Sure, but you're not selling a baggie of exposed film like JCO does. BR
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I use my studio strobes (alien Bees) for formals at all the weddings I shoot. I wouldn't want to use a little flash on a bracket for that kind of stuff. > ------------------------------ > > Content-Type: text/plain > > pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 03 : Issue 1212 > > Today's Topics: > RE: correct exposure [ "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel [ "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel [ "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: CF tripods [ "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > RE: correct exposure [ "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Old lenses and *ist D [ "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: correct exposure [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > pentax optio 550 [ "Sean Spencer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: pentax optio 550 [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > RE: Has Pentax missed again? [ "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Puzzled over lack of comments [ Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Has Pentax missed again? [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > RE: Has Pentax missed again? [ "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > RE: correct exposure [ "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > RE: correct exposure [ "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: correct exposure [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re[2]: correct exposure [ Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: correct exposure [ Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > RE: Has Pentax missed again? [ "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Hand-holding 300/2.8 [ "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > SMCP FA 28-80 3.5-4.7 Power Zoom len [ "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > *istD image flaws? [ "Bucky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: correct exposure [ "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Gretag Macbeth colo(u)r checker [ "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: *istD image flaws? [ "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:25:48 -0400 > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: correct exposure > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Yes, with TTL, you are going to change the ISO, not the stop. > But the problem will be the same if you dont change the ISO. > A predominately white gown shot will tend to underexpose with > TTL as it gets tricked by high reflectance...... > BAD! > JCO > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: correct exposure > > > If you use TTL, and it works properly, the exposure will not change when you > change the stop. > > Regards, > Bob... > -------------------------------------------- > "Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying > the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine > and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?" > -Martin Luther > > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > That would only happen if you are using manual > > (fixed power) flash & flash meter. If you use TTL or Non-TTl auto > > flash, the brides dress is not going to overexpose. > > Much more likely, it will underexpose due to reflectance > > being high. Thus opening up a stop gives some insurance > > against that problem. > > > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > > Subject: RE: correct exposure > > > > > > > What planet are you guys from?? > > > > Mars. > > > > > > Everybody knows that CN film has about 4 stops > > > overexposure latitude and only about 1 under. > > > Always overexpose to be safe. 1 stop over sounds perfect to me > > > and that is what I did routinely for my weddings. > > > Results were beautiful..... > > > > You have to watch the overexposure thing with white dresses. If the global > > exposure for the scene is correct, the white dress will likely be pushing > > Zone VIII, which is 3 stops of overexposure latitude gone already. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:38:32 -0400 > From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > the Mini is carryable. > > Herb.... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 8:55 PM > Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel > > > > A Macbeth colour chart, perhaps? Not the entire spectrum, but enough of > it > > (and very precisely-controlled colours) to allow for equipment > calibration. > > > > I've used one to compare different film emulsions, and to compare > scanners. > > I'll be using it to check out the colour reproduction of the *ist-D. Not > a > > piece of equipment I carry with me every day, but a useful tool > occasionally. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:37:57 -0400 > From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > meaning you have never done it. i have several such cards. they work but not > as well as adjusting the white balance after the fact in RAW mode. > > Herb.... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Apilado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 8:29 PM > Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel > > > > Too bad. An owner of a processing lab suggested getting a special card > that > > uses a gray card and a white card. You will get better color if you white > > balance first. You and your photo friends should really check into this. > > There was a time when carrying a gray card to meter on was the photo thing > > to do. Read somewhere once about a card that had all the color spectrum > > that you took a picture of before shooting your color shots. This would > > help the film processor in getting the correct color balance. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:40:26 -0400 > From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: CF tripods > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="UTF-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > i compared all the CF tripods at B&H by twisting, pushing, and bending. i > bought a pair of Gitzos. twist releases aren't so convenient, but the > tripods are strong, stiff, and damp well. > > Herb.... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 9:21 PM > Subject: CF tripods > > > > has anyone here had a firsthand experience with velbon carmagne 640 and > > gitzo g1228? their prices are somewhat close > > ($400 vs $350), and gitzo sounds like... well, gitzo! but it's a tiny > > bit heavier (probably irrelevant) and longer (21.5in folded) > > i have seen quite a few reviews saying velbon is "nice", "great" and so > > on, but i am kinda suspicious of velbon CF (someone > > called it "gold-plated yugo"). otoh, its size, 17inches folded, sounds > > very promising (i amlooking for a new lightweight and > > reasonably sturdy travel tripod -- the max load i expect to have on it > > is ~6lbs, the longest lens is 200mm with 2x extender). > > my biggest concern is durability. anyone can share his experience? > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:23:54 -0400 > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: correct exposure > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I guess it's possible but VERY unlikely that many > people would be working that way for a wedding/reception. > In my experince, no matter how much I warn/persuede > the bride/groom in advance, the wedding day is always > hectic/fast paced and that type of slow deliberate > photography is out of the question. I always used > non-TTL autoflash, Fuji NPH, and one stop over (iso 200) > and got nice results. To each his own I guess.... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: correct exposure > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: correct exposure > > > > That would only happen if you are using manual > > (fixed power) flash & flash meter. If you use TTL or Non-TTl auto > > flash, the brides dress is not going to overexpose. > > Much more likely, it will underexpose due to reflectance > > being high. Thus opening up a stop gives some insurance > > against that problem. > > And since the original post was related to studio lights, I suppose that > until given evidence to the contrary, we can probably presume that we are > discussing a manual (fixed power) flash & flash meter. > > William Robb > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:49:23 -0400 > From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > i have upgrade the firmware on my Nikon digital cameras and a few other > photographic peripherals several times. you run a special program from the > vendor while the camera is connected to your computer. that's all. some > require copying a special program to a memory card, inserting it in the > camera, and then turning the camera on. > > Herb... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:20 AM > Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D > > > > Same way as you'd upload software to your washing machine. Devices > > like this use [erasable] programmable read-only memory chips, called > > PROMs or EPROMs. The operating system is stored on them by a process > > called 'PROM-blowing'. When you switch the device's power on the > > operating system starts to, well, operate. It's called firmware > > because it's considered half-way between software and hardware. Some > > firmware operating systems will also have some sort of loader which > > would let you load additional programs from an external device, such > > as a USB port, and then run them. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:04:27 -0600 > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: correct exposure > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: correct exposure > > > > I guess it's possible but VERY unlikely that many > > people would be working that way for a wedding/reception. > > In my experince, no matter how much I warn/persuede > > the bride/groom in advance, the wedding day is always > > hectic/fast paced and that type of slow deliberate > > photography is out of the question. I always used > > non-TTL autoflash, Fuji NPH, and one stop over (iso 200) > > and got nice results. To each his own I guess.... > > You stupid, bombastic jerk. > Here is the original post that I was replying to. > > "Hi All, > > I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that > came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights > had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this > so? > > Thanks, > Feroze" > > Get it? He's talking about stdio lights. > As in STUDIO LIGHTS!!!! > Did your mother have any children that developed intelligence? > > William Robb > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:41:40 +1000 > From: "Sean Spencer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: pentax optio 550 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I am a novice. > I have a Pentax Optio 550 and I am wondering if it possible to use it as a > webcam? > > I would apppreciate any help > > sean > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:05:59 -0600 > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: pentax optio 550 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Spencer" > Subject: pentax optio 550 > > > > forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I am a novice. > > I have a Pentax Optio 550 and I am wondering if it possible to use it as a > > webcam? > > > > I would apppreciate any help > > What does the instruction manual say on the subject? > > William Robb > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:46:45 +1000 > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Content-description: Mail message body > > On 12 Oct 2003 at 22:51, Rob Brigham wrote: > > > Amen to that - After all these years I still cant find a lab I am even > > halfway happy with in terms of both consistency and results. That's the > > main reason I went to slides. The scanning time involved with slides to > > sensibly print them without spending a lot of money is part of what has > > pushed me to digital. > > At last someone talking my language. > > > Don't get me wrong, I still dearly love film - and want to keep using > > it. I have just bought 50 odd assorted films in bulk from a cheap > > source. Trouble is, when you go to grab for a camera it is all to easy > > to grab the digital first. > > The digital gear is great for all those photographic exploits where convenience > and speed is far more important than absolute quality. > My aim is to continue shooting MF film for as long as I can and all smaller > format work will be digital. Of course I'd be putting film through my classic > 35mm bodies occasionally but only for fun. > > > The FA*24 and 77ltd > > don't give me an fov that suits me ibn the ist either - and they are my > > fave lenses *sigh* > > Disappointing isn't it. > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:49:45 +0200 > From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Puzzled over lack of comments > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Hi! > > >>I have added a male lion to my nature Portraits page. It's a series of zoo > >>portraits that I've been working on over the past month or two. I've > >>mentioned > >>it a few times on the PUG with a link to the site but have got very little > >>response at all. > > >>here's a link to the site.... > >>http://hometown.aol.ca/pentxuser/page15.html > > It is excellent collection of portraits. Don't know about you, but I > prefer tiger to the lion. Though both would consume me just as easily > if they could... <grin>. > > The pages are a tad slow, but I have 750 kbps cable connection at > home, so I cannot really complain. I do remember that in my dial up > previous life your pages were slow indeed. > > Thanks for sharing! > > Boris > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:36:25 -0600 > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Studdert" > Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? > > > > > > The FA*24 and 77ltd > > > don't give me an fov that suits me ibn the ist either - and they are my > > > fave lenses *sigh* > > > > Disappointing isn't it. > > Something that is really dissapointing, my 77 doesn't have that 3D quality > that I found so enticing when used on the digital. > > William Robb > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:04:58 -0400 > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > The digital gear is great for all those photographic exploits where > convenience and speed is far more important than absolute quality. > My aim is to continue shooting MF film for as long as I can and all smaller > format work will be digital. Of course I'd be putting film through my > classic > 35mm bodies occasionally but only for fun. > ============================================================================ > ======= > Problem with that thinking is that digital has already matched/beaten > medium format film in most the cameras in terms of grain/noise > and the latest 10-14 Mpixels models are giving it a run for the > money in terms of resolution..... > > I think medium format will be the first film format to bite > the dust...... The bodies and lenses are just too damn big > and will not be able to keep up with smaller, higher quality > digital in the long run. > > JCO > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:00:17 -0400 > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: correct exposure > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. > You cant really do studio strobes at weddings > and receptions. His "teachers" must be the > stupid jerks..... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:04 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: correct exposure > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: correct exposure > > > > I guess it's possible but VERY unlikely that many > > people would be working that way for a wedding/reception. > > In my experince, no matter how much I warn/persuede > > the bride/groom in advance, the wedding day is always > > hectic/fast paced and that type of slow deliberate > > photography is out of the question. I always used > > non-TTL autoflash, Fuji NPH, and one stop over (iso 200) > > and got nice results. To each his own I guess.... > > You stupid, bombastic jerk. > Here is the original post that I was replying to. > > "Hi All, > > I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that > came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights > had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this > so? > > Thanks, > Feroze" > > Get it? He's talking about stdio lights. > As in STUDIO LIGHTS!!!! > Did your mother have any children that developed intelligence? > > William Robb > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:14:37 -0400 > From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: correct exposure > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > -----Original Message----- > > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. > > You cant really do studio strobes at weddings > > and receptions. His "teachers" must be the > > stupid jerks..... > > Actually, a stupid jerk is someone who does all his formals with a > little ttl flash on camera. > > You really can, and many really do, use big strobes at weddings, > myself included. > > tv > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:28:07 -0600 > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: correct exposure > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: correct exposure > > > > I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. > > You cant really do studio strobes at weddings > > and receptions. His "teachers" must be the > > stupid jerks..... > > Geeze, you've just told every wedding photographer over the past 50 years > that they don't know what they are doing. > Every wedding that I did over a 3 decade career wanted "formals". > My street value went way up after I was able to provide real studio services > rather than the flash on camera, posed in front of a bush type of pictures. > Perhaps things are just different where you live. > Up here, we still try to have some class. > > William Robb > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:41:44 -0700 > From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re[2]: correct exposure > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I use my studio strobes (alien Bees) for formals at all the weddings I > shoot. I wouldn't want to use a little flash on a bracket for that > kind of stuff. > > --- > Bruce > > > Tuesday, October 14, 2003, 10:00:17 PM, you wrote: > > JCOC> I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. > JCOC> You cant really do studio strobes at weddings > JCOC> and receptions. His "teachers" must be the > JCOC> stupid jerks..... > > JCOC> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > JCOC> J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > JCOC> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > JCOC> -----Original Message----- > JCOC> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > JCOC> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:04 AM > JCOC> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > JCOC> Subject: Re: correct exposure > > > > JCOC> ----- Original Message ----- > JCOC> From: "J. C. O'Connell" > JCOC> Subject: RE: correct exposure > > > >> I guess it's possible but VERY unlikely that many > >> people would be working that way for a wedding/reception. > >> In my experince, no matter how much I warn/persuede > >> the bride/groom in advance, the wedding day is always > >> hectic/fast paced and that type of slow deliberate > >> photography is out of the question. I always used > >> non-TTL autoflash, Fuji NPH, and one stop over (iso 200) > >> and got nice results. To each his own I guess.... > > JCOC> You stupid, bombastic jerk. > JCOC> Here is the original post that I was replying to. > > JCOC> "Hi All, > > JCOC> I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things > that > JCOC> came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights > JCOC> had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is > this > JCOC> so? > > JCOC> Thanks, > JCOC> Feroze" > > JCOC> Get it? He's talking about stdio lights. > JCOC> As in STUDIO LIGHTS!!!! > JCOC> Did your mother have any children that developed intelligence? > > JCOC> William Robb > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:05:39 -0400 > From: Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: correct exposure > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 05:52 PM, Feroze Kistan wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things > > that > > came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio > > lights > > had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why > > is this > > so? > > > > Thanks, > > Feroze > > > What was the subject to background distance? > > What was the camera to background distance? > > Where were the lights set? > > What was the light to background distance? > > Was the camera stationary? > > Doug > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:39:21 +1000 > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Content-description: Mail message body > > On 15 Oct 2003 at 1:04, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > Problem with that thinking is that digital has already matched/beaten > > medium format film in most the cameras in terms of grain/noise and the latest > > 10-14 Mpixels models are giving it a run for the money in terms of > > resolution..... > > Might be beat with your MFcamera/scanner set-up but not mine. > > > I think medium format will be the first film format to bite > > the dust...... The bodies and lenses are just too damn big > > and will not be able to keep up with smaller, higher quality > > digital in the long run. > > Maybe so however there are a lot of MF digi-backs being pushed into service by > pros (not Pentax of course). > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:51:12 -0400 (EDT) > From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Hand-holding 300/2.8 > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I knew I had an example somewhere! > > This is a shot I took at Goodwood a couple of years ago. > > http://www.panix.com/~johnf/temp/airshow.jpg > > I was using an MZ-S with the A* 300/f2.8, quite probably > with the AF 1.7 adapter. I started off trying to use a > monopod, but soon gave that up. > > I believe I was using Provia 400F, judging by the (too fast) > shutter speed; I could do with a little more prop blurring. > > This is slightly cropped (about 2/3 of the full-frame width). > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:47:30 +1000 > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: SMCP FA 28-80 3.5-4.7 Power Zoom lens price > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Content-description: Mail message body > > Hi Team, > > Anyone have an idea of ball-park pricing for a used SMCP FA 28-80 3.5-4.7 Power > Zoom lens? > > TIA, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:58:44 -0700 > From: "Bucky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax Peepl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: *istD image flaws? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > OK, these two links, among others at that wonderful Japanese site, show some > flaws that I find very distracting (warning, the pictures are very large): > > http://2ch-dc-ita.gotdns.com/~dc-ita/cgi-bin/imgboard/img-box/img20030916184 > 719.jpg > http://2ch-dc-ita.gotdns.com/~dc-ita/cgi-bin/imgboard/img-box/img20030916184 > 822.jpg > > Particularly the aliasing along the edge of the curved stamens of the flower > towards 7 or 8 o'clock on the picture. I would expect this to vanish in > TIFF or RAW, but can anyone tell their experience with this type of issue? > > Also, I note that the highlights are blown out for large stretches. > Presumably this could be fixed with more careful exposure. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:44:47 -0400 (EDT) > From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: correct exposure > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. > > > You cant really do studio strobes at weddings > > > and receptions. His "teachers" must be the > > > stupid jerks..... > > > > Actually, a stupid jerk is someone who does all his formals with a > > little ttl flash on camera. > > I'd suggest that a stupid jerk is one who believes, no > matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented, > that his own way of doing things is the only way that > anyone with any intelligence could possible consider. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:08:50 -0400 (EDT) > From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Gretag Macbeth colo(u)r checker > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > It's been a good day for finding things: I also found > the scans I made to compare two film scanners. > > So if anyone has been wondering what a checker looks like: > > http://www.panix.com/~johnf/digital/chart.html > > (Now you can see why I switched to the LS30, can't you?) > > The colours of each square are very carefully controlled, > and the RGB values (in several colour spaces) are included > with the chart. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:19:27 +1000 > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: *istD image flaws? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Content-description: Mail message body > > On 14 Oct 2003 at 22:58, Bucky wrote: > > > Particularly the aliasing along the edge of the curved stamens of the flower > > towards 7 or 8 o'clock on the picture. I would expect this to vanish in TIFF > or > > RAW, but can anyone tell their experience with this type of issue? > > If you are looking at around 920,1640 on the image img20030916184719.jpg, I > don't think that's going to go away if it were saved as TIFF, it looks like a > demosaicing aberration. Solution shoot RAW and process with a more capable > algorithm off the camera. > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -------------------------------- > End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 Issue #1212 > **********************************************
