on 12/19/02 12:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ------------------------------ > > Content-Type: text/plain > > pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 02 : Issue 109 > > Today's Topics: > unsubscribe [ "F.T.A.W. Wajer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Behind the counter with digital [ Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@amer ] > Re: Behind the counter with digital [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > OT: Photographers' Bios [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Cmos was: Hypothetical Question [ "David Brooks" <brooks_dee@canoemai ] > Re: Behind the counter with digital [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Behind the counter with digital [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > In praise of vuescan and other digit [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Yellow scourge [ Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Re: Yellow scourge [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Yellow scourge [ Ken Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: My LX is back from Colorado. [ Christian Skofteland <c_skofteland@ ] > Re[2]: Behind the counter with digit [ Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Behind the counter with digital [ John Mullan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Whew.... [ Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:13:56 +0100 > From: "F.T.A.W. Wajer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: unsubscribe > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Unclassified > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:53:03 -0600 > From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Behind the counter with digital > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > > William Robb wrote: > >> Digital users seem to need a course in rocket science to get pictures. > > > Well, maybe they just need a COURSE, period. Who's educating the public > about how to use digital? The old paradigm is that the camera stores have > knowledgeable salespeople who can serve as the front line for educating the > consumer. That hardly works now that mail order and mass-market stores are > #1 and #2 in terms of disseminating the devices. Plus, there are literally > thousands of schools that teach photography, and about a zillion books that > cover the basics (again, and again, and again...). > > There's no sort of infrastructure for teaching digital. Everybody uses > different cameras, everybody uses different image-management programs, > everybody uses different computers and picture formats and transportation > media. Where are consumers supposed to go to learn this stuff? My local > community college doesn't even teach a course in Photoshop because anyone > who's enough of an expert in Photoshop to teach it can get a better job than > being a teacher. The few books that are out are basically out of date before > they see the inside of a bookstore, and because of the lack of > standardization they assume an equipment set that few specific readers > actually have. > > True, we have the internet, but that's like educating a sixth grader by > dumping a set of encyclopaedias on his head. My Mom owns a digital camera > and a six-year-old Macintosh, and she can no more find her way to a digital > print than I can find my way to the Powerball jackpot. > > I've got more than a little sympathy for the digital neophyte. It wasn't all > that easy for _me_, and I have just a tad more knowledge about making still > pictures than the average bear. > > --Mike > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:04:31 +0000 > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Behind the counter with digital > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > >> I'm spending this week working in a lab that has digital to >> photo paper printing capability. >> What a gong show. >> First, there seems to be no standards in the industry, and we >> are being asked to support 3 different memory card styles, plus >> microdrives, plus floppies and CDs. > > [slight snip] > >> Anyway, the people who make this stuff need to do some more >> market research. Maybe try to make digital photography easy. >> Film users can literally aim and shoot, and expect reasonable >> results, with no knowledge base. >> Digital users seem to need a course in rocket science to get >> pictures. > > If I were in charge at Kodak, I'd settle on a method of digital storage, > whether it be CF card or whatever, I'd re-launch my digital hardware > (cameras and storage cards) in a humongous blitz, calling it Digital > Film, and force it into the family snapshot users' minds. All previous > digital standards are old and defunct! Digital Film is *the* replacement > for that old favourite 'film'. Now you can truly enter the digital age > with an exciting new range of digital cameras from Kodak, and they all > use just one way of keeping those cherished photos: Digital Film. > > Buy a Kodak camera, or any of the following cameras (x, y, z), and use > Kodak Digital Film: an easy solution to all the complexity of taking > digital pictures. Simply drop it into your favourite high street lab and > you'll get back what you've always had in the past - beautiful prints on > Kodak paper, a CD of your photos so Uncle Ernie and Aunti Flo can have > some reprints later, and a freshly wiped Kodak Digital Film ready to take > some more super pictures. Digital memories with Digital Film, only from > Kodak. > > This achieves several things. Importantly, it clarifies the process for > the average family snapper beyond simplicity itself. It's even easier > than film, because you don't need to thread the stuff from the old > outdated cassettes into the camera, you simply pop in the DF card and > away you go. Pics taken, you drop in the DF card to the supermarket > minilab, and for 3.99 you get back 2 or 3 dozen prints, a CD of all the > shots for any later reprints, and your DF card, wiped, ready to go again. > > After it takes off, which it would ( 'Henry - which kinda camera shall we > get, it's all so confusing - look at all these cards and things - oh - > there's this Digital Film thing from Kodak, that sounds really easy...') > then other makers could get in on the act - Fuji Digital Film, Agfa > Digital Film, and so on. Sure they would be either a CF card or a memory > stick or whatever the standard was, but in the public conscioussness, it > would effectively be *the* replacement for film. > > The real fly in the ointment is getting them to standardize the format :-) > > .02 > > Cheers, > > Cotty > > PS- I'll bet that Wychwood's Hobgoblin that Kodak already hold the > trademark on 'Digital Film'...... > > ____________________________________ > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > ____________________________________ > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > ____________________________________ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:31:22 +0000 > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: OT: Photographers' Bios > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Hi Mike et al, > > I have received my used copy of 'Seeing the Light: Wilderness and > Salvation: a Photographer's Tale' from Powell's this morning. It's in > great condition with cellophane dust jacket and an insert on the > frontispiece stating that it was originally a review copy from Random > House from October 30th 1995 with the remark that 'Random House would > appreciate two copies of your review'.... > > Had a quick flick through and the repro is excellent. Great tonal range > in the photos and what fabulous photos they are! I'm looking forward to > reading it, just in time for Christmas. > > I devoured Robert Capa's 'Soft Focus' in well under a week, usually too > late at night when I knew I would regret ot the next morning. And I did. > > Very interesting read - more like a novel than non-fiction. It made me > realise I know so little about the liberation of France and the rest of > Europe, and so I will now bone up a bit on that subject. > > I notice a Larry Burrows bio on sale in AP. All good stuff, I'm sure. > > Thanks for the recommendation, Mike. > > Cotty > > ____________________________________ > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > ____________________________________ > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > ____________________________________ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:53:04 -0500 > From: "David Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Cmos was: Hypothetical Question > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > So is the CMOS gathering data in a similar fashion as > a CCD,but with out the CCD?One BIG digital problem with the > CCD is dust on the filter.Is this now eliminated or greatly reduced > with CMOS. > I know i will eventually have to or want to upo grade from > the 2.74 megapixel to a higher unit.Just not sure what is > better or more stable,CMOS or CCD. > Cotty, i beleive you mentioned shooting soccer was not a problem > with the Canon correct,and shutter lag was up there with > SLR types. > Dave > ---- Begin Original Message ---- > > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Any CMOS comments....Cotty? > > From what I gather, the CMOS uses vastly less power than a comparable > CCD. This seems to bear out in practice. I have the grip with > provision > for 2 Liithium Ion battery packs, and the 2 packs. Charged up, with > occasional snapping and say a good couple of hours shooting on a > Saturday, so say about 400 exposures, maybe 450 in all, I can go a > good 2 > WEEKS before they're exhausted. I have disabled auto-shut-off. The > camera > stays on all the time when shooting unless I switch it off manually. > The > packs are amazing. Personally I wouldn't dally with AA-anything. > > .02pixels :-) > > Cot > > ____________________________________ > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > ____________________________________ > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > ____________________________________ > > > > ---- End Original Message ---- > > > > > > Pentax User > Stouffville Ontario Canada > http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ > http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses > Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:56:27 -0500 > From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Behind the counter with digital > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I _like_ it, but that fly is about as big as a turkey buzzard. > > -Lon > > Cotty wrote: >> >>> I'm spending this week working in a lab that has digital to >>> photo paper printing capability. >>> What a gong show. >>> First, there seems to be no standards in the industry, and we >>> are being asked to support 3 different memory card styles, plus >>> microdrives, plus floppies and CDs. >> >> [slight snip] >> >>> Anyway, the people who make this stuff need to do some more >>> market research. Maybe try to make digital photography easy. >>> Film users can literally aim and shoot, and expect reasonable >>> results, with no knowledge base. >>> Digital users seem to need a course in rocket science to get >>> pictures. >> >> If I were in charge at Kodak, I'd settle on a method of digital storage, >> whether it be CF card or whatever, I'd re-launch my digital hardware >> (cameras and storage cards) in a humongous blitz, calling it Digital >> Film, and force it into the family snapshot users' minds. All previous >> digital standards are old and defunct! Digital Film is *the* replacement >> for that old favourite 'film'. Now you can truly enter the digital age >> with an exciting new range of digital cameras from Kodak, and they all >> use just one way of keeping those cherished photos: Digital Film. >> >> Buy a Kodak camera, or any of the following cameras (x, y, z), and use >> Kodak Digital Film: an easy solution to all the complexity of taking >> digital pictures. Simply drop it into your favourite high street lab and >> you'll get back what you've always had in the past - beautiful prints on >> Kodak paper, a CD of your photos so Uncle Ernie and Aunti Flo can have >> some reprints later, and a freshly wiped Kodak Digital Film ready to take >> some more super pictures. Digital memories with Digital Film, only from >> Kodak. >> >> This achieves several things. Importantly, it clarifies the process for >> the average family snapper beyond simplicity itself. It's even easier >> than film, because you don't need to thread the stuff from the old >> outdated cassettes into the camera, you simply pop in the DF card and >> away you go. Pics taken, you drop in the DF card to the supermarket >> minilab, and for 3.99 you get back 2 or 3 dozen prints, a CD of all the >> shots for any later reprints, and your DF card, wiped, ready to go again. >> >> After it takes off, which it would ( 'Henry - which kinda camera shall we >> get, it's all so confusing - look at all these cards and things - oh - >> there's this Digital Film thing from Kodak, that sounds really easy...') >> then other makers could get in on the act - Fuji Digital Film, Agfa >> Digital Film, and so on. Sure they would be either a CF card or a memory >> stick or whatever the standard was, but in the public conscioussness, it >> would effectively be *the* replacement for film. >> >> The real fly in the ointment is getting them to standardize the format :-) >> >> .02 >> >> Cheers, >> >> Cotty >> >> PS- I'll bet that Wychwood's Hobgoblin that Kodak already hold the >> trademark on 'Digital Film'...... >> >> ____________________________________ >> Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at >> http://www.macads.co.uk/ >> ____________________________________ >> Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! >> http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ >> ____________________________________ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:54:25 -0500 > From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Behind the counter with digital > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I've been working on a theory the last few years that digital technology > has only 3 widespread effects: > a) slowing things down for the consumer or hands-on worker > b) making things unnecessarily complicated for the consumer or hands-on worker > c) saving corporations money > > And mind you, I programmed micros for a living between 1978 and 2000. > I'm not sure I was in the right field. > > -Lon > > Mike Johnston wrote: >> >> William Robb wrote: >> >>> Digital users seem to need a course in rocket science to get pictures. >> >> Well, maybe they just need a COURSE, period. Who's educating the public >> about how to use digital? The old paradigm is that the camera stores have >> knowledgeable salespeople who can serve as the front line for educating the >> consumer. That hardly works now that mail order and mass-market stores are >> #1 and #2 in terms of disseminating the devices. Plus, there are literally >> thousands of schools that teach photography, and about a zillion books that >> cover the basics (again, and again, and again...). >> >> There's no sort of infrastructure for teaching digital. Everybody uses >> different cameras, everybody uses different image-management programs, >> everybody uses different computers and picture formats and transportation >> media. Where are consumers supposed to go to learn this stuff? My local >> community college doesn't even teach a course in Photoshop because anyone >> who's enough of an expert in Photoshop to teach it can get a better job than >> being a teacher. The few books that are out are basically out of date before >> they see the inside of a bookstore, and because of the lack of >> standardization they assume an equipment set that few specific readers >> actually have. >> >> True, we have the internet, but that's like educating a sixth grader by >> dumping a set of encyclopaedias on his head. My Mom owns a digital camera >> and a six-year-old Macintosh, and she can no more find her way to a digital >> print than I can find my way to the Powerball jackpot. >> >> I've got more than a little sympathy for the digital neophyte. It wasn't all >> that easy for _me_, and I have just a tad more knowledge about making still >> pictures than the average bear. >> >> --Mike > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:47:56 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: In praise of vuescan and other digital meanderings > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I'd sort of half been following Ann's thread about making calendars, not > really paying attention. Suddenly, this weekend, the light went on in my > brain and I thought "wouldn't it be a great idea to make a calendar for my > friends". > Remembered that Staples had been mentioned, so went along to check the > price and turnaround. $19.95 (CDN) printed on white cardstock and bound and > it would take a couple of days. Told me to bring the prints in and they'd > make it up. "Great" I thought and trotted off home to sort out some nice > photos. Picked up a couple of packets of HP everyday semi-gloss photo paper > and a new cartridge so I could do a trial to see how it would look. > Back home, I picked out the photos I wanted to use. Discovered that I'd > given away all the prints to my friends so I had to scan all the negatives. > No big deal, I thought. Staples will only be scanning the prints and I had > to scan anyway to make up my trial calendar. > All went well until I hit a strip of 160VC negatives. I just couldn't get a > decent scan from the Minolta Scan dual at all. Another lightbulb went on. > Hmm, Bruce had mentioned vuescan with the minolta (I think). Downloaded a > trial version and re-scanned. Apart from the $40 watermark on the image, it > was perfect! Purchased it straight away. > (already this calendar is becoming expensive!) Brilliant! I wish I'd bought > this software earlier. > Scanned away happily, nice and large to fit letter sized paper, put the > images in order, named them january, february etc. and wrote them all to CD > ready to deliver to Staples. Meanwhile, I printed off the calendar using a > standard template from Word on the HP semi-gloss. It looked good. I was > pretty damn pleased with myself, I can tell you! Then the dog came in from > outside, wet paws and all, ran upstairs and bounced off the bed where I had > placed the completed sheets. I now had a dented and smudged calendar. > "Never mind" I thought to myself, "This is only for practice and I'm > keeping it for myself anyway". > Off I went to Staples with my CD of 13 images - one for each month plus the > front cover. > Lady at Staples takes the details and informs me that they charge $3 for > opening EACH image on the CD whereas if I'd brought the print it would cost > nothing. HUH????? I've done all the work and they want to charge me for it? > An extra $39 on top of a calendar that costs $19?? Insanity! > Quick mental calculation tells me that it's probably still cheaper for me > to have them print up three calendars than do it myself bearing in mind > that a colour cartridge costs $60CDN (ex tax) and paper is about $20-30 a > box so I leave it with them and sulk off. > One of the reasons I wasn't going to do it myself was because the printer I > have is not particularly new and I was worried about fading. Then Paul > (hubby) pointed out that each page only has to last a month! Well, that > convinced me to do it myself. Found a nice double sided semi-gloss/matte > paper from HP and off I went. Rankled by the charge for pulling my files > off a CD I went back to Staples and cancelled the order. I reckon mine are > nicer anyway (though I say so myself...) > > And that's my story. > --- > Wendy Beard > Mosaid Technologies Inc > 11 Hines Rd, Kanata, > Ontario K2K 2X1, Canada > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:09:39 -0500 > From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Yellow scourge > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >> Does the K 50mm/f:1.4 suffer the yellow scourge of its screw mount >> brothers? > > Gee, I've never heard of ~any~ K-mount lens that had the "yellow > scourge". I'm assuming that it only occurred only in lenses > produced during certain years of the screwmount era. (I'm just > making an assumption here, though, and perhaps someone who really > knows what they're talking about can jump in...) > > Fred > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:15:02 +0100 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: Yellow scourge > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Content-Disposition: inline > > Hi Fred, > Did you like my Christmas card? > Alek > U?ytkownik Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa?: >>> Does the K 50mm/f:1.4 suffer the yellow scourge of its screw mount >>> brothers? >> >> Gee, I've never heard of ~any~ K-mount lens that had the "yellow >> scourge". I'm assuming that it only occurred only in lenses >> produced during certain years of the screwmount era. (I'm just >> making an assumption here, though, and perhaps someone who really >> knows what they're talking about can jump in...) >> >> Fred >> > > > ***************r-e-k-l-a-m-a************** > > Masz do?? p?acenia prowizji bankowi ? > mBank - za??? konto > http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:39:21 +0000 > From: Ken Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Yellow scourge > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > Fred, > The reason I ask is because the SMC Takumar 1:1.4/50 does suffer from > the yellow curse. Since it is basically the same lens as the SMC > Pentax (K) 1:1.4/50, the only difference being the mount, I assumed it > might have the same problem. I have two copies of the Takumar, but I > haven't seen a copy of the SMC Pentax (K) model. > > On Thursday 19 December 2002 04:09 pm, Fred wrote: >>> Does the K 50mm/f:1.4 suffer the yellow scourge of its screw mount >>> brothers? >> >> Gee, I've never heard of ~any~ K-mount lens that had the "yellow >> scourge". I'm assuming that it only occurred only in lenses >> produced during certain years of the screwmount era. (I'm just >> making an assumption here, though, and perhaps someone who really >> knows what they're talking about can jump in...) >> >> Fred I'm thinking of adding a non-AF 55mm lens to my collection of 645 lenses. How is this one? In addition can anyone answer how the 120mm f4 Macro compares with a 150mm 2.8 as a PORTRAIT lens? Additionally, how does the 150 f2.8 compare as a portrait lens to the older 150mm f3.5? Thanks M
