RE:Whisky(wasRe:PAW:A good breakfast I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can handle Scotch,I don't mind a little Jack Daniels over ice,but nothing compares to a '63 bottle of Grange Hermitage wine over a convivial meal with friends or loved "one".A Coopers Sparkling Ale on a hot day(brewed in the bottle,cloudy but fine).Just the mere smell of Scotch,Aghhhhhhh.............. Regards Chris Kennedy ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 8:52 AM Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 #373
------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 04 : Issue 373 Today's Topics: Re: My PAW [ Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good brea [ Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Smaller flash for MX -- suggesti [ Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good brea [ Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Smaller flash for MX -- suggesti [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: M 35-70 f/2.8-3.5 zoom Was: prim [ Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: OT whisky [ John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good brea [ Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good brea [ Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: My PAW [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Smaller flash for MX -- suggesti [ Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] M lenses [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: OT: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good [ graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good brea [ Dag T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Support for big glass [ graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Too much mail [ "Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good brea [ John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: OT: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good [ John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good brea [ John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Too much mail [ Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good brea [ John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: OT: My most recent web site (re) [ Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Reala rated at 80 [ graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: New week,new paw:my competion [ graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: OT: My most recent web site (re) [ "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:50:19 +0200 From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?RnJpdHMgV/x0aHJpY2g=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: My PAW Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi! FW> http://www.wuthrich.cc/portret007.jpg FW> http://www.wuthrich.cc/portret016.jpg FW> http://www.wuthrich.cc/portret019.jpg FW> http://www.wuthrich.cc/portret036.jpg FW> Obviously comments welcome. These are 4 that I made last Saturday during FW> a portrait workshop. FW> Camera PZ-1, lens 24-90mm, film Fuji NPH400, and the portraits in the FW> studio were done with a single light, incandescent lamp, with blue FW> filter to match daylight colour of the film, and the light shining FW> through an umbrella, and a piece of white Styrofoam to lighten the FW> shadows. The first one is the best one IMHO. It almost makes me say "pleased to meet you, mister..." and wait until I hear the name in response. The last one is the weakest one, IMHO. The age of the guy (no offence) and the "surroundings" and their color don't go too well together, me thinks. The one before last is very odd. It looks as if the guy is actually trying to hear something either from within the wall or through the wall. Which is just strange. Or it may be humorous - you know like "watch the eavesdropper" <g>... But who am I to really know <g> The second one is good, but I don't quite like the darkness on the right of the image. All in all, the first one is most successful. Just my cents. Boris ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:51:50 -0800 From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ooooo! I like Glenmorangie, and also Springbank 21 or 25. Yummmmmmmm! Keith Whaley wrote: > > An Islay (Lagavulin) is just a wee bit intense for me. > I'll have a Dalwhinnie or maybe an Oban, if you please. > Or, if you still have that bottle of 18-year-old Glenmorangie hidden > under the counter, a dash of that, please! <g> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:54:03 -0500 From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Smaller flash for MX -- suggestions? Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Hello all: > >Any suggestions for a compact electronic flash unit for my MX? What do you >use and why? > >Thanks, > >Aaron The smallest manual one is the Minolta 20 (NG 20). Half the size of a cassette (although thicker). It takes 2 AA. The trigger voltage on these older flashes is often very high: no problem with a camera like the MX or LX but may damage the latest ones. Sunpack Softlite 1600A and 2000A (NG 16 and 20) are the smallest 2AA Auto flash. No thyristor though : even if the subject needs only a little bit of light, the flash won't keep the part of the charge that has not been used. No real compact flash has thyristor electronics. I'd be curious to know what is the smallest 2AA thyristor flash. Pentax AF-200T is a rather small thyristor flash but takes 4AA. Can be used with a winder as manual output can be cut by 2,4,8 and 16 if I remember well. This could be usefull also for non-TTL macros. Andre ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:54:40 +0000 From: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, > I can see we're going to have to meet up for a drink sometime! You in Bob? there's clearly a need for a research plan. We will have to identify a statistically significant number of pubs in reasonable proximity, serving different types of fine beers, and carry out a large-scale consumer taste test. -- Cheers, Bob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:04:00 -0600 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Smaller flash for MX -- suggestions? Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks, Joe. What do these AF160 flashes typically cost these days? What would be a choice for swivel and/or having the ability to reduce output, perhaps for outdoor fill-in flash? Aaron >From: Joe Wilensky >If you want something really small, made by Pentax, and >chronologically appropriate for the MX, the Pentax AF160 will do. Two >auto flash settings plus manual. No tilt, swivel, or anything, but >it's at least the closest thing to replacing the simplest functions >of a built-in RTF flash. AF on Pentax flashes in the '70s and early >'80s didn't mean autofocus, but auto flash. > >See: http://www.BDimitrov.de/kmp/flashes/non-TTL/index.html for specs. > >Joe > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:05:17 -0500 From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: M 35-70 f/2.8-3.5 zoom Was: prime keepers Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >...when I think of M lenses, I think of the tiny primes. > >Joe This is also what I think of when we talk about M lenses. M35-70 is not typical, it is chunky, short but quite heavy. And Pentax must be joking when they say the 2000mm mirror lens is a M lens! Although I think their definition of a M lens is that they are smaller than most other brands' lenses with same foc. lenght and aperture. Andre ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:07:41 -0000 From: John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT whisky Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Quite so, Clive, In the late sixties, when I was a mere stripling, I found myself in Wales (lovely place) and was offered Welsh whisky! Never seen it since, but it was drinkable. Sort of. JOhn On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:18:43 -0500, Clive evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Surely the only thing to drink whisky [either single or blended ] with is > more whisky [or failing that a blonde?] > Clive [a welshman] > Antibes > France > > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:15:07 -0800 From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit YesSIR! My favorite single malt, perhaps. Or, certainly in the top three. The only problem is, the single malt I'm currently drinking frequently gets a couple more votes. . . <g> But, if I had my druthers, I'd stock (and drink) a middle-aged Glenmorangie all the time. . . keith Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Ooooo! I like Glenmorangie, and also Springbank 21 or 25. > Yummmmmmmm! > > Keith Whaley wrote: > > > > An Islay (Lagavulin) is just a wee bit intense for me. > > I'll have a Dalwhinnie or maybe an Oban, if you please. > > Or, if you still have that bottle of 18-year-old Glenmorangie hidden > > under the counter, a dash of that, please! <g> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:18:44 -0800 From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have a local that stocks, by actual count, something like 305 separate beers. Of course, you'll have to come to Marina del Rey, in Southern California, to sample them! <g> And, I certainly won't tell you where this place is, unless you take me along! keith whaley * * * Bob W wrote: > > Hi, > > > I can see we're going to have to meet up for a drink sometime! You in Bob? > > there's clearly a need for a research plan. We will have to identify > a statistically significant number of pubs in reasonable proximity, > serving different types of fine beers, and carry out a large-scale > consumer taste test. > > -- > Cheers, > Bob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:22:26 CST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: My PAW Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Regarding: > > FW> http://www.wuthrich.cc/portret007.jpg > FW> http://www.wuthrich.cc/portret016.jpg > FW> http://www.wuthrich.cc/portret019.jpg > FW> http://www.wuthrich.cc/portret036.jpg I think the lighting works well in all of them; I prefer the composition and the expression of 007. Afraid I really dislike the one with the face looking as if it's pressed against a yellow brick wall. I find myself wondering why the guy is hugging this wall. To me, he looks uncomfortable and it makes me uncomfortable. Whereas in the one I mentioned first (007) your subject looks quite comfortable and friendly, not awkward. ERN ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:21:38 -0500 From: Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Smaller flash for MX -- suggestions? Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" The AF160's are quite cheap -- $20-$30, or less, sometimes, on the "used" shelf or in the used bin at camera shops. Similar on eBay, perhaps a bit more at KEH. For tilt and swivel, the Pentax AF280T is quite a bit larger, but still in the medium size shoe-mount flash category. I don't have too much info on non-Pentax units, though there are plenty of small no-name flash units about the size of the AF160 for $10 or so. For outdoor fill flash, the MX is not a good choice for the most part because of its maximum 1/60 second synch speed. Since all you need is a little fill in, though, you may find that the AF160, either in manual mode or one of the auto modes, works fine for fill-in flash. You'd have to do some manual calculations anyway to do outdoor fill flash with the MX, but you may find that at 1/60 outdoors with typical color film (ASA 200 or 400), you'd have to shoot at f/16 or f/22 anyway. At that lens opening, the AF160 may work just fine for a little bit of fill in (lightening of the shadows or a little catch light in the eyes) up to a certain distance. Joe >Thanks, Joe. What do these AF160 flashes typically cost these days? > >What would be a choice for swivel and/or having the ability to reduce output, >perhaps for outdoor fill-in flash? > >Aaron > > >>From: Joe Wilensky > >>If you want something really small, made by Pentax, and >>chronologically appropriate for the MX, the Pentax AF160 will do. Two >>auto flash settings plus manual. No tilt, swivel, or anything, but >>it's at least the closest thing to replacing the simplest functions >>of a built-in RTF flash. AF on Pentax flashes in the '70s and early >>'80s didn't mean autofocus, but auto flash. >> > >See: http://www.BDimitrov.de/kmp/flashes/non-TTL/index.html for specs. >> >>Joe >> >> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:16:00 -0600 (CST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: M lenses Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Some of the M lenses are very good. The M 135/3.5 is very sharp and > >contrast. The M40/2.8 performs very well. The M50 1.4 and 1.7 are > >very fine optics as well. I wouldn't condemn the M series. Some of > >them are very nice lenses. My original condemnation was not so much that they were bad, but that the K and A lenses that came before and after them were usually better. > The M20/4 is unique, so small... and does most of what you expect > from a super WA. I'm not sure I'd be happy with "most of what I expect from a super WA". I've got a Sigma 14/3.5 in Nikon mount that I bought because it was a couple hundred dollars cheaper than a Sigma 14/2.8 and a thousand dollars cheaper than a Nikkor 14/2.8. Wide open, it is simply not sharp enough. > > M28/3.5, another great travel lens as is M100/2.8. > I'm increasingly hearing the description "travel lens" to mean a lens that trades some optical performace for light weight and perhaps lower cost. Is this the normal useage of this phrase? Perhaps it also implies that if the lens gets stolen or destroyed you won't be losing a treasure? Certainly there is virtue in a smaller, lighter lens but it seems to me that the smallest, lightest lens possible is not always an ideal solution. >From what I can see, NO 20mm prime is really that big and heavy. Given the size of the 105/2.8 SMC Takumar, I can't believe that the K 105 is "big". The M100 is a bit smaller, but not all that much from what I remember. M28/2.8 is certainly small, but I don't find the K30/2.8 to feel much bigger in actual use. Perhaps I'm less sensitive to absolute weight issues than hiker-types. > M24/35 zoom is great. Pentax has studied an aspherical version of > the lens (2 versions on the US patent pages, the last being almost > identical to the lens we know, but I doubt it would include an > aspherical element (7th from front) as distorsion is high at 24mm and > the aspherical element was said to correct distorsion at precisely > the wide end. A lot of modern lenses with aspherics still distort at the wide ends. Presumably they'd distort worse without, or be bigger and more expensive to make non-aspheric technology perform as well. I find the M24-35 not bad, quite useable stopped down. It does distort more than a prime would. The zoom range isn't that large, especially by modern standards, but it is smaller and more convenient than carrying three primes. For its day, this lens was quite an accomplishment, and from what I've heard most more modern 24-50s are actually worse. DJE ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:37:50 -0500 From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All this is very interesting. While I like a wee bit of Irish, or Bourbon once in a while, I equate drinking Scotch with proving my manhood. Can I just stick my hand in a fire or something instead? -- Steve Jolly wrote: > I have to disagree there - as an Englishman with a large number of > Scottish friends and whisky-snob acquaintances, I can assure you that > the idea of drinking single malts with ice is widely (although not > universally) regarded as heresy over here. :-) The optional addition of > a small quantity of water is generally accepted though. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:45:34 +0100 From: Dag T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast) Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Glenmorangie is great among the smoother ones, but usually I prefer Lagavulin. DagT P� 23. feb. 2004 kl. 20.51 skrev Shel Belinkoff: > Ooooo! I like Glenmorangie, and also Springbank 21 or 25. > Yummmmmmmm! > > Keith Whaley wrote: >> >> An Islay (Lagavulin) is just a wee bit intense for me. >> I'll have a Dalwhinnie or maybe an Oban, if you please. >> Or, if you still have that bottle of 18-year-old Glenmorangie hidden >> under the counter, a dash of that, please! <g> > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:49:57 -0500 From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Support for big glass Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I too find that they have gotten less sturdy over the decades. I had one from the 70's that even after being beat to death for a decade was more solid than the one I have now from the 90's. The current ones I have seen in the stores seem not as good as the one I have. -- Lon Williamson wrote: > I do not like what Manfrotto has done with the 3021 series. The latest > incarnation does get low, but the section where legs meet centerpost is > much less solid than that supplied on 3021 (or 3001, for that matter) a > few years ago. And, with the new flipper leg locks, extending the lower > leg sections makes it ring like a bell. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:00:08 +0200 From: "Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Too much mail Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit PDML is too active now - which in itself is a good thing - but I have difficulties in keeping up so I think I�ll have to unsubscribe for awhile. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:08:45 -0000 From: John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'm an Islay fan, too. Bowmore in my case. For those planning a trip to Scotland, you need to practice how to drink, if you are to establish any credibility. First, you down your pint of heavy (bitter) in one long draught, then chase it down with a glass of whisky, again in one gulp. This is done in turn around the table until nobody is left alive. Sassenachs need to know that in Scottish bars a "glass" of whisky is a double measure. If you only want a single, you ask for a half, thus announcing to the world that you are a big girl's blowse. Across the border, a half refers to half a pint of bitter. John On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:01:31 +0000, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Monday, February 23, 2004, 5:44:37 PM, Steve wrote: > >> You know, whenever I go to the UK I usually beer at every meal (just >> for cultural reasons) and I've never really found it to be warm. It's >> usually cold, just not "ice cold" like they tend to serve it in the US. > > last week, partly out of curiosity because I'd heard them mentioned > here, I bought some imported US beers: Sam Adams and Brooklyn Beer, > which I've never tried before. > > In deference to US tastes I stuck them in the fridge before > drinking them. Normally I prefer decent beer at room temperature. > These 2 beers were very good, but were considerably better after > they'd warmed up a bit. They have a good, full and round flavour. Very > enjoyable indeed. > > Chilling any beer of that type just kills the flavour. You ight as well > drink foul swill like Budweiser if you're going to do that. > > Whisky: cask-strength single malt (preferably Islay), with room > temperature spring water, 1:1. :o) > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:12:15 -0000 From: John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit That's fine. If everybody liked it, there wouldn't be enough to go round. John On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:37:50 -0500, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All this is very interesting. While I like a wee bit of Irish, or > Bourbon once in a while, I equate drinking Scotch with proving my > manhood. Can I just stick my hand in a fire or something instead? > > -- > > Steve Jolly wrote: >> I have to disagree there - as an Englishman with a large number of >> Scottish friends and whisky-snob acquaintances, I can assure you that >> the idea of drinking single malts with ice is widely (although not >> universally) regarded as heresy over here. :-) The optional addition >> of a small quantity of water is generally accepted though. > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:14:07 -0000 From: John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I never say no - to a drink. John On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:31:21 +0000, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 23/2/04, FORBES, JOHN disgorged: > >> Sometimes you will get beer in wooden casks, kept in the bar or just >> outside it. These beers will obviously be at room temperature. This >> treatment is usually reserved for the best beers, like Fullers ESB in my >> neck of the woods, although it is generally only country pubs that will >> serve it from the wood. >> >> John > > I can see we're going to have to meet up for a drink sometime! You in > Bob? > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _____________________________ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:14:29 -0800 From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Raimo K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Too much mail Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I tend to agree - while PAW has some niceties, it has generated a large amount of traffic. As long as the Subject has that nice, big PAW in front of it, at least it can be handled easily. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, February 23, 2004, 1:00:08 PM, you wrote: RK> PDML is too active now - which in itself is a good thing - but I have RK> difficulties in keeping up so I think I�ll have to unsubscribe for awhile. RK> All the best! RK> Raimo K RK> Personal photography homepage at: RK> http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:16:06 -0000 From: John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have to agree about ESB. It's just too strong for me nowadays, so I stick to London Pride if I'm drinking Fullers - which I usually do as I'm only a mile from the brewery. John On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:29:27 +0000, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 23/2/04, STEVE OF THE GARDENS disgorged: > >> You know, whenever I go to the UK I usually beer at every meal (just >> for cultural reasons) and I've never really found it to be warm. It's >> usually cold, just not "ice cold" like they tend to serve it in the US. > > Depends. Lager is usually served pretty cold. Colder the better in fact. > Bitter is enjoyed at room temperature - that is British room temperature > ;-) say 68 deg f or less.... > > Aside from Wychwood's finest, any visitor here can expect Fuller's London > Pride. I dranl the4 E.S.B. as a lad, but I can't now - just too much! > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _____________________________ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:17:08 +1100 From: Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: My most recent web site (re)design Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This one time, at band camp, "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.hondaresearch.com/ did you do the photograpy on this? Kind regards Kevin -- ______ (_____ \ _____) ) ____ ____ ____ ____ | ____/ / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \____) \_||_| \____) \____) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:26:25 -0500 From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reala rated at 80 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, it is not obvious. What is happening is that the current speed indexes of negative film basically give you minimum exposure. Sometimes that causes a loss of shadow detail. So many expert photographers overexpose a bit to prevent that. That is so prevailent that many "pro" labs are set up for film with a 1/3 stop overexposure as their normal print channel. -- Boros Attila wrote: > I must be missing something quite obvius here, because I can't get the > point... I have read some posts on the net about rating the Fuji Superia > Reala 100 film at ISO 80 speed. AFAIK this is the equivalent of overexposing > by 1/5 f-stop. I have also read that I can under/over expose a color > negative film by 1 f-stop without any major problems, the lab will correct > this during the development process. So Reala is a color negative film, and > an overexposure by 1/5 f-stop would likely be "corrected" by the lab. > > On the other hand I realize the smallest amount of exposure compensation I > can set on my MZ-6 is 1/2 f-stop, so this trick may be good for slide > film... but for prints? ... no clue. > > Anyway, is 1/5 f-stop that critical? > > Attila > > -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:29:03 -0500 From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New week,new paw:my competion Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey, buddy, we don't want to see these D1 shots, we want to see what that new D2H will do. (grin) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I really love this one. D1 with 80-200 f2.8,minor PS tweaking. > > http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/colla_3416.jpg > > Dave > > > -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:30:08 -0500 From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: My most recent web site (re)design Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Hi! > >CB> http://www.hondaresearch.com/ > >A-ha, so you're a web designer, among other things, Collin <g>... > >Boris Lotus Domino, to be specific. Also very ABM. Anything But M$. Collin -------------------------------- End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 Issue #373 *********************************************
