Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Smooth bokeh can however make a background less obtrusive when there is little other option but to include it in the shot see: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012164m.JPG True, i ment that, but didnt make myself clear :)
Re: OT: Domke Bags
I also though the F803 was a bit to business like, - Original Message - From: Pat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 7:48 PM Subject: Re: OT: Domke Bags --- Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I took at look at the F-803. At this point in time, it is a little too professional looking for my needs, although it does sound like it would accomodate the amount of stuff I want. It wouldn't be conspicuous as a camera bag, but more like a business person standing out in a crowd of students. Perhaps you were looking at the J803 or the black F803? I can assure you the olive green looks nothing like what the business person would carry. :) Yes, Alan, it was a black one. Black blue are colors worth considering. Olive green, unfortunately, doesn't fit in the color scheme of my life. ;-) Pat in SF __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Leaving list
Leaving for awhile, Bob Rapp
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
See: http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnlux2/kittyleaves4.jpg http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnlux2/tedkitleaves2.jpg Urr... I am feeling a bit dizzy... I like the 1st photo though. Its sort of nauseating :) but i'd still like to own one. There's some great shots on that site if you wade through it, i'm usually not into looking at shots of people kids, but i looked through 95% of this page.
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
I've found the bokeh of the K85/1.8 to be quite good, although i've never really pushed its limits in a difficult lighting situation. Its my favourite Pentax lense! Paul - Original Message - From: Thibault GROUAS [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax discuss pdml.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 10:56 PM Subject: Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . Hello Michael, I haven't seen BW bokeh examples yet, so here is an example of what bokeh I get with the old'85mm/1.8. It also shows how out of focus grain looks like on the BW negative (developped for high grain and acutance with rodinal) I've found that the 85 1.8 is not so big and heavy, rather discrete, but gives nice results, and is pretty nice to use. It is a candid shot took of my mother during a family dinner at her home. http://photofr.ath.cx/pentax/bokeh_and_grain/ It is a scan from the neg, I included some smaller-sized images for those with slower connection speeds, the biggest one is ...huge... but heh, you get to see the grain with this one ! ^_¨ Hope it helps, Thibault Grouas. « Michael Cross » [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. So I have narrowed it down to three Pentax lenses: 1. FA 50mm f/1.4 2. FA 77mm f/1.8 3. FA 85mm f/1.4 Which lens would you choose? Any others I should consider?
RE: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
The FA *85 is more designed for portrait work. It is not all that sharp at/near infinity unless you stop down considerably. It is great for portraits but the 77 Limited is more general purpose. Great for both. I did quite a bit of testing of the phenomenon and the results are posted on the Lens Test Evaluation site. Hopefully Fred can post the site again. If you are looking for just a portrait lens, the 85 or 77. If you want to do landscapes also, I would go for the 77. Phrased another wayget the 77 *unless* you need the speed, are a shallow DOF freak, or primarily shoot portraits. I think the 77 is better all-around, but think the 85 is the greatest 35mm portrait lens ever made. And it's a fact that it's a half stop faster. tv
Re: Odp: vivitar 35-85mm 2.8 lens
Czesc! Wiesz cos na temat adapterow Tamrona KA?mOzna ich uzywac z nowymi puszkami? Alek Uytkownik ukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: 1. flare- how do i control it-it flares worse than smc lens Now, that's surprise ;-) 3. was that a good price 0- i think so the last two on ebay went for around 180-200 us or 320-350 australian You already got your answer. Sorry, nothing constructive here :-) Regards, Lukasz
Re: Re: Tamron adaptall KA
Hi, Thanks! I just wanted to know if I can use these adaptalls with new bodies (AF ones) Alek PS If you happen to get more inf. about it please drop me a line. ?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michel_Carr=E8re-G=E9e?=@UNKNOWN napisa: [EMAIL PROTECTED] a crit: Hi, Can I use Tamron adaptall KA on MZS or ZX-5n? I wonder if only FA lenses on MZS give me P-TTL or even A lenses allow me to have it. Alek Extract from http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/ The Tamron KA Adaptall Mount When Joachim Hein read the above discussion, he immediately understood the roots of the exposure problems that some Adaptall lenses have. These are all slow lenses with minimum aperture setting of f/22 and an AE setting or f/32 and no AE setting In the latter case, f/32 is converted to AE). AE is the Tamron equivalent of the Pentax A setting. Looking in the second column of the table above, we see that there is no contact pattern for lenses with apertures ranging between f/4.5 or slower and f/22. Tamron solves this by making the Adaptall mount indicate a maximum aperture of f/4 and warning in the mount manual that the photographer must watch the aperture read-out in the view-finder (not available with P30/P50!) to ensure that only values within the true aperture range are used. The only tips, I have read on Tamron Adaptall ? Michel
Re: vivitar 35-85mm 2.8 lens
I had that lens a way back when used it for numerous low light assignments. I'd (Bagree with you about the flare and at the time put it down to poor technique or (Bconceivably a bad sample. I find it incredible what folks will pay for such a lens. (BMind you the fixed length Series 1 of the same era were definitely worth having. (B (BKind regards (B (BPeter
Re: Dust in Lenses
I think it is best to put them in a plastic bag as soon as you buy them new, seal the bag and never take them out anymore:-) On the other hand, if you really insist using them, how much is this dust effecting the quality of your photographs? Is it really an issue? After this issue was brought up yesterday or the day before, I also looked at my lenses, and noticed the dust using a halogen flashlight. I decided to ignore it, as I don't notice any ill effects on the performance of my lenses. Are we getting oversensitive here, or is it really an issue? Could dust be sucked out in a controlled way, as a kind of maintanance thing from time to time? Hoover on one side, and on the other side an air filer to filter the fresh air? I have more questions then answers, I am afraid. On Sunday 10 November 2002 02:30, Chris Niesmertelny wrote: I'm completely disappointed. Most of my lens collection is suffering from a very fine coating of internal dust. I don't have an expensive collection but it is fairly complete from 24mm to 200mm, and thankfully my 43mm does not have the dusty accumulation present. I've two questions for the group: 1) Which repair center do you recommend (in the continental US) to undertake such a project? 2) How do you deal with dust, and how do you store and protect your lenses? I keep my lenses in a closet in a bedroom my wife and I use as an office. Until recently, this office was also the bathroom for our cats, hence I believe this dust is composed of tiny particles of kitty litter. I thought I was fairly rigorous in my regime of keeping that closet and the office tidy, but I'm afraid I was not successful. Your kind help and advice is appreciated. Best regards, Chris -- Frits Wüthrich Pentaxianado
Re: Pentax 6x7, 67
Hi Bob, I've just done all of that. The first thing to consider is what sort of photographs you want to take with the 6x7. My 35mm gear runs from 28mm through to 500mm and inlcudes AF and multiple manual bodies along with TTL flashes and so on, which will do pretty much everything I want to. I can't afford to replicate that in 6x7, even if I sold all of the 35mm stuff. I don't think that a 6x7 is suited to general purpose photography given its size and weight amongst other issues, but if you have a specific purpose in mind then you can set yourself up with everything you need reasonably cheaply. I decided that the 6x7 was to be for portraiture first and foremost, which meant that the primary lens was going to be a 165/2.8 or a 150/2.8. I bought a 165 /2.8 from a local dealer and ended up getting a 105/2.4 as part of a package deal. I bought a set of extension tubes too, as the minimum focussing distance of the 165 is a fairly pathetic 1.6m, almost double the distance of it's 35mm equvialent (SMCT 85/1.8 = 0.85m). So that's it, one body, two lenses and a few accessories is all that's needed for the purpose that I bought it. For the same sort of money I could have bought an MZ-S with a 50/1.4, but certainly not a 43 limited. If macro photograpy is your plan, then the 135/4 is the obvious choice and it is neither rare nor expensive so you can pick and choose according to your budget. Once again, you'll probably need a set of extension rings, and maybe reversing rings if you want to get really close. The 135/4 would probably cover portraiture as well, so your second lens could be the 90/2.8 or a wide angle. If landscapes are your passion then I guess either a 55 or possibly even a 45 should be your first choice and then maybe a 75 instead of a 90 or 105, although the 75/2.8 is going to be a bit hard to get on a budget so you are stuck with slower lenses. This shouldn't matter if you are only using it for landscapes. MLU wasn't an issue for me as I rarely use a tripod, but the MLU body would be vital for slow speed work. The non MLU bodies will also be older and you may have trouble getting them serviced and repaired. I don't believe that the 6x7s biggest fault, the fragile transport mechanism, was fixed until the 67II came along, so even a 67 should be checked carefully if you can. I would think that the TTL prism is almost mandatory for macro work wheras a hand held meter might be all you need for landscape work. If you decide that you need a TTL prism, then a package deal is probably the cheapest option and eBay is probably where you will end up. Unfortunately a package will usually mean you end up with a 105/2.4 whether you want one or not, but if you buy from a dealer then you may be able to get them to substitute the lens you want for the 105/2.4 One other tip, if you are considering the wooden hand grip which is often quite expensive to buy on its own, the AF400T flash bracket is virtually the same thing, but is usually half the price (mine was $40 from BH). All it needs is a piece broom handle in place of the flash. Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 4:10 AM Subject: Pentax 6x7, 67 Suppose the 'Brotherhood' had finally gotten to you. You'd begun to wonder about medium format and think of shooting some general purpose or maybe even Macro photographs with it. If you were to start an inexpensive medium format Pentax kit, what would you get? Would it be a 6x7 with or without mirror lockup or a 67? What lens would you get for it? (lets say just one to start with, maybe a 2nd later) Would it be a really old Takumar, or a newer model? Would it be a 90mm f2.8 or ??? (remember these are expensive lenses and you can only afford one or two tops!) What do you think? Regards, Bob S.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
What an awesome rose photo. I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally blew me away. I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera. Now I really want one. I know this is not on the original topic, but if you wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20? Kathy L. - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 11:20 PM Subject: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . On 9 Nov 2002 at 21:50, frank theriault wrote: Hi, Rob, Wow, I love that shot! What lens was it taken with, and (if you know), what exposure? Hi Frank, I'm sorry but it is pure evil, the work of the devil, I was captured with my Oly E-10 (I still have no film scanner). The details are embedded in the pic: Exposure time: 1/640 F-stop: 4.8 ISO speed: 80 Focal length: 36. The lens opens up to f2.4 at 36mm (~135mm equivalent) however the shutter only goes to 1/640th and I don't have NDs. The nearside fill was accomplished using a small reflector. Here is another and whist quite different it may give you an idea of the dynamic light capture range. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/P9302137m.JPG Exposure time: 1/640 F-stop: 4.8 ISO speed: 80 Focal length: 29. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re:TOPDML Pentax posters
Horse show today(Sunday).Hows next Saturday for everyone Dave Begin Original Message From: Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:05:50 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax posters So let's get the TOPDML going. I'm available. Jeff. - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 9:54 AM Subject: Re: Pentax posters They are nice eh Keith.I have successfully mailed my 4 to folks in Canada,and meet up with Brendan and Jeff.Just have to get a TOPDML going soon so i can give Frank,David and Aaron theirs:) Dave - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Pentax posters Just got mine, and I love it! End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On 10 Nov 2002 at 6:02, Kathy L wrote: What an awesome rose photo. I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally blew me away. I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera. Now I really want one. I know this is not on the original topic, but if you wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20? Hi Kathy, Well I'm glad that you liked them, I have quite a stash, I find that I'm far more productive using digital equipment. WRT quality I'd be happy to send you a full resolution pic for your viewing/printing pleasure (over 3MB), I'm sure that you'd be pretty happy with a 16x20 :-) I just put a couple more up: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA022182n.JPG http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012167m.JPG They won't be there for long though. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: RE: Where's Greywolf?
It was up about 2-3 weeks ago when i last went on it. Hope all is ok. Dave B Begin Original Message From: David Chang-Sang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 15:36:39 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Where's Greywolf? Last we heard Frank, he was going on the road - but I didn't know he took down the site. Dave -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:knarf.theriault;sympatico.ca] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 3:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Where's Greywolf? Hi, I just went to check on Tom's page today, which I probably haven't done in a while, and got Page Not Found. Anyone heard from him lately? I hope everything's okay with him... regards, frank -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
What camera, please? keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: On 10 Nov 2002 at 6:02, Kathy L wrote: What an awesome rose photo. I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally blew me away. I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera. Now I really want one. I know this is not on the original topic, but if you wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20? Hi Kathy, Well I'm glad that you liked them, I have quite a stash, I find that I'm far more productive using digital equipment. WRT quality I'd be happy to send you a full resolution pic for your viewing/printing pleasure (over 3MB), I'm sure that you'd be pretty happy with a 16x20 :-) I just put a couple more up: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA022182n.JPG http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012167m.JPG They won't be there for long though. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Types of photographers
Sorry, Bill, I was drinking beer, I just wasn't out. Having a couple, watching hockey, and on the computer between periods. I think that's a pretty Canadian way to spend a Saturday night, if one's going to stay home... regards, frank William Robb wrote: You should be out drinking beer. William Robb -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Re: Comments Please!
Frank. All are great but i like number 3 the best.With the cafe sign behind him gives it that 'street flair'.Maybe a bit of side cropping though,but thats just me:) Dave Begin Original Message On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 08:47 PM, frank theriault wrote: I wouldn't mind if you fine folks looked at this group of photos, and let me know what you think of them as a group, and individually. On list or off, as you prefer. Please be as brutal as you want (but maybe you can be brutal off list? vbg). Just kidding, be brutal on list, if you want... http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=251836 Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: Comments Please!
Thanks Alan, That's seems to be the concensus (I've had a few off list discussions as well), and one with which I'd agree. I really only threw that shot in for the purposes of the portfolio as a whole, and I thought that it would be good to have one of the bassist alone, not mugging. But after hearing from yourself and a few others, I may lose it. Thanks so much for your thoughts, -frank Alan Chan wrote: I'd say the Stand Up Bass is the least attractive one due to loose composition. But then the only thing that I know is landscape photography so I might be missing something. :) regards, Alan Chan -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Comments Please!
I think you're right. That might have been difficult, as I was shooting from about 25 feet away through a crowd (sort of between heads), so it might have been difficult to have gotten a lower viewpoint. But from a purely aesthetic point of view, I do agree. thanks again, frank Alan Chan wrote: I would choose to point the camera just a little bit lower for the Crooning. I think the head of the singer should be a little bit higher instead of positioning right in the middle horizontally. But as I said, I am a landscape photographer. I don't know what I am talking about. :) regards, Alan Chan -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Leaving list
Hi, Bob, Hope you're off doing something exciting, and that you'll be back soon. ciao, frank Bob Rapp wrote: Leaving for awhile, Bob Rapp -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Odp: vivitar 35-85mm 2.8 lens
I couldn't have said it better! g -frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Czesc! Wiesz cos na temat adapterow Tamrona KA?mOzna ich uzywac z nowymi puszkami? Alek U¿ytkownik £ukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa³: -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: TOPDML Pentax posters
Hi Dave, I've got kids next weekend. Saturday we'll probably be going to the Royal Winter Fair (hey, they have horses there!), but if you guys are going to meet somewhere handy to downtown, I could meet with you quickly just to pick up my poster, then be off with my kids (depending on where you'll be). So, keep me informed, and I'll let you know. ciao, frank David Brooks wrote: Horse show today(Sunday).Hows next Saturday for everyone Dave Begin Original Message From: Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:05:50 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax posters So let's get the TOPDML going. I'm available. Jeff. - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 9:54 AM Subject: Re: Pentax posters They are nice eh Keith.I have successfully mailed my 4 to folks in Canada,and meet up with Brendan and Jeff.Just have to get a TOPDML going soon so i can give Frank,David and Aaron theirs:) Dave - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Pentax posters Just got mine, and I love it! End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Where's Greywolf?
For some reason my bookmark wasn't working is all. I've updated, and I can get back onto his journal. Sounds like he's having a tough time of it, being broke, and now having his arthritis flare up real bad. Last entry October 19 (sounds like right around when you checked last, Dave). I hope he's okay. At least his journal's still up, even though not active for almost a month. I am a bit worried... -frank David Brooks wrote: It was up about 2-3 weeks ago when i last went on it. Hope all is ok. Dave B Begin Original Message From: David Chang-Sang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 15:36:39 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Where's Greywolf? Last we heard Frank, he was going on the road - but I didn't know he took down the site. Dave -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:knarf.theriault;sympatico.ca] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 3:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Where's Greywolf? Hi, I just went to check on Tom's page today, which I probably haven't done in a while, and got Page Not Found. Anyone heard from him lately? I hope everything's okay with him... regards, frank -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Re:TOPDML Pentax posters
Count me in. Jeff. - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 6:45 AM Subject: Re:TOPDML Pentax posters Horse show today(Sunday).Hows next Saturday for everyone Dave
zeiss 180mm 2.8 lens m42 mount
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=800474171 is this a good lens or is my money better spent elsewhere?
Can We Help Tom?
Just going through Greywolf's journal, he thanked Adelheid for her very kind assistance of some badly needed money. It looks like Tom may be having a really tough time right now, both in terms of finance and health. I'm wondering if there's anything we could do to help him out financially. I know we're in the process of getting together a little something for Doug the List Guy (don't read this, Doug!), and I don't want to have this list turn into the on-line equivalent of the office collections that seem to pop up two or three times a week, but I'm worried that Tom may be in real need here. I'm up here in Canada, and Tom's down in the US, but hell, it wouldn't be hard to send a money order or cheque down to where he is. I could try to contact him through his page (I don't know how often he's on-line), to get an address or PO box to which it could go. Obviously, I wouldn't start collecting until I contact him, so we know that he'll be able to receive the funds. I'm thinking that if enough folks gave even $10 or $15, we could make things a bit easier for him, at least for a while. Anyone else in? Contact me on or off list, as you wish. thanks, frank -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: OT: sliding away?
alex wrote: Keith, I found if I scan my slides with a quality film scanner, Photoshop them slightly and print on a decent Epson inkjet, I get better results than commercial labs can (or willing to) do with negatives. This could be an indication of my local labs quality :=) I suspect that scanning and printing at home is also cheaper, at least on a long run, than paying for lab services. Alex Which means I would need to buy a film scanner. I have a document scanner that does top quality documents, but I don't think it's optimized for film... I'll have to check my manual carefully. I know I'd be very unhappy with it if it were only mediochre. I can get that from my film processor now! So that's a bit of an outlay that needs amortizing over a long time. Secondly, I am not prepared for the learning curve on Photoshop! I have paid careful attention to those who have used it for a long time, and in essense they all agree that it is a steep curve, and takes dedicated effort to be facile with it... I think that ColorIt! or GraphicConverter would do as well, if I took the time to acquire that skill with them. Third, my HP printer is totally out of the question when it comes to good images from photos, so as you say, an Epson is in my future! I'm not making nor do I plan to make any money with my photos, so I can't justify the time and expense to make such a big deal out of doing it myself. All of which goes to say, in spite of my apparent negative attitude regarding going that far personally, your advice has merit and I realize that if I did choose to set up to do it myself I'd be far happier. No question about it, so thanks for the heads up. keith whaley -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:keith_w;dslextreme.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: sliding away? ... I have yet to find a suitable printer, who will print what I see when I take the shot. I get prints back from the printer, look at the prints, then glass the negatives and see _far_ more detail than is on paper. Subtle shadow detail lost in the mud. For the most part, the film I'm using doesn't matter all that much. Yes, some films reproduce shadow detail better than others, but ignoring that fine point for the moment, I really hesitate to go to ta custom lab and pay very high prices just for getting a decent print from my negatives! Exactly as Bruce says. Maybe I'm not approaching it right...or I need to find a proper digital lab? Anyone know of one in L.A.? keith whaley
Re: OT: Types of photographers
I have to read it again carefully, but at the first glimpse I am sure I am in the wrong category ... I will work on that. Or should I say: yeah, it's me! Who matters?! Have a nice sunday. Bernd - original Nachricht Should be good for a laugh, if only at yourself: a href='http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm' target='_blank'uhttp://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm/u/a chris --- original Nachricht Ende -- Singles aufgepasst! Spielend in Kontakt kommen und neue Freunde finden in der freenet.de Community! Jetzt durchstarten unter: http://www.freenet.de/tipp/community/
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What an awesome rose photo. I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally blew me away. I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera. Now I really want one. I know this is not on the original topic, but if you wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20? Kathy L. Rob shoots with an Olympus E10, a 4MP camera. it depends on how sharp you want the image if you can go to 16x20. it will be a bit soft, but then again, unless you have a good lens on your enlarger, a wet print could be a bit soft too. with a 3.3 megapixel camera, i find that if i use the softness as part of the effect, i can go to 12x18 pretty easily. with a 5 megapixel camera, it's still a bit soft at 12x18 compared to a well focused film image, but again, that can be used for a positive effect. Herb...
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What an awesome rose photo. I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally blew me away. I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera. Now I really want one. I know this is not on the original topic, but if you wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20? Kathy L. this is taken with my 50mm 2.8 at around f5.6 or maybe 4.0. it definitely could go to 12x18. http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/temp/01-08.jpg this is taken with my Nikon Coolpix 5000. i am not sure i would do a 12x18 because i don't like the picture that much, but if i did, the hairs on the willows would be a bit soft by comparison. http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/temp/DSCN0567.jpg Herb
Re: OT: sliding away?
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Which means I would need to buy a film scanner. I have a document scanner that does top quality documents, but I don't think it's optimized for film... I'll have to check my manual carefully. I know I'd be very unhappy with it if it were only mediochre. I can get that from my film processor now! So that's a bit of an outlay that needs amortizing over a long time. Secondly, I am not prepared for the learning curve on Photoshop! I have paid careful attention to those who have used it for a long time, and in essense they all agree that it is a steep curve, and takes dedicated effort to be facile with it... I think that ColorIt! or GraphicConverter would do as well, if I took the time to acquire that skill with them. you don't need a hugely expensive film scanner. however, only Photoshop and a couple of other applications do color management well enough so that you get consistent results when you tweak an image by looking at it on the screen and then just printing. at the PhotoPlus Expo, any vendor who was not selling their own brand of printers and doing digital output was using an Epson printer to print their demos. Herb
Re: Comments Please!
Hi Frank, the photos are quite nice (I would have preferred them in color) and very sharp etc. I think it would be nice to play more attention to the proportions, the centering, --(difficult to explain, not my native language)-- you know: golden section and so on, to get a certain tension into the pictures that leads the viewer into the essential statement. Just my opinion. I am learning every day. Bernd - original Nachricht I wouldn't mind if you fine folks looked at this group of photos, and let me know what you think of them as a group, and individually. On list or off, as you prefer. Please be as brutal as you want (but maybe you can be brutal off list? vbg). Just kidding, be brutal on list, if you want... a href='http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=251836' target='_blank'uhttp://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=251836/u/a They were taken at a Street Festival on the street on which I live, for what it's worth. Thanks for taking the time to look at them, and thanks to anyone who feels compelled to comment. regards, frank -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer --- original Nachricht Ende -- freenet Email-Office: E-Mail, Kalender und 30 MB virtuelle Festplatte. Jetzt testen unter www.freenet.de/tipp/emo
Re: 200/2.5 custom tripod mount pics --Jose
Yes Fred I think I would use the A* 300/4 more if it had a tripod mount. I tend to favour the Tokina 100-300 AT-X/4 because of its tripod mount... Same here, Vic. The AT-X 100-300/4 isn't a prime, but it gives some primes a pretty good run for their money, and it has that useful tripod mount, too... By the way, the tripod mount in the AT-X 100-300/4 is not removable (as in the AT-X 80-20/2.8), but it rotatable, if you need to get it out of the way. However, I have found the lens quite comfortable to hand-hold with the tripod flange (with its nicely rounded edges) often resting in my hand. Fred
Re: Dust in Lenses
Somehow the 43 is pretty dust resistance. Mine is clean too even it is my most used lens for the last 3 years. FA24 2nd. FA77/1.8 F/FA135/2.8 are dust suckers. It is my hypothesis that telephotos (except IF ones, of course) tend to exchange more air while focusing back and forth (with their usually longer helicoids) than do most wide angles, and so they end up sucking in more dust. ;-) Fred
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
I did quite a bit of testing of the phenomenon and the results are posted on the Lens Test Evaluation site. Hopefully Fred can post the site again. I'm not sure just which site you mean, Bruce. (Sorry.) Arnold has a lot of 77mm and 85mm images at: http://www.arnoldstark.de/pentax.htm I have some 85mm (but no 77mm) images at: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/85compar/ There are some 85's in the Lens Gallery at: http://gemma.geo.uaic.ro/~vdonisa/lensgal.html The Lens Gallery mirror: http://phred.org/pentax/lensgal/lensgal.html Fred
Odp: Odp: vivitar 35-85mm 2.8 lens
Maybe he thought he was seinding it off-list. Lukasz - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:31 PM Subject: Re: Odp: vivitar 35-85mm 2.8 lens I couldn't have said it better! g -frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Czesc! Wiesz cos na temat adapterow Tamrona KA?mOzna ich uzywac z nowymi puszkami? Alek U¿ytkownik £ukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa³: -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Odp: Odp: vivitar 35-85mm 2.8 lens
Not really. And I think you should know not all of us on this list understand Polish g and may be a bit puzzled when they see a post like yours so the general consensus is to use English. Anyway, welcome to the list (I assume this is your first post?) ukasz - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 10:52 AM Subject: Re: Odp: vivitar 35-85mm 2.8 lens Czesc! Wiesz cos na temat adapterow Tamrona KA?mOzna ich uzywac z nowymi puszkami? Alek Uytkownik ukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: 1. flare- how do i control it-it flares worse than smc lens Now, that's surprise ;-) 3. was that a good price 0- i think so the last two on ebay went for around 180-200 us or 320-350 australian You already got your answer. Sorry, nothing constructive here :-) Regards, Lukasz
Re: Can We Help Tom?
Count me in. E-mail direct if you like - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ed Matthew From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Can We Help Tom? Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 07:53:23 -0500 Just going through Greywolf's journal, he thanked Adelheid for her very kind assistance of some badly needed money. It looks like Tom may be having a really tough time right now, both in terms of finance and health. I'm wondering if there's anything we could do to help him out financially. I know we're in the process of getting together a little something for Doug the List Guy (don't read this, Doug!), and I don't want to have this list turn into the on-line equivalent of the office collections that seem to pop up two or three times a week, but I'm worried that Tom may be in real need here. I'm up here in Canada, and Tom's down in the US, but hell, it wouldn't be hard to send a money order or cheque down to where he is. I could try to contact him through his page (I don't know how often he's on-line), to get an address or PO box to which it could go. Obviously, I wouldn't start collecting until I contact him, so we know that he'll be able to receive the funds. I'm thinking that if enough folks gave even $10 or $15, we could make things a bit easier for him, at least for a while. Anyone else in? Contact me on or off list, as you wish. thanks, frank -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
RE: 200/2.5 custom tripod mount pics --Jose
Vic, Thanks for posting the photos. It appears to function pretty good; not intrusive. Regards, Jose R. Rodriguez -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Pentxuser;aol.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 5:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 200/2.5 custom tripod mount pics --Jose I told Jose and others I would put pics up of my custom tripod mount that I got with my 200/2.5. i don't know it it was made in this place being discussed in Britain but it sure looks like it could have been. The brass ring on the bottom is new, the original loosened so I had it replaced... Vic here are the shots/ (also includes a shot of my home made light table with 4 lights (top, bottom, back and auxiliary... http://hometown.aol.ca/pentxuser/200lens.html
Re: Vs: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Fred wrote: Bokeh exists. It ~is~ very important for some of us. Probably no photo stands or falls just because of bokeh, but it can be a very important aspect of some photographs. I have several photos that has ended up in the waste basket due to horrible bokeh. All shot with the FA645 120/4 macro; an otherwise excellent lens. Pål
Re: LX MAcro Question
Shaun wrote: The Z-1 AF system causes the FA 100mm macro to hunt somewhat at close focusing distances, and the metering system consistently overexposes by anywhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of a stop (depending upon the film too You should get your camera and/or lens checked... Pål
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Alan wrote: I have felt the FA43/1.9 is nothing special optically as much as I like it's compactness and built quality. Mine is utterly special. Its sharpness from F:4 to F:8 isn't surpassed by anything on sale. It's bokeh and 3D rendition is damned spacial too. Images look close to stereoscopic with this lens. It only weak point is wide open performance but it isn't really worse here than almost all other Pentax lenses. Pål
Re: Bokeh hot off presses
Brad wrote: Well, got my points across (at least to my liking) but bokeh is rather a dull subject, real or not. That fully explains why you spend do much time on the subject. Pål
Re: LX MAcro Question
Shaun wrote: P.S. by the way Pal, which camera do you still have, the z-1p or the LX? If I read your last email correctly, it sounds like you ditched the z-1p, but still have at least one LX. MZ-S. Pål
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Wayne wrote: for general portaiture and landscapes which of these is the better lens which is better optically what is a good used price just curious cos they are both on ebay at the moment The 77 is the better lens. I've owned both. Pål
FS Sunday
Hi all, Sorry for putting up for sale on Sunday rather than Friday, but I've had a hard time deciding to let go of the following. 1. Black KX (Serial# 8380420): This is in *very* good condition with the only signs of minor brassing on the right corner of the base-plate (on the very edges of the corners), an even smaller amount on one left corner edge of the base plate, and one tiny dot of brass on the right top corner edge. There are *very* minor signs of wear around the strap lugs but nothing that lets the brass show through. Some other very shallow scratches on the base plate. Other than that the rest of the camera is in near mint cosmetic condition. There is, however, one other flaw: the rubber band around the shutter speed dial has come loose, meaning that *sometimes* the band (not the dial itself) will turn freely when you use your forefinger to change shutter speeds with the camera at eye-level. It's a very minor problem, but it's there. Everything else is perfect. Includes batteries, and a body cap. Asking a firm $185 plus shipping. 2. M24-35/f3.5 zoom: I bought this from Wendy a couple of months ago and have decided it's simply too redundant with my FA24-90/35-4.5. Excellent shape. Wendy supplied an off-brand lens-case that while loose fitting does work, and will come with both caps. Also asking a firm $185 plus shipping. 3. K50/f1.2: Got this high-speed beauty from Henry's about a month ago. They correctly described it as in near-mint condition with the only detraction being some dust in the lens. I've only decided to sell it in order to get the A version. Will come with both caps. Asking a firm $225 plus shipping. If interested, please get in touch off list (you can check my ebay feedback at [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Thanks much, Tom
Re: Types of photographers
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 11:43 PM Subject: Re: Types of photographers In a message dated 11/9/02 11:58:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm Great Essay. I think we have a lot of Equipment Measurbators on this list. I don't know if that is good or bad but judging from this bokeh discussion I think it might be a bad thing. Vic, I think I will save this message on the off chance you dare to make any comment ever about the esthetics of anything. Then I will quote this message. Regards William Robb
Re: Can We Help Tom?
I'd be happy to contribute $20. Paul Stenquist frank theriault wrote: Just going through Greywolf's journal, he thanked Adelheid for her very kind assistance of some badly needed money. It looks like Tom may be having a really tough time right now, both in terms of finance and health. I'm wondering if there's anything we could do to help him out financially. I know we're in the process of getting together a little something for Doug the List Guy (don't read this, Doug!), and I don't want to have this list turn into the on-line equivalent of the office collections that seem to pop up two or three times a week, but I'm worried that Tom may be in real need here. I'm up here in Canada, and Tom's down in the US, but hell, it wouldn't be hard to send a money order or cheque down to where he is. I could try to contact him through his page (I don't know how often he's on-line), to get an address or PO box to which it could go. Obviously, I wouldn't start collecting until I contact him, so we know that he'll be able to receive the funds. I'm thinking that if enough folks gave even $10 or $15, we could make things a bit easier for him, at least for a while. Anyone else in? Contact me on or off list, as you wish. thanks, frank -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Paul Stenquist wrote: The harshness or smoothness of the bokeh -- or out of focus elements -- is dependent on much more than the lens and the way it renders things. How distant they are from the camera determines their rendering more than any other element. The lighting is critical as well. I'm going to sit down with a roll of film, a bag of lenses, and my tripod in the near future and take the same set of images over, and over, and over again with each lens just to get a feel for what does what.. I'll post to the net when I'm complete, in case its of note to anyone. I'm hoping to find a fence line so that it recedes, and I can take it at an angle and watch it fade outk, but we'll see what I can turn up. Figure on eahc lens wide open and closed up two stops (so that it uses teh aperature blades and not just the barrel of the lens), at the extremes of each lens and perhaps in the middle, as well. It should proove to be a collossal waste of time and film. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
Worry less about the word bokeh, and the endless arguments about it, and instead go as you wanted to, to a local univeristy or museum or whatever, and LOOK at the pictures... You'll see that some of them inevitably have a smoother, nicer look to their out of focus areas.. Some of them do not. This is easy enough to see, notice, and enjoy.. its not so easy to define. Is it not a big part of the picture? Perhaps to you its not, but it is to me.. its essential to me. I thrive on minimal depth of field, I crave it, and without, most of my pictures would suffer, as the way I take a picture, I like to take one single element, and stand it out against everything else. Perhaps its not important to you, it is to me. As such, bokeh, as irritatring a concept as it may be, is of prime importance. Its only now that I'm becoming aware of it as a potential shortcoming in the lenses, and unfortuantly for me (and myt wallet), I can't dismiss it so easily as you do. Different strokes for different folks. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Disposable Cameras and Ilford
Nope, not sure at all. Now that you mention it, being a C41 would make sense considering who they are selling to. Brad. - Original Message - From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML (Pentax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 12:14 PM Subject: Re: OT: Disposable Cameras and Ilford On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: with B/W Ilford filmcould be wrong but I think it's the new Delta 400. You sure it wasn't XP 2 Super? That's their colour process BW. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
K-Mounters is even better. Debra Wilborn wrote: (snip) Hmm, I'm definately liking K-Mounties. I need to find a red coat and a horse.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Paul Jones wrote: Also even though a lense has good bokeh, it doesnt mean it can make a harsh background look good, shoot a lense wide open into a heavily back lit tree with light popping through and i doubt any lense will make the bokeh look really nice. -cough- And nwo the conversation has come full circle.. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would this be an example of bad bokeh? Or would it be called something else? It would be, to me. Although, again, like the only example shot I've posted, this is also shot through a tree where all those spaces between the leaves are forming the highlights.. I've just been yelled at that I've got to go, so perhaps I'll take this up later, only another 200 messages to go through.. (glad to know I started this bokeh conversation, bwahaha) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Vs: zeiss 180mm 2.8 lens m42 mount
It is the famous Olympia Sonnar once held in high esteem - designed for the 1936 Berlin Olympics. I have no idea how it measures up with current lenses. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 10. marraskuuta 2002 13:36 Aihe: zeiss 180mm 2.8 lens m42 mount http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=800474171 is this a good lens or is my money better spent elsewhere?
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
LOL. Now to all you newbies, lissen up: You do NOT need big negs. The cameras are clunky, overgrown, and expensive. Buy a Minox and be happy. -Bubba (not Brother) Lon William Robb wrote: Some of us have already defined this. Brother William
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
I do too, but when I meet one, she backs off and snorts. I really should take a bath more than once a week. Grin. -Lon Treena Harp wrote: I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ...
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 11:39 AM, gfen wrote: On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Paul Stenquist wrote: The harshness or smoothness of the bokeh -- or out of focus elements -- is dependent on much more than the lens and the way it renders things. How distant they are from the camera determines their rendering more than any other element. The lighting is critical as well. I'm going to sit down with a roll of film, a bag of lenses, and my tripod in the near future and take the same set of images over, and over, and over again with each lens just to get a feel for what does what.. I'll post to the net when I'm complete, in case its of note to anyone. I'm hoping to find a fence line so that it recedes, and I can take it at an angle and watch it fade outk, but we'll see what I can turn up. Figure on eahc lens wide open and closed up two stops (so that it uses teh aperature blades and not just the barrel of the lens), at the extremes of each lens and perhaps in the middle, as well. It should proove to be a collossal waste of time and film. :) Belly up to the nearest chainlink fence, wedge a variety of odds and ends, shiny and flat, into it and you should be set. Dan Scott
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
Don't set the kid off. Gawd, even Cassleberry was moved to correct him, and THAT didn't work either. I think BD's gonna work out once he tames his typing fingers and figures out he is the new kid on the block, but for NOW frank theriault wrote: sexist comment. not funny
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 11:49 PM, Brad Dobo wrote: I talked to Pentax on this one and they don't make a hood for the lens, because it really is not needed at all. I have the FA version. Putting a UV type filter on will not be protecting the front element anyhow, and with the SMC is not needed. In fact, you would just degrade the image, and what am image that lens can make! Use it as is and enjoy the view, so to speak ;-) Brad. They are wrong. It does need a hood. Dan Scott
Re: KMP lens info
I second this. Boz, I've been on your site countless times and it has helped me greatly. Thanks. - Lon Ken Archer wrote: Boz, Thanks for all your hard work. I just want you to know it is appreciated. Ken
Re: My Hissy Fit is Over
Good. I'd hate to see too many check out over a Gregory Who incident. It's happened before. frank theriault wrote: Okay, I'm done with my fit, and I'm back.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?!
Mike J has a good series of articles on sharpness, resolution and contrast on the Luminous Landscape web site. The one on contrast goes into bokeh a bit. He believes good bokeh is largely determined by how closely the tangential and saggital MTF curves follow each other. I expect he's come to this conclusion empirically, but it does seem to make sense. It certainly explains how some lenses that aren't very sharp have great bokeh (I had a cheap AF Sigma 400/5.6 that had to be stopped down to f8 or f11 to be even usable, but it had really nice bokeh) and why some sharp lenses have poor bokeh (although there certainly are lenses that are sharp and have great bokeh; the FA43/1.9 springs to mind). The article on lens contrast is at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Hey Dan, Intriguing, what makes you say that? On the lighter side, I didn't think we ever admit to Pentax errors? ;-) On the more practical side, I'm looking at my lens now, read your email and decided to pull it out. By design this lens has a very thick and long hood. I cannot see a reason for anything additional. However, I can see it if you are referring to a hood that isn't of real benefit of shading the lens, but needs one for 'protection' then sure. But I'll just stick to what I know, Pentax doesn't list one for it like every other lens that doesn't have one built in, even the cheapest consumer zooms. They told me it doesn't need it. I respect them. In class we discussed lenses and the instructor also said because of the construction of true macro lens, a hood is not necessary. In any case, I'm interested to hear your reason why it does. I have never had trouble with it in that respect (usage, just not people telling me so). Spill yer guts Dan ;-) Regards, Brad - Original Message - From: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 11:49 PM, Brad Dobo wrote: I talked to Pentax on this one and they don't make a hood for the lens, because it really is not needed at all. I have the FA version. Putting a UV type filter on will not be protecting the front element anyhow, and with the SMC is not needed. In fact, you would just degrade the image, and what am image that lens can make! Use it as is and enjoy the view, so to speak ;-) Brad. They are wrong. It does need a hood. Dan Scott
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
heh...for those with the screw mount lenses and perhaps cameras to go with them, using your example, we could call them 'screwed' ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:01 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. K-Mounters is even better. Debra Wilborn wrote: (snip) Hmm, I'm definately liking K-Mounties. I need to find a red coat and a horse.
Re: Swiss camera thief gives himself away
What's a CV? Dan Scott wrote: On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 01:52 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_699887.html Burglar leaves his CV at the scene of the crime See, optimism at its worst. Dan Scott -- William Kane http://www.KaneScience.com IABT Advisory Board Member http://www.iabt.net Tinley Park High School 6111 W. 175th Street Tinley Park, IL 60477 V: 708/532-1900 ext 3909 http://www.bhsd228.com
200mm macro: FA* vs A*
Hi, Does anybody have experience with both of these lenses? I understand that the A* version is highly rated by those list members who have used it, but I would prefer the AF lens. Is it as good? How good is the image quality when it is used with a converter (A1.4xS or A2xS or similar)? Thanks, Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A*
Alexander wrote: Does anybody have experience with both of these lenses? I understand that the A* version is highly rated by those list members who have used it, but I would prefer the AF lens. Is it as good? Yes. If anything, the FA* lens is sharper. The drawback is that the FA* is quite significantly larger and heavier. If I'm not mistaken, the FA* has longer working distance at 1:1. How good is the image quality when it is used with a converter (A1.4xS or A2xS or similar)? Haven't tried but I would expect it to work great as the lens is so sharp to start with. Pål
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
More likely privileged! keith whaley Pentax Guy wrote: heh...for those with the screw mount lenses and perhaps cameras to go with them, using your example, we could call them 'screwed' ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:01 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. K-Mounters is even better. Debra Wilborn wrote: (snip) Hmm, I'm definately liking K-Mounties. I need to find a red coat and a horse.
Re: Dust in Lenses
It is my hypothesis that telephotos (except IF ones, of course) tend to exchange more air while focusing back and forth (with their usually longer helicoids) than do most wide angles, and so they end up sucking in more dust. ;-) Unfortunately, FA135/2.8 FA*200/2.8 are IF, and they still suck more dust than my other lenses. :( regards, Alan Chan _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A*
Hey guys, Just looking at a little pamphlet I have here on Pentax 35mm SLR lenses and cannot see an FA* 200 macro. I see the A* 200mm Macro ED, but nothing else close, is it a new lens? (this does not contain for instance, the FA 24-90mm) Brad - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 3:26 PM Subject: Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A* Alexander wrote: Does anybody have experience with both of these lenses? I understand that the A* version is highly rated by those list members who have used it, but I would prefer the AF lens. Is it as good? Yes. If anything, the FA* lens is sharper. The drawback is that the FA* is quite significantly larger and heavier. If I'm not mistaken, the FA* has longer working distance at 1:1. How good is the image quality when it is used with a converter (A1.4xS or A2xS or similar)? Haven't tried but I would expect it to work great as the lens is so sharp to start with. Pål
Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A*
This lens has been around for quite some time. http://www.pentax.com/products/lenses/lensemodel.cfm?lensetype=35mmlensemodel=FA%2DMacro http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/tele/FA200f4-Macro.html regards, Alan Chan From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A* Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:49:45 -0500 Hey guys, Just looking at a little pamphlet I have here on Pentax 35mm SLR lenses and cannot see an FA* 200 macro. I see the A* 200mm Macro ED, but nothing else close, is it a new lens? (this does not contain for instance, the FA 24-90mm) Brad - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 3:26 PM Subject: Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A* Alexander wrote: Does anybody have experience with both of these lenses? I understand that the A* version is highly rated by those list members who have used it, but I would prefer the AF lens. Is it as good? Yes. If anything, the FA* lens is sharper. The drawback is that the FA* is quite significantly larger and heavier. If I'm not mistaken, the FA* has longer working distance at 1:1. How good is the image quality when it is used with a converter (A1.4xS or A2xS or similar)? Haven't tried but I would expect it to work great as the lens is so sharp to start with. Pål _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: AF 400T swivel head
Both of my AF280T's do the 180 swivel dance. I also like the button that puts it in macro mode. -Lon Christian Skofteland wrote: Hey; just out of curiosity I checked my AF280T and it swivels 180 degrees one way and 90 the other. Are all 280's like this? Cool
FS: Sunday, Second series
Hi all (again), Here's more (and, yes, I'm selling to save up for the Pentax DSLR): 1. LX with FA-1 finder, serial #5317237. Bought from Rob Studdert a few months ago. 3200 ASA, regular shutter release surround, roller on film back. No brassing at all and really fine shape except for the bottom plate which shows a fair amount of scratching and a slight distortion around the tripod socket. Comes with socket cover and Pentax shutter button softie. The special feature of this LX is Rob's custom wood grip. You can see it at www.home.aone.net.au/audiobias/grips.html along with my comment on its use that Rob was kind enough to put up. The only reason I'm selling this my last LX is as I said above, I've decided to bite the bullet on digital. Asking a firm $500 with Rob's grip, plus shipping. 2. LX winder whose only flaw is a single light scratch mark on its top plate. Asking $125, plus shipping. 3. LB-1 base finder module, completely mint with original cap, box and instructions and LD-2 eyepiece for the LB-1 base, very close to mint with its cap but without the original box. Will only sell together. Asking $175 plus shipping. Or: Will sell all the above together for $750 plus shipping. I'll have more items this coming week. Thanks for looking, and, again, you can check my ebay feedback at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom
Re: Swiss camera thief gives himself away
Short for resume? curriculum vitae http://www.google.com/search?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8q=curriculum+vitaespell=1 William Kane wrote: What's a CV? Dan Scott wrote: On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 01:52 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_699887.html Burglar leaves his CV at the scene of the crime See, optimism at its worst.
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Perhaps Dan was refering to when a filter was used. But I suppose you can use whatever 58mm hood you found. I tried the A*85/1.4 67mm hood with step-up ring and it worked fine, but I have never actually used it in practice. regards, Alan Chan Intriguing, what makes you say that? On the lighter side, I didn't think we ever admit to Pentax errors? ;-) On the more practical side, I'm looking at my lens now, read your email and decided to pull it out. By design this lens has a very thick and long hood. I cannot see a reason for anything additional. However, I can see it if you are referring to a hood that isn't of real benefit of shading the lens, but needs one for 'protection' then sure. But I'll just stick to what I know, Pentax doesn't list one for it like every other lens that doesn't have one built in, even the cheapest consumer zooms. They told me it doesn't need it. I respect them. In class we discussed lenses and the instructor also said because of the construction of true macro lens, a hood is not necessary. In any case, I'm interested to hear your reason why it does. I have never had trouble with it in that respect (usage, just not people telling me so). _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A*
Alan, Yup, there it is. I did have a vague recollection of it. It might be nice for Pentax to put out some complete and fully updated literature. I order them off sites from time to time as I lose them, and I get the same thing. They also offer an Accessories one, but despite perhaps a dozen tries, I have yet to receive it. Brad - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 3:56 PM Subject: Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A* This lens has been around for quite some time. http://www.pentax.com/products/lenses/lensemodel.cfm?lensetype=35mmlensemod el=FA%2DMacro http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/tele/FA200f4-Macro.html regards, Alan Chan From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A* Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:49:45 -0500 Hey guys, Just looking at a little pamphlet I have here on Pentax 35mm SLR lenses and cannot see an FA* 200 macro. I see the A* 200mm Macro ED, but nothing else close, is it a new lens? (this does not contain for instance, the FA 24-90mm) Brad - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 3:26 PM Subject: Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A* Alexander wrote: Does anybody have experience with both of these lenses? I understand that the A* version is highly rated by those list members who have used it, but I would prefer the AF lens. Is it as good? Yes. If anything, the FA* lens is sharper. The drawback is that the FA* is quite significantly larger and heavier. If I'm not mistaken, the FA* has longer working distance at 1:1. How good is the image quality when it is used with a converter (A1.4xS or A2xS or similar)? Haven't tried but I would expect it to work great as the lens is so sharp to start with. Pål _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Yes, with a filter, I can see a need for the hood. Dan where are you, clear up this mystery! ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 4:00 PM Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro Perhaps Dan was refering to when a filter was used. But I suppose you can use whatever 58mm hood you found. I tried the A*85/1.4 67mm hood with step-up ring and it worked fine, but I have never actually used it in practice. regards, Alan Chan Intriguing, what makes you say that? On the lighter side, I didn't think we ever admit to Pentax errors? ;-) On the more practical side, I'm looking at my lens now, read your email and decided to pull it out. By design this lens has a very thick and long hood. I cannot see a reason for anything additional. However, I can see it if you are referring to a hood that isn't of real benefit of shading the lens, but needs one for 'protection' then sure. But I'll just stick to what I know, Pentax doesn't list one for it like every other lens that doesn't have one built in, even the cheapest consumer zooms. They told me it doesn't need it. I respect them. In class we discussed lenses and the instructor also said because of the construction of true macro lens, a hood is not necessary. In any case, I'm interested to hear your reason why it does. I have never had trouble with it in that respect (usage, just not people telling me so). _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A*
I don't dispute what you say, but the latest Pentax lens folder I picked up from my Pentax dealer doesn't have either of those lenses listed... keith whaley Alan Chan wrote: This lens has been around for quite some time. http://www.pentax.com/products/lenses/lensemodel.cfm?lensetype=35mmlensemodel=FA%2DMacro http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/tele/FA200f4-Macro.html regards, Alan Chan From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A* Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:49:45 -0500 Hey guys, Just looking at a little pamphlet I have here on Pentax 35mm SLR lenses and cannot see an FA* 200 macro. I see the A* 200mm Macro ED, but nothing else close, is it a new lens? (this does not contain for instance, the FA 24-90mm) Brad - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 3:26 PM Subject: Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A* Alexander wrote: Does anybody have experience with both of these lenses? I understand that the A* version is highly rated by those list members who have used it, but I would prefer the AF lens. Is it as good? Yes. If anything, the FA* lens is sharper. The drawback is that the FA* is quite significantly larger and heavier. If I'm not mistaken, the FA* has longer working distance at 1:1. How good is the image quality when it is used with a converter (A1.4xS or A2xS or similar)? Haven't tried but I would expect it to work great as the lens is so sharp to start with. Pål _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Pentax Screen Tweezers (Was Re: Oops)
Which reminds me: Does Pentax still sell screen tweezers? Will any tweezer sold work with any screens? I just picked up a couple MXen (one with split/microprism, one with plain, and an extra grid screen) and would like to get a tool that lets me change these EASILY. Right now I'm using a dental pick. -Lon Shaun Canning wrote: You know what I really hate when those stupid little tweezers for changing LX screens slip and scratch the crap out of an otherwise bewdiful LX screen. Damn I hate that...
Re: Pentax Screen Tweezers (Was Re: Oops)
The grid screen for my PZ-1 came with a tweezer. Isn't that included with all screens? Frits On Sunday 10 November 2002 21:26, Lon Williamson wrote: Which reminds me: Does Pentax still sell screen tweezers? Will any tweezer sold work with any screens? I just picked up a couple MXen (one with split/microprism, one with plain, and an extra grid screen) and would like to get a tool that lets me change these EASILY. Right now I'm using a dental pick. -Lon -- Frits Wüthrich Pentaxianado
Re: Oops
Try telling yourself the screen is now brassed and therefore has been to hell and back on a brassed LX. Shaun Canning wrote: Alas, all too late Vic, but luckily the scratch is only minor. It will not affect anything other than my pride
Re: OT: sliding away?
Hi Dan, a couple of comments below... Dan Scott wrote: On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 07:28 AM, Herb Chong wrote: Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Which means I would need to buy a film scanner. I have a document scanner that does top quality documents, but I don't think it's optimized for film... I'll have to check my manual carefully. I know I'd be very unhappy with it if it were only mediochre. I can get that from my film processor now! So that's a bit of an outlay that needs amortizing over a long time. Secondly, I am not prepared for the learning curve on Photoshop! I have paid careful attention to those who have used it for a long time, and in essense they all agree that it is a steep curve, and takes dedicated effort to be facile with it... I think that ColorIt! or GraphicConverter would do as well, if I took the time to acquire that skill with them. = snipped = Dan replied: Photoshop Elements is getting really good press, and it's a lot cheaper than the full blown package. I'm not sure if the learning curve is any different, but it might be an option. ColorIt I found confusing and not as powerful, and GraphicConverter, while excellent at opening and translating files, is actually very limited (in my experience). Have you ever down-loaded and reviewed the 237 page instruction manual that comes with it? Most impressive ~ and I'm talking about image manipulation! Photoshop is worth the effort. Once you become familiar and capable with it. No argument from me! The biggest part of the learning curve for me was finally figuring out that 99.9 percent of what it can do is stuff that completely messes up photos (for my purposes).g The remaining 00.1 percent, however, makes all the difference in the world. And, for the 1/10th of 1% that you actually use and enjoy, you're going thru all that sweat and tears? Nah, not me, thanks... Dan Scott keith
Re: Pentax Screen Tweezers (Was Re: Oops)
Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which reminds me: Does Pentax still sell screen tweezers? Will any tweezer sold work with any screens? I just picked up a couple MXen (one with split/microprism, one with plain, and an extra grid screen) and would like to get a tool that lets me change these EASILY. Right now I'm using a dental pick. I think all the focusing screens come with tweezers (or they're supposed to) but I usually use surgical forceps (I think you can still buy these at Radio Shack!) -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
RE: LX MAcro Question
Pal, There's no need to get the camera checked as I have sold it now. However, the slight overexposure of the z-1, and the hunting of AF lenses on said Z-1 is not particularly unusual and has been discussed ad nauseum on this list. I single sensor AF system is always going to hunt a little, that is just something Zed users have to live with. It doesn't make it a bad camera - on the contrary, I loved my Z-1 so much I only sold it to upgrade to the z-1p. As I said in my last post, and many other LX users will agree, I just prefer to use my LX for macro work. The results may be identical on a light box, but I just like my LX. It is a beautiful camera to use, and I feel more like I am actually 'making' a photograph than I sometimes did with the z-1. It is purely preference, and purely aesthetic. But, I will defy you to get a sharper photo with a z-1 than an LX when both are pushed to the limits of what they can do. The mirror lock up alone on the LX puts it streets ahead. Now, the z-1p's mirror pre-fire will negate this advantage, so it may produce equally sharp results. I will wait and see, as my nice new z-1p arrives sometime this week hopefully. I note from your last message Pal that you have an MZ-S. I cannot compare this to either the LX or Z-1, as I have not had the opportunity to see one in the flesh, let alone use one. I live out in the sticks, and don't go to the city very often, so it is difficult to get to play with new cameras. I also know you have an FA* 200mm macro, and of this I am truly jealous. If everything we hear is to be believed, then this is a truly special piece of glass... Cheers Shaun Canning Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086. Phone: 0414-967 644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:paaljensen;sensewave.com] Sent: Monday, 11 November 2002 1:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LX MAcro Question Shaun wrote: The Z-1 AF system causes the FA 100mm macro to hunt somewhat at close focusing distances, and the metering system consistently overexposes by anywhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of a stop (depending upon the film too You should get your camera and/or lens checked... Pål
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On 10 Nov 2002 at 12:39, gfen wrote: It should proove to be a collossal waste of time and film. :) Now don't you wish you had a DSLR :-) Seriously I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about lenses that we don't own as soon as a DSLR becomes available. I for one would be far happier to do (more) lens testing. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Personal Poll, opinions wanted
Jeeze, Bruce, if you want wide get wide. If you want telephoto, get telephoto. Both the lenses you list are well outside the lenses you have now. Pentax Guy wrote: Hey folks, Ok, I have the money to buy a lens. I can only get one, I know the basic two I want. (Bruce Dayton, don't answer ;-)) I have: FA 50mm f/1.4 FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro FA 28-105mm f/4-5.6 [IF] Now, just in case in the future when I have to go digital, I'm 'hoping' I can still use k-mounts, but just in case, I'm only going to get these two lenses to have a nice range to work with. That's it for me and Pentax glass (unless I win the lottery) I'm looking at: FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or Used 300-600mm fixed focal manual focus. probably about 400mm I have leaning towards one, I won't say which, but I'm interested in what anyone has to say considering the lenses I have now. Thanks! ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
RE:Comments Please!
Very nice Frank. I would have liked to see crooning as a vertical format with more body. Did you use auxiliary lighting or was that only stage lighting? Nice exposure and good focus. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A*
I just tell you about the A, because I have got it. (euh, I sell it too) It's a very good lense, but not IF. (not really important) if you have the A version, I think I don't see in what condition that's the FA was better ? and the price was not the same ! thierry Alexander Krohe a écrit: Hi, Does anybody have experience with both of these lenses? I understand that the A* version is highly rated by those list members who have used it, but I would prefer the AF lens. Is it as good? How good is the image quality when it is used with a converter (A1.4xS or A2xS or similar)? Thanks, Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
RE: Carrying a tripod
Woohoo! Finally a definition that makes me a 'pro'! I am more aware of the shot than the harm to the camera. I have proven time and again that the cameras can take it. I treat my cameras as tools not jewels. Maybe I would not be so cavalier if I did not have so many bodies, but this is something that I have done from the very start, when I only had one body. How else would I have taken some of the shots I did in Yosemite while in the mist of the waterfalls? I don't think I have TV beat, but my gear does show battle scars. The latest I noticed was a ding in my FA-2 viewfinder on an LX. This is the result of it being in a fanny pack along with another camera and three lenses. Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:DesJardinS;wlu.edu] -- Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:03 AM -- -- Part of this is how important the image is vs. the price of -- the camera. -- I think a pro will risk the camera for the shot, whereas the amateur -- might be somewhat more protective of equipment since the image is not -- actually worth money to them. For a pro, the image could potentially -- pay for a broken camera. -- snip -- -- Steven Desjardins -- Department of Chemistry -- Washington and Lee University -- Lexington, VA 24450 -- (540) 458-8873 -- FAX: (540) 458-8878 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: OT: sliding away?
I agree with Herb that the color management in Photoshop is very important to getting good and consistent results. An added advantage is that there is a lot of good training books and videos. I would go with Photoshop Elements (their lite version about $100 US) most of what you need will be there, though some are in different places. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: OT: Disposable Cameras and Ilford
I think Ilford makes both one with XP2 and one with HP5+. I don't think you see the HP5+ version in the States much though. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Aerial Photography with 645N
Is there anyone on the list that regularly uses a Pentax 645N or NII for aerial photography, if so what type of aerial photography do you do and what lenses do use use? Ed Tyler
Re: The all new PDML FAQ..
I'm glad you are doing this. I'm personally less concerned with techical stuff as much as list protocol. Hell, Boz has enough techinical stuff to stifle you for a year, if my poor brain is any judge. I HEARBY FORMALLY NOMINATE GFEN AS (sucker of the year) THE NEXT PDML FAQ AUTHOR. All in favor, clap. And please, this time, make your palms meet each other. Grin. -Lon gfen wrote: ...has reached its public infancy. I've (indirectly) received word from Ralf, the former FAQ writer, that I have full permission to plunder his FAQ, so I'll be able to expand it greatly. Also, since I've been doing this at work, on and off, I haven't had a good chance to really get into it, but I wanted to throw SOMETHING out there... There's plenty of places to add in comments, please don't be shy. I would prefer you mail me directly, however, if its something you want to discuss with others, feel free to respond to me AND the list (respond to me initially so I can try and track and not lose information). So, anyways, I dunno when the next big update will come down the pike, but for now, the roughest of the rough drafts can be seen at http://www.eighteenpercent.com/pentax/pdmlfaq.html -g. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
This guy sounds like an a-hole, Brad. He says anyone on the Net is a crap hobbyist, yet he's had no contact with anyone on this list, hasn't seen anyone's work, knows nothing about anyone on this list (except you). Seems to me that there are a few pros here, and a few serious hobbyists whose opinions are worthy of consideration. But to him, everyone here is a crap hobbyist. Yup. I'd say he's a pretentious, pompous a-hole. So tell me: if, as you say If I had to listen to him or anyone here or anyone on the web you guys claim is a God, I'd pick him, then why do you even seek any opinions from this list? Why not just go to your instructer (but don't bother him while he's counting his piles of money) in the first place? It might save lots of time... Sorry, but your post really ticked me off. regards, frank Pentax Guy wrote: Rob, guys... I won't touch my instructor. I'll tell you why. This is a guy who is too busy for the internet, I've been to the studio, I've seen him work, seen his work, seen his hobby work. He's regarded highly in the city and comes from a very well respected studio. He has a formal university honour education in arts. He then when to some sort or art/photography school in the NYC area, for I think it was at least 2-4 years. He makes major money, just loves what he does. His opinion to me on the internet, as I told him of the PDML once, and he said crap hobbyists who think they know a lot but if they did they wouldn't be sitting in front of a computer posting and reading or maintaining websites? Maybe making that equipment make them some money to have some real equipment. His words. Heck, I defended you people back then, now, he's really got it right. If I had to listen to him or anyone here or anyone on the web you guys claim is a God, I'd pick him. He lives it. Formal training, not community college, not years of experience (well, actually he has that), not information on the web. He's not like me, of course, computers, and various other things come before photography for me. Oh ya, he really respects Pentax glass too, so don't go knocking him too much for being a purely Nikon guy. I highly respect this person, as a good guy and a heck of a photography with credentials that few if any have here. Brad Dobo (and Rob, you want to get specific with a lens, that's fine, (you will, with links, yes, yes :)) he was talking generally, it's not a highly advanced course, so showing me ones that need it doesn't change anything) -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Let's Help Greywolf - Update.
I'm in discussions with another list member about the possibility of setting up a PayPal thing, so donations can happen that way (I can't do PayPal - no credit cards - don't ask! vbg). I'm going to contact Tom tonight, to let him know what we're up to, and to confirm a mailing address that I got from another list member. I don't use PayPal, so know nearly nothing about it. Count me in for $25 (check or US$ as you prefer - more if want to make a nice round figure). Jus tell me where to send it. Knowing my own tendency to procrastinate, I will suggest that we should move quickly. Regards, Ed Matthew _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Comments Please!
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 21:47:55 -0500, frank theriault wrote: Just kidding, be brutal on list, if you want... Social intercourse prophylactic rule #324: Damn in private, praise in public. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Swiss camera thief gives himself away
HE HE HE. Now it's funny. Jeff - Original Message - From: Norman Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Swiss camera thief gives himself away Short for resume? curriculum vitae http://www.google.com/search?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8q=curriculum+vitae spell=1 William Kane wrote: What's a CV? Dan Scott wrote: On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 01:52 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_699887.html Burglar leaves his CV at the scene of the crime See, optimism at its worst.
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Why are you subscribed to a list of crap hobbyists? Pentax Guy wrote: snip a load of crap
