film claims they can produce even nicer prints from best
quality
And there is also the A50/1.2, of course, but that's 2-3 times as
expensive as the FA50/1.4, and perhaps doesn't perform quite as well
besides the higher speed?
Some folks seem to like it a lot.
I seem to recall someone saying on this list that it wasn't too usable
at f/1.2, and that
Pedro wrote:
Hi,
[ ... ]
Anyway, I am mostly interested in trying street photography and macro.
Currently I have a basic 50mm lens (f1.7), which is not especially
suited for neither...
I happen to have a 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter that I intend to
sell (but I haven't tried very
At any rate, perhaps a comparison with Canon or Nikon would be more
relevant. I've noticed that both these producers offer 50s that are
considerably less expensive than the FA50/1.4.
Canon and Nikon both produce very low cost 50mm lenses in the f/1.8
and f/2 range. While they're not
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Any film camera is not a future purchase at this point in time.
Or maybe you could make that any camera is not a future purchase these
days...
- T
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Now why in the world would you compare an f1.4 with an f2.0?
I would compare a high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens with
another
high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens. Maximum aperture isn't
everything.
I agree with Shel. If I were looking to compare pricing of
The Pentax 50mm f/1.4 lenses are known to be very high quality for
their price and highly desireable. It was/is rumored that they were
discontinued ...
There definitely *is* such a rumour. It's even mentioned several places
on this thread that they were produced until 2004. I doubt that
Some custom labs will now work with RAW.
For the photographer, other than time, what advantage would that offer?
You'd be giving away the control inherent in the process.
If you are going to give away the control in any case, I'd say it's
better to give away the full power of
Yes, they are slower, but
Pentax does not seem to offer a slow 50 - besides the 50 macro, i.e.
the
FA50/1.7 appears to be gone.
Really? Who did you try to purchase one from that refused to buy a new
one from Pentax for you?
So you are saying that Pentax's own price-lists
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
No, I'm saying that there's new, existing stock that no one is attempting to
buy -- if people want them, they can get them.
You mean the 1.7? Not the 1.4?
I just mentioned the former as an aside in any case. I do want the 1.4,
but I would prefer to get a used one if
This fussing about availability by people who don't intend to buy
strikes me as ridiculous.
Or maybe I might want the 1.7 after all, if it is sufficiently cheaper
than the 1.4. Now, you do agree that I shouldn't have to order one in
order to find out what the price is, or if it
Well, what I and others have been trying to say is that judging from
the
used prices the demand would seem to be very high, i.e. there is
something here that just doesn't add up. Could it be that nobody asks
the warehouse because everyone believes the lens is discontinued?
More
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
Sure, but my point is that in a not-small country, no one had checked on
availability in five years -- so why should people be upset if it's no longer
in the catalog? They never made any serious attempt to buy it.
Yes, That's a good point, of course ;-)
-Aaron
People pay too much on eBay every day. I was watching 10 auctions from the
same vendor for identical items. They went for:
$4
$7
$3
$19
$54
$25
$10
$7
$5
$5
Also, people may have heard that the lens was discontinued and paid more
for it without checking.
Yes, that's one of
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.
Have we discussed the price of the FA-50/1.4 before? I sort of want one,
but have found that they tend to be rather expensive - although I think
someone said recently here that they are cheap. I mean, the list price
for a new one isn't really that high, but it seems like used items tend
to go
The current price at BH is 169.95 after rebate.
That's what I paid for a used one on eekBay last year.
Given its quality that IS very cheap.
If I were eligible for the rebate, I think I'd order one from BH. In
fact I'm tempted even though I probably have to pay the full $219.95.
But with
keith_w wrote:
Jens Bladt wrote:
I re-did the FA 1.4/50mm test shot. Put more effort in to focusing. This
time I took off the UV-filter.
Looks a little better: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/177097232/
I do, however, find the M 1.7/50mm to be a tiny bit sharper. If it's at all
possible
Wow 12%. That's impressive, Godfrey.
I know Pentax is often (you must know the good stuff) good value for money.
I just didn't know Leica was that expensive.
Leica gear is generally expensive, and the Summilux (= F/1.4) lenses
even more so than most other equipment. Leica M stuff also tends
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Now why in the world would you compare an f1.4 with an f2.0? That's
ludicrous.
I would compare a high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens with another
high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens. Maximum aperture isn't
everything.
Did you also think it was ludicrous to
mike wilson wrote:
As everyone is posting flower pictures, here's mine.
Converted from RAW in PLab, resized in PS6.
http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/52/extra/new/display/6022920
Not really a good example - I'm still looking for something that shows
clearly what I'm talking about.
Another D, I, P, here, and then some of B and E.
It's not that I forget *completely* all the time, or have absolutely
nothing that might be suitable, or am *that* busy, but so far, the times
I've actually remembered to check the theme, I've been unable find
something suitable directly, and
I'm curious, too. I shoot weddings quite a bit, and I don't even pack
my Tamron 90 macro lens most of the time. About the only shot that
even comes close to needing a macro is something to do with the rings.
And for that, several other Pentax lenses focus close enough.
It's sort of been
Moreover, anti-digital techniques
don't work on conventional film cameras because they have no image sensor.
Seriously???
- T
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I'm amazed that anyone would consider using a home computer
connected to the 'net *without* having firewall software
installed.
I don't know, I've never seen it as *that* necessary if you just connect
one computer directly to an ISP. On such a setup I wouldn't have any
services activated
More mpx in a sensor the same size as the current one might lead to more
noise, or so I've come to understand. However, considering the state of
digital photography these days, that's a problem that should, hopefully, be
overcome by now. What factors will affect the amount of noise generated
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The Leica Panda was distinguished by a mixture of black and silver
finished bits. Note the silver wind lever, shutter speed selector and
rewind crank on the black body ... this was the inverse of the Panda,
thus the name Anti-Panda.
Leica enthusiasts are a little odd
Have a look at this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/PENTAX-smc-P-FA-300mm-F2-8-ED-IF-Telephoto-Lens-NEW_W0QQitemZ8418828475QQcategoryZ15670QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I might be violating the list policy, now, but:
1. I saw an auction with exactly the same text a couple of days ago -
but under a
Juan Buhler wrote:
I had a bit of an epiphany yesterday.
[ ... ]
I still have my Polaroid SprintScan 4000, and I'm happy with its
results. It is SCSI though, which means I have to use it from my old
PC--this is the only reason that PC hasn't been discarded yet.
So, will you be selling the
Have a look at this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/PENTAX-smc-P-FA-300mm-F2-8-ED-IF-Telephoto-Lens-NEW_W0QQitemZ8418828475QQcategoryZ15670QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I might be violating the list policy, now, but:
This listing is gone, now. Also, after looking through recent list posts
again, I realise
http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=232133
Mainly entered because I'm testing the gallery at foto.no, really -
since my own web pages are apparently not available at the moment...
- T
S
On 4/22/06, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=232133
Mainly entered because I'm testing the gallery at foto.no, really -
since my own web pages are apparently not available at the moment...
- T
Glen wrote:
I still don't think the SD / CF issue is very important. I was an XD
user before I bought my *istDS. If you think SD is tiny, take a look
at XD sometime! They're much smaller physically. :)
I also didn't complain when I had to buy an SD card for my Pentax
*istDS, instead of
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 4 Jan 2006 at 18:57, Glen wrote:
Why the bias against SD cards? They supposedly have superior contacts. I
can't think of any real advantage for CF cards.
Seems to me that SD *and* CF are too high-tech/modern for a camera truly
in the K1000 spirit. It should
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
May I humbly suggest punch cards ... more in keeping with the 1960's
tradition LOL
I was thinking that the floppies would have to be 8-inch at least, but
of course - punch cards would be even better ;-)
- T
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Toralf Lund
...wise or foolish? Discuss.
I'm going skiing for the first time at the end of February. [ ... ]
Does anybody have any experiences, hints and tips about Alpine-style
photography that they'd like to share, please?
I was sort of inspired to take a quick trip to the local hill when I
read
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the
list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move
to digital. Who hasn't,
I haven't. But you knew that already.
and who have no plans to do so in the near or
foreseeable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:11:54 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way - DSLR's cost no more than a film scanner. If you choose a
Pentax, you may still use you analog lenses for the next 5-10 years.
Jens Bladt
===
Good advice.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
[ ... ]
I wouldn't pay more than about $100.00 for this unit, and I think I saw
some sell on eBay for less than that.
OK, thanks.
The LS2000, if the price is right,
would make a nice intro to learning about scanning techniques.
You will need a SCSI setup for this
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've come across a used Nikon LS2000. Any opinions on this model? What
do you reckon a unit (allegedly) in good condition is worth?
I've had one for a few years and I was quite happy with it. Due to the
LED light source
scanner - for scanning film.
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 2. december 2005 22:48
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Photo scanner vs real film scanner?
Another scanner question:
Does anyone have
A follow up to the photo/film scanner thread:
I've come across a used Nikon LS2000. Any opinions on this model? What
do you reckon a unit (allegedly) in good condition is worth?
- Toralf
I do not agree with you.
Maybe it depends on type of corner store.
My Lab, which does film scanning writes on CD JPEG files 3072x2048 or
something in size.
They are over sharpened little bit, have grain aliasing problems.
NPH-400 was complete disaster... I'm talking about Noritsu Lab
E.R.N. Reed wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
There are always trade-offs when you make a unit meant to do several
different kinds of jobs, but it seems to me that it should be
possible to make a photo scanner *very nearly* as good for film as
a dedicated film scanner provided that you design
In a message dated 12/1/2005 3:34:04 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think digital will *really* make a difference as and when the actual
media used in the camera becomes so low-cost and reliable that you won't
have to copy the data at all. (But I've probably
Cotty wrote:
Promise me you'll do a little test - shoot the same (well lit) scene in
both RAW and jpeg. Stick them both through PS and bump them both up to
A3. Examine. Report back.
I'll give it a try. I'm just basing that comment on what adobe has said
about interpolation in RAW
Dario Bonazza wrote:
Most Pentax lenses are made by the Pentax plant in Vietnam (aka Nguyen
:-)
My MZ-5n has a label saying Assembled in Philippines. Do Pentax still
produce equipment there?
Dario
- Original Message - From: Ralf R. Radermacher
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Another scanner question:
Does anyone have any opinions of, or experience with, photo scanners
like the Epson 3170 Photo? How do their film scanning capabilities
compare to a real film scanner?
- Toralf
Toralf Lund wrote:
Another scanner question:
Does anyone have any opinions of, or experience with, photo scanners
like the Epson 3170 Photo? How do their film scanning capabilities
compare to a real film scanner?
So you all say they aren't nearly as good? Well let me ask a different
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Not even close -
You have to decide for yourself what quality you're willing to accept, and
that depends in great part on what you intend to do with the scanned
images.
I guess the idea would be to make some quick scans in order to show
people some of my pictures the
A flatbed scanner, regardless of what it's called, whether it has photo
in its name or not, whether or not it has an adapter for film, is not going
to equal a good dedicated film scanner in quality.
There are always trade-offs when you make a unit meant to do several
different kinds of jobs,
I have scanned a number of 35mm frames on the Perfection 3170.
Not Good! You'd have a better image by going to the corner drug store
and getting them placed on an inexpensive small file CD.
Right. Like I said in one of my follow-up posts but should have
mentioned in the original one: One of
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 at 20:24, Toralf Lund wrote:
Actually, I don't believe for one moment that digital photos are
generally free, either (as I've mentioned before.) I just have too much
experience with management of large amounts of data for that. What can
be said
Tom C wrote:
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Doubtless if I shot RAW all the time I would have the ability to get the
very best out of each and every frame. The truth is I don't have the
time to spare sat in front of the Mac. [ ... ]
If I were shooting for a magazine I'd undoubtedly shoot RAW.
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
[ ... ]
I've rigged up a dumpcam script that slurps down all RAW files,
converts to medium-quality JPG using ICC color profile, sharpens, and
saves RAWs. It's pretty much set to auto white-balance, auto-exposure
compensate... just like the camera would have. Then
Before OS X you could not have given me one. Now that they ahave
grown up I would like to have one myself. Someone send me the money.
My feelings exactly. Now that it's UNIX, I'd like to have one too.
That was the first reason why I started to consider Mac. After using
xWindows and
P. J. Alling wrote:
Word is that the new Hassy is made by Fuji.
You mean the actual body? Surely the digital bits are by Imacon?
They didn't so much desert Zeiss and desert themselves...
It seems to me that RAW also ought to be able to give you the same
output as JPEG without requiring extra work, though. All the
information is available, isn't it? I mean, the colour balance
settings etc. applied to the JPEG are stored in the tags of the file
aren't they? So it should
Also, I've never thought a lot about colour balance with film, but
perhaps that's because the lab has done the job for me? I wonder if
there are many labs that will accept raw files and do something
productive with them these days, by the way. Most of the consumer ones
I've come across seem
Also, I've never thought a lot about colour balance with film, but
perhaps that's because the lab has done the job for me? I wonder if
there are many labs that will accept raw files and do something
productive with them these days, by the way. Most of the consumer
ones I've come across
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 at 23:03, Toralf Lund wrote:
I also got a Mac after MacOS became Unix (I also have a Linux box - no
MS software allowed in my home.) A quite liked Macs before that, too,
but using the them did feel a bit like wearing a straitjacket at times.
But now I
There is also the cost of doing the storage job. Moving files around
or writing them to DVD takes time - probably more than handling the negs
in my experience. Then it is a question of how paranoid you are. Should
you trust the DVD media (which does not really have a proven track
record)? Do
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 at 0:32, Toralf Lund wrote:
Tapes are the most commonly used media for backups on large computer
systems. They have a longer expected shelf lifetime than anything else.
In other words a back-up solution not quite equivalent to the cost of DVD
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Jack,
My understanding is that RAW gives you more shades of colors in eachpixel and
more opportunity to adjust colors in post production, butjpeg or RAW, you still
have 6 million pixels to work with...no more,no less. So I look on RAW as just
a way to get better post
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
Jack
Digital. Film, unfortunately, is going the way of the dodo bird.
I've never been able to understand that argument. Well, at least not if
it is a question about whether you should switch from film gear you
already have. I can't see why you should
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Jack,
Not sure I understand your question.
A 6.1 Megapixel image can be represented in files of varying size
depending upon the pixel depth as well as how much and what type of
compression you apply. A 1.5M JPEG rendering might have substantial
compression
Charles Robinson wrote:
On Nov 30, 2005, at 11:30, Toralf Lund wrote:
Good point. One of the reasons why *I* haven't got digital yet, is
that I can't see myself deleting any pictures at all...
For some people though, the fact that digital photos are essentially
free (after the purchase
that in Germany refers too the Agfa Photo plant...
- Toralf
Bill
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Agfa - a sad day indeed
Joseph Tainter wrote:
So there is no more of the Agfa
Joseph Tainter wrote:
So there is no more of the Agfa Ultra 100. Such a pity. But then I
haven't shot any of it, or any other color film, in over two years.
Agfa colour film seems to have been gone from most shops for several
years around here. I think it started disappearing quite some time
John Francis wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 10:24:31AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/26/2005 7:17:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The United Kingdom (UK) is the nation state consisting of England,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The
Glen wrote:
At 02:15 PM 11/26/2005, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Today, the lights have been switched on for good at Agfa's film coating
plant in Leverkusen, Germany.
In five weeks from now, Agfa will be no more.
Ralf
Is Agfa totally going out of business, or are they just getting out of
Bob W wrote:
I suspect that quite a few users from Northern Ireland would
disagree. While they live in the United Kingdom (of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, to give the full name), they
would take
exception to your suggesting that they live in Britain.
Possibly,
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think were talking about Agfa Photo, which is more than film, but not
everything that used to be Agfa. The original Agfa company is alive and
well, as far as I can tell; Agfa Photo is (was) an independent company
formed when
On 11/24/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tend to ignore digital threads. There doesn't seem to be much else on this
list lately.
Amen!
We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite
film, and why?
Hmmm... I think my favourite colour film right now
I am still trying to choose between a D FA and a used FA.
I wish I could try them side by side.
I bought the F variant used a few months ago, and like everyone here
said I would, I really love it... I see the advantage of small and light
lenses, of course, but one of the reasons why I like
On the way to the car, I notice that I'd left the shutter speed dial
at 1/2000th. I was shooting at about f5.6, and on the overcast day,
the meter was reading between 1/125th and 1/250th. I was between 3
and 4 stops underexposed. Poop!
Been there, done that, got the poorly
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Bob, you forgot number three. In truth, it should be number one.
1. You have more than three thousand dollars to spend on a single body.
Actually, he talked about what he *wants*, and price doesn't usually
come into the picture when you do... Except, there are some
601 - 700 of 994 matches
Mail list logo
