Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #38

[rafel antich]

Muchas gracias. Rafel Antich

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 03 : Issue 38

Todaay's Topics:
Re: Re[2]: Are some photographs bett [ "Feroze Kistan" Re: Best Backdrop color for B&W port [ Steve Pearson Re: Best Backdrop color for B&W port [ Timothy Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
FS Friday [ "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
OT: Friends, Romans, countrymen... ( [ Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Re: OT: How i spent my Christmas Vac [ Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Re: Info pls on Cdn buying lens in U [ Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Re: Vs: Re[2]: Are some photographs [ Mike Johnston Re: Are some photographs better than [ Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: OT: How i spent my Christmas Vac [ Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Re: Nikkor AF 80-200/2.8 vs A70-210/ [ Gianfranco Irlanda Re: Are the "rules" simply instincti [ "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: smc a 50/2 ? [ Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: Are the "rules" simply instincti [ =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= Re: A standard zoom dilemma [ Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: Dumb Newbie Q - What Color ARE C [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: Vs: Re[2]: Are some photographs [ =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= Re: A standard zoom dilemma [ Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 00:12:17 +0200
From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Are some photographs better than others?
Message-ID: <01a101c2b375$7250aaf0$5f58ef9b@angel>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

If you define impact has having produced the effect that the photographer
desired than I would say yes. Have you seen the adverts for the BMW M3 CSL
or the latest Nokia phone. They not artistic but technically correct
photographs designed to sell a product-a means to an end.
Feroze
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 10:56 PM
Subject: Vs: Re[2]: Are some photographs better than others?


> Nope - people are making living with descriptive images: cars, clothes,
utensils whatever and that�s the content. Of course it can be done well or
badly and anything in between - and part of it is composition. But do these
images have any impact?
> All the best!
> Raimo
> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>
> -----Alkuper�inen viesti-----
> L�hett�j�: P�l Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> P�iv�: 03. tammikuuta 2003 20:29
> Aihe: Re: Re[2]: Are some photographs better than others?
>
>
> >Raimo wrote:
> >
> >> What is a picture that�s full of composition but no content?
> >
> >
> >It is picture that is better than an image without content that's also
technically bad. People are making a living from technically perfect
contentless images. Without technique you cannot express content.
> >
> >P�l
> >
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:21:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Best Backdrop color for B&W portraits?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I agree, however our babe is only 1 month old. So,
I'm pretty much stuck with "posed" shots, seeing as
how she can't even sit up on her own. She's just too
cute (biased of course) to not take any pics at this
early age!

Thanks for the help, I will definately check out the
PUG as well.


--- Timothy Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> Hi Steve...
>
> Not to through you a loop, but you may want to
> consider more "natural"
> backgrounds. I personally appreciate candid
> portraits that include a bit of
> the person's environment, but at a large enough
> aperture as to avoid
> distracting details. To me, backdrops seem to
> encourage unnatural and wooden
> posing (perhaps its the photographer's fault). Tom
> Van Veen's recent baby
> portrait post (from another thread) is a great
> example (just put your thumb
> over that loud coffee cup ):
>
>

>
> The PUG is loaded with other examples, too.
>
> t
>
> On 1/3/03 11:30 AM, Steve Pearson wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking of going with a white sheet for a
> > backdrop for some b&w's of our new baby. Seeing
> as
> > how I do not have any "professional" backdrops, my
> > choices are limited. I also have light blue,
> green,
> > tan, etc. colored blankets.
> >
> > Any thought as to which might look best?
> >
> > BTW, I will be trying the Pan-F. Do you guys
> shoot
> > Pan-F at something other than 50 ISO?
> >
> > Thanks again!
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> >
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 15:29:21 -0800
From: Timothy Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Pentax Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best Backdrop color for B&W portraits?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Ah, of course. Perhaps one of the baby's blankets would serve?

t

On 1/3/03 3:21 PM, Steve Pearson wrote:

> I agree, however our babe is only 1 month old. So,
> I'm pretty much stuck with "posed" shots, seeing as
> how she can't even sit up on her own. She's just too
> cute (biased of course) to not take any pics at this
> early age!
>
> Thanks for the help, I will definately check out the
> PUG as well.
>
>
> --- Timothy Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>> Hi Steve...
>>
>> Not to through you a loop, but you may want to
>> consider more "natural"
>> backgrounds. I personally appreciate candid
>> portraits that include a bit of
>> the person's environment, but at a large enough
>> aperture as to avoid
>> distracting details. To me, backdrops seem to
>> encourage unnatural and wooden
>> posing (perhaps its the photographer's fault). Tom
>> Van Veen's recent baby
>> portrait post (from another thread) is a great
>> example (just put your thumb
>> over that loud coffee cup ):
>>
>>
>
>>
>> The PUG is loaded with other examples, too.
>>
>> t
>>
>> On 1/3/03 11:30 AM, Steve Pearson wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thinking of going with a white sheet for a
>>> backdrop for some b&w's of our new baby. Seeing
>> as
>>> how I do not have any "professional" backdrops, my
>>> choices are limited. I also have light blue,
>> green,
>>> tan, etc. colored blankets.
>>>
>>> Any thought as to which might look best?
>>>
>>> BTW, I will be trying the Pan-F. Do you guys
>> shoot
>>> Pan-F at something other than 50 ISO?
>>>
>>> Thanks again!
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
>> now.
>>> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:28:34 -0600
From: "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FS Friday
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

I need to remove some litter, so here it is:

58mm lens hood: Takumar 1:2.5 135mm 1:4 200mmAsahi Opt. Co., Japan
49mm lens hood: Takumar 1:2.8 105mm 1:4 100mmAsahi Opt. Co., Japan
both of above unmarked, pristine.
(I have no clue as to value of the lens hoods. Make an honest offer that
includes a couple of dollars for shipping.)

49mm lens hood: Super-Takumar 1:3.5 35mm Asahi Opt. Co., Japan
no dents or dings, front rim paint is chipped

Vivitar 135/2.8 lens for 42mm thread mount, 55mm filter size. Clean and
unmarked, some slight paint chipping on lens shade front rim. $20 includes
shipping.

2 49mm (generic) snap-on lens caps.
2 52mm (generic) snap-on lns caps.
1 55mm (generic) snap-on lens cap.
1 58mm (generic snap-on lens cap.
Assorted slip-on lens caps.

2 49mm Vivitar Polarizing filters, in box and maybe never used.
1 58mm Vivitar Polarizing filter, in box and maybe never used.
1 72mm (generic) Haze filter.
1 55mm Hoya UV(0) Haze filter
1 55mm B+W NL3 Closeup filter
1 52mm PRO UV filter
1 49-52 step-up ring
49mm filters, 1 of each: PRO ND8; PRO FLB, Vivitar 80B, Tiffen FLD, Vivitar
VMC ND-3, Kalimar UV, Pentax Skylight.
1 Cokin square Sunsoft A series filter

Pentax ZX-50 Operating Manual

Mamiya/Sekor slip-on flash shoe - fits Spotmatics (?)

2 42mm screw thread Vivitar 2x Automatic Teleconverters.

1 Vivitar 3x Teleconverter

1 Vivitar 2800 Autoflash with filters and instruction floder. obviously used
but intact and working.

1 Vivitar 102 manual flash.

A stack of series filters, mostly VI and a few larger.

Please accept my apologies for not pricing the listed items. I have little
idea as to the value of most of them. Your offers will probably be accepted.
Include estimated postage in offers. Pay after you receive.
If you want to make a package offer for multiple items, feel free.
*Make offers/requests off-list, please.

Thanks for wading through the list.

Regards,
Ed Matthew








_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 23:26:52 +0000
From: Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT: Friends, Romans, countrymen... (was Re[3]: The light rules.
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

Friday, January 3, 2003, 10:21:55 PM, you wrote:

> Bob,
> If you ever get the chance to visit the Art Institute of Chicago, it has a
> large collection of Van Goghs. The advice above truly applies.

me and Vince are old mates. We have a few of his here in London. Of
particular interest to me (having at separate times had both ears
sliced off! - and reattached, I hasten to add) are his self portraits
with bandaged ear. Last year when I had an operation on my left ear I
had a t-shirt printed with one of those paintings, so I could wear it
in the ward the following morning while my own ear was similarly
wrapped. I thought my co-patients on the ENT ward might be amused, by
all I got was baleful stares . Luckily I couldn't hear what any of
them were saying...

After the first operation on my right ear, after the bandages were
taken off but while the dried blood, stitches and half-shaved head were
still evident, I made a point of visiting the Courtauld to look at the
Van Gogh. Caused a certain amount of discomfort among the other visitors,
I can tell you!

---

Bob

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 15:35:34 -0800
From: Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: How i spent my Christmas Vacation/enabling call!
Message-id: <001901c2b380$d011abc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Yeah, if the Pentax stuff is overpriced, don't bother, there's enough
floating around at decent prices. I thought I'd never be able to afford a
6x7, then one day I saw one for $849 Cdn with 105/2.4 and metering prism.

Two days later, I went back and got it for $900, tax included. Of course,
that was just the start. Then came the 165/2.8 (mint, in box), the 2x
converter (Cambron, not Pentax, but much cheaper and "good enough"), then
some extension tubes. Now I keep reminding myself that I don't really need
a 45/4.0 for portraits and such (must resist, must resist...)

The P67's a solid camera that's fun to use and takes great pictures. In
many ways, it really is a giant, bayonet-mount, Spotmatic.

Pat White

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 15:48:09 -0800
From: Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Info pls on Cdn buying lens in US
Message-id: <002101c2b382$9227d6c0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Round number: roughly double, $400Cdn or a little more. Try not to use
UPS, or you'll have to pay their $35 "brokerage fee".

Example: I ordered a used Cambron 2x converter for Pentax 6x7, advertised
at $75usd. Add $15usd for shipping, then came exchange, GST, "brokerage
fee", and the total was right around $200cdn. In that instance, it was
still a good deal, but more than I expected to pay.

Pat White

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 18:14:45 -0600
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vs: Re[2]: Are some photographs better than others?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

> I said visual language, not language of photography. The latter I have no idea
> of what is. You have yet to explain how to make images without a visual
> language.

Pal,
As I say, please send me your address. I'll send you some published writings
on the matter. That is, if you like.

--Mike

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:15:22 -0800
From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are some photographs better than others?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> HAR!
>
> A little story.
>
> Way back when, I had some very good photographers look at my work. Their
> comments were always something like, "That works", "That doesn't work", "The
> color is a little off on that one", and the one that pleased me the most,
> "tapping on the photo with a pleased nod".
>
> When I showed the same photos to mediocre photographers they explained every
> thing that was wrong with them in detail, every single photo was defective
> in one or more ways.
>
> When I showed them to poor photographers they were all wonderful, and they
> wished they had a camera like mine instead of the one they had which took
> bad photos.
>
> So, the answer to how do you determine is a particular photo is good is
> simply ask yourself, "Does it work?"
>
> Ciao,
> Graywolf
> http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto

Quite amusing, Gray Wolf...
Having obtained an age of more gray, and I hope more respect, I
continually ask myself, "Does it really matter?"

Most usually it doesn't.

It tends to make you more serene, something that has pretty much
eluded me over the years...

But, I'm working on it!

keith whaley

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 01:22:36 +0000
From: Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: How i spent my Christmas Vacation/enabling call!
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Pat White wrote:
> Yeah, if the Pentax stuff is overpriced, don't bother, there's enough
> floating around at decent prices. I thought I'd never be able to afford a
> 6x7, then one day I saw one for $849 Cdn with 105/2.4 and metering prism.

Now we are talking.


>
> Two days later, I went back and got it for $900, tax included. Of course,
> that was just the start. Then came the 165/2.8 (mint, in box), the 2x
> converter (Cambron, not Pentax, but much cheaper and "good enough"), then
> some extension tubes. Now I keep reminding myself that I don't really need
> a 45/4.0 for portraits and such (must resist, must resist...)

45/4.0 and noods, great combination.

>
> The P67's a solid camera that's fun to use and takes great pictures. In
> many ways, it really is a giant, bayonet-mount, Spotmatic.

Ditto with the G690, giant Leica.

>
> Pat White
>

Jeff.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:12:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Gianfranco Irlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Nikkor AF 80-200/2.8 vs A70-210/4 pics
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> However, these 2 lenses were rated
> by photodo 4 & 2.2 respectively, so I must be missing
something.

Hi Alan,

Photodo lists an A 70-200/4 (not the A 70-210/4) lens: my guess
is that they tested the non-SMC one which, in fact, *is* a
70-200...

Ciao,

Gianfranco

=====


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 18:21:23 -0600
From: "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are the "rules" simply instinctive?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

In my book, this is worth keeping.

Ed

>--- Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > > Many years ago, someone told me that brown belts
> > make better karate
> > > instructors than black belts because the brown
> > belts still remember and can
> > > still describe what they do. For the black belts,
> > on the other hand, the
> > > techniques have become instinctive, and the
> > beginners' details now seem hard
> > > to explain, since they've been absorbed into
> > "muscle memory".
> > >
> > > The black belts see the bigger picture, the goal
> > of winning the bout, and
> > > don't need to think consciously about their
> > stance, etc. In the same way,
> > > experienced, skilled, photographers know what
> > "looks right", and don't need
> > > to think about beginners' guidelines anymore.
> > Does anyone else see it this
> > > way?
> >
> >
> > Pat,
> > Bob B. makes much the same point in his post about
> > shooting. It's a valid
> > point.
> >
> > I just think that when you're talking about "rules
> > of composition," you're
> > talking about standardized ways of arranging
> > subject-matter when you shoot a
> > picture. These rules, being generalized, have to be
> > broad. Thus they are
> > things like "the eye must have a way into the
> > picture, so don't cut off the
> > foreground," or "place objects one-third from one
> > border and two-thirds from
> > the other," and "focus on the front eye" and "don't
> > cut peoples' heads off"
> > and "blur out confusing backgrounds" and Lordy, I
> > don't know what-all.
> >
> > The fact is, nobody can possibly name a single "rule
> > of thumb" a) such that
> > it will usefully improve pictures in all situations
> > where it can be applied
> > and b) such that pictures which do not conform to
> > the rule will not be
> > strong or successful or good or whatever positive
> > word you want to use.
> >
> > Furthermore, I personally contend that reflexively
> > applying any such "rules
> > of thumb" is just as likely to blind the
> > photographer to recognizing other
> > possibilities.
> >
> > The last time in even semi-serious photography that
> > rules of composition
> > were taken seriously were in the "serious amateur"
> > journals of the 1930s and
> > 1940s. "Compositional guidelines" were much beloved
> > of writers for these
> > journals and "posing guides" were actually sold for
> > money. An example I have
> > in front of me right now, _The American Annual of
> > Photography 1935_,
> > published by American Photographic Publishing
> > Company of Boston, features
> > nicely-made photographs and a few that retain some
> > small interest, in some
> > cases incidentally. Most are pictorialist, stiff,
> > posed, pretty, hackneyed,
> > careful, trite, or superficial. Apart from Leonard
> > Misonne, I don't
> > immediately notice any names of photographers I know

=== message truncated ===

---

Yahoo! Postales
�Felicita las fiestas!