Joe Tainter wrote:
Pentax JCO Discussion List
Pentax Swiss Navy Discussion List
Pentax All-Things-Computers Discussion List
Pentax Classic Cars Discussion List
Pentax Home Improvement Discussion List
Etc.
Joe
Pentax Grandfather Mountain Discussion List
Pentax C*n*n Discussion List
Pentax
NOt sure why my pdml change isn't taking yet
my new email is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The nickname I was given at the old Game Room in NY where
we played Scrabble (and others played backgammon and chess
and such)
think it is even mentioned on the web somewhere - in a
quote from
WORD FREAK.
somebody
Some camera stuff here --
I threw this up on craigslist a couple of days ago
I have two of the Vivitar monoculars
I said phone calls only to craigs list but of course you guys can send email
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/gms/218132031.html
ann
who is delighted to have gotten her old copy
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
!
It really would be nice if somebody would change the Subject line a
little
more often, because I do enjoy reading about lens tests, new camera
offerings,
and all the other numerous topics that invariably creep in...
I'll bet I missed a *lot* of informative messages that would have been
very
Yeah I understand it is annoying (to say the least).
On my part I always try to stay on subject but maybe it is only
wishful thinking I dunno.
Anyway I agree with you on that point !
2006/8/24, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The archives are accessible
Shel
[Original Message
On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:48 PM, David Savage wrote:
Godders, if there is nothing new of interest being said past the
fourth or fifth post, don't read it?
I continue to read the thread on the off-chance that something of
interest may be said. If I didn't feel that something of interest
@pdml.net
Subject: Re: New subject [WAS: Re: CF v SD Cards]
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:52:12 -0700
On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:48 PM, David Savage wrote:
Godders, if there is nothing new of interest being said past the
fourth or fifth post, don't read it?
I continue to read the thread on the off
Thibouille wrote:
Yeah I understand it is annoying (to say the least).
On my part I always try to stay on subject but maybe it is only
wishful thinking I dunno.
Anyway I agree with you on that point !
Anyone, who has been on list as long as Keith, knows perfectly well that
any thread
On Aug 24, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Tom C wrote:
Some of us just like to club each other over the head. It hurts us
but we
figure alot of other people enjoy it. :-)
I would say that it's fun to watch but a) that would be a little
too voyeuristic for my taste, and b) I don't really find it that
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:48 PM, David Savage wrote:
Godders, if there is nothing new of interest being said past the
fourth or fifth post, don't read it?
I continue to read the thread on the off-chance that something of
interest may be said. If I didn't feel that
mike wilson wrote:
Thibouille wrote:
Yeah I understand it is annoying (to say the least).
On my part I always try to stay on subject but maybe it is only
wishful thinking I dunno.
Anyway I agree with you on that point !
Anyone, who has been on list as long as Keith, knows perfectly well
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I continue to read the thread on the off-chance that something of
interest may be said.
Hell yeah!
If I'd killfiled the CF vs SD thread earlier I'd have missed all the
Bonzo Dog Band stuff!
:-)
--
Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
Ya know, I've thrown away a *ton* of CF v SD Cards messages, because I
foolishly thought we were still talking about memory cards. I don't currently
have any interest at all in memory cards, so I tossed 'em out!
It really would be nice if somebody would change the Subject line a little
more
if somebody would change the Subject line a little
more often, because I do enjoy reading about lens tests, new camera offerings,
and all the other numerous topics that invariably creep in...
I'll bet I missed a *lot* of informative messages that would have been very
interesting.
Since we are in request
Don't worry, Keith. There hasn't been much in the 'CF v SD Cards'
subject thread of any particular note, once past the first four or
five messages. I've followed all of it and haven't found much that
hasn't already been said over and over again in other similar rants
by the same people
in the 'CF v SD Cards'
subject thread of any particular note, once past the first four or
five messages. I've followed all of it and haven't found much that
hasn't already been said over and over again in other similar rants
by the same people.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http
Impact damage is totally random. The resultant damage, or not, to a lens
depends more on the intensity of the impact, the angle of the impact, the
surface area of the impact, and so on, than whether or not a lens is
wearing a filter or a hood. People have damaged lenses on which rubber,
plastic,
-
From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: On subject of flare.
On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:00 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
It is only logical to prefer to have to
replace the filter than go through the hoops
Buy and use whatever hood and filters you want for the
purpose they were
designed for, not for protection from a fall or impact damage.
Shel
I think that should be changed to Buy and use whatever hood and
filters you want for any purpose you want.
Many of us have had lenses protected
Hi Bob ...
And I have seen just the opposite, where neither a hood nor a filter has
protected the lens from damage. But yes, buy 'em and use 'em, or not, for
whatever reason floats your boat.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Bob W
Buy and use whatever hood and filters you want for the
As a side note... So far I couldn't find a reversing ring for 49 mm
diameter in Tel Aviv. Go figure...
Pentax Norway had to order mine from Germany last year. :-)
Jostein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I've got a similar problem with mine.
Many years ago I had the tripod set up very low to the ground. One of
the clamps wasn't done up tight enough, though I thought it was. I
turned away and when I turned back the head was very slowly pivoting
down and stopped when the end of the lens hit a rock.
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 08:23:29PM -0600, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: On subject of flare.
I have several of them that I've used as table protectors for shot
glasses. They're much more useful that way than on the front
and expect; I have heard internal reflections being mentioned.
Others more knowledgeable on the subject may chip in.
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
- Original Message -
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, Boris Liberman wrote:
I dare say that every lens can be forced to flare. But Pentax
lenses are
definitely more resilient.
I have heard that Pentax stretch the limits of the optical formula
Hi!
It would have been interesting to see how the lens fared without the
extra UV-filter.
Jostein
I realize that. However I don't take UV filters off my limited lenses as
a matter of course... It already proved once its use... Fortunately it
was merely Galia's finger, yet I prefer to
I won't use a filter on any lens, not matter how valuable, unless I
require filtration. I figure there's not much point in buying superior
lenses and then shooting through a piece of inferior glass. Even if the
filter is of optimum quality, it's adding an unnecessary element and
limiting the
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I won't use a filter on any lens, not matter how valuable, unless I
require filtration. I figure there's not much point in buying superior
lenses and then shooting through a piece of inferior glass. Even if the
filter is of optimum quality, it's adding an unnecessary
Jostein wrote:
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, Boris Liberman wrote:
I dare say that every lens can be forced to flare. But Pentax
lenses are
definitely more resilient.
I have heard that Pentax stretch the limits of the optical formula
they chose for
At 10:46 AM 18/06/2006 , you wrote:
I won't use a filter on any lens, not matter how valuable, unless I
require filtration.
However, I can understand that
some prefer to protect their investment. I like to buy lenses from
those folk :-).
And you end up with a good collection of unused UV
On Jun 18, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote:
I won't use a filter on any lens, not matter how valuable, unless I
require filtration.
However, I can understand that
some prefer to protect their investment. I like to buy lenses from
those folk :-).
And you end up with a good
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: On subject of flare.
I realize that. However I don't take UV filters off my limited lenses as
a matter of course... It already proved once its use... Fortunately it
was merely Galia's finger, yet I prefer to clean the filter
I'll sometimes use a filter, although it's rare. Still, I won't give up
the ones I have.
I'd like to add to my collection of crappy filters - those with
scratches, damaged glass, or in any other way useless as filters. If
anyone's got such filters and would care to send them my way, please
Yeah, Leica sales reps were known for doing that as well.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: William Robb
I was at a sales seminar many years ago. Long enough ago
that smoking was still allowed at these things.
The Pentax rep was encouraging smokers to butt their
cigarettes out on a lens
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: On subject of flare.
I have several of them that I've used as table protectors for shot
glasses. They're much more useful that way than on the front of a lens.
My 600mm lens came with a 112mm filter on the front.
The filter
Hi!
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I won't use a filter on any lens, not matter how valuable, unless I
require filtration. I figure there's not much point in buying superior
lenses and then shooting through a piece of inferior glass. Even if the
filter is of optimum quality, it's adding an
Hi!
I won't use a filter on any lens, not matter how valuable, unless I
require filtration. I figure there's not much point in buying superior
lenses and then shooting through a piece of inferior glass. Even if the
filter is of optimum quality, it's adding an unnecessary element and
Hi!
It would have been interesting to see how the lens fared without the
extra UV-filter.
Probably a lot different. I've found the 43 Limited to be exemplary
with regards to flare. Some have called it the best lens I ever
encountered in some flare tests:
Hi!
I was at a sales seminar many years ago. Long enough ago that smoking was
still allowed at these things.
The Pentax rep was encouraging smokers to butt their cigarettes out on a
lens that he had sitting on the table.
The SMC coating is remarkably tough.
Bill, I see what you and others
On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:00 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
It is only logical to prefer to have to
replace the filter than go through the hoops replacing the front
element.
I think any impact that damages a filter is still likely to cause
problems within the lens - especially zoom lenses which
Here... Both taken yesterday evening.
The lens was 43 Lim with SMC UV filter attached and hood screwed onto
the filter. I'd say typical situation. Nothing extraordinary:
http://boris.isra-shop.com/temp/IMGP6220.jpg (notice the artifact just
below the bicycle)
HCB would be creeped out to see a thread with all this politico-
religious paranoia, mumbo-jumbo and innuendo running with his
initials at the top of it. Out of the respect for a great
*photographer* and artist, do y'all think you could simply change the
subject line to something more
*photographer* and artist, do y'all think you could simply change the
subject line to something more appropriate to whatever the hell it is
you're intending to discuss? like maybe OT: political and religious
slander of the week or something?
thanks
Godfrey
no smiley intended
Agreed 100%! In general, any subject line should be changed when it
drifts off topic. The discussion under this subject line should have been
changed many, many messages back. The thread ended up in my kill file some
time ago.
Shel
From: Paul Stenquist
Ah, finally a valid point. Well
Tim Sherburne wrote:
I had the same question, too...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/umdiaumafoto/24763474/in/photostream/
t
On 2/13/06 10:26, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Does anyone still have the URL?
Thanks -- bookmarked.
In re this photo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/umdiaumafoto/24763474/in/photostream/
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Thank Tim (and Dario).
ERN:
For those familiar with the Leica CL and Minolta CLE, the camera is
instantly recognizable in that photograph. The size, shape, layout of
the shutter
E.R.N. Reed wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
On 2/13/06, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Y'know, this poor thread has been nothing but a minefield almost still
it started.
Meanwhile, I am still a bit amazed that anyone could make out so clearly
what the camera in the picture is. I
On Feb 13, 2006, at 2:35 PM, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
I could see the shutter speed dial (and so knew it wasn't a CL) but
am not familiar enough with the M Leicas to have ruled out one of
them. At least, that's the way I recall it, but now I don't have
the link, so can't see it. I guess I was
John Francis wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 12:36:31AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/12/2006 1:20:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example: The chief tenet of the Enlightenment is that the growth of
knowledge is the key to human
In a message dated 2/13/2006 5:39:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
oops ...
Y'know, this poor thread has been nothing but a minefield almost still
it started.
Meanwhile, I am still a bit amazed that anyone could make out so clearly
what the camera in the picture is. I
On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Meanwhile, I am still a bit amazed that anyone could make out so
clearly
what the camera in the picture is. I thought there wasn't enough
detail
there to tell. Guess to those who know that model well, there
really is.
Is there a
On 2/13/06, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Y'know, this poor thread has been nothing but a minefield almost still
it started.
Meanwhile, I am still a bit amazed that anyone could make out so clearly
what the camera in the picture is. I thought there wasn't enough detail
there to tell.
Does anyone still have the URL?
I think I missed the original post of this thread and have been
deleting it due to the absurd political posturing since.
G
On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:05 AM, frank theriault wrote:
On 2/13/06, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Y'know, this poor thread has
I had the same question, too...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/umdiaumafoto/24763474/in/photostream/
t
On 2/13/06 10:26, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Does anyone still have the URL?
I think I missed the original post of this thread and have been
deleting it due to the absurd political
Here it is:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/umdiaumafoto/24763474/in/photostream/
Dario
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: OT: HCB with a Minolta CLE -- back to the subject
Does
On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Tim Sherburne wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/umdiaumafoto/24763474/in/photostream/
On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:05 AM, frank theriault wrote:
On 2/13/06, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Y'know, this poor thread has been nothing but a minefield
almost
frank theriault wrote:
On 2/13/06, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Y'know, this poor thread has been nothing but a minefield almost still
it started.
Meanwhile, I am still a bit amazed that anyone could make out so clearly
what the camera in the picture is. I thought there wasn't
Hi!
This is fun:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/92285158/
Regards
Jens, how did you mark the spot? What was done in order to make the mark
stay for half a year? ;-)
Fun shot!
Boris
In a message dated 1/28/2006 1:27:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is fun:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/92285158/
Regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
=
Interesting shots, Jens. Looks like you gotten almost the exact same spot.
I've thought
Do you need to switch it off?
I've left mine on for months/years with no ill effects.
The display times out... The batteries survive.
If I remember right, the lock mechanism is pretty simple.
It's a spring and a ball bearing in below the gray button.
If you take the switch off, you can see it and
This is fun:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/92285158/
Regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
That is fun. Nice match.
Paul
On Jan 28, 2006, at 4:26 PM, Jens Bladt wrote:
This is fun:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/92285158/
Regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
Great job of matching the view of both seasons. Fun is a good description.
On 1/28/06, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is fun:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/92285158/
Regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
--
I've got a SuperProgram that I admit has been in my bag for a long while
since I've had my DS around. Anyways, I decided to use it last night.
Turned it on, shot some pictures. Now here's my problem: I can't switch
it back to the locked position. It seems like the gray button you press
as you
I wonder if my ibook will morf into this one day.
http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/86410009/in/pool-tuawrigs/
Looks like this guy enjoyed being assimilated by the collective.:-) or is this
the 21st
Century skitzoid
man.
Dave
BTW link works.:-)
the way a meter works. Matrix
or not.
Regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 31. december 2005 21:39
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Burned sky, underexposed subject
In a message dated 12/29
In a message dated 12/29/2005 9:16:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your page wouldn't come up. But in general, when shooting RAW you should
expose to preserve your highlights right at the limit. When processing
in the PSCS RAW converter, adjust the highlight level with
, at least for me. I can pick and choose; either the subject is
exposed properly (and the sky hopelessly burned out), or the sky is at
least kept within gamut (though still a little bright) resulting in
underexposed midtones.
Aside from underexposing EVERYTHING, and then postprocessing to pull
Getting a page not found ...
Which camera are you using?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 12/29/2005 1:35:25 AM
Subject: Burned sky, underexposed subject
At http://users.adelphia.net/daoswald/ you can see a few shots I
I get a page not found message David, so I can't really comment.
Dave
On 12/29/05, David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At http://users.adelphia.net/daoswald/ you can see a few shots I snapped
today in Chinatown, Los Angeles.
adjust the midtones with the Levels tool, but I left them as-is to
demonstrate my point.
The point here is that this seems to be an all too typical result with
DSLR's, at least for me. I can pick and choose; either the subject is
exposed properly (and the sky hopelessly burned out), or the sky
On Dec 29, 2005, at 3:33, David Oswald wrote:
At http://users.adelphia.net/daoswald/ you can see a few shots I
snapped today in Chinatown, Los Angeles. These were shot as RAW
and coerced into jpegs after a little postprocessing. This was the
first time I've taken exclusively RAW images.
is that this seems to be an all too typical result
with
DSLR's, at least for me. I can pick and choose; either the subject
is
exposed properly (and the sky hopelessly burned out), or the sky is
at
least kept within gamut (though still a little bright) resulting in
underexposed midtones.
Aside from
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Getting a page not found ...
Which camera are you using?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 12/29/2005 1:35:25 AM
Subject: Burned sky, underexposed subject
At http://users.adelphia.net/daoswald/ you can see
Your page wouldn't come up. But in general, when shooting RAW you should
expose to preserve your highlights right at the limit. When processing
in the PSCS RAW converter, adjust the highlight level with exposure
slider, then bring your midtones back up to where you want them with the
FYI, guys, go here to see his stuff
http://users.adelphia.net/~daoswald/
--
I don't see anything unusual in these photos. It looks like you had a
lot of clouds and some overcast. These photos are normal.
If not for the Chinese-style buildings at the skyline, you could control
this
On Dec 16, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Glen wrote:
What could I have done as a photographer to make her jaw less
prominent, and make her look more idealistic?
To make a too prominent feature less so it is usually best to shoot
straight at it. You could shoot up at her chin or have her tilt her head
back.
On Dec 16, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Glen wrote:
What could I have done as a photographer to make her jaw less
prominent, and make her look more idealistic?
There isn't much you can do for a chin such as hers if you want to do
a shot like you did. Shooting down at the model from a high angle
At 09:27 AM 12/17/2005, Bob Shell wrote:
On Dec 16, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Glen wrote:
What could I have done as a photographer to make her jaw less
prominent, and make her look more idealistic?
There isn't much you can do for a chin such as hers if you want to do
a shot like you did.
On 12/17/05, Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:27 AM 12/17/2005, Bob Shell wrote:
On Dec 16, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Glen wrote:
What could I have done as a photographer to make her jaw less
prominent, and make her look more idealistic?
There isn't much you can do for a chin such as hers
Hi everyone.
Thanks for the comments on my last PESO of the girl dressed in red,
floating in the lotus position:
http://webpages.charter.net/glenweb/ni/Barbie.jpg
I received some comments from some model friends that liked the idea of the
picture, but the couldn't keep from being
On 12/16/05, Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone.
Thanks for the comments on my last PESO of the girl dressed in red,
floating in the lotus position:
http://webpages.charter.net/glenweb/ni/Barbie.jpg
I never saw that one! It's way cool!!
I received some comments from some model
with Photoshop. But then you end up with an illustration
that isn't really a photo of the subject at all - and then what is
the point?
Sorry, I know there's no help there. :-(
-Charles
--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 8:34 AM
Subject: PESO: On the Subject of Chins...
Hi everyone.
Thanks for the comments on my last PESO of the girl dressed in red,
floating
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:47:25 EST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BW Conversions
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 12/10/2005 7:23:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:17:52 +
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: PESO: Tanja
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 8/12/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed
I think that most DSLR of today have 12bits per channel, not 16, never 32.
but you are right for the rest. 4 more bits open you a world of other color
2^8 = 256 combinations
2^12 = 4096 combinations
and this is for each channel (RBG)
the total is
256*256*256 = 16.777.216 of possible rendered
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:26:26 -0500
From: Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Jeez,Don't let Rockwell hear this then.
Dave
Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Nov 28, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
My understanding is that RAW
Ok, i'm getting the hang of the digest.G
Thrainn.
Stunning shots.
Dave
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:12:47 -0500
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: New Gallery at photo.net
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format
Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you read the text portion of your email?
Text portion? Is there anything else? g
(No HTML/JavaScript/RTF for me!)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Beer!
Anyone else tried that 1855 Miller Beer that is in the grocery stores
now? I bought some thinking it would be like they made back then. While
it is slightly more amber than the regular stuff, I can not tell any
difference in the taste. Apparently it costs double to sell their beer
in
- Original Message -
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax Discussion Malling List pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 3:01 PM
Subject: OK back to a standard subject grin
Beer!
Anyone else tried that 1855 Miller Beer that is in the grocery stores now?
I
I was in at C R Kennedy today and asked them about this. C.R. Kennedy
will honour any Australian or international warranty on Pentax equipment
which is correctly filled in by the place of purchase. Buyers should
check this on all purchases, not just cameras.
You really can't argue with
Hi,
I've mainly browsed the list and asked some questions from time to time.
However,
this interest me. I'm thinking of getting a Pentax DSLR, having mainly shot
Pentax 35mm and Hassie mf.
1. One thing I've wondered about is how fast in real life is the use of the
Green button?. Once
Does anyone have suggestions for an ideal test subject that I can use to
evaluate how much compression I can tolerate in my JPEG files? Sometimes I
shoot in JPEG mode to get more exposures on my card. A lot of the time, I
can't tell any significant different difference between different JPEG
Glen wrote:
Does anyone have suggestions for an ideal test subject that I can
use to evaluate how much compression I can tolerate in my JPEG files?
Sometimes I shoot in JPEG mode to get more exposures on my card. A lot
of the time, I can't tell any significant different difference between
I always use the best. JPG is a compromise anyway; no point in making it
worse. If you're short of space on a card, buy more cards.
John
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:32:21 +0100, Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Glen wrote:
Does anyone have suggestions for an ideal test subject that I
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:28:44 -0700
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Why full frame?
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Hello Kevin ...
We must have very different standards or you must be performing some
Boris, Joaquim,
thank you for your thoughts.
Yes, the leaves really look weird, something I hadn't seen when taking
the shots. I was thinking of cropping very much away from around the
woman in focus, yet that would have been different pictures.
Is it that what you meant by close-up stealth
301 - 400 of 867 matches
Mail list logo
