Re: The Photographer's Rights
This one time, at band camp, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, I can photograph the Empire State Building, and maybe even sell copies of those photos, but I can't build another Empire State Building. Perhaps somebody could sell you a copy... Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
This one time, at band camp, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is, and that is, I am sure, by design. Any society that lets lawyers get too high in the social structure runs this risk, and don't even think about letting them run the government. Keep them locked up like the trolls that they are, and only let them see the light of day when all else has failed. I hear ya. My take is that if you need a lawyer then it just is not worth the effort to proceed any further. I was on assignment with a military outfit and I managed to get inside to photograph officers in their offices and with troops on the ground. All this just to try and get a foot in the door for some military style photography jobs. Whilst I did need to sign some papers I did not need to see a lawyer of any kind and niether did the military. Had it come to that point I would have stopped, knowing that the only way forward was costly and frustrating and the only people to make money on the deal would have been legalman(tm). Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Holy crap, too much
Hey all. Back in the day (some number of months ago), I was marginally active around here. Today, I hadn't looked at my PDML mailbox in so long, there were over 10,000 unread messages. What the heck happened? I changed jobs. Well, sorta. I'm still working at the same camera shop, but now I'm not on the sales floor. I run the digital lab. This entails large printing (I get to use the Epson Stylus Pro 9600, which can print up to 44 wide by however long you want (which ROCKS!)), lots and lots of scanning, photo restoration, laminating, and mounting. I'm also the store's in-house graphic artist, which means I make graphics, signage, and ads. Compared to the relative chaos of retail sales, my new position is a lot less stressful, but takes a lot more energy. To bring Pentax into this post, I've been meaning to mention some awesome enablement I've recently aquired: smc M(star) 300mm f4 and smc 500mm f4.5 Of course, a couple weeks after getting these lenses (no, I won't tell you how I got them. suffice to say it was legal, but you'd all kill me if you knew the story) I accidentally cracked the LCD screen on my *ist. The screen itself still worked, but the hard plastic over it was cracked when I tossed something too close to the camera. $185 to fix the damn thing. Karma? Almost makes me want to consider believing... So I've been shooting a lot of film these days. The Nikon CoolScan 8000ED in my lab has come in handy very much here. I swear, if I could afford it, I'd buy two of those scanners. Nothing I've seen from any other film scanner (and I've used Epson, KonicaMinolta, and Canon scanners, both film-dedicated and flatbed) comes close to the quality of the Nikon 8000ED. The software's a bit of a pain in the butt at times, but it's worth the hassle. Just for fun, here are a couple shots taken with the M(star) 300mm: http://www.neovenator.com/special/barker.jpg http://www.neovenator.com/special/people.jpg and one with the A 28mm 2.8: http://www.neovenator.com/special/bri_dessert.jpg So anyway, these days I don't have a whole lot of energy for much after I get home from work, but I'm trying to get back into the PDML habit, especially with all the shooting I've been doing lately on my days off. It's as if not having my digital around has made me want to shoot *more*, for some weird reason. Got a major deadline at work tomorrow, so I've gotta hit the hay. John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement.
Re: Double Exposures using ZX-50
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:27:46 +0200, Village Idiot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I have a ZX-50 and I have two issues. First, I need to know how to keep the film from rewinding completely into the canister since I will have to load it at a later time. Hi, The rewinding on an MZ-50 stops if you open the back. You probably noticed that the rewind-motor changes pitch near the end of the rewinding process. I believe this is at the moment the film leaves the uptake spool. If you open the back just then, it might work. However, note that I have not done this myself: I could be wrong! I just got myself a film puller for circumstances like these. Hama has one, part number is 8025. It works very well, once you get the hang of it. Second, I need to know how I should re-align the film when reloading it the second time. The instructions for the class recommend disabling the autoloader. Is there a way to do that? Disabling autoloading is not possible, I think. The few times I tried double exposures I simply tried to lay in the film the same way twice, by eye. Results were not very accurate, and seem to vary a bit along the rol, if I recall correctly. That would mean film advance is a bit variable as well. If you do this with an MZ-50, I recommend you ask the lab not to cut your negatives: there might not be enough black space left between frames for them to reliably determine where to cut. I found out the hard way that labs never miss an opportunity to cut a negative in half :-( Hope this helps, -- Regards, Lucas
Re: Dreaming of a fast 70-210mm or 80-200mm AF zoom
Jens Bladt escribió: Thanks a lot for sharing this, Dario. Very informative. And l o a d s of excellent shots. What does YMMV mean? Sorry to hear about you bad experience with Sigma, Carlos. As you can see, not everybody agrees on this :-). Regards Jens My experience with Sigma hasn't been completely negative. The Sigma lenses I've had, or used, have ranged, optically speaking, from acceptable to good. But their electronic compatibility with Pentax AF bodies has been another thing, and their mechanical quality, also lacking. If you do some research, you will find that bad quality control issues, electronic incompatibilities, and AF problems are not uncommon among Sigma lens users. If I remember well, Mark Cassino reported that in low temperature, the iris of his EX 70-200 2.8 froze open. He compared it with the Pentax FA* 80-200 2.8, at the same low temperatures, and the Pentax didn't suffer from that problem. I have also had Tokina and Tamron AF lenses, and in my view they have been more reliable than the Sigmas I've owned or borrowed. Regards, Carlos
Re: The Photographer's Rights (another take and an introduction)
I have been lurking on this list for a while so I might as well introduce myself :) As many of us I used to enjoy photography in childhood, I had some pretty crappy off-brand Pentax screw mount cameras and lenses but I did enjoy it immensely. I took a 10 year break from photography in my teens but for the last 5 years I am back starting with many assorted C*non digicams and slowly migrating to 35mm Pentax stuff with occasional dips into MF and LF. I still own a decent 4x5 kit though I don't use it except when completely out of my mind and willing to lug along the monster monorail. I am currently using *istD with two of the venerable limiteds and assorted other glass and am in the process of building myself a light yet sturdy 6x12. Now on to the topic - I have never taken great interest in street photography but on the occasional streaks I get I sometimes carry around my digital voice recorder (most of the time even without the batteries). If somebody comes up to harass me I take the voice recorder out, ask them if they object to me recording our conversation and explain that they are harassing me at the moment and that I would like to have a recording of their conduct to support my pictures (none of which are of them) in court if it ever comes to that. Usually they go away. If they don't I push the button on the recorder and say that if they object to me recording our conversation we have nothing to talk about and they should go about their business and leave me alone. I usually drop something along the lines that they are taking my time which I could use for taking pictures and that I could even sue them for lost profit and that if they are so ignorant as to come and accuse me of something they probably don't even know the extent to which this could be taken in court. I am making a living here yada yada yada... where should I send invoice for my services... bla bla bla... I think there is absolutely no point in discussing any of the tough concepts like freedom or anything of the sort. That is usually a dead end. If they want this to be a paranoid society I just push the voice recorder in their face and make it a reality. Krisjanis
Re: Camera foam source?
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 02:33:27 +0200, Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed, now that I look at my records I've purchased from interslice nearly as often as raven571. Thanks for pointing Jon out. Thanks for all replies, both on- and off-list. If it all works out I'll show some pictures, if not there'll be an MX for sale shortly :o) -- Regards, Lucas
Re: Fun With Buicks
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Doug Brewer wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: Nice shots. I think this kind of photography works better when the automobile in question is a somewhat brighter color. Funny you should mention this. I was released from the lock-up just this morning, after being arrested trying to repaint all those cars in brighter colors. Now, I know of a good piece of software you can use to paint them pink without getting arrested. Only joking, Kostas
Re: The Photographer's Rights
On 15/8/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: I don't disagree with anything you say, Cotty. First, let me point out she wasn't an old lady, but was likely half my age (which puts her in her mid-20's). My reaction could/should have been much calmer, but I was reacting (poorly) to what I perceived to be her adversarial nature. Maybe I was in a pissy mood (I know, hard to believe g). Anyway, here in Toronto, it's unlikely that any police are going to confiscate any cameras for taking photos in a public square in the heart of downtown - at least not yet. But, I certainly agree with gist of your post, and usually, I'm much more easy-going in my dealings with people on the street. Indeed, usually I do have their permission (often tacit) when taking photos. You're really a big soft pussy cat at heart eh mate ? ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The Photographer's Rights (another take and an introduction)
Hi Krisjanis, welcome to the list. You make a good point. I would take it one step further and not even ask if they minded being recorded. I'd simply take out the recorder - at a strategic point - and hold it (or the mic) in an obvious manner. In fact, while filming and at the point of being accosted, I always leave the camera running, even if someone says 'turn that off' or whatever. Stupidly they assume that once your eye isn't at the viewfinder then it must be 'off'. If anyone ever says 'no filming' and tries to put their hand over the lens, then I keep rolling - always makes great pictures on TV :-) On 16/8/05, Krisjanis Linkevics, discombobulated, unleashed: I have been lurking on this list for a while so I might as well introduce myself :) As many of us I used to enjoy photography in childhood, I had some pretty crappy off-brand Pentax screw mount cameras and lenses but I did enjoy it immensely. I took a 10 year break from photography in my teens but for the last 5 years I am back starting with many assorted C*non digicams and slowly migrating to 35mm Pentax stuff with occasional dips into MF and LF. I still own a decent 4x5 kit though I don't use it except when completely out of my mind and willing to lug along the monster monorail. I am currently using *istD with two of the venerable limiteds and assorted other glass and am in the process of building myself a light yet sturdy 6x12. Now on to the topic - I have never taken great interest in street photography but on the occasional streaks I get I sometimes carry around my digital voice recorder (most of the time even without the batteries). If somebody comes up to harass me I take the voice recorder out, ask them if they object to me recording our conversation and explain that they are harassing me at the moment and that I would like to have a recording of their conduct to support my pictures (none of which are of them) in court if it ever comes to that. Usually they go away. If they don't I push the button on the recorder and say that if they object to me recording our conversation we have nothing to talk about and they should go about their business and leave me alone. I usually drop something along the lines that they are taking my time which I could use for taking pictures and that I could even sue them for lost profit and that if they are so ignorant as to come and accuse me of something they probably don't even know the extent to which this could be taken in court. I am making a living here yada yada yada... where should I send invoice for my services... bla bla bla... I think there is absolutely no point in discussing any of the tough concepts like freedom or anything of the sort. That is usually a dead end. If they want this to be a paranoid society I just push the voice recorder in their face and make it a reality. Krisjanis Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Tom Reese wrote: William Robb wrote: I believe any time a police officer asks you to step out of the car, or please come with me, you are being detained. If you are being detained without reason, you are then suffering from an unjustifiable arrest. ... Be as co-operative as possible, then sue their asses. I disagree with that. If the cop is violating someones rights without probable cause then the victim should point out that the cop is commiting a criminal act. Point it out to whom? The cop perpetrating the act? Hardly... you're absolutely right about complying with the cops directions but think it's wrong not to say something. Again, to whom? Are you going to ask the cop his badge number and write it down in front of him? If you're blessed with good eyesight, and you can both see the number and remember it, then you're faced with another dilemma. Who's the right person in the department to tell? Hey! I totally agree with you, but... keith whaley Tom Reese
RE: Photographers rights
I was downtown in Los Angeles one day with my ZX-5n. I never go downtown without a camera. Suddenly around the corner came some hispanic undocumented workers rights parade. My Spanish is rusty enough that I couldn't grasp 100% of what they were chanting, but the whole affair seemed kind of interesting, so I pulled out the camera and took a couple shots. Next thing I knew, I was being approached by a non-hispanic guy, who may have been one of the march's organizers or something like that. He asked me to not take any pictures. I mentioned that this was a public event, and that it was being held on a public street; I had every right to take a picture. He got angry and said, I'm only asking that you not take pictures. I still don't understand how anyone could be upset that I would take a picture of a public demonstration. I thought they liked publicity, else they wouldn't be publically demonstrating. Anyway, I just told the guy, Well, you're too late, they're taken. ...and continued on my way. One time about four years earlier, when I used to live in Portland OR I stood on the Burnside Bridge and took a picture or two toward Waterfront Park one Saturday. As I walked from the bridge back toward the west side of the Wilammette river I was approached by two hostile guys who had been hanging out in the druggy portion of Waterfront Park, within view of the bridge. They demanded my camera. I ignored them and kept walking until I reached the nearby Saturday Market; a venue with thousands of people and a healthy delegate from the local police department. They followed about two feet behind muttering muted threats. They kept it low key since there were other people within 100 feet. As I neared the crowded Saturday Market the tough guys realized there were too many witnesses around for them to continue harrassing me. One of them said something about if I ever took his picture again he would break my face with the camera, and then they disappeared into the crowd. I was a little surprised by the incident, because the shots I had taken were mostly of the riverfront, and I don't think any of the waterfront park druggies were even in the shots. After the Waterfront Park incident, I began carrying mase in my camera bag. I'm a 6'3 195lb guy, and don't find myself the recipient of such bold harrassment often. In that incident, my quick thinking was to just remain in visual range of decent citizens so the guys couldn't try anything too forceful. I was outnumbered, but in a public area. Next time I'll be better prepared.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Funny, no one has ever challenged me when I take photographs. I wonder if this happens 10x more to men than it does to women? Marnie aka Doe (Of course, I haven't tried photographing an electrical plant yet.)
Re: How-to separate 2 stuck filters
Markus Maurer wrote: Hi Margus thanks a lot for your solution. Since I did not join a single lesson in chemistry, in fact, do not understand anything about molybden isulphide oil, is there a more common name for that seldom fluid ;-) A good start would be your local hardware store. Look for a lock lubricant. It's either very fine graphite or moly disulphide in an evaporating liguid. It flows all over everywhere, and then flashes off, leaving the dry lubricant inside. Is it something like the oil we use on bycicles or sewing-machines (just a wild guess) ;-) greetings Markus One caution, it's a bugger to get off where you don't want it. Be sparing with the application, and only put it where you need it! The watery liquid will wick into threads. keith whaley
Re: How-to separate 2 stuck filters
keithw wrote: Markus Maurer wrote: Hi Margus thanks a lot for your solution. Since I did not join a single lesson in chemistry, in fact, do not understand anything about molybden isulphide oil, is there a more common name for that seldom fluid ;-) A good start would be your local hardware store. Look for a lock lubricant. It's either very fine graphite or moly disulphide in an evaporating liguid. It flows all over everywhere, and then flashes off, leaving the dry lubricant inside. Is it something like the oil we use on bycicles or sewing-machines (just a wild guess) ;-) greetings Markus One caution, it's a bugger to get off where you don't want it. Be sparing with the application, and only put it where you need it! The watery liquid will wick into threads. keith whaley Egads! Keep it away from your lens. Imagine that stuff wicking its way onto your aperture blades or the inner elements of your lens!
Re: The Photographer's Rights
On 16/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Funny, no one has ever challenged me when I take photographs. Marn, you just look like a tourist :-) XXX Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The Photographer's Rights (another take and an introduction)
This one time, at band camp, Krisjanis Linkevics [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If they want this to be a paranoid society Dont knock it, it worked fine for Hitler. kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
keithw wrote: I disagree with that. If the cop is violating someones rights without probable cause then the victim should point out that the cop is commiting a criminal act. Point it out to whom? The cop perpetrating the act? Hardly... Yes to the cop. Civil rights are meaningless if we willingly relinquish them. Cops are expletive deleted and I don't recommend belligerence with them but I believe it's wrong to permit searches etc when the cop doesn't have probable cause. If he searches anyway then it is incumbent upon us as citizens to point out that they are commiting an illegal act. Are you going to ask the cop his badge number and write it down in front of him? If you're blessed with good eyesight, and you can both see the number and remember it, then you're faced with another dilemma. Who's the right person in the department to tell? you tell an attorney and begin a civil lawsuit. Tom Reese
Re: Mini London PDML
There's quite a lot of Hammersmith Riverside. How about meeting at a specific point, such as the Dove, or the pub closest to the bridge on the upstream side? I can't remember the name, unfortunately, and I'm only suggesting it as a meeting point, not for its merits as a pub. John On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:49:56 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mini London PDML Venue: Hammersmith Riverside Time: 7pm Date: Weds 17th August Features: Boris and beer. All welcome. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 15/08/2005
RE: The Photographer's Rights
Glen wrote: Over the last 24 hours I have been constantly saddened by the number of posts indicating how many of you out there are having confrontations about taking pictures in public places. My troubles have been minor, but I am always surprised at the assumption that I should not be taking photographs. It's almost as if photography has become shameful overnight. Now I appreciate that some folk don't like their picture taken and I wouldn't go out of my way to do something someone clearly didn't want, but in 99% of the photos I want, I don't really want people in them anyway and if I do, they are very much in the distance. In many ways it's all a nonsense; chances are in a small town you are appearing on CCTV somewhere and in a big city maybe 50, 100, 200 cameras? Not that I have any objection to that - I welcome it today - but the principle should be both ways. If you objecting to being in a photo, chances are it's already too late, your image has been recorded. What's a photographer to do? What are some good ways to handle the common questions asked by such people, such as: Why are you taking pictures? What are people going to object to next, eating in the street? Hey you, eating your fish and chips, don't you have cutlery and a table and chairs at home? It's not a big step. Who are you working for? (This one always annoyed me. It's as if you have to work for someone else, to be legitimate in their mind.) No answer is right here, as you shouldn't have to justify taking a photograph. For goodness sake! Do you have a studio / where's your studio? (Once again, they are looking for something that says you are legitimate, based on their erroneous preconceived notions of what a real photographer would be like. Never mind the fact, that there are many respected professionals without a studio of their own, and that a lack of a commercial studio actually means nothing.) Do you have a business card? (Same as before, if you can't convince them that you fit their preconceived notions of a commercial photographer, then you have no credibility in their eyes. It sometimes makes me want to ask them for their credentials to be a professional onlooker, or a professional nosy pain in the ass, or whatever.) See above. What are you going to do with these pictures? (Whatever you tell them, they never seem to actually trust the answer. Remember, if they thought they could trust you, they wouldn't have been pestering you in the first place.) This is a question which people feel free to ask. If you reverse that question, why do you need to know - they will be most unhappy. Hey, you don't have permission to photograph me (or my property)! (Even though the photographer is definitely standing in a public place.) How much paranoia will it take for some bright individual to licence camera users in public places? I think we should actually form a list of similar questions and comments, and take suggestions about how to best handle these common situations. I don't take vast amounts of photos on streets, but I think about the potential hassle. At one time, someone approaching you about what you were doing, was the prelude to a nice conversation, but I inwardly groan if I see someone approach now. I no longer talk to others I see out with a camera, in case that goes off to bad start, with the assumption I'm going to say he/she shouldn't be doing that. What a life, eh? Malcolm
Re: Mini London PDML
On 16/8/05, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: There's quite a lot of Hammersmith Riverside. How about meeting at a specific point, such as the Dove, or the pub closest to the bridge on the upstream side? I can't remember the name, unfortunately, and I'm only suggesting it as a meeting point, not for its merits as a pub. Bob mentioned the Dove, so that seems like the rendezvous. I'm driving - any idea which road it's accessed from? Ta. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Mini London PDML
On 16/8/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed: Bob mentioned the Dove, so that seems like the rendezvous. I'm driving - any idea which road it's accessed from? Ta. Is this the one? http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/15/159/Dove_Inn/Hammersmith Fullers as well! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Mini London PDML
Cotty wrote: Is this the one? http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/15/159/Dove_Inn/Hammersmith Yep, that's it. Been there before - it's pretty good. S
Re: Mini London PDML
Cotty wrote: Is this the one? http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/15/159/Dove_Inn/Hammersmith http://london.openguides.org/index.cgi?Dove_Inn_(Hammersmith) too. S
Re: Mini London PDML
Steve Jolly wrote: Yep, that's it. Been there before - it's pretty good. Apart from the food. S
Re: Fun With Buicks
Hi Doug. Some nice shots there, but 007 and 013 are my fav's. Love the older cars. Dave I was in Indianapolis this weekend, and a Buick collector's club was having a show at the same hotel, so I wandered over Saturday evening with a camera to investigate. *istD with 43/1.9 attached. Here's a little selection: http://www.alphoto.com/images/buick007.jpg http://www.alphoto.com/images/buick013.jpg http://www.alphoto.com/images/buick023.jpg http://www.alphoto.com/images/buick031.jpg http://www.alphoto.com/images/buick035.jpg enjoy. Doug
Re: My visit with Ann
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: My visit with Ann You can't fool me... I don't need to.
Re: The Photographer's Rights (another take and an introduction)
- Original Message - From: Krisjanis Linkevics Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights (another take and an introduction) If somebody comes up to harass me I take the voice recorder out, ask them if they object to me recording our conversation and explain that they are harassing me at the moment and that I would like to have a recording of their conduct to support my pictures (none of which are of them) in court if it ever comes to that. Excellent idea. I think I would take it a step further and not ask their permission for recording though. Why set a precedent when none is needed? William Robb
Re: The Photographer's Rights
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funny, no one has ever challenged me when I take photographs. I wonder if this happens 10x more to men than it does to women? Marnie aka Doe (Of course, I haven't tried photographing an electrical plant yet.) At this rate, Marnie, it's starting to sound like a lot more than 10x! I've been asked on a very few occasions not to take pictures, but always politely. (I *have* photographed an electrical plant, under construction, but that of course doesn't count since my client was the company doing the construction. I had a company-issued hard hat and an official escort.)
My photo lists
Doug says it is cool for me to issue an invitation here, so here goes. I moderate a bunch of photographic discussion groups on BestStuff.com, as well as being their photo guru. My most popular list is the Russian Camera Users Group. Some of you may find it or the other lists interesting. The master page to access all of my lists is here: http://www.beststuff.com/forum/index.php?f=3 As we say here in Virginia, Come on by and sit a spell. You may also find the main site www.beststuff.com interesting. Bob
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Malcolm Smith wrote: [ ... ] In many ways it's all a nonsense; chances are in a small town you are appearing on CCTV somewhere and in a big city maybe 50, 100, 200 cameras? Not that I have any objection to that - I welcome it today - but the principle should be both ways. If you objecting to being in a photo, chances are it's already too late, your image has been recorded. Good point. Personally I dislike the surveillance cameras that are popping up all over the place. I think they represent a restriction of my personal freedom as well as a way for authorities to give the public a false sense of security, and I object to both. However, if a hobby photographers/artist/newsreporter wants to take my picture in public, I don't object one bit. I guess I prefer being seen by Little Brother, if you know what I mean... - Toralf
Another one bites the dust
There's no problem with posting For Sale items or links to your own eBay auctions here. Do you still have a web site? I'd been wondering what you were up to... 20--20 Mark Roberts Photography and writing Ah ha! I now have permission! Gamma picked up my option a couple of years back, and between them and my repeat customers I really haven't had the need to promote until recently. I switched Internet providers a while back, and didn't crank up the site again after I determined that it didn't bring in any customers, just other photogs chasing after my client list and people ripping off my images. I have a catalog of Acrobat promotional pages that I email off to prospects if they request it. But I think that the landscape has changed recently, and a good site would be of benefit, so I'm starting to design one and hope to have it online in a couple of months. In the meantime, I made Life Magazine's The Year In Pictures issue (alas, with an Olympus digital and Nikon film cameras) a couple of years ago, coverage of the Beltway Sniper that happened all around the house I was living in at the time. Also got a bit of coverage of European royalty visiting DC in various mags here and on your side of the pond, among many other assignments. It's been fun and interesting. The photos and item descriptions of the sale items should be done and the auctions started by tomorrow evening. Items include a PZ-1P with Tamron 35-70, a black MX body in pretty decent shape, a 100 f2.8 Macro (the big, 600-gram autofocus, not the newer digitally optimized), a 70-200 f4-5.6 (amazingly sharp), manual focus 28mm 2.8 SMC and 50mm 1.4 SMC, an AF500FTZ, plus ded. ext cord, an elec. cable release for the PZ, and even a couple of pieces of old N gear. There's also a custom lens shade for a 3.5/28mm that clamps onto the outside of the lens barrel, in mint condition (but I don't have that particular lens). There seem to be a fair amount of Brits here on the forum. Do you guys outnumber the Yanks now? I went to school in London and miss the place now and again. BTW, can anybody tell me why the messages I send to the list from Outlook Express get kicked back to me? This is the first week I've used Outlook Express, and it takes some getting used to. Best regards always, and happy shooting. -Bill Cornett
Re: Dreaming of a fast 70-210mm or 80-200mm AF zoom
I have also had Tokina and Tamron AF lenses, and in my view they have been more reliable than the Sigmas I've owned or borrowed. This has been my experience, too. However, to be honest, I have not had much experience with Sigma lenses - none with any autofocus lenses ever, and none with any manual focus lenses in many a year, so this should not be taken as a criticism of any current Sigma lenses, per se. You see, between the sloppy build quality I had found in a couple of Sigmas some time back, and the frequent reports of mechanical problems I had heard/read since, I developed a why buy a Sigma when there are so many good Pentax, Tokina AT-X, Vivitar VS1 (at one time, up until the mid-80's, say) and Tamron SP lenses to buy instead? philosophy. (My experiences with quite a few manual focus 3rd-party lenses of the above lines has been mostly very positive, although I have used only a couple of Tamrons.) On the other hand, I have heard/read some good reports on the Sigma 70-200/2.8 here, so it does sound (intellectually) interesting. The only problem is that I don't really need another 70/80-200/210 lens )g), so I am unlikely to end up trying it. [I was lucky enough to pick up an FA* 80-200/2.8 at a good price a while back, and since then both my manual focus and autofocus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8's have been gathering dust (figuratively - they're stored in cases - g); the manual focus version is quite good, but I never ended up using the autofocus version too much, so I can't say much about it yet.] My only complaint on the FA* 80-200/2.8 is its two-touch design - I personally prefer (and YMMV) one-touch zooms, but I do see how that might be difficult to pull off in an autofocus lens. Also, a point I've made before here on the PDML is that there ~is~ a difference between the zoom range of 70-210 (common in the slower zooms) and 80-200 (common in the faster ones, although the Sigma does claim to be a 70-200 lens). I do wish the fast 80-200's were 70-210 lenses - a zoom ratio of 3:1 is definitely nicer than 2.5:1 (and is sometimes significant). [Of course, lens tests almost always show that lens makers fudge on their FL specs - telephoto primes are almost always a bit shorter than what is claimed, wide angles are almost always narrower than what is advertised, and zooms tend to have narrower zoom ranges than the specs suggest - but I digress...] I suspect that it must be a lot harder to make an f/2.8 70-210 than an f/2.8 80-200 and still amintain high optical qualities. I've been toying with a 70/80-200/210 lens comparison shootout (I've got so many of these lenses, both fast and slow, kicking around here). However, this is awaiting the hopefully positive results of all of my pre-Birthday (September) *ist-DS hinting - I can't justify or afford the expense or the scanning time of doing any film-based shootouts anymore. [It's kinda funny, but, once I have a DSLR, it will probably pay for itself quickly with the sale of liberated lenses, i.e., lenses that just haven't been gotten rid of yet because I don't really know yet which ones are worth keeping or not - g.] Oops - sorry about the long post... Fred (the packrat)
Re: The Photographer's Rights
In a message dated 8/16/2005 6:55:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At this rate, Marnie, it's starting to sound like a lot more than 10x! I've been asked on a very few occasions not to take pictures, but always politely. (I *have* photographed an electrical plant, under construction, but that of course doesn't count since my client was the company doing the construction. I had a company-issued hard hat and an official escort.) == Yes, I should have said 100x. :-) Cool, re electrical plant. There *is* a main electrical power station/plant near us, well, on the drive to San Jose that I am tempted to shoot. Very big, very interesting. Lots of structures, things sticking up in the air, abrupt angles, etc. Also, there is an oil refinery not that far from us that I have also been tempted to shoot (like the juxtaposition between some plants/flowers and the big oil drums). I probably will someday, but I'd be shooting through fences. At that time, I will report back if I get stopped by someone fearing I am a terrorist. I mean I can see why people would worry a man photographing children could be a pedophile (although not totally unknown, it is much, much less likely a woman would be), but surely a woman could be a terrorist too (much, much more likely)? Later, Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: Another one bites the dust
BTW, can anybody tell me why the messages I send to the list from Outlook Express get kicked back to me? This is the first week I've used Outlook Express, and it takes some getting used to. Maybe you are sending HTML messages, rather than plain text messages...??? Fred
The household gloves trick works well to separate filters!
Hi Pentaxians thanks to all of you responding to my question how-to separate stuck filters, namely Graywolf, Juan, Bob, Amita and more :-) I followed William Robb's advice using household gloves (common cheap short red ones for Cotty) and it worked very well! It gives you a lot more force and your hands don't slip away from the tiny filter rings. thanks William, you are the hero of the day for me ;-) greetings Markus
RE: PESO:Doppeldecker fly's paradise
Hi Marnie thanks for having a look and I agree with your comments. I will remain a mystery what the two bees really did or had in mind ;-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 6:20 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO:Doppeldecker fly's paradise In a message dated 8/11/2005 8:46:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The two bees where flying in the exact same position as Doppeldecker ;-) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3624675 The second shot was made with the same setup, I love the green color of the fly on the red flower. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3624683 I know that the composition could be stronger on both shots but I'm quite happy with the flash light here. comments are welcome greetings Markus == Nice. I like the second one best because of the colors and the curly details in the flower. The first one, like frank, I thought, hey, they are having sex! Guess not, darn. And yes its exposure is not the best. Nice fly. If you like bugs, that is. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: The household gloves trick works well to separate filters!
thanks William, you are the hero of the day for me ;-) Oh, great - now we'll never hear the end of it... [Just kiddin', Bill - g.] Fred
RE: PESO:Doppeldecker fly's paradise
Hi Frank thanks for your insights ;-) I will remain a secret what the bees really did I think ... greetings Markus -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:14 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO:Doppeldecker fly's paradise On 8/12/05, Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I resent this one since I got no reactions so far... sorry if you see it twice. Markus I like the second one (fly on the flower) best, because of the bright colours. The green fly is interesting. The double-decker bees are interesting (At first I thought, Hey, those bees are having SEX!, then realized all worker bees are female. Could they be Lesbian Bees? LOL). However, the bees, especially the top one, seem a bit underexposed to my eye. Interesting as a capture of what I'd think to be an unusual event, but not as strong a photo as the other, IMHO. However, both are good photos. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Toralf Lund wrote: Malcolm Smith wrote: [ ... ] In many ways it's all a nonsense; chances are in a small town you are appearing on CCTV somewhere and in a big city maybe 50, 100, 200 cameras? Not that I have any objection to that - I welcome it today - but the principle should be both ways. If you objecting to being in a photo, chances are it's already too late, your image has been recorded. Good point. Personally I dislike the surveillance cameras that are popping up all over the place. I think they represent a restriction of my personal freedom... Restricting your personal freedom? In what way? To do what? ... as well as a way for authorities to give the public a false sense of security, I recall reading several times, several places where numerous nefarious people were stopped, felons caught, illegal acts thwarted, etc. That's a reasonable sense of security. Proven, as it were... ...and I object to both. Yes, and you're certainly entitled to voice your opinion. Isn't it a great world, where you can say any darned thing you want, without fear of retaliation from any quarter? However, if a hobby photographers/artist/newsreporter wants to take my picture in public, I don't object one bit. I guess I prefer being seen by Little Brother, if you know what I mean... - Toralf Yessir, I do. However, I see no danger from being watched by remote cameras, as I don't plan to ever do anything illegal! If they catch me scratching my butt, i hope they have a good laugh! ;-) keith whaley
RE: The Photographer's Rights
Hi Pentaxians I tell the people that I will send photos to the local newspapers reader section when they ask what I do take the photos for and whether I work for the press. People seem to like that answer ;-) and it is not untrue. I would also say something like it's all for art if asked :-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: keithw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 6:06 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights Toralf Lund wrote: Malcolm Smith wrote: [ ... ] In many ways it's all a nonsense; chances are in a small town you are appearing on CCTV somewhere and in a big city maybe 50, 100, 200 cameras? Not that I have any objection to that - I welcome it today - but the principle should be both ways. If you objecting to being in a photo, chances are it's already too late, your image has been recorded. Good point. Personally I dislike the surveillance cameras that are popping up all over the place. I think they represent a restriction of my personal freedom... Restricting your personal freedom? In what way? To do what? ... as well as a way for authorities to give the public a false sense of security, I recall reading several times, several places where numerous nefarious people were stopped, felons caught, illegal acts thwarted, etc. That's a reasonable sense of security. Proven, as it were... ...and I object to both. Yes, and you're certainly entitled to voice your opinion. Isn't it a great world, where you can say any darned thing you want, without fear of retaliation from any quarter? However, if a hobby photographers/artist/newsreporter wants to take my picture in public, I don't object one bit. I guess I prefer being seen by Little Brother, if you know what I mean... - Toralf Yessir, I do. However, I see no danger from being watched by remote cameras, as I don't plan to ever do anything illegal! If they catch me scratching my butt, i hope they have a good laugh! ;-) keith whaley
Re: Double Exposures using ZX-50
Lucas, Thanks for the advice! Derek On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:27:46 +0200, Village Idiot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I have a ZX-50 and I have two issues. First, I need to know how to keep the film from rewinding completely into the canister since I will have to load it at a later time. Hi, The rewinding on an MZ-50 stops if you open the back. You probably noticed that the rewind-motor changes pitch near the end of the rewinding process. I believe this is at the moment the film leaves the uptake spool. If you open the back just then, it might work. However, note that I have not done this myself: I could be wrong! I just got myself a film puller for circumstances like these. Hama has one, part number is 8025. It works very well, once you get the hang of it. Second, I need to know how I should re-align the film when reloading it the second time. The instructions for the class recommend disabling the autoloader. Is there a way to do that? Disabling autoloading is not possible, I think. The few times I tried double exposures I simply tried to lay in the film the same way twice, by eye. Results were not very accurate, and seem to vary a bit along the rol, if I recall correctly. That would mean film advance is a bit variable as well. If you do this with an MZ-50, I recommend you ask the lab not to cut your negatives: there might not be enough black space left between frames for them to reliably determine where to cut. I found out the hard way that labs never miss an opportunity to cut a negative in half :-( Hope this helps, -- Regards, Lucas
Re: Another one bites the dust
On 16/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: There seem to be a fair amount of Brits here on the forum. Do you guys outnumber the Yanks now? I went to school in London and miss the place now and again. Hi Bill, Cotty here. Brit. On the list since 1998 - I don't recall you from recent times, so you must hale from pre-1998? I don't think we outnumber the Yanks, not by a long shot. Don't count that traitor Roberts - he knows if he comes back here again he's for the tower !! BTW, can anybody tell me why the messages I send to the list from Outlook Express get kicked back to me? This is the first week I've used Outlook Express, and it takes some getting used to. Plain text messages only IIRC, it can be set somewhere in your preferences (don't ask me, I'm a Mac user and only know where the 'on' switch is). Best regards always, and happy shooting. -Bill Cornett Cheerio, same to you :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The household gloves trick works well to separate filters!
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Markus Maurer wrote: I followed William Robb's advice using household gloves (common cheap short red ones for Cotty) and it worked very well! It gives you a lot more force and your hands don't slip away from the tiny filter rings. I think the important thing to note is to *not* press the rings in sideways and distort their shape, thus making it harder to unscrew them. Of course you put marks on them this way, but... Kostas
Re: Malakoff Rockfestival
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Boris Liberman wrote: http://malakoff.no/pictures/35/imgp2818.jpg - is very good. I really like the repetition here. Yes, but is the focus right? I think you did a fine job, especially taking into account that you had to take pain killers :-(... Wishing you well! I know all about sciatica the hard way :-(((. I hope Tim is well recovered... Kostas
Re: Mini London PDML
On 16/8/05, Steve Jolly, discombobulated, unleashed: Steve Jolly wrote: Yep, that's it. Been there before - it's pretty good. Apart from the food. There's just nom pleasing some people ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The household gloves trick works well to separate filters!
On 16/8/05, Markus Maurer, discombobulated, unleashed: I followed William Robb's advice using household gloves (common cheap short red ones for Cotty) Paaa. Not even any ticklers? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Fun With Buicks
oh, you just know I'm an arteest. thanks for the comments, bud. Cotty wrote: Holy moly, you turning into one a them there pretentious artests? I'll buy that fer a dollar. First one's always the best. Love that one. http://www.alphoto.com/images/buick007.jpg All good. Well done mate. Cheers, Cotty
Re: The Photographer's Rights
On 16/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed: Personally I dislike the surveillance cameras that are popping up all over the place. I think they represent a restriction of my personal freedom as well as a way for authorities to give the public a false sense of security, and I object to both. However, if a hobby photographers/artist/newsreporter wants to take my picture in public, I don't object one bit. I guess I prefer being seen by Little Brother, if you know what I mean... Before 7/7 in London I would have tended to agree, but the speed with which the bombers were identified and caught was partly a result of CCTV images. I've decided that the threat to life from mass murderers outweighs the personal freedom issue. I'm happy with it. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: The household gloves trick works well to separate filters!
Markus wrote: thanks William, you are the hero of the day for me ;-) LOOK! UP IN THE SKY! IT'S A BIRD! IT'S A PLANE! NO, IT'S WILLIAM ROBB! RUN! Before he comes back down and something splashes on you! :)
RE: Fun With Buicks
I like them! A nice mini-folio. Tom C. From: Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Fun With Buicks Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:03:38 -0400 I was in Indianapolis this weekend, and a Buick collector's club was having a show at the same hotel, so I wandered over Saturday evening with a camera to investigate. *istD with 43/1.9 attached. Here's a little selection: http://www.alphoto.com/images/buick007.jpg http://www.alphoto.com/images/buick013.jpg http://www.alphoto.com/images/buick023.jpg http://www.alphoto.com/images/buick031.jpg http://www.alphoto.com/images/buick035.jpg enjoy. Doug
Re: Fun With Buicks
Hey Dave, yeah, the older cars had style. 007 and 013 seem to be the popular choices. Thanks for taking the time to look and type in a comment. Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Doug. Some nice shots there, but 007 and 013 are my fav's. Love the older cars. Dave
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Cotty wrote: On 16/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed: Personally I dislike the surveillance cameras that are popping up all over the place. I think they represent a restriction of my personal freedom as well as a way for authorities to give the public a false sense of security, and I object to both. However, if a hobby photographers/artist/newsreporter wants to take my picture in public, I don't object one bit. I guess I prefer being seen by Little Brother, if you know what I mean... Before 7/7 in London I would have tended to agree, but the speed with which the bombers were identified and caught was partly a result of CCTV images. I've decided that the threat to life from mass murderers outweighs the personal freedom issue. I'm happy with it. Since I already have no expectation of privacy in public, the surveylance cameras aren't infringing on any expectation of privacy. I would have been greatly relieved to have been observed by surveylance cameras as I was threatened by druggies near Waterfront Park in Portland a few years ago, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Had surveylance cameras been there they wouldn't have been so bold, and in fact, may have even chosen somewhere less public to hang out intimidating people.
RE: PESO -- Good Morning Sunshine
I like it. Bokeh is nice. The flowers really 'pop'. My only nit is that the center sunflower is a little worse for wear... I know it's what was there. I never realized until yesterday, that a sunflower is made up of hundreds of tinier flowers (does that make it a composite?). Each tiny flower coming out of the 'butt-end' of an individual sunflower seed. Tom C. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO -- Good Morning Sunshine Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:17:56 -0400 Just a pretty flower picture, well sort of... http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_gms.html Technical Info: - Pentax *ist-D @ 1/250 iso 400 vmc Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f2.8 Varifocus @f5.6 -- When you're worried or in doubt,Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO -- Good Morning Sunshine
In a message dated 8/15/2005 11:16:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just a pretty flower picture, well sort of... http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_gms.html Technical Info: - Pentax *ist-D @ 1/250 iso 400 vmc Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f2.8 Varifocus @f5.6 = Pretty flower! ;-) No, actually, that's nice. It's almost an abstraction of a sunflower. Nice composition. Marnie aka Doe
RE: PESO: Cruising with Dad
Wow, Paul. That's nice. The colors, lines, everything! Tom C. From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO: Cruising with Dad Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:40:31 -0400 Well, it's a slow list day, so I'll post another cruise pic. This one's a Great Grape Cuda or Challenger. I'm guessing a Challenger. ISO 400, FA 35/2, fi @ 1/3 second. Paul http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3633673size=lg
Re: The Photographer's Rights (another take and an introduction)
At 09:44 AM 8/16/2005, William Robb wrote: Excellent idea. I think I would take it a step further and not ask their permission for recording though. Why set a precedent when none is needed? William Robb Depending on what part of the world you live in, there may be no legal requirement to ask permission for recording the conversation. I've been told that in West Virginia, as long as you are participating in the conversation, you have the right to record it. You don't have to get permission, and I don't think you even have to tell the other party they are being recorded. However, you wouldn't have the right to record any conversations you were not involved in, without the permission of all parties involved. This isn't mean to be proper legal advice, as I'm sure there might be more details involved. I'm just encouraging people to check out the local laws in their area. There is a definitely a chance that no permission is required under appropriate circumstances. In case you are wondering, a district attorney told my girlfriend about this a few years ago. She was being harassed by someone back then. They told her to record it, and explained that she didn't need to either get permission or notify the person about the recording. They also mentioned that this was a West Virginia law, and that some other states didn't permit such recordings. Personally, I like the West Virginia position on this issue. take care, Glen
Re: Photo Vest
William Robb wrote: I can see a lot of pros buying Pentax to get around this sort of stuff. HAR HAR, HAR, HAR
Re: Mini London PDML
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:30:03PM +0100, Steve Jolly wrote: Cotty wrote: Is this the one? http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/15/159/Dove_Inn/Hammersmith Yep, that's it. Been there before - it's pretty good. I've been there many, many times (almost all 25+ years ago, though).
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
Jerry, I have the lens but I also have a dial-up connection. Sorry. I have tested it on my *ist D against a brick wall at 20 mm., and at the same time tested the DA 16-45 f4 at the same focal length. The two are very close, but I would have to say that at 20 mm. the FA 20-35 is very slightly sharper. The DA 16-45, as you probably know, is highly regarded. When I first got the DA 16-45, what impressed me most about it was that its performance was so close to the FA 20-35. Joe
Re: The Photographer's Rights (another take and an introduction)
Yes. In most states, only one party to the conversation has to consent and that can be you if you're a party to the conversation. California requires all parties to consent. There is no criminal penalty, but you can be sued. Regards, Bob... - The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing. - Jean-Baptiste Colbert, minister of finance to French King Louis XIV From: Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:44 AM 8/16/2005, William Robb wrote: Excellent idea. I think I would take it a step further and not ask their permission for recording though. Why set a precedent when none is needed? William Robb Depending on what part of the world you live in, there may be no legal requirement to ask permission for recording the conversation. I've been told that in West Virginia, as long as you are participating in the conversation, you have the right to record it. You don't have to get permission, and I don't think you even have to tell the other party they are being recorded. However, you wouldn't have the right to record any conversations you were not involved in, without the permission of all parties involved. This isn't mean to be proper legal advice, as I'm sure there might be more details involved. I'm just encouraging people to check out the local laws in their area. There is a definitely a chance that no permission is required under appropriate circumstances. In case you are wondering, a district attorney told my girlfriend about this a few years ago. She was being harassed by someone back then. They told her to record it, and explained that she didn't need to either get permission or notify the person about the recording. They also mentioned that this was a West Virginia law, and that some other states didn't permit such recordings. Personally, I like the West Virginia position on this issue. take care, Glen
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
I can fish out a DS RAW file this evening ... I compared the 16-45 and 20-35 at 20, 24, 28 and 35mm focal length settings. They are very very close on sharpness, in my opinion, but the 20-35 has less rectilinear distortion and nicer out-of-focus rendering quality. The 16-45 seems to go a little smeary on corners and edges when wide open where the 20-35 defocuses nicely. Two 20-35 photos: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/21.htm http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/22.htm I have a lot more yet to process and present with this lens, but I've been concentrating on the work from my UK trip which was before I owned the 20-35 lens. Godfrey
RE: FA28/2.8: My new normal lens
You have a very good photographic eye, Juan. Your shots very much non-kliche, which I like. Also from a technical point of view they a good work! Regards Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Juan Buhler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 15. august 2005 20:16 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: FA28/2.8: My new normal lens On 8/15/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's good to hear that the FA28/2.8 does not disappoint. Your two photos look excellent! Thanks! Hmm. A comparison of the FA28/2.8 and the FA35/2 against the FA20-35 at 28mm and 35mm focal lengths would be very interesting. Perhaps one of these weekends we can meet up in SF and do some shooting experiments. My 35/2 should be here today or tomorrow. That would be fun, but will have to happen in October. I'm taking off to Europe this Wednesday, to spend the next six or so weeks in Eastern Europe. Maybe we can get Shel to come with us, and whoever else is around, and have a small SF-PDML outing then? j Godfrey On Aug 15, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Juan Buhler wrote: I got the FA28/2.8 from BH last Friday, and I'm already in love! For some reason I didn't use the M28/3.5 too much in the istD. Probably a combination of the need to shoot in manual mode, the half stop less aperture, and the longer focus throw (I like shorter, even though I focus manually, because it's faster). The FA28 feels great on the istD, and the perspective is perfect. I'd almost venture to say I prefer ot over the FA35/2, which has been my main lens for a long while. My impression is also that is is very sharp (this subjective impression is all I need, btw.) The last two pictures in my photoblog were shot with it: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com/index.php?showimage=203 http://photoblog.jbuhler.com/index.php?showimage=204 Not getting rid of the FA35 anytime soon, but the FA28 will be on the camera by default from now on. j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
I've owned both the 20-35 and the 16-45. Before going digital, the 20-35 was one of my favorite lenses. After going digital, I found that as a wide angle lens it wasn't all that wide anymore. That doesn't mean it's not a fantastic lens though. I used it a lot as a normal-ish lens, and got great results. Eventually I sold it to buy the 16-45. To me, the fact that the 16-45 offered approximately equal (fantastic) image quality along with a broader zoom range offset the fact that the 16-45 is bigger and heavier, and thus to me justified the purchase. Others complain about the 16-45's size, and prefer the compactness of the 20-35, even if its zoom range is a little more limited. Sometimes when I see their arguments I start missing my 20-35. But not enough to part with my 16-45 so as to buy a 20-35 again. ;) Godfrey had exactly the opposite experience... started with the 16-45 and switched to the 20-35 because of its approximately equal performance at a fraction of the size and weight, despite the narrower zoom range. What does that tell you? The two lenses are both so good that people have mixed feelings in choosing one over the other, perhaps. Dave Joseph Tainter wrote: Jerry, I have the lens but I also have a dial-up connection. Sorry. I have tested it on my *ist D against a brick wall at 20 mm., and at the same time tested the DA 16-45 f4 at the same focal length. The two are very close, but I would have to say that at 20 mm. the FA 20-35 is very slightly sharper. The DA 16-45, as you probably know, is highly regarded. When I first got the DA 16-45, what impressed me most about it was that its performance was so close to the FA 20-35. Joe
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:17 AM, David Oswald wrote: What does that tell you? The two lenses are both so good that people have mixed feelings in choosing one over the other, perhaps. I have no mixed feelings about it. The 16-45 just didn't cut it for me ... I just about refused to carry it. The 20-35 is my most-used lens now. 20mm on the 16x24 format is generally as wide as I need (I'm at 24-28mm most of the time...), but when I want wider I stick the DA14 on the camera. Godfrey
RE: PESO: Cruising with Dad
Thanks Tom. Hope to try some more tonight. Lots of cars on the Avenue now with the Dream Cruise just days away. Paul Wow, Paul. That's nice. The colors, lines, everything! Tom C. From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO: Cruising with Dad Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:40:31 -0400 Well, it's a slow list day, so I'll post another cruise pic. This one's a Great Grape Cuda or Challenger. I'm guessing a Challenger. ISO 400, FA 35/2, fi @ 1/3 second. Paul http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3633673size=lg
RE: Another one bites the dust
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:19 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Another one bites the dust The photos and item descriptions of the sale items should be done and the auctions started by tomorrow evening. Items include a PZ-1P with Tamron 35-70, a black MX body in pretty decent shape, a 100 f2.8 Macro (the big, 600-gram autofocus, not the newer digitally optimized), a 70-200 f4-5.6 (amazingly sharp), manual focus 28mm 2.8 SMC and 50mm 1.4 SMC, an AF500FTZ, plus ded. ext cord, an elec. cable release for the PZ, and even a couple of pieces of old N gear. There's also a custom lens shade for a 3.5/28mm that clamps onto the outside of the lens barrel, in mint condition (but I don't have that particular lens). Let us know when they're up, that lens shade sounds good. There seem to be a fair amount of Brits here on the forum. Do you guys outnumber the Yanks now? I went to school in London and miss the place now and again. BTW, can anybody tell me why the messages I send to the list from Outlook Express get kicked back to me? This is the first week I've used Outlook Express, and it takes some getting used to. In the message window choose Format and Plain Text, the PDML server will not accept enhanced text of any kind. Best regards always, and happy shooting. -Bill Cornett Don
Re: The Photographer's Rights (another take and an introduction)
Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. In most states, only one party to the conversation has to consent and that can be you if you're a party to the conversation. California requires all parties to consent. There is no criminal penalty, but you can be sued. In many places, law enforcement officials use the one party consent concept to record transactions between criminals and undercover agents wearing a wire. (Don't know if the term wearing a wire is for real or just a figment of TV writers' imaginations, but it seems to have passed into common usage.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The Photographer's Rights
At 11:34 AM 8/16/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At that time, I will report back if I get stopped by someone fearing I am a terrorist. That is, if you are ever allowed to contact anyone outside the detention center. Remember, in the current 9-11 hysteria, you can be detained indefinitely, and you might not get a lawyer for a long time. You might not get to speak to friends and family ever again. Heck, even your lawyer might not be able to visit you in person. If he does, your conversation with him will certainly be recorded. Things aren't as fair as they used to be. sigh I mean I can see why people would worry a man photographing children could be a pedophile (although not totally unknown, it is much, much less likely a woman would be), but surely a woman could be a terrorist too (much, much more likely)? Yes, there are definitely female pedophiles, and there are also females who commit sexual crimes which do not involve children. If you are in the USA, you can probably browse a list of registered sex offenders in your area. If your area is typical, there should definitely be some women on the list. There are also several cases of women being terrorists. Do you remember the theatre in Moscow which was taken over by terrorists, and several people died when the place was gassed? Several of those terrorists were women. There have also been female suicide bombers in the middle east. There have also been stories of women playing a supportive role in terrorism, or acts of violence, even if they didn't participate in the violence directly. To bring this back on topic for the list: As for photographers, especially Pentax photographers, I can't think of a single pedophile or terrorist who's criminal method of operation involved taking pictures in public with a Pentax camera. Perhaps Pentax users should be exempted from all terrorist and pedophile profiles? Police Officer: It's okay mam, he's photographing those schoolchildren visiting the nuclear power plant with a Pentax camera. He couldn't possibly have bad intentions. ;-) take care, Glen
RE: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
This is an example of a street shot I like. In fact it's a wonderful, maybe even delicious example of a genre I usually dislike! Why? It stands on it's own. It requires no words or explanation. The visual image 'says it all'. Excellent job. Maybe this means I don't dislike the genre, but that I like good street photos in the same way I like good landscape photos. Thanks for sharing. BTW, I think this shot has some marketability. Definitely woorks as a greeting card. My 14-year old son just told me that he saw on a Jones Soda bottle, that they are looking for new BW images to put on their products. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:37:55 -0700 Only a couple more to go and I'll be back to posting just one a week: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/30.htm Comments critique always appreciated. enjoy Godfrey
Re: PESO: More Wedding Cake Fun
LumiQuest 80-20 - http://www.lumiquest.com/lq872.htm, it mounts to the flash with Velcro and operates with the flash pointed up. Large openings in a 45 degree pass light to the ceiling with a cross hatch itself (white) reflecting light forward as a diffuser. It comes alone or packaged with gold silver metallic inserts to block the ceiling openings and direct all the (now) diffused light to the forward. The gold gives a little color to the skin of blonds who would otherwise look like wallpaper and counters blue-green cold tones from subjects in outdoor forested (greenery) shade. I have a couple of their other products too. Handy because they fold completely flat. Regards, Bob... - The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing. - Jean-Baptiste Colbert, minister of finance to French King Louis XIV From: Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Bob I did! enjoy it ;-) very nice... what kind of soft box are you using? greetings Markus From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enjoy, but Watch Out! Large! http://www.bob.blakely.com/Cake_2a.jpg LX, 35-105/3.5 @unknown/5.6, Combo soft box and bounce off white ceiling, Kodak Portra film, Scanned on Canon CanoScan 9950F, Auto settings to .bmp, slight cropping, resized (resampled) to 800 high and save to .jpg.
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
Sorry for putting words into your mouth. ...I just was trying to summarize, and really meant to lend credance to your point of view. I can't argue the size issue; the 20-35 is more pleasant to handle for that reason, and that's why I miss it. The 16-45 fits in my small camera bag along with a 50mm f/1.4, a 135mm f/2.8, or a 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 and an AF330FTZ... all without hoods except the 135 which has an internal hood. So though it's a little heavier, I find it just about as convenient. My small bag is medium fanny-pack size. Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:17 AM, David Oswald wrote: What does that tell you? The two lenses are both so good that people have mixed feelings in choosing one over the other, perhaps. I have no mixed feelings about it. The 16-45 just didn't cut it for me ... I just about refused to carry it. The 20-35 is my most-used lens now. 20mm on the 16x24 format is generally as wide as I need (I'm at 24-28mm most of the time...), but when I want wider I stick the DA14 on the camera. Godfrey
Re: The Photographer's Rights (another take and an introduction)
Mark Roberts wrote: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. In most states, only one party to the conversation has to consent and that can be you if you're a party to the conversation. California requires all parties to consent. There is no criminal penalty, but you can be sued. In many places, law enforcement officials use the one party consent concept to record transactions between criminals and undercover agents wearing a wire. (Don't know if the term wearing a wire is for real or just a figment of TV writers' imaginations, but it seems to have passed into common usage.) I think that came from the VERY early days, when the recording media WAS actually a small spool of wire! Tape, and subsequent miniaturization came later... keith whaley
RE: PAW - Leafy Garden
Hi David, I think this shot works and has captured a lot of interest. I don't usually like photos with 'sculptured' grass lawns or walkways/roads, but it works here. It may be the contrast between the wiggly line of dry leaves on the left and the straight path on the right. The sun peaking through the trees definitely works for me. I seems like an extremely well-balanced composition. Tom C. From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PAW - Leafy Garden Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:26:56 +1200 I really need to improve my titles but I tend to fill out my PAW forms in a hurry :) Rather than look through my archive for something nice to scan, I thought I'd post something recent for once. A couple of weeks ago I loaded up the 6x7 and took it out for a bit of exercise. I'd just cobbled up a panoramic viewfinder mask(*) and wanted to try it out, but about half of my photos ended up being full- frame. http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?print_id=98t=PAW I've cropped it a little: in the original there is about 10% extra on both the top and the right. I took this on an expired roll of Reala because I was carrying a bare minimum of gear, choosing to bring the metered prism instead of the external spot meter. I haven't used the metered prism much and I didn't want to risk ruining slides. The downside is that I hate scanning negs. Comments are welcome, as long as they're about the photo and not the web page which I already know needs work. Once I've finished my client's database project, that's when I'll work on my own website :) Cheers, - Dave (*) The mask is just a couple of lines drawn on a piece of mylar transparency. I made this one after I found that my first attempt, based on some plastic from an old CD jewel case, would only work with the waist-level finder as the bottom of the prism finder protrudes into the focussing screen assembly. The piece of mylar is no good with the waist-level finder as there's nothing to hold it in place. Nevermind, I'd rather carry two masks than draw new lines on my wonderful grid screen. BTW the reason why I made the mask is because my scanner can scan the central 25mm-wide section of a 6x9 slide at 4800ppi optical, instead of 3200ppi for the full frame. The viewfinder mask allows me to compose with this in mind. I've scanned a couple of my old panoramas like this and the results were fantastic when printed on roll paper.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
In a message dated 8/16/2005 10:32:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 11:34 AM 8/16/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At that time, I will report back if I get stopped by someone fearing I am a terrorist. That is, if you are ever allowed to contact anyone outside the detention center. Remember, in the current 9-11 hysteria, you can be detained indefinitely, and you might not get a lawyer for a long time. You might not get to speak to friends and family ever again. Heck, even your lawyer might not be able to visit you in person. If he does, your conversation with him will certainly be recorded. Things aren't as fair as they used to be. sigh [snip} To bring this back on topic for the list: As for photographers, especially Pentax photographers, I can't think of a single pedophile or terrorist who's criminal method of operation involved taking pictures in public with a Pentax camera. Perhaps Pentax users should be exempted from all terrorist and pedophile profiles? Police Officer: It's okay mam, he's photographing those schoolchildren visiting the nuclear power plant with a Pentax camera. He couldn't possibly have bad intentions. ;-) take care, Glen == Good point. Unfortunately, I use a Canon, so they'll lock me up for sure. ;-) (And throw away the key.) I will (take care). Marnie aka Doe
Re: The Photographer's Rights (another take and an introduction)
keithw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Roberts wrote: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. In most states, only one party to the conversation has to consent and that can be you if you're a party to the conversation. California requires all parties to consent. There is no criminal penalty, but you can be sued. In many places, law enforcement officials use the one party consent concept to record transactions between criminals and undercover agents wearing a wire. (Don't know if the term wearing a wire is for real or just a figment of TV writers' imaginations, but it seems to have passed into common usage.) I think that came from the VERY early days, when the recording media WAS actually a small spool of wire! Tape, and subsequent miniaturization came later... Well I think now they just wear a radio transmitter, so the miniaturization of the tape recorder is a moot point ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: My photo lists
Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug says it is cool for me to issue an invitation here, so here goes. I moderate a bunch of photographic discussion groups on BestStuff.com, as well as being their photo guru. My most popular list is the Russian Camera Users Group. Some of you may find it or the other lists interesting. The master page to access all of my lists is here: http://www.beststuff.com/forum/index.php?f=3 As we say here in Virginia, Come on by and sit a spell. You may also find the main site www.beststuff.com interesting. Just to bring this back on topic: http://www.beststuff.com/articles/8216/ ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Another one bites the dust
Output express sends mail in rtf format IIRC by default. The list only accepts ASCII, any mail with an attachment is returned to sender. You'll have to configure outlook express to send text only. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's no problem with posting For Sale items or links to your own eBay auctions here. Do you still have a web site? I'd been wondering what you were up to... 20--20 Mark Roberts Photography and writing Ah ha! I now have permission! Gamma picked up my option a couple of years back, and between them and my repeat customers I really haven't had the need to promote until recently. I switched Internet providers a while back, and didn't crank up the site again after I determined that it didn't bring in any customers, just other photogs chasing after my client list and people ripping off my images. I have a catalog of Acrobat promotional pages that I email off to prospects if they request it. But I think that the landscape has changed recently, and a good site would be of benefit, so I'm starting to design one and hope to have it online in a couple of months. In the meantime, I made Life Magazine's The Year In Pictures issue (alas, with an Olympus digital and Nikon film cameras) a couple of years ago, coverage of the Beltway Sniper that happened all around the house I was living in at the time. Also got a bit of coverage of European royalty visiting DC in various mags here and on your side of the pond, among many other assignments. It's been fun and interesting. The photos and item descriptions of the sale items should be done and the auctions started by tomorrow evening. Items include a PZ-1P with Tamron 35-70, a black MX body in pretty decent shape, a 100 f2.8 Macro (the big, 600-gram autofocus, not the newer digitally optimized), a 70-200 f4-5.6 (amazingly sharp), manual focus 28mm 2.8 SMC and 50mm 1.4 SMC, an AF500FTZ, plus ded. ext cord, an elec. cable release for the PZ, and even a couple of pieces of old N gear. There's also a custom lens shade for a 3.5/28mm that clamps onto the outside of the lens barrel, in mint condition (but I don't have that particular lens). There seem to be a fair amount of Brits here on the forum. Do you guys outnumber the Yanks now? I went to school in London and miss the place now and again. BTW, can anybody tell me why the messages I send to the list from Outlook Express get kicked back to me? This is the first week I've used Outlook Express, and it takes some getting used to. Best regards always, and happy shooting. -Bill Cornett -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
No problem, David. I'm just a bug for small and light equipment, presuming the quality is there. ;-) Your medium-fanny-pack size bag must be a lot bigger than the Billingham L2 I normally use. DS with one lens mounted plus two others, and my usual selection of small bits (spare batteries, spare memory cards, notebook, cell phone, etc) is about the limit I'm willing to stuff it in there. If I carry the Tamrac SL-5 bag, I can fit three-four lenses plus a flash unit fairly easily. That's more than I normally want to carry, but it came in very handily when I was on the UK trip. Godfrey On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:35 AM, David Oswald wrote: Sorry for putting words into your mouth. ...I just was trying to summarize, and really meant to lend credance to your point of view. I can't argue the size issue; the 20-35 is more pleasant to handle for that reason, and that's why I miss it. The 16-45 fits in my small camera bag along with a 50mm f/1.4, a 135mm f/2.8, or a 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 and an AF330FTZ... all without hoods except the 135 which has an internal hood. So though it's a little heavier, I find it just about as convenient. My small bag is medium fanny-pack size.
Re: Another Photographer's Rights Question
You probably can photograph, Glen. In Denmark you could. Weather you publish these on you own website or in a newspaper is not important. The same rules apply as long as they are published. But: You can't legally publish the photographs in a way that would be offensive to the persons shown in the picture, even though the pictures are legally aquired. You can't use the photographs for commercial purposes (you can sell them but not use them in advertising with out the permission of the persons in the photgraph). Photographing minors may require a permission from the parents. You can't use the photographs out of context - for instance for an article about funny make-up or alcoholics - things like that. If a person signals, that he/she do not want to be photographed, you may have a problem. I am not quit sure if this only applies to a person in a private, but still public accessible place - like in a store, petrolstation, public service office etc. Sometimes et helps to have a press-card or similar, since the legislation in many countries protects the rights of the media, rather than of the photographer. PS: Aquiring a photgraph illegally is an offence/theft/violation of the law. Selling/publishing an illegally aquired photograph is fencing - like selling stolen goods. I have my information from the Danish Journalist Union website. The current legislation may vary from one country to annother. I hope this helps. Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Glen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. august 2005 00:41 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Another Photographer's Rights Question Hello everyone, There is a nearby city festival planned for next month, which will feature some nationally know recording artists performing in public, and there is no admission fee for the event whatsoever. Since the performance is viewable from public sidewalks, and there is no restriction on viewing the event, and no fees are charged to the public, can I photograph this event and put the images on my personal web space? I would think this would be fair game, especially if I didn't sell the photos. I would effectively be reporting about a news event in my area. While I'm not a professional journalist, do I have to be recognized as a professional journalist to legally publish photos of a news-worthy public event on my personal web space? thanks, Glen
Re: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
Thanks Tom! It's good to hear such praise from someone who isn't usually inclined to street photography. In general, I find that street photography as a genre is better when it is presented in the context of several related photos. Standalone photos are much harder than, say, landscape or portraiture work since the whole reason for SP's existence (for me) is the expression of context in all the visual contradictions reality presents us with, visually. With landscape, it's usually isn't that scene beautiful? or aren't those clouds dramatic? that runs through my mind. With SP, the questions that arise when I look to evaluate a photo are usually more complex and more subtle. I like that, enjoy pondering those questions when a photograph inspires them, and yet it is vexing to define those questions and criteria in terms that aren't overly pretentious. fun fun fun :-) Godfrey On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Tom C wrote: This is an example of a street shot I like. In fact it's a wonderful, maybe even delicious example of a genre I usually dislike! Why? It stands on it's own. It requires no words or explanation. The visual image 'says it all'. Excellent job. Maybe this means I don't dislike the genre, but that I like good street photos in the same way I like good landscape photos. Thanks for sharing. BTW, I think this shot has some marketability. Definitely woorks as a greeting card. My 14-year old son just told me that he saw on a Jones Soda bottle, that they are looking for new BW images to put on their products. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/30.htm
RE: Another Photographer's Rights Question
William wrote: My understanding is that the act of photographing is fine, the act of publishing (this includes a website) is where you can run afoul of things. I don't agree. You can't! In my understanding a public website, accessible without a password or similar, is no different from any other media, newspaper, billboard, flyer or whatever... You can still be prosecuted for offending, slandering etc. It has been done. Jens Bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. august 2005 01:08 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Another Photographer's Rights Question - Original Message - From: Glen Subject: Another Photographer's Rights Question Hello everyone, There is a nearby city festival planned for next month, which will feature some nationally know recording artists performing in public, and there is no admission fee for the event whatsoever. Since the performance is viewable from public sidewalks, and there is no restriction on viewing the event, and no fees are charged to the public, can I photograph this event and put the images on my personal web space? My understanding is that the act of photographing is fine, the act of publishing (this includes a website) is where you can run afoul of things. There seems now to be a presumption of misdeeds in society at large. If you are shooting, it will probably be presumed that it is for profit. I know people have a hard time dealing with my appearance (SHUT UP NORM!!) when I am out shooting, as it is often with big cameras, or big lenses. While I have never really been verbally assaulted, and never told to pack up and go home, it wouldn't surprise me if the attitude was different in a less laid back locale than the one I live in. William Robb
Re: Mini London PDML
On this map: http://tinyurl.com/8vbq6 There is a car park under the two Ms in Hammersmith Flyover, next to the Appolo, which can be accessed on the South side of the Hammersmith one-way system, just after the Fulham Palace Road exit. Alternatively, you may be lucky enough to find somewhere to park in Rutland Grove or the vicinity. The Dove is just off the map to the left. The riverside walk, which was following the river bank, cuts behind the Dove. John On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:07:28 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 16/8/05, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: There's quite a lot of Hammersmith Riverside. How about meeting at a specific point, such as the Dove, or the pub closest to the bridge on the upstream side? I can't remember the name, unfortunately, and I'm only suggesting it as a meeting point, not for its merits as a pub. Bob mentioned the Dove, so that seems like the rendezvous. I'm driving - any idea which road it's accessed from? Ta. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 15/08/2005
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Cotty wrote: On 16/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed: Personally I dislike the surveillance cameras that are popping up all over the place. I think they represent a restriction of my personal freedom as well as a way for authorities to give the public a false sense of security, and I object to both. However, if a hobby photographers/artist/newsreporter wants to take my picture in public, I don't object one bit. I guess I prefer being seen by Little Brother, if you know what I mean... Before 7/7 in London I would have tended to agree, but the speed with which the bombers were identified and caught was partly a result of CCTV images. Yes. The problem, however, is that the cameras did nothing to preventing them from placing the bombs in the first place. I've decided that the threat to life from mass murderers outweighs the personal freedom issue. I'm happy with it. Another thing is that you mass murderers isn't really what you should fear most. It is actually a lot more likely that someone you know will kill you in your own home... - Toralf
RE: Another Photographer's Rights Question
Thanks, for everyone's comments so far. I should have mentioned that the city festival and concert that I *might* be photographing and *might* put on my personal web space is in the USA. Any references to laws only help if they apply here. (It's my fault for not mentioning my location earlier.) Also, the web site is accessible to the public without any fee, passwords, etc. I won't be selling the photos. They would be on my site, to share my experience of what I consider to be a news event. They would also be on the site to demonstrate my skills with a camera, and perhaps to provide some illustration for the techniques I used to take them. (Maybe I could offer some helpful technical advice for people wanting to take pictures under similar conditions.) take care, Glen At 02:27 PM 8/16/2005, Jens Bladt wrote: William wrote: My understanding is that the act of photographing is fine, the act of publishing (this includes a website) is where you can run afoul of things. I don't agree. You can't! In my understanding a public website, accessible without a password or similar, is no different from any other media, newspaper, billboard, flyer or whatever... You can still be prosecuted for offending, slandering etc. It has been done. Jens Bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. august 2005 01:08 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Another Photographer's Rights Question - Original Message - From: Glen Subject: Another Photographer's Rights Question Hello everyone, There is a nearby city festival planned for next month, which will feature some nationally know recording artists performing in public, and there is no admission fee for the event whatsoever. Since the performance is viewable from public sidewalks, and there is no restriction on viewing the event, and no fees are charged to the public, can I photograph this event and put the images on my personal web space? My understanding is that the act of photographing is fine, the act of publishing (this includes a website) is where you can run afoul of things. There seems now to be a presumption of misdeeds in society at large. If you are shooting, it will probably be presumed that it is for profit. I know people have a hard time dealing with my appearance (SHUT UP NORM!!) when I am out shooting, as it is often with big cameras, or big lenses. While I have never really been verbally assaulted, and never told to pack up and go home, it wouldn't surprise me if the attitude was different in a less laid back locale than the one I live in. William Robb -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 8/15/2005
Re: Mini London PDML
That should read Apollo. J On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:30:58 +0100, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On this map: http://tinyurl.com/8vbq6 There is a car park under the two Ms in Hammersmith Flyover, next to the Appolo, which can be accessed on the South side of the Hammersmith one-way system, just after the Fulham Palace Road exit. Alternatively, you may be lucky enough to find somewhere to park in Rutland Grove or the vicinity. The Dove is just off the map to the left. The riverside walk, which was following the river bank, cuts behind the Dove. John On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:07:28 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 16/8/05, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: There's quite a lot of Hammersmith Riverside. How about meeting at a specific point, such as the Dove, or the pub closest to the bridge on the upstream side? I can't remember the name, unfortunately, and I'm only suggesting it as a meeting point, not for its merits as a pub. Bob mentioned the Dove, so that seems like the rendezvous. I'm driving - any idea which road it's accessed from? Ta. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 15/08/2005
Re: The Photographer's Rights
keithw wrote: Toralf Lund wrote: Malcolm Smith wrote: [ ... ] In many ways it's all a nonsense; chances are in a small town you are appearing on CCTV somewhere and in a big city maybe 50, 100, 200 cameras? Not that I have any objection to that - I welcome it today - but the principle should be both ways. If you objecting to being in a photo, chances are it's already too late, your image has been recorded. Good point. Personally I dislike the surveillance cameras that are popping up all over the place. I think they represent a restriction of my personal freedom... Restricting your personal freedom? In what way? To do what? I define freedom not only as being able to go where I want and do as I please, but also do it without anyone recording it. ... as well as a way for authorities to give the public a false sense of security, I recall reading several times, several places where numerous nefarious people were stopped, felons caught, illegal acts thwarted, etc. That's a reasonable sense of security. Proven, as it were... ...and I object to both. Yes, and you're certainly entitled to voice your opinion. Isn't it a great world, where you can say any darned thing you want, without fear of retaliation from any quarter? Yes. However, what I really fear is what the next step after cameras will be. And the next, and the next after that... The point is, if everyone accepts every measure taken to restrict freedom (as I see it) because it is in the name of security, we may actually end up not being allowed to voice our opinion some day. However, if a hobby photographers/artist/newsreporter wants to take my picture in public, I don't object one bit. I guess I prefer being seen by Little Brother, if you know what I mean... - Toralf Yessir, I do. However, I see no danger from being watched by remote cameras, as I don't plan to ever do anything illegal! But that's the point, isn't it? If the cameras filmed only people who planned something illegal I would be all for it. If they catch me scratching my butt, i hope they have a good laugh! ;-) keith whaley
Re: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
I agree with Tom on this one. I think it's my favorite from among Godfrey's recent work. The subject is just delightful, and the framing and composition are excellent. Paul Thanks Tom! It's good to hear such praise from someone who isn't usually inclined to street photography. In general, I find that street photography as a genre is better when it is presented in the context of several related photos. Standalone photos are much harder than, say, landscape or portraiture work since the whole reason for SP's existence (for me) is the expression of context in all the visual contradictions reality presents us with, visually. With landscape, it's usually isn't that scene beautiful? or aren't those clouds dramatic? that runs through my mind. With SP, the questions that arise when I look to evaluate a photo are usually more complex and more subtle. I like that, enjoy pondering those questions when a photograph inspires them, and yet it is vexing to define those questions and criteria in terms that aren't overly pretentious. fun fun fun :-) Godfrey On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Tom C wrote: This is an example of a street shot I like. In fact it's a wonderful, maybe even delicious example of a genre I usually dislike! Why? It stands on it's own. It requires no words or explanation. The visual image 'says it all'. Excellent job. Maybe this means I don't dislike the genre, but that I like good street photos in the same way I like good landscape photos. Thanks for sharing. BTW, I think this shot has some marketability. Definitely woorks as a greeting card. My 14-year old son just told me that he saw on a Jones Soda bottle, that they are looking for new BW images to put on their products. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/30.htm
Re: The household gloves trick works well to separate filters!
- Original Message - From: Markus Maurer Subject: The household gloves trick works well to separate filters! thanks William, you are the hero of the day for me ;-) yer welcome. William Robb
Re: Another Photographer's Rights Question
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Another Photographer's Rights Question William wrote: My understanding is that the act of photographing is fine, the act of publishing (this includes a website) is where you can run afoul of things. I don't agree. You can't! You do agree, my convoluted English has confused you. William Robb In my understanding a public website, accessible without a password or similar, is no different from any other media, newspaper, billboard, flyer or whatever... You can still be prosecuted for offending, slandering etc. It has been done.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
- Original Message - From: keithw Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights Yessir, I do. However, I see no danger from being watched by remote cameras, as I don't plan to ever do anything illegal! If they catch me scratching my butt, i hope they have a good laugh! ;-) The problem is that some people just don't like Big Brother watching them all the time. For me, the concept of security cameras watching my every move is quite Orwellian. Freedoms get removed in small little bite sized pieces, not all at once. After you don't mind the security cameras anymore, they will take away your right to wear hats that hide your identity from the cameras. Creeping Horseshit is pernicious stuff. William Robb
RE: The Photographer's Rights (another take and an introduction)
Welcome Krisjanis Paranoid society or not, I do believe it's good to know your own rights as well as respecting and not violating the rights of other people. As photographers we are often confronted with other people questioning our rights to take pictueres. Sometimes they even manage to scare a photographer, who doesn't know his own rights, away. (Even the Police may make mistakes and illegally seize your film or camera, in which case you must remember to instist, that these subjects are sealed until a judge has examined if the Police have acted correctly). In order to deal with the approching individual, who are questioning your rights in a civilized, assertive manner, (without using bad language or making new enemies) it is crutial to know you own rights as well as being able to express your intensions of respecting the rights of the approaching person. That was my two cents - and one of the reasons for my interest in the matter. Annother reason is of course my own interest in (legally) making a profit. Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. august 2005 11:24 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: The Photographer's Rights (another take and an introduction) Hi Krisjanis, welcome to the list. You make a good point. I would take it one step further and not even ask if they minded being recorded. I'd simply take out the recorder - at a strategic point - and hold it (or the mic) in an obvious manner. In fact, while filming and at the point of being accosted, I always leave the camera running, even if someone says 'turn that off' or whatever. Stupidly they assume that once your eye isn't at the viewfinder then it must be 'off'. If anyone ever says 'no filming' and tries to put their hand over the lens, then I keep rolling - always makes great pictures on TV :-) On 16/8/05, Krisjanis Linkevics, discombobulated, unleashed: I have been lurking on this list for a while so I might as well introduce myself :) As many of us I used to enjoy photography in childhood, I had some pretty crappy off-brand Pentax screw mount cameras and lenses but I did enjoy it immensely. I took a 10 year break from photography in my teens but for the last 5 years I am back starting with many assorted C*non digicams and slowly migrating to 35mm Pentax stuff with occasional dips into MF and LF. I still own a decent 4x5 kit though I don't use it except when completely out of my mind and willing to lug along the monster monorail. I am currently using *istD with two of the venerable limiteds and assorted other glass and am in the process of building myself a light yet sturdy 6x12. Now on to the topic - I have never taken great interest in street photography but on the occasional streaks I get I sometimes carry around my digital voice recorder (most of the time even without the batteries). If somebody comes up to harass me I take the voice recorder out, ask them if they object to me recording our conversation and explain that they are harassing me at the moment and that I would like to have a recording of their conduct to support my pictures (none of which are of them) in court if it ever comes to that. Usually they go away. If they don't I push the button on the recorder and say that if they object to me recording our conversation we have nothing to talk about and they should go about their business and leave me alone. I usually drop something along the lines that they are taking my time which I could use for taking pictures and that I could even sue them for lost profit and that if they are so ignorant as to come and accuse me of something they probably don't even know the extent to which this could be taken in court. I am making a living here yada yada yada... where should I send invoice for my services... bla bla bla... I think there is absolutely no point in discussing any of the tough concepts like freedom or anything of the sort. That is usually a dead end. If they want this to be a paranoid society I just push the voice recorder in their face and make it a reality. Krisjanis Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The Photographer's Rights
[ ... ] ... as well as a way for authorities to give the public a false sense of security, I recall reading several times, several places where numerous nefarious people were stopped, felons caught, illegal acts thwarted, etc. That's a reasonable sense of security. Proven, as it were... But I part from my earlier notes, what I meant to say is that I only recall reading about cameras being used *after* a crime was committed. That does increase security somewhat, as it helps taking some known culprits out of circulation, so as to speak, but not by nearly as much as some would have you believe, I think. - T
Re: The Photographer's Rights
David Oswald wrote: Cotty wrote: On 16/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed: Personally I dislike the surveillance cameras that are popping up all over the place. I think they represent a restriction of my personal freedom as well as a way for authorities to give the public a false sense of security, and I object to both. However, if a hobby photographers/artist/newsreporter wants to take my picture in public, I don't object one bit. I guess I prefer being seen by Little Brother, if you know what I mean... Before 7/7 in London I would have tended to agree, but the speed with which the bombers were identified and caught was partly a result of CCTV images. I've decided that the threat to life from mass murderers outweighs the personal freedom issue. I'm happy with it. Since I already have no expectation of privacy in public, the surveylance cameras aren't infringing on any expectation of privacy. I would have been greatly relieved to have been observed by surveylance cameras as I was threatened by druggies near Waterfront Park in Portland a few years ago, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Had surveylance cameras been there they wouldn't have been so bold, and in fact, may have even chosen somewhere less public to hang out intimidating people. Well, what I'm trying to say is among other things that I'm far from convinced that druggies and other more or less desperate people do give a toss about the cameras. Less desperate/more cynical criminals have been known to evade notice at least until after they have done their deed. - Toralf
RE: Photo Vest
I just realized that the Canon Eos vest is VERY similar to the Fotodiox vest (ebay auctions). Very nice vest, so it seems :-) http://tinyurl.com/cywqb http://tinyurl.com/dphcf I wonder if they could make me one with PENTAX and *ist D written on it :-) Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 15. august 2005 09:36 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: Photo Vest On 14/8/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: I suspect the powers (or maybe just power) think(s) that someone, somewhere mught be making something out of the cathedral and a cut should come its way. Even if it's just the Margate pensioners annual outing and old Freddie wanted a shot to put in their newsletter. A classical shot of the cathedral can surely be had from outside the perimeter - and possibly used as the basis of making a postcard. So they could still see unauthorised photographic reproduction of their blessed building. Actually it's difficult for me to get my head around commercial photography / broadcast. In news, we just don't get this. They either want you there and give you every access, and we get great pictures, or they don't want you there and give you no access, and we get great pictures. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Mini London PDML
You should appollogize. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 August 2005 19:48 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Mini London PDML That should read Apollo. J On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:30:58 +0100, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On this map: http://tinyurl.com/8vbq6 There is a car park under the two Ms in Hammersmith Flyover, next to the Appolo, which can be accessed on the South side of the Hammersmith
Re: Mini London PDML
Here's a better map: http://tinyurl.com/6cmv9 The nearest pub to the bridge, on Lower Mall, is (I think) the Blue Anchor. The Dove is on Upper Mall. John On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:12:24 +0100, Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I vote for the nearest pub upstream of the bridge, but I assume we all have each other's mobile phone numbers so we should be able to muddle through, Britishly. My number is 0795 147 9744. I'm meeting Boris et al. at Hammersmith Centre at 7pm and it will take about 10 minutes at least to walk down to the pub. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 August 2005 12:55 To: Cotty; pentax list Cc: Boris; Bob Walkden; Steve Jolly; Billy Abbot Subject: Re: Mini London PDML There's quite a lot of Hammersmith Riverside. How about meeting at a specific point, such as the Dove, or the pub closest to the bridge on the upstream side? I can't remember the name, unfortunately, and I'm only suggesting it as a meeting point, not for its merits as a pub. John On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:49:56 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mini London PDML Venue: Hammersmith Riverside Time: 7pm Date: Weds 17th August Features: Boris and beer. All welcome. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 15/08/2005 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 15/08/2005
Re: The Photographer's Rights
William Robb wrote: The problem is that some people just don't like Big Brother watching them all the time. For me, the concept of security cameras watching my every move is quite Orwellian. Freedoms get removed in small little bite sized pieces, not all at once. After you don't mind the security cameras anymore, they will take away your right to wear hats that hide your identity from the cameras. Creeping Horseshit is pernicious stuff. The point of my PUG submission this month.
RE: The Photographer's Rights
Toralf Lund wrote: But I part from my earlier notes, what I meant to say is that I only recall reading about cameras being used *after* a crime was committed. That does increase security somewhat, as it helps taking some known culprits out of circulation, so as to speak, but not by nearly as much as some would have you believe, I think. They are probably used in the main to catch people who have committed crimes after the event - those who don't realise they are being watched and those by either stupidity, drugs or alcohol who don't care. It does put off crime, sadly it doesn't get rid of it but moves it to where such cameras are fewer. So are these cameras worth it? I believe so. The fact that many people go on to commit similar crimes is not the fault of the cameras, they merely record the events and how such evidence is used and what punishments happen as a result of this evidence is another matter entirely. Like most things created to deter crime, there will always be those out to defeat it and I expect in due course something additional to cameras will be in place, which will further erode personal freedom to those already opposed to them. It might make a lot of photography redundant in a decade or so. You'll be able to log in to the internet and see a live picture of any street you want - within reason... Malcolm
Re: The Photographer's Rights
It's already illegal to wear sunglasses and a hat in Banks in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They want a nice clean photo from the security cameras William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: keithw Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights Yessir, I do. However, I see no danger from being watched by remote cameras, as I don't plan to ever do anything illegal! If they catch me scratching my butt, i hope they have a good laugh! ;-) The problem is that some people just don't like Big Brother watching them all the time. For me, the concept of security cameras watching my every move is quite Orwellian. Freedoms get removed in small little bite sized pieces, not all at once. After you don't mind the security cameras anymore, they will take away your right to wear hats that hide your identity from the cameras. Creeping Horseshit is pernicious stuff. William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
