I never really understood this Gaffer thing either.
I guess there can be few valid reasons for people to Gaffer their camera:
1) Avoid being judged by the choice of camera; You're not a pro unless it's
a Nikon (that was earlier, today rather Canon)
2) Thieves will go for a Nikon or a Leica
3) To
Those, being full-on Pro bodies for PJ work, would not be 'mid-range' in
my books. Mid-range in my books is the D70 or 20d (Since Nikon doesn't
have a real mid-range body at the moment). The
-Adan
Herb Chong wrote:
i said mid-range Nikon and Canons. that means 1D Mk2 and D2H.
Herb...
But value for money and system-expandability makes the DSLR the choice
hands
down.
Christian
I'm not so sure - the compact format has some advantages;
1- Lens/body/sensor are fixed and so can be perfectly optimised for each
other - better quality.
2- No dust bunnies
3- Composition using
Robert Whitehouse wrote:
I'm not so sure - the compact format has some advantages;
1- Lens/body/sensor are fixed and so can be perfectly optimised for each
other - better quality.
2- No dust bunnies
3- Composition using large LCD - (I have a Canon G3 and never use the view
finder !)
4 -
Boris Liberman wrote:
After almost one year, here is a PESO of mine:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc13e.htm
Comments welcome,
Dario, I really like the scene. And the way you treated it is excellent.
But I have two points to make.
1. The round OOF object on the top right is, well,
Boris Liberman wrote:
I think I've never posted this one here:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc12e.htm
Comments welcome,
Time for a weirdo comment ;-).
Dario, this man is reading a book. In the page that is open right now
there is this kind of fence leading up and to the right. Almost
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:56:55 +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
I think I've never posted this one here:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc11e.htm
I like it, Dario. Have you tried a crop that includes just the shadow
of the rose, and not the rose itself?
Hi Doug,
Done.
Hi Bruce,
Two pictures are now available in that page, including a crop that better
matches the title.
How do you like it? Any different suggestions? If so, feel free to crop my
picture at your leisure.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dario
A little gaffer's tape and these lenses will be all set to go ;-))
Shel
Am I paranoid or perceptive?
Fred Said:
Yeah, except that, on its 50th anniversary, Vivitar was not exactly still
selling many (if any) truly Series 1 lenses anymore. The 70-210, for
example, is the 4th-generation
On 8/9/05, Herb Chong, discombobulated, unleashed:
i said mid-range Nikon and Canons. that means 1D Mk2 and D2H.
Please define a top-of-the range Nikon and Canons.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Some time ago I was asking about people's opinion and experience
with different PSD's (portable storage devices) aka photobanks aka ...
I just thought I'd report back on my experience with Wolverine FlashPac 7000.
It is available from a few different places.
I believe, BH sells a 60 GB version
On 9/9/05, Antti-Pekka Virjonen, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've been out a couple of months, had all kinds of vacations
and great time with my now 4,5 months old babygirl :-).
Congrats on your daughter.
Did I miss anything important?
Only Shel buying a DSLR.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
||
On 9/9/05, Ryan Lee, discombobulated, unleashed:
I might actually see if I can pick one up to have a play with it. Can't
think how it's going to be useful as support considering the flex I imagine
it has, but I guess I'll have to see for myself.
Vertical movement is rock-solid. It only flexes so
On 9/8/05, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that waiting for the next model will provide a
significant improvement that's cost effective.
cheers,
frank
Neither do I. But more MP will give me more room for cropping (yup,
I'm a lousy photographer who can't get the
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Btw: did you saw the dpreview news? There is a new Sony camera, a
prosumer with the new 10MP APS-C sized Sony sensor. That's the reason
I don't know if I should wait or not (the sensor, not the camera). The
problem is nobody seems to think we'll see a new DS with this
Not very important, really
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Cotty
Did I miss anything important?
Only Shel buying a DSLR.
P. J. Alling wrote on 08.09.05 23:07:
The DL is reputed to be sold with the 18-55 kit lens for less than
$1000.00. If you buy it without a lens it should be less expensive.
You are comparing cheap 3.5-5.6 consumer zoom to high quality 2.8-4.8 Zeiss
T* lens with only 2 mm distance to sensor,
On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
Not very important, really
Why Shel, methinks you understate the nature of the event. I was
distraught that your camera was faulty - I was anticipating your initial
report with great interest. Still am.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
||
Not very important, really
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Cotty
Did I miss anything important?
Only Shel buying a DSLR.
I bet this was a MAJOR event! I know how much Shel enjoys the
mechanical era of cameras so it must have been quite a leap
for him ;-).
I knew something
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/09/09 Fri AM 08:02:32 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: I'm back, did I miss anything?
Not very important, really
Shel
The Earth moved for me.
8-)
[Original Message]
From: Cotty
Did I miss anything
My auction, so thought I would promote it. While there are no bids we
can set a price and do a Buy it Now. If we do that, I offer free, 1st
class recorded postage in the UK/5 pounds postage discount around the
world.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7545191996
Kostas
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
On 2005-09-08, at 20:16, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
How, they are the same price as a DSLR, more or less, aren't they?
Add to the price of *istDl price of FA 24-90 or DA 16-45 and you end with
1050-1100$ price. So far SRP for R1 is 999$ but I
Hi!
I've been out a couple of months, had all kinds of vacations
and great time with my now 4,5 months old babygirl :-).
Did I miss anything important?
Define miss, define important... ;-).
It is all in the archives...
But yes, Shel bought an *istDS which had some problems I believe...
Hi!
I've been out a couple of months, had all kinds of vacations
and great time with my now 4,5 months old babygirl :-).
Did I miss anything important?
Define miss, define important... ;-).
It is all in the archives...
But yes, Shel, bought an *istDS which had some problems I believe...
Thanks John. I've always thought that it's worth sharing our techniques
rather than just our photographs. I've learned a lot here myself.
Paul
On Sep 8, 2005, at 11:48 PM, John Coyle wrote:
I'd just like to say how much I appreciate Paul's recounting of his
techniques in Photoshop: the
Cotty wrote:
About 2/3rds the way down this page under: A super-sized, two-animal combo
http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-giraffe.html
Giraffes have a small hump on their backs.
Wow - this mailing list is a complete zoological education!
S
The idea behind using the RAW converter's brightness slider to bring up
the midrange is that it doesn't affect the highlights. On the other
hand, the exposure slider will bring down the highlights.Brightness
and contrast in the RAW converter are not the same as the tools with
the same name
On 9/8/05, Marco Alpert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Frank! I appreciate both the comment and that you'd take the
time to go back and comment on all those old posts.
Actually, I think yours is the oldest I looked at; everything older
was deleted. I could only go back so far... vbg
On 9/7/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote to Cesar:
Personally, I find your reskinned LX to be ugly, but I'd NEVER point a
finger at you and characterize you by your decision to reskin the
camera,snip
We have plenty of reasons to make fun of Cesar without the snakeskin...
LOL
On 9/7/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is, what should it matter to anyone what anyone else does with
his or her camera?snip
Precisely!
What's important is that the camera is used as God intended - that is,
to take photographs.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a
JB I never really understood this Gaffer thing either.
So what?
That's getting tiring...
JB I guess there can be few valid reasons for people to Gaffer their camera:
Yes, and there can be a myriad reasons for people to do perfectly
valid things. Why don't you stop sticking noses into them?
I
On 9/9/05, Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bruce,
Two pictures are now available in that page, including a crop that better
matches the title.
How do you like it? Any different suggestions? If so, feel free to crop my
picture at your leisure.
I really like the crop!!
You're
On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not very important, really
I don't know about that. I felt the earth shudder a bit that day...
g
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
There was a minor earthquake in Israel that day. That's probably what you
felt.
Seismic Shel
[Original Message]
From: frank theriault
On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not very important, really
I don't know about that. I felt the earth shudder a bit that day...
On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a minor earthquake in Israel that day. That's probably what you
felt.
Seismic Shel
LMAO!!
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
For those of us with transort difficulties.
The biofuel page is specially interesting reading.
http://www.petroldirect.com/index.htm
mike
-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more
Biodiesel has been very popular here with 4WD'ers for a long time. It
makes a lot of sense.
I heard some guy on the radio the other day who has been making it for
several years he says it works out to about 14-16 AU cents per
litre.
Fish chip shop owners are sitting on little gold mines g
LOL (I especially like the Vin Diesel)
Dario
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 3:17 PM
Subject: OT: A little help
For those of us with transort difficulties.
The biofuel page is specially
I just find it totally stupid to try to rationalise _other_ people
decisions.
Hey Frantisek.
Why don't you go easy on the guy? I believe Jens simply tries to understand
other people's motives and behaviour. What's wrong with that?
To me this gaffer thing is no big deal, but I do tend to do
Nice stuff Bill.
I know where you've been spending alot of your photographic time!
Good to see you posting.
What were you using for the close ups?
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: william sawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: GESO - My First
I keep hoping Paul Stenquist will honor
No more distraught than I am. I had the camera but three days and only
made 9,786 exposures. I was just starting to get used to it.
The camera arrived back at the seller yesterday, late afternoon. Perhaps
I'll get some information today about the replacement. Their web site
showed no DS's in
Hello Robert,
EVF systems have had real problems with focusing manually. Not at all
like a good optical viewfinder. It will be interesting to find out
how good it does on that front. I am a person who almost always
focuses manually and I need to be able to focus with any part of the
screen as
All of this would be enough to cause one to go out and buy a C*n*n!!
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: I'm back, did I miss anything?
No more distraught than I am. I had the
- Original Message -
From: Robert Whitehouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:53 AM
Subject: RE: [OT]First compact digicam with APS sized CMOS...
But value for money and system-expandability makes the DSLR the choice
hands
down.
they cost about half the price of the top of the line bodies.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...
Those, being full-on Pro bodies for PJ work, would
D2X and 1Ds Mk2. price is enough.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...
Please define a top-of-the range Nikon and Canons.
Three days and only 9786 exposures? I compute that as 150 an hour not
counting sleep time? I must be missing something here.
J.W.L.
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: I'm back,
Yes, that book (Real World Camera RAW with Photoshop CS2) is on my wish list. Now I will have to move it up a notch in.
I have been using the exposure slider to bring the highlights up to the edge just before
cutoff. I figure that gives me the maximum information to play around with in
Yes, you are. The comment was a bit of a sarcastic jab at those who have
made a point of telling the list how many thousands of exposures they've
made with their DSLR cameras. In truth, I made nowhere near that number of
exposures.
Shel
Am I paranoid or perceptive?
[Original Message]
Yeh, well you are better than me.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi,
You should be able to do better than an 8x10. My 4mp Sony will do
stunning 8x10's all day long, and the Oly has a few more pixels
Considered it for a while - even joined a Canon list, but spelling P*nt*x
was hard on my fingers. Tell me, why do you use asterisks when referring
to Canon?
Shel
Am I paranoid or perceptive?
[Original Message]
From: R.C.Booth
All of this would be enough to cause one to go out and buy a
In a message dated 9/9/2005 7:49:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, that book (Real World Camera RAW with Photoshop CS2) is on my wish list.
Now I will have to move it up a notch in.
I have been using the exposure slider to bring the highlights up to the edge
just
In a message dated 9/9/2005 7:55:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Considered it for a while - even joined a Canon list, but spelling P*nt*x
was hard on my fingers. Tell me, why do you use asterisks when referring
to Canon?
Shel
==
People that do that are afraid.
I was working from the very large sized TIFF files the Sony generates, not
JPEG's.
Shel
Am I paranoid or perceptive?
[Original Message]
From: Graywolf
Yeh, well you are better than me.
You should be able to do better than an 8x10. My 4mp Sony will do
stunning 8x10's all day long,
I wouldn't consider CS2 at this point. As a frequent visitor and
participant in Adobe's User-toUser forums I've gotten to see and learn
about the myriad of problems many people are having with the program. I
don't want to underwrite the cost of experimenting with CS2 right now with
my time or
Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
to the sensor and its an improvement because that
means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?
I frequently adjust exposure to place highlights at the edge of the histogram.
However, for some images that don't have bright highlights that can be too much
exposure. I've only resorted to turning the brightness all the way up and then
pulling back exposure on images that have highlights
J. C. O'Connell wrote on 09.09.05 17:06:
Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
to the sensor and its an improvement because that
means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?
Actually
I didn't say it didn't work, I don't understand
WHY closer is better because that increases
the incidence angle deviation from perpendicular,
which is bad, severely on the edges/corners
of the sensor.
I can understand why the lens itself is better,
it just seems that the lens/sensor interface
is
That's your opinion. Mine is that thre's a great deal to be learned by
trying to understand why people do what they do.
I'm sure a lot of people, among them quit a few great scientist, agree with
me.
Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra:
Isn'it it possible that a large rear element force rays perpendicular to the
sensor? This will allow a better image on the sensor and if such an element
is part of the lens design, it won't affect lens performance.
BTW, Sylwek, I cannot access fotopolis.pl. I tried several times every time
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I can understand why the lens itself is better,
it just seems that the lens/sensor interface
is much worse when the rear element is so severely
close to the sensor. Maybe this sensor is specially
designed for this lens and isnt flat?
A silicon eye-ball! Now THAT would
BD EVF systems have had real problems with focusing manually. Not at all
BD like a good optical viewfinder. It will be interesting to find out
BD how good it does on that front. I am a person who almost always
BD focuses manually and I need to be able to focus with any part of the
BD screen as
I agree with Frank. This is a much better image to me. Not only does
it match the title, but it really focuses me in on a subject - the
other shot looked like a quick snap until I looked close at it.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Friday, September 9, 2005, 5:46:55 AM, you wrote:
ft On 9/9/05,
This looks like veiling flare, a symptom of the Aspheric lens element
in the lens separating.
It certainly is not blooming :-( Sorry Patrice...
Thank you all for your opinion...
I'll probably consider a digital-optimized 18-80 or similar (don't know
yet which brand and model), not
Super-Takumar 3.5 35mm.
Good mechanics, good optics. Only moderate signs of use.
I bought this about a year ago on this list, from Collin, I think. That is
the way he described it.
I’ve never used it, although I’ve played* with it – I wanted at least on
piece of Pentax equipment so I could
In a message dated 9/9/2005 12:09:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:56:55 +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
I think I've never posted this one here:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc11e.htm
I like it, Dario. Have you tried a
You might want to look for the SMC Pentax F 35-70mm f3.5~4.5. Good
build and acceptable optics. They can be found in good contrition for
between $30-$50. Not a perfect solution, but not a bad stopgap.
Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote:
This looks like veiling flare, a symptom of the
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:07:37PM +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Isn'it it possible that a large rear element force rays perpendicular to
the sensor? This will allow a better image on the sensor and if such an
element is part of the lens design, it won't affect lens performance.
No. To a
Putting the rear element closer to the sensor allows you to have a
perpendicular light path to the sensor without going to an extreme
retrofocus design for wide angles. This allows a simplified lens design
for equivalent length and zoom range. The Light path only needs to be
perpendicular from
That may be true strictly for photo editing. But from all I hear
the raw converter in CS2 is greatly superior to that in CS
(I didn't see any good prices on CS, apart from one dubious deal
that offered only the CD and a serial number)
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:05:50AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff
I don't know about greatly superior, although I've heard it's better.
Unfortunately, I've not heard how it's better, and have not seen any
comparisons any where.
IAC, the free trial is the way to go first, IMO, and getting the program as
an upgrade may be a better way still.
Shel
From: John
wrong, the closer the rear element. the more that forces
greater NON perpendicular incidence angles
to the corners of the sensor. It order to
approximate true perpendicular incidence, the
rear element has to move away infinitly from
the sensor. Total opposite of what you just posted.
jco
Gaffering is not customizing - no functionallity is added or removed. It's
simply disguising the camera.
Like a person wearing sunglasses at a party. I like my Pentax logo's. They
kinda completes the camera, since it was designed to wear one.
Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
At 02:30 AM 06/09/2005 , you wrote:
Hmm... actually it should be easy to write a program that both detect
hot/dead pixels and removes them. Time to find a programmer and... oh,
wait - I am a programmer! Then, time to find someone willing to pay
for such a program grin j/k
I made an PS action
Yeh, real customizers use an airbrush...
chuckle
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Jens Bladt wrote:
Gaffering is not customizing - no functionallity is added or removed. It's
simply disguising the camera.
Like a person
I found by adding a small rubber bumper (slightly smaller in diameter than the
4 way) to the 4 way control (as mentioned a while ago here), my issues with the
control are reduced.
Try it you might like it.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716
Please try to click on the image so that it will open on total black
background - the way I intended it to be watched.
I think I need a lens wider than 18 mm...
As usual - be brutal and honest.
Boris
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
to the sensor and its an improvement because that
means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?
I don't understand.
The light cone
John,
Usually, lenses optimized for digital claim to have a large rear element.
Olympus explains this way the reason for their large bayonet and many think
that Canon has an edge over Nikon for the wider EF mount over the narrower
F. In this case of 2mm between the rear element and the sensor,
JCO,
In this case of 2mm between the rear element and the sensor, I'd suggest
you think of the rear element (or group) of the R-1 as a meniscus with a
curved surface toward the other elements, acting as a focus plane for the
rest of the lens + a flat surface toward the sensor, for conveying the
Dario Bonazza wrote:
Isn'it it possible that a large rear element force rays perpendicular to
the sensor? This will allow a better image on the sensor and if such an
element is part of the lens design, it won't affect lens performance.
BTW, Sylwek, I cannot access fotopolis.pl. I tried
John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:07:37PM +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Isn'it it possible that a large rear element force rays perpendicular to
the sensor? This will allow a better image on the sensor and if such an
element is part of the lens design, it won't affect lens
Superb Boris!
All I need is a god chair to sit at ;-)
I could spend hours there, watching the light and the delicate lines.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
I like it very much. Nice and moody. Love the lighting and the shadows.
How much unsharp mask have you applied? Overall it looks a little soft, but
maybe that's intentional.
Nice shot!
Tom C.
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
Its very simple. If the working diameter of the rear element
and the diagonal size (format) of the sensor remain constant, then
the further the rear element is from the sensor the
NARROWER the corner to corner angle cone angle becomes eminating
from the rear element and the deviation
from
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I was working from the very large sized TIFF files the Sony generates, not
JPEG's.
How large ARE they, Shel?
keith
Shel
Am I paranoid or perceptive?
[Original Message]
From: Graywolf
Yeh, well you are better than me.
You should be able to do better than
This is an excellent idea. It might persuade chippy owners to change
their oil more often than once a decade.
John
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:33:53 +0100, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Biodiesel has been very popular here with 4WD'ers for a long time. It
makes a lot of sense.
I
Brutally honest, rather than brutal and honest, I think.
I like the composition and the great light, but would prefer more contrast.
John
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:24:36 +0100, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716
Please try to
Beautiful, Boris. Very strong, and great technique. However, I do miss a
little old lady on one of the back rows :-)
Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 9. september 2005 21:24
Til:
I found by adding a small rubber bumper (slightly smaller in diameter
than the 4 way) to the 4 way control (as mentioned a while ago here), my
issues with the control are reduced. Try it you might like it.
Might you have a picture of this improvement for us to see? Thanks.
Fred
John Forbes wrote:
Brutally honest, rather than brutal and honest, I think.
I like the composition and the great light, but would prefer more contrast.
John
Seems to me, and pardon my chutzpah, but...you already *have* contrast,
between the almost blown out open window highlights, and the
Can I please get a diagram of this?
Derek
Its very simple. If the working diameter of the rear element
and the diagonal size (format) of the sensor remain constant, then
the further the rear element is from the sensor the
NARROWER the corner to corner angle cone angle becomes eminating
Yes, the black background helps.
A truly well executed scenario for... for what? I see two possibilities:
1. This picture wants to depict the inside of the church, as it could be
required for a tourist guide or the like. If so, it's OK.
2. This picture wants to be worth in itself, whichever
Even if this crop is not the picture I saw then, I have to admit that it
works. Often a picture contains several possible pictures, and you only have
to unbury them.
OK, I think that my original picture had a problem which is opposite to
Boris' tower. In my opinion, the tower is missing an
OK,
I did a quick sketch to clarify what I said:
http://www.jcoconnell.com/temp/rearanglediagram.jpg
Later,
jco
-Original Message-
From: Derek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 4:36 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP
On 9/9/05, Herb Chong, discombobulated, unleashed:
D2X and 1Ds Mk2. price is enough.
Sorry Herb, I have to disagree. Why would Canon run the 1DsmkII and the
1DmkII in tandem? The answer is that they both fulfil different needs,
based on current technology.
If a sports shooter had unlimited
On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
Yes, you are. The comment was a bit of a sarcastic jab at those who have
made a point of telling the list how many thousands of exposures they've
made with their DSLR cameras. In truth, I made nowhere near that number of
exposures.
On 9/9/05, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716
Please try to click on the image so that it will open on total black
background - the way I intended it to be watched.
I think I need a lens wider than 18 mm...
As usual - be brutal
On 9/9/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed:
I just find it totally stupid to try to rationalise _other_ people
decisions. It's theirs, so let them at it. Am I asking why Cesar
reskinned his cameras? No.
I agree. Let's just call them nutters and be done with it.
Cheers,
Cotty
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
