Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #37

[rafel antich]

Muchas gracias. Rafel Antich

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

Content-Type: text/plain

pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 03 : Issue 37

Todaay's Topics:
Dumb Newbie Q - What Color ARE Color [ Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: Dumb Newbie Q - What Color ARE C [ "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Re: Are some photographs better than [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Re:What Toys you have in 2002? [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Re: OT: Rotary trimmer suggestions? [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Re: Vs: Re[2]: Are some photographs [ Mike Johnston Re: Info pls on Cdn buying lens in U [ Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4? (Different 1 [ "T Rittenhouse" Re: B&W film/developer combinations. [ Mike Johnston Re: Info pls on Cdn buying lens in U [ Andre Langevin Re[2]: The light rules. [ Mike Johnston Re: Are some photographs better than [ "T Rittenhouse" OT: Happy JRR Tolkien's Birthday [ Mike Johnston Re: OT: Happy JRR Tolkien's Birthday [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Re: Dumb Newbie Q - What Color ARE C [ Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: The light rules. [ Paul Stenquist Re: OT: Happy JRR Tolkien's Birthday [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Re: Vs: Re[2]: Are some photographs [ =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= Re: Dumb Newbie Q - What Color ARE C [ "T Rittenhouse" Re: B&W film/developer combinations. [ Paul Stenquist Re: The light rules. [ Paul Stenquist Re: Soft effect WAS Re[2]: What toys [ "Feroze Kistan"
------------------------------

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:07:53 -0500
From: Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Dumb Newbie Q - What Color ARE Color Negatives?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>1. What color ARE color negatives? (color print film)<

inverted, at least.

>2. Who's to say the original 4x6 prints are right? (Right in the sense
that they show the color the camera recorded at the time?)<

nothing says that.

>3. But if one lab can develop color prints a different color than another
lab can develop them, how can I ever tell if *I* had ANYTHING to do with
the color they come out? <

you have some influence, but not a lot. you take a picture of something
remotely resembling normal contrast and color across your whole roll and
they are likelty to get it right. take 24 pictures of a red barn door and
you could get anything back.

>4. What color is actually there? How come any machine cannot look at color
negatives and arrive at the same color in the prints?<

printing from negative film means inverting the color and subtracting the
orange mask. that means there isn't any color to look at to tell what the
results should be. also, each machine can be configured differently
according to the operator, and the results also depend on how timely the
machine is maintained. worn out chemicals means worse color.

>5. This is why people use slide film isn't it? Because the developing
process doesn't change the color? And because the photographer can see what
color the pictures really came out?<

yes.

>6. *Is* the developing of color slide film accurate? (i.e. Do slides come
out the color the camera recorded?<

in an absolute sense, no. all films distort color, even color slide. the
question is how much under what conditions. learning the amount and either
compensating for more neutral results or using it creatively is a huge
amount of what experience is about.

for publication work, color slides are still the standard and being able to
look at a slide and know what color was intended is one reason it came to
dominate. digital files are taking over, but it is a far slower process
than i would like.

like Mark Roberts, i have decided quite a while ago to scan and print
myself almost all of the time. when i can't because of size or permanence
requirements, i supply a digital file and a printed sample for color
reference.

Herb...

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 14:11:34 -0800
From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dumb Newbie Q - What Color ARE Color Negatives?
Message-ID: <0bf001c2b375$1479d730$6401a8c0@bobblakely>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Regards,
Bob....
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!"
- Benjamin Franklin

From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> 1. What color ARE color negatives? (color print film)

Developed color negatives display the color complements of the colors
focused on it during exposure plus an approximately orange cast.

> 2. Who's to say the original 4x6 prints are right? (Right in the sense
that they show the color the camera recorded at the time?)

First, they never do. They can't. Neither the film nor the paper has the
recording range available in real scenes. Second, because our brains do a
considerable amount of color balancing, especially at dawn, dusk and under
incandescent & fluorescent lights, whatever color balance works perfectly
for one condition cannot work perfectly for others. Third, many films were
never designed to provide an exactly faithful reproduction of any scene.
Films designed for enhanced or vivid color rendition come to mind. Now,
beyond that, each film manufacturer has designed their film to provide a
certain rendition of the original scene under specific lighting/exposure
conditions and when developed in the manor described by the manufacturer
using a certain paper with the paper developed per prescribed methods. If
your prints are rendered by an automated development system, there will be a
series of letters and numbers on the back of the print. These give the
compensation, if any. The person who develops your prints should be able to
tell you exactly what adjustments, if any, were made for each print. If not,
he shouldn't be your developer.

> 3. But if one lab can develop color prints a different color than another
lab can develop them, how can I ever tell if *I* had ANYTHING to do with the
color they come out?

Beyond the code described in 2, above, in reality, you can't.

> 4. What color is actually there? How come any machine cannot look at color
negatives and arrive at the same color in the prints?

Actually, given the same compensation is given to the prints in each case
and the same paper is used, each lab should produce the same results.
Factors which affect this are development bath temperature control, age and
use of chemicals, i.e. how cheep is the developer.

> 5. This is why people use slide film isn't it? Because the developing
process doesn't change the color? And because the photographer can see what
color the pictures really came out?

Partly. Slide film also limits the range of the film. Slides (some) appear
to be more faithful though within a comparatively narrower range. Slides
also add a "punch" (I can't describe) not seen in print film.

> 6. *Is* the developing of color slide film accurate? (i.e. Do slides come
out the color the camera recorded?

Some do, within a narrower lighting range. Since it is the recording media,
all film comes out the color the camera recorded by definition. It's still
does not _exactly_ reproduce the light that entered the lens. The discussion
regarding the way our brains work applies here too.

> Color is very important to me.

There are color/shade cards which can be placed in the scene prior to taking
the actual photo. These can be used by professional labs to provide
excellent color calibration. Such exact color calibration is often necessary
in the fashion world.

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 22:10:56 +0000
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are some photographs better than others?
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

>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".

Nice story, Wolf-of-Grey.

When I was a student at Southport College of Art in the 70s, there was
one tutor whose favourite and much-used phrase was often heard as he
leisurely cast an eye over one piece or another as was his wont. "Hmmm,
there are areas working for me there," as he waved a hand in one vicinity
or another of said work.

His name was Barry Cocks (bless you Barry if by some miracle you read
this) and he had his surname emblazoned in huge letters across his
side-sack that rode his hip absolutely everywhere, usually lagging
forlornly behind as embarrassed students moved up several gears, keeping
well ahead on expeditions to capture form and texture in our notebooks at
some juncture or other.

My fondest memory of those days (I waived an 8mm camera around
frequently, documenting all and sundry) was one guy whose ability in oils
was jaw-dropping. He spent weeks working on a vista that John Constable
would have willingly called his own. The detail, colour, overall
rendition was simply wonderful. I watched its progress with interest,
only to discover that on the last day of it's construction, a large red
triangle appeared squat in the middle of this masterpiece, and the
painter duly proclaimed it finished. I stared at it for a long time.

The bloke went on to do Fine Art.

:-)

Waxing lyrical with enough Pouilly Fume to stun a Brontosaurus
Cotty

____________________________________
Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
____________________________________
Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/
____________________________________

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 22:12:20 +0000
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re:What Toys you have in 2002?
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

>It's finding time to shoot that is the problem these days. the Z-1/sigma is
>the combo I grab for whenever I get a chance... The 645NII hasn't been out of
>the bag since my visit to Mike W. in Newcastle.
>
>Jostein

I've heard Mike has that effect on folk...

LOL

Cotty

____________________________________
Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
____________________________________
Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/
____________________________________

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 22:18:04 +0000
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Rotary trimmer suggestions?
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

I have a Dahle Personal Trimmer (!) that is very much like a Rotatrim.
Single rail, circular blade. Big enough to trim A3 paper. 50 GBP from an
office and stationery store.

Fairly satisfied with it. Bought 1998, never faltered.

HTH

Cotty

____________________________________
Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
____________________________________
Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/
____________________________________

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

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:25:03 -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

> A visual language without rules would be uncomprehensive.

Pal,
Pish-posh and balderdash. There is no "language of photography."

Please send me your mailing address, and I'll send you an essay I wrote
called "Photographs Can Be Meaningless" which puts this case in detail in
relation to standard semantics.

--Mike

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

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 23:25:17 +0000
From: Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Info pls on Cdn buying lens in US
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I just bought a Spotmeter from Washington state. The cost was $230 US including
USPS shipping.
I paid by Paypal and my Visa bill came to around $370 CDN.

The seller sent the item labelled as a gift, otherwise I would have had to pay
an additional 15% on the total.

HTH,
Jeff.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am considering buying a lens for $200 US from California. I am wondering what my real cost would be in Cdn after conversion, shipping and handling, duty taxes etc. Can Anyone give me a quick ballpark figure on what I can expect to lay out...
> Thanks Vic
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:28:05 -0500
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4? (Different 1.4 optical designs)
Message-ID: <000b01c2b377$633cbc00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Humm...?

Well, I did not mean it insultingly. As I thought I made clear in the rest
of the post you pretty much have to be an expert to see the difference
between those lenses in everyday photos.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4? (Different 1.4 optical designs)


> > If you have to ask, you probably couldn't tell anyway.
>
> I'm assuming that you said this "tongue-in-cheek", right?
>
> Fred
>

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

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:31:13 -0600
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: B&W film/developer combinations...
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

> Here's a quick poll for all you B&W junkies out there: What's your favorite
> film and developer combination for reduced or non-existent grain? I'm
> thinking of 8x10 to 11x14 enlargements of portraits.



Without a doubt, the chromogenic films. Ilford XP-2 is the one I've used
mostly. You can shoot portraits at 200, 100, or even 50 and usefully
minimize the appearance of blemishes on Caucasian skin, yet the MORE
exposure these films receive the less grainy they are--the opposite of
conventional films. They're very pleasant and very forgiving for portraits.
I'll send you a sample scan off-list if I can find it.

--Mike

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:22:19 -0500
From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Info pls on Cdn buying lens in US
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

>I am considering buying a lens for $200 US from California. I am
>wondering what my real cost would be in Cdn after conversion,
>shipping and handling, duty taxes etc. Can Anyone give me a quick
>ballpark figure on what I can expect to lay out...
>Thanks Vic

Vic, first of all, multiply 200$ by 1.6 to convert it to Can $. 1.58
might be what newspapers say, but real exchange rates (with paypal
for example) are always a bit worse. Then have it sent by USPS
(postal service) not UPS or FedEx and you'll save quite a bit. These
two private transporters charge high brokerage fees and you'll have
for sure to pay canadian taxes. By mail, it may reach you without
any taxes to pay. Canadian duties just don't have the time to
process all packets. It is especially true if the content is
declared as "used". If you pay taxes, it will be GST (7%) +
provincial tax (only if your province apply its tax to incoming
packets from outside). And 5$ brokerage fee.

If applicable, you add the price of a money order in US $ (that is
3.50 can if I remember well) or a bank draft (it varies according to
the bank, but around 4$). You save this amount if you pay by paypal.

Andre
--

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

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:21:55 -0600
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re[2]: The light rules.
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

> I was always rather dismissive of
> and sniffy about the Impressionists and Post-Impressionists because
> their work is so over-exposed in posters and cheap reproductions,
> until I roused myself to go and look at some originals, when I was
> really quite bowled over.


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.

--Mike

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:37:56 -0500
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are some photographs better than others?
Message-ID: <002101c2b378$c32c4120$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thank you, Raimo.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


----- Original Message -----
From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Educational story. Very good! Sensei ni rei!

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

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:41:46 -0600
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT: Happy JRR Tolkien's Birthday
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

> Mikedalf,
>
> Come and see us here near Oxford and I'll take you to the hallowed inner
> sanctum that is The Eagle and Child in St. Giles where the mighty T. sat
> with fellow Inkies and alledgedly discussed ecrivital doings (BTW I made
> that word up) while supping pints.
>
> Can't stand fantasy myself. Hard SF all the way for me.
>
> Cotbo


Cotbo,
I'll gladly take you up on that invitation. I am determined to make a trip
to the British Isles before I kick. Heck, we've only been away for 383
years, it can't have changed all that much.

--Mikedalf

P.S. I actually played Gandalf in a 7th-grade play of "The Hobbit."

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 22:41:38 +0000
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Happy JRR Tolkien's Birthday
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

>> ... alledgedly discussed ecrivital doings (BTW I made
>> that word up) ...
>
>Damn, that's a fine neologism. Must be included in the FAQ under cotty-isms.
>You should have it added to .

LOL. I can't even say neoleo...noeole...neolleeo...let alone tell you
what it means.

>> Can't stand fantasy myself. Hard SF all the way for me.
>
>Enjoy any of Stephen Baxter's work? What's your current fave?

Never read Baxter. Niven, Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Silverberg, Farmer
and others. Not for a while now. The only thing I've read in recent years
was The Ringworld Throne. My son was watching Dinotopia on tv and it made
me wish someone would make a movie of Ringworld.

Cotty


____________________________________
Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
____________________________________
Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at

=== message truncated ===

---

Yahoo! Postales
�Felicita las fiestas!