RE: Women of PDML
Down boy, Don't get your hopes up. Your pic has been plastered on this forum quite a few times :-) ... but you never know. César Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:45 PM -- -- > -Original Message- -- > From: Charge Crystal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- > -- > Now I would pay good money to see some of you...or at least -- > one of you. -- -- Which one did you have in mind? -- -- tv --
Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
> I also wonder how much 140 regular + test prints (say > 200) tests and final prints cost. I do know printer > ink cartridges are the most expensive components of > digital (color) printing. > Time is money and I smell a lot of time involved here. > Meanwhile, I can go to the lab at 8 AM Monday, give > them the film and come back at 1PM to pick them up. > OR, if I buy the paper (and I usually do) Mafud, IS THAT YOU??? --Mike If it isn't, you're channeling a guy who used to hang out on this forum. P.S. I'll take a digital over a Crown Graphic any day. I'm much too lazy to save all the time and work I would be saving if I took 140 sheets of film and had to develop and print them.
RE: Women of PDML
> -Original Message- > From: Charge Crystal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Now I would pay good money to see some of you...or at least > one of you. Which one did you have in mind? tv
Re: Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 lens
> After seeing your post, I called the owner just now. > Apparently after I left the store, the guy behind the > counter pulled out some kind of special light. When > he looked inside the lens, he said it is full of mold. Just don't store it near your other lenses. Fungus is "contagious." If it's truly "full" of mold (fungus), then the coatings and the elements have probably been damaged (etched). This can't be fixed. Well, it can be, but not cost-effectively. If it has slight traces of fungus, you can pay to have it cleaned and hope for the best. (Cleaning is no guarantee that fungus won't return.) I wouldn't bother bringing it home, myself. --Mike "There is no such thing as a free lunch" Johnston
Re: While we were on tubes and flowers
Matt, thanks for sharing practical and useful info. It's stuff you wouldn't pick up in a weekend or two of taking flower pictures. Pat White
Re: While were on tubes and flowers
Mafud, I'd sure like to see some samples of those hot-selling flower photos. Can we see some of them online? Or let us know your fair schedule so we can come out and see them. Doug At 4:19 PM -08002/11/03, Mafud, wearing his Matt Greene "disguise," wrote, or at least typed: >> -- Douglas Forrest Brewer Ashwood Lake Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alphoto.com
Re: It finally happened was [Re: Planet of the Weird Pods]
A reverse cliche? At 02:04 PM 2/12/2003 +1100, you wrote: Freezing under Hell is not a real cliche!! Cheers Shaun Peter Alling wrote: Not my photo but... Seems appropriate. http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/It%20Finally%20Happened.jpg At 04:33 PM 2/11/2003 -0600, you wrote: > might as well trot these out again: > > http://www.alphoto.com/floral1.jpg > http://www.alphoto.com/floral4.jpg >> Here's mine >> http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/tulip.html Okay I'm in hell, but don't mind me. --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 lens
Yes. I have no Idea since prices can be all over the place, if she doesn't know what it's worth the question becomes how big a pirate do you want to be? The M version is slightly less desirable than the original smcp, but I like the M. At 05:25 PM 2/11/2003 -0800, you wrote: Hi all, Today I was in my local candy store, er, camera shop, looking at their used K mount offerings, when a lady comes in and wants to sell the above referenced lens. She was going to get advice on pricing, but I had to leave. I did not even know Pentax made this focal length in the K mount. Is this lens worth pursuing? I already own the SMC-A 100 F2.8 & the SMC-M 135, F3.5 and the SMC-A 135 F2.8. What would be a "good" price to offer her for this lens if it is worth acquiring? Thanks in advance for any suggestions! __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: It finally happened was [Re: Planet of the Weird Pods]
Freezing under Hell is not a real cliche!! Cheers Shaun Peter Alling wrote: Not my photo but... Seems appropriate. http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/It%20Finally%20Happened.jpg At 04:33 PM 2/11/2003 -0600, you wrote: > might as well trot these out again: > > http://www.alphoto.com/floral1.jpg > http://www.alphoto.com/floral4.jpg >> Here's mine >> http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/tulip.html Okay I'm in hell, but don't mind me. --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A strange screwmount lens
Gianfranco Irlanda wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > I feel a bit guilty for my absence from the list (or lurking, it > depends on the point of view...) of the recent times; I would > have liked to reply to many threads but in a way or another I > was always late so I decided to stay away a bit. > > I had (and still have) a lot of equipment tales to tell you but > this is just my 'daily news' one. > > A collector I know (who is, in the 'real life', a lawyer) told > me this morning that he had a manual focus Tokina lens (an > 80-200/2.8) in K mount for sale in a shop. I had a bit of spare > time so I went there. There was no 80-200/2.8 (already sold, I > guess) but on a shelf, among a lot of soligorokunaricoh chep > lenses, there was a huge cylindric case with 'Asahi Optical Co. > Japan' engraved on it. > Curious as ever, I asked if the case was empty or there was a > lens in it. The answer: "there's a 75-150"... > My memory of a Pentax 75-150 made me think of the small K mount > tele-zoom. Certainly the case was more than redundant. I asked > to have a look at it and... surprise! It was a screwmount lens. > A Takumar 75-150/4.5 (not sure of the exact name). This _might_ be the Super Takumar-Zoom 1:4.5 / 70 ~ 150 mm, 224mm long. This was the first Asahi zoom lens, manuf. 1964-1971. 67mm filter. 14 elements in 11 groups. Wt. 2.34 lb. Data from "The Ultimate Asahi Pentax Screw Mount Guide ~ 1952 - 1977." keith whaley > Very long (I > had the impression it was longer than the SMC-A 70-210/4) and > quite heavy, although not very large. > I've never heard nor read of that lens (even JCO does not > mention it in his site). > I'm not a collector (although my amount of gear could give cause > for doubts...) and I thought that somebody in the list could be > interested in that lens. I recall a price of Euro 160 (US$172) > but I may be wrong (it could be Euro 180 - not sure). > > Ciao, > > Gianfranco > (hoping to be more present in the list from now on) > > PS: If anybody is interested in it, the shop's web address is > http://www.otticadecesare.it/ (the used stuff page is still > June 2002, but I guess they answer to the mail).
It finally happened was [Re: Planet of the Weird Pods]
Not my photo but... Seems appropriate. http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/It%20Finally%20Happened.jpg At 04:33 PM 2/11/2003 -0600, you wrote: > might as well trot these out again: > > http://www.alphoto.com/floral1.jpg > http://www.alphoto.com/floral4.jpg >> Here's mine >> http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/tulip.html Okay I'm in hell, but don't mind me. --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >The last job I worked on paid me $37.41 and hour. I have no idea of how long it would take or what it might cost an experienced person to download, "fix" (manipulate) 140 digital shots, adjust for RGB, Gamma-etc., then do the test prints, color match them to the monitor, (presuming they two have been color "synced"), then print 140 "acceptable" prints. I might be able to do it in two whole working days but who knows? < the lab i work with charges $125 an hour. Herb
Re: Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 lens
Paul: After seeing your post, I called the owner just now. Apparently after I left the store, the guy behind the counter pulled out some kind of special light. When he looked inside the lens, he said it is full of mold. He said it is basically a paper weight. So, tomorrow, I am getting the lens for FREE. Now the question is, is it possible to clean it? Anyone have any thoughts on who I could send it to? Does Pentax in Colorado do this kind of work? Is it even worth it? Is it too expensive to fix? Can it be done??? Thanks again for the help! --- Paul Franklin Stregevsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Holy--! The pricing of this lens was the subject > less than a week ago. It > goes, as I recall, for $175 to $300. It's one of the > most highly regarded of > the K-series primes, which is to say, about as good > as it gets. It almost > never turns up in a local store, and very seldom > online. Get it, and you may > be able to do without a 100mm and 135mm (leaving > aside one's desire for a > macro lens). > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?) > > I only crop when the "found view" looks a little too found. Since my viewfinder doesn't match my negative perfectly, I have to crop to what my viewfinder sees. William Robb HAR!!
Re: Pentax & DSLRs
Tom V wrote: God, I wish Pentax would make something in this category. How about a 6 meg digital 28Ti sort of thing? You could have a very fast lens, say a 28/1.4, if using a small sensor. Ricoh played this niche well in film cameras, first with a highly regarded GR1 28/2.8 point-and-shoot, than with the GT2, a 24/2.8. Konica, too, with its nearly silent 35/2 Hexar. Who would have thought that Konica and Cosina would become a highly respected name in rangefinders and RF lenses? It will probably be harder for anyone to establish a niche in digital cameras. The closest, to my mind, is Fuji's lead in CCD technology, allowing Fuji digicams to shoot credibly at ISO 800 and 1600. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: End of K-mount?
I felt "betrayed" when Pentax switched over from the venerable screw mount to the K-mount. I started with Pentax back in 1963 and watched while other camera makes made the move to the screw mount. I thought screw mount would be the mount for all times! I have most of the SMC Taks now for my ES and ES II cameras. I have an LX, a PZ1-p, and a Ricoh that take K mount lenses - and my M42-s via an adapter. I have three K lenses and a couple of KA lenses. Dont't need anymore. I am content. Jim A. > From: "Iren & Henry Chu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:50:16 +0800 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: End of K-mount? > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:50:25 -0500 > > Dear all, >> >> Good grief! How is possible to react in the way cited below to the fact >> that Pentax release two bottom level lenses? We had the same sort of >> reaction when they released the first plastic mount lenses. Suddenly all >> Pentax lenses would use plastic mounts! Pentax is just releasing the same >> crap as the competition. Those who buy these lenses don't give a damned >> about lens compatibilty. The rest don't care either as they would never buy >> any of them. This is a non issue! >> >> Pål > > I must admit that I was a bit hysterical last night when I first read the > news at around midnight. These are the last things that I wish to learn > before going to bed. > > My problem is, if Pentax to going to release more lenses with FAJ mount to > match the coming D-SLR, I will be gone to Canon. There's no point for me to > remain staying with Pentax because my existing film cameras, MZ-S and MZ-5n, > are not able to control the aperture value manually. I hope the KAF3 mounts > will only bring us USM and IS, but not G. I now face the dilemma like > the owners of Nikon F90X. It would be too late if I switch system when > Pentax eventually release a FAJ*80-200/2.8 USM IS. > > Regards, > > Henry Chu > 12/2/2003 > > _ > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > >
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Rubenstein" Subject: Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses) > ... and have it function as the shutter too. Just like my Kodak Fiesta. I was thinking the Canon Sure Shot.. William Robb
Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
> The last job I worked on paid me $37.41 and hour. > I have no idea of how long it would take or what it > might cost an experienced person to download, "fix" > (manipulate) 140 digital shots, adjust for RGB, > Gamma-etc., then do the test prints, color match them > to the monitor, (presuming they two have been color > "synced"), then print 140 "acceptable" prints. I might > be able to do it in two whole working days but who > knows? If you are engaged in these sorts of procedures regularly you soon learn to use the tools that are available. I do and have designed many custom actions (macros) and droplets (stand alone batch actions) that reduce the time that I spend applying certain aspects of post processing to my images. There is no need to worry about colour if your digital image editing system is colour calibrated particularly if your digital image source is a digital camera with a known colour profile. If a digital image editing system is set up properly colour output will be far more accurate and repeatable than most any analogue system. If you have a reliable lab that can print digital files locally you will have "acceptable" prints back in no time. 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: Women of PDML
Now I would pay good money to see some of you...or at least one of you. - Original Message - From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:53 AM Subject: Re: Women of PDML > From what I've seen no one would want to pay money to look at any of us. > (Unless it would be to have a good laugh). There's a reason we're on this > side of the camera. > > At 05:35 PM 2/5/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >I'll do it, but only if I can wear my bunny ears! > > > >-frank > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > I think there were about 12 (I lost count, though) -- however, let's > > hold off > > > on the calendar until we see how well the "Men of PDML" calendar > > > sells. > > > >-- > >"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The > >pessimist fears > >it is true." -J. Robert > >Oppenheimer > > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. > Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx >
Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
> --- Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > This thread has me kind of mystified. > > > >,snip> Or do you see guys shooting with press > > cameras and Rolleiflexes > > at the jobs _you_ go on?? I think both JCO and I were being a bit facetious. But I see pros shooting 4x5 all the time. Top dollar pros. $10,000 per day pros. And I've done some magazine car shoots with my 4x5 Speed Graphic. They weren't big money jobs, but I got big money results and my clients were pleased. If you don't need anything more than a simple tilt, that big ol' Graflex doesn't know it isn't a field camera. Paul
Re: Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 lens
Holy--! The pricing of this lens was the subject less than a week ago. It goes, as I recall, for $175 to $300. It's one of the most highly regarded of the K-series primes, which is to say, about as good as it gets. It almost never turns up in a local store, and very seldom online. Get it, and you may be able to do without a 100mm and 135mm (leaving aside one's desire for a macro lens). [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "Official" response: the skinny on the FAJ lenses
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those pesky manuals! Who has time to read 'em? Someone, I would hope, as long as I write 'em. Not all manuals suck. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up? ;-)
> > Another flower for mike http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=72 > > > I find flowers disturbing. Especially in color. The onset of a hybrid anthophobia/chromophobia perhaps? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: John Daniele on Photo Net
> Thanks for the insight, James. I'm also learning on my own. Of course, if I > thought it were a complete drudgery, I'd use T400CN and drop it off at the > nearest supermarket. As a beginner, though, my brain says, "get me the best > pictures possible" but my eyes see endless combinations of film and chem. So > many choices, so little time (money). When I was at _Photo Techniques_ I edited (and partially wrote) a little booklet that eventually (to my chagrin) got titled "The Magic of Darkroom Art." Despite the dopey title, it is essentially a little primer on a lot of darkroom and printing subjects. It's still available from them for $7.95 if you're interested. www.phototechmag.com. And no, I don't see a penny from sales, so this is not a plug. --Mike Also, if pressed, I could be persuaded to let go of two duplicate copies of excellent darkroom books: _The Craft of Photography_ by David Vestal and _Controls in Black-and-White Photography_ by Dr. Richard J. Henry.
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
At 08:39 PM 11/02/2003 -0500, you wrote: >...with 67 and 4X5 I intentionally > shoot a little wider than my final vision and crop > to perfection during the printing phase. Why because > with the higher resolution formats you can afford > to crop, with 35mm you cant. Is that one of those cast in stone photographers rules? What? That with 35mm you cant? (M-W 1 : to talk or beg in a whining or singsong manner 2 : to speak in cant or jargon 3 : to talk hypocritically ) Weird. Isn't the written word wonderful. Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
--- Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I payed $125 for mine, but that was 25 years ago. > > Paul > > > > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > >> > >> http://jcoconnell.com/temp/sg2.jpg > >> > >> Actually I did it for only $150, but that was > >> about 15 years ago. :) :) :) > > > This thread has me kind of mystified. > > In what way does a press camera "beat" an $8000 DSLR > for $300? Unless for > some reason you _want_ to shoot a job with eight > sheets of film--and then be > stuck with developing sheet film. Historically, the > Rollei TLR "beat" the > press camera and the 35mm camera "beat" the Rollei, > in each case rather > decisiviely. Or do you see guys shooting with press > cameras and Rolleiflexes > at the jobs _you_ go on?? > > I'd say having 140 shots on one card with no film > costs, no developing > chores, and no need to wait to see the results is > light years away from the > era of the press camera. You're welcome to go back > if you prefer, but > shooting with a press camera is no picnic. > > --Mike > The last job I worked on paid me $37.41 and hour. I have no idea of how long it would take or what it might cost an experienced person to download, "fix" (manipulate) 140 digital shots, adjust for RGB, Gamma-etc., then do the test prints, color match them to the monitor, (presuming they two have been color "synced"), then print 140 "acceptable" prints. I might be able to do it in two whole working days but who knows? I also wonder how much 140 regular + test prints (say 200) tests and final prints cost. I do know printer ink cartridges are the most expensive components of digital (color) printing. Time is money and I smell a lot of time involved here. Meanwhile, I can go to the lab at 8 AM Monday, give them the film and come back at 1PM to pick them up. OR, if I buy the paper (and I usually do), I can get them to print 140 semi-custom prints by 5PM @ 67 cents per copy. So I can shoot, print and distribute for far less than my day's pre-sold Each presold print costs $19.95 at fairs so I gross $2800 and net, after expenses and salaries, maybe $750 for the weekend. Do that twice a month like we sometimes do and boy, you can slice huge chunks of principle off your mortgage with that kind of extra income. When I look at your investment and money in time, paper, printing, printing cartridges, computer time, I fail to see any benefit or advantage in "do it yourphoto-realistic4;photorealistic" imaging. And sheet film, while far costlier than 35mm, can and does produce end use products worth sometimthousandseds, or thosands of dollars each. So an old, out of date 4x5 Speed Graphic can and does kick all but large format digital images to the curb, then backs up and runs them down again. Finally, an $8,000 DSLR is good for professional photographers with massive support systems behind them. They are not for "ordinary"people: who dare not dream of owning two of them (which most "pros" do) (or three if you work for a major publication) like National Geographic. Any "ordinary" citizen with an $8,000 DSLR can NEVER recover their investment. (They'll look good, but they'll be as broke as Humpty-Dumpty). Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
A strange screwmount lens
Hi everybody, I feel a bit guilty for my absence from the list (or lurking, it depends on the point of view...) of the recent times; I would have liked to reply to many threads but in a way or another I was always late so I decided to stay away a bit. I had (and still have) a lot of equipment tales to tell you but this is just my 'daily news' one. A collector I know (who is, in the 'real life', a lawyer) told me this morning that he had a manual focus Tokina lens (an 80-200/2.8) in K mount for sale in a shop. I had a bit of spare time so I went there. There was no 80-200/2.8 (already sold, I guess) but on a shelf, among a lot of soligorokunaricoh chep lenses, there was a huge cylindric case with 'Asahi Optical Co. Japan' engraved on it. Curious as ever, I asked if the case was empty or there was a lens in it. The answer: "there's a 75-150"... My memory of a Pentax 75-150 made me think of the small K mount tele-zoom. Certainly the case was more than redundant. I asked to have a look at it and... surprise! It was a screwmount lens. A Takumar 75-150/4.5 (not sure of the exact name). Very long (I had the impression it was longer than the SMC-A 70-210/4) and quite heavy, although not very large. I've never heard nor read of that lens (even JCO does not mention it in his site). I'm not a collector (although my amount of gear could give cause for doubts...) and I thought that somebody in the list could be interested in that lens. I recall a price of Euro 160 (US$172) but I may be wrong (it could be Euro 180 - not sure). Ciao, Gianfranco (hoping to be more present in the list from now on) PS: If anybody is interested in it, the shop's web address is http://www.otticadecesare.it/ (the used stuff page is still June 2002, but I guess they answer to the mail). = __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: End of K-mount?
> I must admit that I was a bit hysterical last night when I first read the > news at around midnight. These are the last things that I wish to learn > before going to bed. Henry, One thing I learned during the time I was on the LUG: never read mailing list e-mail before bedtime! The LUG could give me bad dreams, heart palpitations, and night sweats. Okay, so I'm kidding. Sort of. --Mike
Re: Top 10 Worst Clichés
Keith Whaley wrote: whickersworld wrote: > > Mike Johnston wrote: > > > >...Which brings up another interesting question. What are > > the worst photographic clichés of all time? > Mike, > > Without any doubt, the worst photographic clichés of all > time are the "Rules of Composition". Especially the "Rule of > Thirds". > > Regards, > > John Hear, hear! keith Thanks Keith! (for some much needed support!) Best regards, John
Coating on Filters?
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >How important is it to have a coatings on all your filters? A plain UV filter might cost $10 while an SMC filter would cost $35. I can't see how it would matter much on the outer surface, a little bit of light would just be lost. But on the inner surface?< it matters to me. loss of contrast potential that can be fixed at neglible cost. $25 won't buy you anything else of importance sitting between your subject and your film. Herb
Re: Coating on Filters?
All air/glass interfaces are an abrupt change in impedance for the electromagnetic energy impinging on/passing through the interface. A portion of the light must be reflected at each interface. In fact, the same amount of light will be reflected at the inner interface as from the outer interface. Lost light is not really the problem for a single glass. What would you loose, a third of a stop at most? Light reflected from the inner interface, reaches the outer interface and a portion of that is reflected back toward the film. Some is transmitted. If the light is bright, such as a sun reflection off chrome, the reflection will be seen because it's now bright compared to the image. This is flair. You may try single coated optics, but by their very nature, they can perform a perfect impedance transformation at only one wavelength. For this reason, single coated optics must have some affect on color, that is, demonstrate some color cast, however mild. The reason for multi-coated optics is broad band impedance transformation. Most of us don't think this way, but it is what's happening. Regards, Bob... --- "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin From: "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > How important is it to have a coatings on all your filters? A plain UV > filter might cost $10 while an SMC filter would cost $35. I can't see how > it would matter much on the outer surface, a little bit of light would > just be lost. But on the inner surface?
Some examples of actual pictures, WAS: Hands up who crops?
> just having a quick look at your shots on > Sunday photog, you have a perfect example of the kind of crop I do for > people shots. In your article on flare (the first one I cam across with > people shots when looking back) there is one titled mj-morgan. If you > cropped that from landscape to portrait (eg crop what you have to > 250*339 pixels centred) then you have a much better shot. You lose his > bisected friend on one side and the wasted space on the other. This is > the sort of 50% crop that I do due to poor composition when I should > have shot in portrait mode to start with... > > You may not crop, but perhaps you should? Rob, The thing was, that was an example picture to show flare...what I would do in that case is simply not print that picture. The way to do it with 35mm is, to me, to move around the subject and shoot a lot. So if I were really "after" a picture of those kids, I would have shot twenty pictures of them, or forty, including some verticals as you describe. And then I would have looked at all the negs, picked one, and printed it full-frame. To me, a picture either works or it doesn't. "Rescuing" half-assed shots by trying to crop them into something a little stronger than you saw when you were shooting is, in my experience, a fool's errand. Meaning, it's just not a very good strategy for getting good pictures. That's not a principle, it's just experience talking. That said, I do admit that I like "loose" and "open" compositions. I don't even like pictures that _look_ like they've been cropped. That's not a judgment, mind you, just personal taste. So a lot of the pictures I consider "good" don't look very tightly or "strongly" composed. Again, that's just me--I'm not trying to say my way is better than anyone else's. For instance, here's a picture of Donna Ferrato's I really love: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0205/donna07.htm You might say that it should be cropped to "tighten it up" but man, I wouldn't crop that picture for all the tea in China. (Isn't that just the greatest hand? I love that.) Here's a Peter Turnley shot some people might say should be cropped: http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt28.html But again, I just wouldn't want to lose that shadow on the left, or the long line of the desert horizon. Here's a picture of Johnny Deadman's that some might say should be tighter, or a vertical, but that I like the way it is: http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/portfolios/goodfriday/pages/009.html Another aspect of this is that sometimes I just don't think crops help, in that they're finicky but just unnecessary. Take this picture by Tina Manley, for instance: http://main.nc.us/openstudio/tinamanley/Russia/paper.htm Now, you could argue that the foreground just isn't needed and that the picture is just as strong if cropped up from the bottom a little. I won't argue that. I also can't argue that the bottom of the frame adds anything. It doesn't, really. But I guess my position is that it doesn't matter either way, and, since the foreground is in the picture that Tina saw through her viewfinder when she took it, why get rid of it? It really doesn¹t matter to the picture one way or the other, so why by finicky--just show us the whole picture and move on. Which might be a slightly doctrinaire position, but it's more or less the way I feel. --Mike
Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 lens
Hi all, Today I was in my local candy store, er, camera shop, looking at their used K mount offerings, when a lady comes in and wants to sell the above referenced lens. She was going to get advice on pricing, but I had to leave. I did not even know Pentax made this focal length in the K mount. Is this lens worth pursuing? I already own the SMC-A 100 F2.8 & the SMC-M 135, F3.5 and the SMC-A 135 F2.8. What would be a "good" price to offer her for this lens if it is worth acquiring? Thanks in advance for any suggestions! __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: John Daniele on Photo Net
Thanks for the insight, James. I'm also learning on my own. Of course, if I thought it were a complete drudgery, I'd use T400CN and drop it off at the nearest supermarket. As a beginner, though, my brain says, "get me the best pictures possible" but my eyes see endless combinations of film and chem. So many choices, so little time (money). Currently, I'm working with D76 1:1 or 1:3 on Ilford HP5+. This seems to suit my style at the moment, which can probably be described as people-and-things-outdoors-but-not-necessarily-planned. Load up the camera, go for a walk with or without family/friends/pets, and look for interesting subjects, concentrate on composition and exposure, and snap, snap, snap away. Develop. Then print, print, print. t On 2/11/03 3:00 PM, James T Carpenter wrote: > Chore!!! Sorting it all out _IS_ the fun! (Isn't it??) That, and > occasionally capturing that "perfect shot."
Re: End of K-mount?
Henry wrote: My problem is, if Pentax to going to release more > lenses with FAJ mount to > match the coming D-SLR, I will be gone to Canon. Uhhh, didn't Nikon release some bottom-end G lenses a couple of years ago? Granted they have released a 70-200 f2.8 IF-ED G lens, I don't think most Nikon owners are worried that Nikon will abandon the F-mount & discontinue higher end cameras and lenses. I'm not sure what Nikon's plans are for the G lenses, but most of the Nikon line still have aperture rings. Peter --- Iren & Henry Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear all, > > > >Good grief! How is possible to react in the way > cited below to the fact > >that Pentax release two bottom level lenses? We had > the same sort of > >reaction when they released the first plastic mount > lenses. Suddenly all > >Pentax lenses would use plastic mounts! Pentax is > just releasing the same > >crap as the competition. Those who buy these lenses > don't give a damned > >about lens compatibilty. The rest don't care either > as they would never buy > >any of them. This is a non issue! > > > >Pål > > I must admit that I was a bit hysterical last night > when I first read the > news at around midnight. These are the last things > that I wish to learn > before going to bed. > > My problem is, if Pentax to going to release more > lenses with FAJ mount to > match the coming D-SLR, I will be gone to Canon. > There's no point for me to > remain staying with Pentax because my existing film > cameras, MZ-S and MZ-5n, > are not able to control the aperture value manually. > I hope the KAF3 mounts > will only bring us USM and IS, but not G. I now > face the dilemma like > the owners of Nikon F90X. It would be too late if I > switch system when > Pentax eventually release a FAJ*80-200/2.8 USM IS. > > Regards, > > Henry Chu > 12/2/2003 > > _ > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months > FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
> OK lets have a show of hands. Who here often finds they left just a > little too much space around their subject, either due to not framing as > well as possible or because you couldn't get close enough of enough > magnification. Who here sometimes takes a lanscape format portrait and > realises that they should have held the camera in portrait mode and > filled the frame? I only crop when the "found view" looks a little too found. 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: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
>...with 67 and 4X5 I intentionally > shoot a little wider than my final vision and crop > to perfection during the printing phase. Why because > with the higher resolution formats you can afford > to crop, with 35mm you cant. Is that one of those cast in stone photographers rules? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Coating on Filters?
Hoya's multicoated filters are about $20. Maybe a good compromise? I would always prefer a multicoated filter, but I use the Tiffen 812 all the time with no apparent ill effects. I do use a hood. Tiffen doesn't make a multicoated version of the 812. Gregory L. Hansen wrote: How important is it to have a coatings on all your filters? A plain UV filter might cost $10 while an SMC filter would cost $35. I can't see how it would matter much on the outer surface, a little bit of light would just be lost. But on the inner surface? -- "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Re: Re[2]: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown PentaxLens)
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Alan Chan wrote: > Actually I am surprised they still put the distance scale on AF zooms > because they are basically useless. How so? chris
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
... and have it function as the shutter too. Just like my Kodak Fiesta. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They can do it with 2, though the bokeh isn't the best. William Robb
Re: Coating on Filters?
> How important is it to have a coatings on all your filters? A plain UV > filter might cost $10 while an SMC filter would cost $35. I can't see how > it would matter much on the outer surface, a little bit of light would > just be lost. But on the inner surface? Outer surface reflections could cause veiling flare when bouncing around the lens hood (which you would have fitted of course :-). Also both the front and rear surfaces can reflect light from light sources front or rear. The Inner surface coating will also reduce the reflections off the front element of the lens. 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: "Official" response: the skinny on the FAJ lenses
Mike wrote: This is directly from Pentax to the PDML: "No wholesale change in philosophy or lens mount is coming." "No wholesale change in lens mount is coming"? Is this the first official confirmation of the coming K-AF3 mount? Regards, Henry chu 12/2/2003 _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: "Official" response: the skinny on the FAJ lenses
Very short straws. More like a variation on "Field of Dreams": If they built it, who would care? BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or, am I just "grasping at straws"? Fred
Re: End of K-mount?
Dear all, Good grief! How is possible to react in the way cited below to the fact that Pentax release two bottom level lenses? We had the same sort of reaction when they released the first plastic mount lenses. Suddenly all Pentax lenses would use plastic mounts! Pentax is just releasing the same crap as the competition. Those who buy these lenses don't give a damned about lens compatibilty. The rest don't care either as they would never buy any of them. This is a non issue! Pål I must admit that I was a bit hysterical last night when I first read the news at around midnight. These are the last things that I wish to learn before going to bed. My problem is, if Pentax to going to release more lenses with FAJ mount to match the coming D-SLR, I will be gone to Canon. There's no point for me to remain staying with Pentax because my existing film cameras, MZ-S and MZ-5n, are not able to control the aperture value manually. I hope the KAF3 mounts will only bring us USM and IS, but not G. I now face the dilemma like the owners of Nikon F90X. It would be too late if I switch system when Pentax eventually release a FAJ*80-200/2.8 USM IS. Regards, Henry Chu 12/2/2003 _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
RE: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Thus, my current mantra is "if > you desire prints, > use film; if you want to view using the computer, > use digital." > > Even today you must still ask yourself "What am I > going to do with this > image?" before you trip the shutter. Personally, I > think it will remain > that way for the next few decades. > > Cheers! > > James Carpenter > Agreed James. I shoot film exclusively... lies. I shoot digital for my e bay sales. Set up the item, shoot download and done. *But my "digital" only cost $179. And unless things have changed, aren't the limitations still 72-usableable) pixels per inch on a monitor? I usually shoot at 300 x 40? ppi and take that down to 150 x 150. = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Coating on Filters?
How important is it to have a coatings on all your filters? A plain UV filter might cost $10 while an SMC filter would cost $35. I can't see how it would matter much on the outer surface, a little bit of light would just be lost. But on the inner surface? -- "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up? ;-)
> Happy Valentine's Day... to those who matters... :) > > http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/flower17.jpg > http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/flower18.jpg Aw shucks, you shouldn't have, thanks :-) Mike J can have the sharp one! Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up?;-)
> And how do you fell about undulating bell peppers ? Obscene! --Mike
RE: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
> Higher image quality. Plain and simple. Well, maybe if you're Weegee --Mike
Planet of the Weird Pods
> might as well trot these out again: > > http://www.alphoto.com/floral1.jpg > http://www.alphoto.com/floral4.jpg >> Here's mine >> http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/tulip.html Okay I'm in hell, but don't mind me. --Mike
Re: Worst clichés
Funny, but I was thinking "cliches", as in "cliche photos", not techniques. That being said, Mike, you posted a while ago with what you ~wouldn't~ allow your students to submit. That list included the Flatiron Building. Could you give us the rest of that list? It was great. Mind you, Toronto has a Flatiron as well, and I've taken dozens upon dozens of shots of it! And, someone else here hates lighthouse photos, and I'd agree, they're a cliche as well - but I must admit to taking photos of them quite liberally. BTW, why are they called "light"houses - they look quite heavy, to me . regards, frank Mike Johnston wrote: > HAR! > > John, are you by any chance new to the list? Say, within the last couple of > months? Or are you joking here? > > In any event, a man after my own heart. > > --Mike -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
RE: "Official" response: the skinny on the FAJ lenses
The two FAJ lenses will be introduced in the U.S. At PMA, and are intended as kit lenses for entry-level SLRs. What Pentax has apparently found is that entry level cameras (ZX-60, ZX-50 and ZX-30) "have functions most conveniently addressed" with the aperture ring on "A," and some first-time SLR buyers freak out when they inadvertently switch the aperture ring off "A" and then can't get their cameras to work properly! (I get the idea that Pentax may actually get warrantee returns (?) or at least customers returning to dealers because of this. That's not official, just my own guess.) Aperture can still be controlled from the bodies. This make sense (yes I know common sense is verboten :) ). It reminds me of an incident at work this holiday season. I happened to go upstairs (the lab was in the basement) and one of the salesmen was ready to write up a repair slip for a Pentax AF camera (I don't remember which model but fairly new) that was not focusing properly. As it was a Pentax, I asked if I could take a look at it. After confirming that it wasn't auto focusing I looked down and noticed that the auto focus/ manual focus switch was on manual. I flipped the switch to auto focus and surprise, surprise it started auto focusing. I handed it back to the lady, and explained that the switch had to be on auto focus for it to work properly. The customer was well educated, almost certainly a college grad, and it was a senior salesman helping her. The moral of this story is that entry level SLR buyers while wanting the increased versatility and image quality of an SLR still want (need?) it as simple as a point & shoot. In that case the 2 "J" lenses make sense as it's one less thing for them to screw up. I hope Mike's info is correct Because I'm still hoping to use K & M lenses on a Pentax DSLR. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Damien)
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10print?)
Hi, Rob, Taken way back around '75, I'd guess, with my old Praktica and a Soligor 300mm, most likely with a 2x converter (but maybe not, hell, I can't remember that far back!): http://www.urbancaravan.com/images/perkins_car.jpg By the time the F1 races started in the afternoon, I'd had a few brews under my belt as well . Now, I must admit, of the several hundred frames I took that weekend, that was by far the best tight shot of the bunch, but, all things considered, not bad for ~no crop~, eh?(I'm sure I just got lucky!) cheers, frank Rob Brigham wrote: > I agree I need both, but on the longer telephoto score, as I said both a > 600mm and/or a track pass for a Grand Prix are out of my league. > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up?;-)
> Here's mine > http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/tulip.html > --- > Wendy Beard See, now how can anybody not consider that a scary picture? Freaks me out. --Mike
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
All the time - at work. I try to compose my shots well, but what you originally had in mind won't work a lot of the time when you see how much space you have on the front page and what has to go on it. I have to admit, I've had to get pretty creative at times to retain the message and still make it fit where it needs to. When I do a picture page, unless I'm getting rid of a really distracting element, I rarely crop. - Original Message - From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:51 AM Subject: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?) > OK lets have a show of hands. Who here often finds they left just a > little too much space around their subject, either due to not framing as > well as possible or because you couldn't get close enough of enough > magnification. Who here sometimes takes a lanscape format portrait and > realises that they should have held the camera in portrait mode and > filled the frame? > > I freely admit that I often and sometimes do these. Shooting planes at > Duxford or F1 cars at silverstone, my 300mm was not always enough, so I > applied extra magnification at the scanning stage. When taking family > shots, sometimes I get into a zone where I automatically take a shot > with the camera held in portrait mode and later realise that 2/3rds of > the picture is wasted, so crop into portrait mode. > > This can mean that I need twice as many MP as my biggest print will > require to keep me happy. So that 11MP I might need for an 8*10 > actually becomes 22MP for an 8*10 which has been cropped. > > Give us a 22MP, 'non-bayer', full frame DSLR and this argument will stop > overnight - I guarantee it. > > I am not saying todays camera arent good enough, but arguing how many MP > the camera needs to do average prints without taking into account the > fact that many prints are crops or zooms is only half the story. Sure > maybe I should improve my framing technique (it is getting better all > the time anyway) and maybe I should buy that FA* 600mm F5.6 - but I cant > do either easily and neither can a lot of the world. > > My .2c > > > -Original Message- > > From: Rob Brigham > > Sent: 11 February 2003 09:40 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print? > > > > > > I seem to recall that different printers work at their > > optimum with different ppi images. Some prefer 360ppi to > > work at their best. 2880 *3600 = 10,368,000. So the Canon > > 1Ds would seem perfect for 8*10s on 'any' printer, until you > > want to crop and enlarge a section. > > > > Oh, and by the way - as is usually overlooked by digital > > shooters, the image supplied by the camera has already been > > interpolated by a bayer algorith and does not record true > > colour at each pixel, but merely averages out 4 adjacent > > pixels. So some Rezzing up has already been done - unless > > you shoot Sigma... This is why the 3MP Foveon is said to be > > as good as 6MP bayer by anyone who had tested it. > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > It's pretty easy to figure out what size digital camera you > > > need for the best quality prints. Just multiply the size by > > > 300 dpi / 240 dpi, then multiply out the pixels needed. > > > > > > 300-dpi 8x10 = 2400 x 3000 = 7,200,000 > > > > > > 240-dpi 8x10 = 1920 x 2400 = 4,608,000 > > > > > > So you need a 7-mp camera for a top quality inkjet 8x10 and a > > > 4.5-mp camera for an adequate-quality 8x10. That's without > > > rezzing up, interpolating, anything. Note that some experts > > > say you can't tell the difference visually between a 300-dpi > > > print and a 240-dpi print. I have no opinion on that. > > > > > > This accords pretty well with my experiences, though. I get > > > very good 5x7s from my 3-mp camera and very good 8x10s from > > > my 5-mp Sony. The 3-mp can't go to 8x10 to my satisfaction > > > and the 5-mp can't go to 11x14. > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: 30mm f2.8 on ebay
Hi, Fred, My posts have been quite slow lately, often taking over an hour to come up on the list, sometimes longer... cheers, frank Fred wrote: > > You are right, Frank. I apologize, John, for my sarcasm, the > > result of typing before thinking - Sorry. > > Gee, I sent this out at 9:44 AM EST on February 9, and it just > arrived back in my mailbox, almost two days later. > > Maybe the PDML server choked on it - it's probably not used to me > apologizing for any flare-ups of my "foot-in-mouth disease"... > > I also sent the apology directly to John - hopefully he received it > a little more speedily. > > Fred -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
Hi, Rob, I try ~real hard~ not to crop, and I'd guess that 90% to 95% of my shots are only cropped as necessary to fit the print format. That being said, sometimes it is impossible to get that pesky telephone wire or lampost out of the frame, and I know at the time I take the shot that a crop will be necessary. And, despite my best efforts, once I see a scan, I'll often try a few different crops, just to see if they look better; if they do, I throw my pride out the window, and do what has to be done. And, I'm not talking about getting extraneous crap out of the shot, but situations where getting in tighter will make things better. I know if I were better, I'd be doing this in the viewfinder (and I really do try to "crop in the viewfinder"), but hell, sometimes there just isn't time, if one only has one chance to grab a shot. As well, when I shoot 6x6, I do so with the idea that I'll most likely be cropping to a rectangular print at some point, so probably 70% to 80% of my Yashica Mat shots are cropped. In a perfect world I would prefer not to crop, but this is far from a perfect world (in many respects ). cheers, frank Rob Brigham wrote: > OK lets have a show of hands. Who here often finds they left just a > little too much space around their subject, either due to not framing as > well as possible or because you couldn't get close enough of enough > magnification. Who here sometimes takes a lanscape format portrait and > realises that they should have held the camera in portrait mode and > filled the frame? > > I freely admit that I often and sometimes do these. Shooting planes at > Duxford or F1 cars at silverstone, my 300mm was not always enough, so I > applied extra magnification at the scanning stage. When taking family > shots, sometimes I get into a zone where I automatically take a shot > with the camera held in portrait mode and later realise that 2/3rds of > the picture is wasted, so crop into portrait mode. > > This can mean that I need twice as many MP as my biggest print will > require to keep me happy. So that 11MP I might need for an 8*10 > actually becomes 22MP for an 8*10 which has been cropped. > > Give us a 22MP, 'non-bayer', full frame DSLR and this argument will stop > overnight - I guarantee it. > > I am not saying todays camera arent good enough, but arguing how many MP > the camera needs to do average prints without taking into account the > fact that many prints are crops or zooms is only half the story. Sure > maybe I should improve my framing technique (it is getting better all > the time anyway) and maybe I should buy that FA* 600mm F5.6 - but I cant > do either easily and neither can a lot of the world. > > My .2c > > > -Original Message- > > From: Rob Brigham > > Sent: 11 February 2003 09:40 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print? > > > > > > I seem to recall that different printers work at their > > optimum with different ppi images. Some prefer 360ppi to > > work at their best. 2880 *3600 = 10,368,000. So the Canon > > 1Ds would seem perfect for 8*10s on 'any' printer, until you > > want to crop and enlarge a section. > > > > Oh, and by the way - as is usually overlooked by digital > > shooters, the image supplied by the camera has already been > > interpolated by a bayer algorith and does not record true > > colour at each pixel, but merely averages out 4 adjacent > > pixels. So some Rezzing up has already been done - unless > > you shoot Sigma... This is why the 3MP Foveon is said to be > > as good as 6MP bayer by anyone who had tested it. > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > It's pretty easy to figure out what size digital camera you > > > need for the best quality prints. Just multiply the size by > > > 300 dpi / 240 dpi, then multiply out the pixels needed. > > > > > > 300-dpi 8x10 = 2400 x 3000 = 7,200,000 > > > > > > 240-dpi 8x10 = 1920 x 2400 = 4,608,000 > > > > > > So you need a 7-mp camera for a top quality inkjet 8x10 and a > > > 4.5-mp camera for an adequate-quality 8x10. That's without > > > rezzing up, interpolating, anything. Note that some experts > > > say you can't tell the difference visually between a 300-dpi > > > print and a 240-dpi print. I have no opinion on that. > > > > > > This accords pretty well with my experiences, though. I get > > > very good 5x7s from my 3-mp camera and very good 8x10s from > > > my 5-mp Sony. The 3-mp can't go to 8x10 to my satisfaction > > > and the 5-mp can't go to 11x14. > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > > > > > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Re[2]: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Actually I am surprised they still put the distance scale on AF zooms because they are basically useless. regards, Alan Chan Isn't it enough that they lack focus scale to remove all doubt that they are strictly bottom level? _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
At least Pentax did release 2 (or more?) AF bodies which had no metering manual mode, but that has never extended to other mid-to-high end bodies. The name Nikon is famous enough to sell most diehard Nikon fans to buy whatever craps they made, but this is not true for Pentax. regards, Alan Chan Pål (copied and pasted, don't hit me if the name does not look quite right), I don't know about you, but my experience tells me that this is at least a very dangerous sign. Of course, we are yet to see the official announcement of these lenses. However, if they are announced, no one can actually vouch for a crazy Pentax exec somewhere up the ladder who would single handedly and may I add single mindedly order to promote this new "concept" upwards across the whole lens range of Pentax ... Again, I hope I am wrong and Pentax is properly managed company, but in my profession (programming) **it happens all too often... _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Many Nikon users hated the "G" series lenses when they came out, because they were entry-level pieces of dung. Now Nikon has started to make some excellent lenses with the G mount, so maybe Pentax is going that way. Looks like we're going to need cameras that set the aperture from the camera body. At least I can set my current lenses to 'A'. :) regards, Alan Chan _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: End of K-mount?
Boy, I don't see why such over-reaction. regards, Alan Chan I feel sick by the news of two new KAJ mount lenses. I think it signals the end of K-mount afterall. Obviously, the new user manual is designed for future use, as the KAJ lenses are yet to be released. This implies that there is no more plan from Pentax in the near future to release any other lens for the current 135 lens/camera series. Probably the KAF3 patent application is just a smoke screen before the PMA. Pentax is planning some complete reform in its lens/camera line-up. The KAJ lenses (probably OEM products from Cosina?) are just for the unsold stock of existing cameras. Great. I have a reason to switch to Canon after all the painful waiting of D-SLR for so long. _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
LX & TTL Multi-Flash advice please
I am booked to do a female portrait session. I have had some success before using natural light and the Lastolite Triflector. This lady however requires the photos to be taken in the evening on return from the hairdresser... natural light is out (it's dark by 19:00 in the UK in February). I have two AF400T's flashguns and a couple of AF280T's a distributor box and cables. I have just ordered two Lastolite Umbrella Boxes. My idea is to play it safe and bounce the two AF400T's into the Umbrella boxes so they reflect at 45 degrees to the subject and to fill in underneath and to the lower sides with the Triflector. I will maybe use one of the AF280Ts as a hair light. I'm hoping that the TTL flash on the LX will take care of the exposure and that I'll get shadowless flattering lighting (boring I know but I don't like doing a session with an unfamiliar set-up and I just want to get decent results, so no experimenting). Any ideas/advice? Anton __ Freeserve AnyTime - Go online whenever you want for just £6.99 a month for your first 3 months, that's HALF PRICE! And then it's just £13.99 a month after that. For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890
Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >This doesn't mean that you have to use a digital camera, though. You could just as easily shoot with traditional film and provide them with scans that could still beat the quality you'd get from today's DSLR, even if they only keep 4MB. t< did i say that it had to be a digital camera source? but then again, time is money. Herb...
Re: End of K-mount?
For God's sake man! Pull yourself together before blurting out HTML code advice relating to humerous postings on email lists! I hope Henry isn't dangling from a tree branch by now. KAJ my arse! LOL. >Shouldn't there be a before that last statement? > >At 06:19 PM 2/11/2003 +, Cotty wrote: >>For God's sake man! Pull yourself together! >> >>Cotty >> >> >Dear all, >> > >> >I feel sick by the news of two new KAJ mount lenses. Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Hands up who crops?
> I crop, I'd say , only about 15% of what I print. Usually because of not having time to focus in on what I want in the picture, shooting out of car windows, etc. I'm not counting trimming the very edges of the frame just a tad to eliminate vignetting or a stray hair, branch , etc that I really couldn't see when I was shooting. I'm happiest when I don't need to crop at all. And I sure have never found that cropping saves a poor photo, though it can improve one that was good to begin with. If I'm photo'ing people or animals where what I am after is a portrait of same, then I might well crop more because of my style of shooting these. annsan
Re: While were on tubes and flowers
--- David Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Last week i caught the tail end of a local cable > show, in wicth a local photographer was giving macro > flower shooting tips.I missed most of it but did > manage to > hear 1-2 of them. > He was obvioulsy in a large green house doing this > and it > got me a thinkun. > We have several large green house's in the area and > was > wondering if any of the macro shooters on the list > ever contacted a facility like these and get > permmisson > to shoot for an hour or so at a not to busy for them > time. > > Thanks > Dave Brooks > __ All you usually have to do is ask. Ask the florist which is their favorites and shoot a 1/2 roll just on them. When you come back, give them prints and they'll invite you back to see new flowers/blooms as they arrive, especially rare items like flowering bromeliads. A working relationship (sucking up to) the director/manager of the local greenhouse or Botanica can be a boon to those who shoot flowers. Make friends with your local Florist**. **With the caution that many of them are Gay and may take your approach as a come-on. Keep it business-like inthat case or just back-off. 1. Be sure to have at least a 500FTZ flash for your macro TTL shots. You will find that TTL shots on isolated flowers/clutches of flowers will blow out the background, isolating the flower/blooms in a field of dramatic blackness. Even better for this job, especially for close ups, is an AF400T "Broomhandle" flash because you have the flash head over and to the side of the bloom, giving you a little contours and shadows and you can depress the head for close-ups/macros. 2. Shooting flowers sometimes take two people: one to shoot and one to position the flash just so. You could try (try) to talk them into letting you set up two flashes, one on a tripod but warehoused flowers usually are tightly spaced on the floor, making setting up a tripod a PITA. As you familiarize yourself with the process, you'll want to shoot two flashes, one held just so by that assistant (whoever). You could use two AF500FTZ flashes using the remote slave capability or wire in the off camera AF400T through via hotshoe grip and sync cords. Warning: people (women) don't like to see distorted flowers in photos. They like to see as accurate a presentation as you can produce. The distortions produced by wide to ultra wide angle lenses are not pleasing to women. Remember, women stick their noses directly into flowers to smell them. Thus, they like to see the photo represent the flower as they would see it in their hands. 3. You will see that one bloom you want to shoot but if you are wedded to prime lenses, you'll often find composing to also be a PITA because that bloom is just outside>>> the range of the primes you bought along. An F 2.8 zoom (or two) will stand you well in that case. 4. Watch the hell out for Bees! Dont panic if one approaches too close. Stand still or back away slowly, remebering not to swat atthem. Remember, youre standing in his/her feeding grounds and all they want is flowers, not you. But p*ss them off and you know the rest of the story. Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! > = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
PMA news/Pentax Announcements
What site should we hit for this info? TIA, Collin
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up?;-)
Mike Johnston wrote: > > Another flower for mike http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=72 > > I find flowers disturbing. Especially in color. > > I think it was the French painter Edgar Degas who wrote that he was > disturbed by the visual cacaphony of bouquets of flowers. He seldom painted > them, with one famous exception, a painting that showed a vase of flowers on > a table and a woman off to the right. But he said he found this painting > distressing rather than pretty. > > Ancient memories here, I could be wrong. > > --Mike And how do you fell about undulating bell peppers ? ann
RE: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
With 35mm I compose very carefully and usually print full frame. BUT, with 67 and 4X5 I intentionally shoot a little wider than my final vision and crop to perfection during the printing phase. Why because with the higher resolution formats you can afford to crop, with 35mm you cant. Secondly, using a slightly shorter lens with medium and large format, you gain a slight amount of DOF, which is welcome with those formats. JCO
RE: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
> -Original Message- > From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300 > > > > I payed $125 for mine, but that was 25 years ago. > > Paul > > > > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > >> > >> http://jcoconnell.com/temp/sg2.jpg > >> > >> Actually I did it for only $150, but that was > >> about 15 years ago. :) :) :) > > > This thread has me kind of mystified. > > In what way does a press camera "beat" an $8000 DSLR for $300? Higher image quality. Plain and simple. JCO
Re: Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven thingsup? ;-)
natural light, yup. thanks, Doug At 02:47 PM 2/11/03, you wrote: Very nice, Doug(for colour) Natural light i assume. Dave
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
On 03.2.11 0:10 PM, "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > >> KT> Minolta has already been selling the cameras of the similar concept "Alpha >> KT> Sweet II", Canon "EOS Kiss III L" and Pentax "MZ-L". All these cameras >> are >> KT> competitively priced yet with various features and automations. > > Thank you very much . Now my ZX-L (same as MZ-L or MZ-6) is an > entry level sweet-n-kiss camera. I really thought it was more towards > (advanced) amateur level... Not that I care, but anyway... Hi Boris, I did not think it was a fair comparison too :-). But that's what the article said and I translated as it was. I am sure you said above with "tongue-in-cheek" but I think what happened was that the reporter made a simple price comparison and bundled all 3 together in the same price category. In the original article, these 3 models were mentioned with respective price, i.e., Minolta 94,000yen, EOS Kiss (Rebel) 92,000yen and MZ-L 93,000yen. These are all early 2002 prices and they are now more like 67,000yen. However, Pentax SLRs always being competitively priced, they should not have bundled the MZ-L in the same basket. It should have been more like MZ-60 and MZ-30 etc. But consumers who intend to buy these cameras are attracted to the price range and guess which one they are likely to pick? BTW, I do not know much about EOS Kiss or Minolta Alpha Sweet, but I do remember that when MZ-5 came out, Pentax made a big deal out of its compactness and claimed the world's smallest SLR (or something along that line). Soon after that, Alpha Sweet, then EOS Kiss went into the size war and came up with the smaller versions, and Pentax quietly removed their claim. I do not know which one is the smallest today but MZ-5 did induce the size war which made Sweet'n Kiss cameras really smaller. Today, MZ series is probably the largest of the three (I do not know for sure). And even in the feature area, C/M made a big stride. These Sweet'n Kiss cameras look more than just a toy today. And Canon for sure is going to announce the digital cousin of Kiss/rebel in the PMA. That might be a dynamite, and I am sure Pentax know whom they will be contending with. For this reason too, I believe Pentax is coming up with a brand new chassis/models to compete with these two Film and digital). I do not know about MZ-L but MZ-n (or nn) series certainly saw its heyday (But I love my MZ-3 though). Cheers, Ken
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > PS: I HOPE I AM WRONG!!! > > Typical 3rd party lens junk. > I've a used SF-1 that came with an autofocus Tokina. > Only after purchase did I realize that the lens had no aperture ring! > Maybe FAJ stands for FA Junk lens. > Some years ago, in the beginning of the nineties, Tamron released a 35-90 AF and a 90-300 mm. AF in Pentax mount. None of them had aperture rings. So this is not a new idea, and it doesn't mean the end of the K mount compatiblity. If these FAJ lenses become a reality, their target market will be the same than Nikon G lenses: the low budget photographers who want to buy a pair of zooms as cheaply as possible. -- Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zaragoza (Aragon) - Spain --
Re: FS: Chrome battery door (four prong) for ESII
Take off the battery door you have on your ESII -- if it has four prongs (two toward the front of the camera, two toward the rear) then you have the four-prong type. The other variation is three prongs, although I can't remember if the single-prong side points toward the front or rear of the camera. You'll know what you have when you take a look at it. ;-) P.S. Here's a shot from Paul Provencher's great Pentax bodies/lenses page: http://whitemetal.com/pentax/esii/esii_15.htm What's pictured is the three-prong battery door, showing only one prong at the center of the bottom edge of the door (as oriented in this photo). The four-prong one has two tabs at the bottom edge of the door that line up with the two on the top edge. Joe Ok, I'll bite. I have an ES-II how do I tell a 4 prong from 3 prong battery door. (It would be nice to have a spare since they look amazingly easy to lose). At 01:55 PM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: I purchased this on eBay just a few weeks ago as an extra for my ESII and somehow forgot that my ESII has the three-prong battery door, rather than the four-prong bodies this battery door cover will fit. (This battery cover has two tabs on top, two on bottom.) It's chrome, but could certainly be painted black, and the chrome is fairly discolored anyway. But the battery contacts on the other side are in fine condition, and it's a solid piece. I got it for $5.95, so let's say $7 including shipping and a padded envelope to addresses in the continental U.S. If you're the first to respond and you're not in the continental U.S., we'll figure out actual postage. Joe
OT: Software fads (was Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Hi, Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 5:33:54 PM, you wrote: > a crazy Pentax exec somewhere up the > ladder who would single handedly and may I add single mindedly order > to promote this new "concept" upwards across the whole lens range of > Pentax ... > Again, I hope I am wrong and Pentax is properly managed company, but > in my profession (programming) **it happens all too often... you might enjoy this, then: http://www.softwarereality.com/rumours/story021.jsp Oddly enough, there really is something called Reactive Programming... --- Bob
Re: John Daniele on Photo Net
Hi John... I'm new at darkroom work, too. There is a bewildering array of films, chems, papers, techniques and equipment that each alter your final image. Sorting it out can be a real chore. Probably the most helpful advise I've received is to focus on one of each and work from there. For example, D76 is the cornerstone of B&W neg developing. There is a lot known about how it works and a lot of people talking about it on the net. It's easy to get help on it when you get into trouble. This is not always easy to do, because you want to try everything during the discovery phase. One of the most useful references I've seen is _The Film Developing Cookbook_ by Stephen G Anchell and Bill Troop. They include some excellent info on films and developers that I couldn't find elsewhere, as well as a background on film chemistry that offers insight into how the stuff works. t On 2/11/03 5:34 AM, John Daniele wrote: > William, Brendan and Bruce Thanks for the comments I am new at this so I > appreciate the help I am not insulted or ripped in any way. I did my > developing by reading the instructions on the bottle, there seems to be > so many variables between what the negative looks like to how it is > scanned to what monitor it is displayed on. I need to find the time to > take some classes. I have no room for a darkroom set up the film scanner > seems to be the way to go for me right now. More of a collector of > submini cameras Tessina, Minox, and some Robots I had a pentax me a few > years ago and just loved the build and feel so much I also started > collecting these. My life is very hectic 11 hour work days :( so time is > limited in my (bathroom) darkroom I do like to use all of my cameras and > making an image start to finish has been a real thrill. I need to work > less and get a few classes in > But for now I will keep shooting and ask for your comments good, bad, or > otherwise I am sure I will learn something. > > Sincerely, John Daniele >
Re: FS: Chrome battery door (four prong) for ESII
Ok, I'll bite. I have an ES-II how do I tell a 4 prong from 3 prong battery door. (It would be nice to have a spare since they look amazingly easy to lose). At 01:55 PM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: I purchased this on eBay just a few weeks ago as an extra for my ESII and somehow forgot that my ESII has the three-prong battery door, rather than the four-prong bodies this battery door cover will fit. (This battery cover has two tabs on top, two on bottom.) It's chrome, but could certainly be painted black, and the chrome is fairly discolored anyway. But the battery contacts on the other side are in fine condition, and it's a solid piece. I got it for $5.95, so let's say $7 including shipping and a padded envelope to addresses in the continental U.S. If you're the first to respond and you're not in the continental U.S., we'll figure out actual postage. Joe -- Joe Wilensky Staff Writer Media & Technology Services 1150 Comstock Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-2601 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 607-255-1575 fax: 607-255-9873 Please visit our Web site at http://www.mediasrv.cornell.edu Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven thingsup? ;-)
Very nice, Doug(for colour) Natural light i assume. Dave Begin Original Message From: Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:28:57 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven thingsup? ;-) might as well trot these out again: http://www.alphoto.com/floral1.jpg http://www.alphoto.com/floral4.jpg Doug At 01:31 PM 2/11/03, Wendy wrote: >Here's mine >http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/tulip.html >--- End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada "Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins"--Frank Zappa 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: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up? ;-)
might as well trot these out again: http://www.alphoto.com/floral1.jpg http://www.alphoto.com/floral4.jpg Doug At 01:31 PM 2/11/03, Wendy wrote: Here's mine http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/tulip.html ---
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
Hi! KT> Minolta has already been selling the cameras of the similar concept "Alpha KT> Sweet II", Canon "EOS Kiss III L" and Pentax "MZ-L". All these cameras are KT> competitively priced yet with various features and automations. Thank you very much . Now my ZX-L (same as MZ-L or MZ-6) is an entry level sweet-n-kiss camera. I really thought it was more towards (advanced) amateur level... Not that I care, but anyway... --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
This doesn't mean that you have to use a digital camera, though. You could just as easily shoot with traditional film and provide them with scans that could still beat the quality you'd get from today's DSLR, even if they only keep 4MB. t On 2/11/03 8:33 AM, Herb Chong wrote: > i just received the green light for an article on waterfalls. they want > digital originals where possible and their image specs are a high quality 4 > megapixel image. if i supply slides, they would scan and keep at no more > than 4 megapixels. they print on high quality glossy stock, about the same > as National Geographic uses. anyone who sells their images (as opposed to > prints) is being forced to go digital. stock agencies who don't won't have > buyers anymore because the graphic artists want digital. publications who > don't go digital for their image have trouble because the rest of their > publication process is digital. time is money.
Re: OT: Possible mobile phone virus
I totally disagree! Mike didn't have time to check it out, I did. Who knows how many hundreds of folks concern themselves about hoaxes like that, un-necessarily! What shall we do? not respond in any way, and all those folks out there keep worring about everytime they turn on their cell phone, whether they're infected, whether they'll infect someone else if they DO have it? I think nipping something like this in the bud is the only way to handle it. Lawrence Kwan wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Keith Whaley wrote: > > Not to worry. This is a hoax. > > Your warning is welcome nevertheless. > > On the contrary, I don't think it is a good idea to post this type of > alerts to a mailing list at all, especially when Mike himself admitted > that he did not have time to check for the validity of this claim. > > We have too many hoaxes and false alarms, propagating it in a mailing > lists with hundreds of users is the last thing we need. No, the last thing we need is for everyone to _worry_ about it! Now, we don't have to worry. And I am not going to charge anything whatsoever for greater piece of mind. Best of all worlds. Get your knowledge free of effort OR cost! > > mike wilson wrote: > > > I'm not one for spreading despondancy but I have had this from a > > > quite reputable source and don't have time to chack. > > -- > --Lawrence Kwan--SMS Info Service/Ringtone Convertor--PGP:finger/www-- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence/ -Key ID:0x6D23F3C4--
Re: ?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Top_10_Worst_Clich=E9s?=
> Don, > > Presumably it's OK to mention politics, guns and any other > of the many irrelevant off-topic subjects that make up a > very high proportion of the postings here. But when someone > whose film cameras are 100% Pentax expresses a genuine > on-topic opinion about photography you want to silence them? > > Makes no sense to me, Don! > > Best regards, > > John Actually, John, it makes _great_ sense. Because we had an extended, involved, knock-down, drag-out discussion of "rules" (such as the rule of thirds) a few months ago. Anyone who lived through that is understandably weary, not to mention wary. Check out the archives if you get a chance --Mike
Re: Re: Mystery link
Begin Original Message From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:41:25 -0600 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mystery link > Oh Oh.Do i have to go to the principles > office for this >David, >No, no, I like it. (But you do have to go to the principal's office >for >misspelling "principal." ) D'oh > Its mine,Mike. Shot last spring(2002)early June if memory > serves, in the backyard. > Gear: Pentax Super Program and SMC A 70-210 using > the macro on it. >You're kidding. That's a _zoom_? Amazing. The _bokeh_ is really nice. Thanks Mike,I really like that one too.Its a lens i bought from Mark L. last year.I entered another colour macro shot in the local fair last year(same lens) and it won a 1st.I think it does a great job. The only other "macro" gear i have is a set of 3 extension tubes in M42 mount but never have used them. >--Mike Dave. BTW i like the B&W flower stuff:) End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada "Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins"--Frank Zappa 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: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The information is here: http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6 > >Goto -->Lenses-->SMC FA Interchangeable Lenses (download the manual). The >quote is on page 36 (I think). Still can't make it work. Got the direct URL, anyone? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Cheapest Pentax Extension Tubes
When you buy extension tubes, you get a set of three, so your figures add up nicely...:-) My set of Chinon tubes cost me $25 a few years ago. Include Ricoh and all the 3rd party makes, and you add up with pretty decent odds for finding something second hand, in good shape, and cheap. Why do you want AF? On extension tubes, it sounds pretty wasted, imo... Jostein - Original Message - From: "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:36 PM Subject: Cheapest Pentax Extension Tubes > Inspired by the best and cheapest lens thread, I was browsing lenses on > B&H, and saw extension tubes listed. And it looks to me like the cheapest > Pentax AF extension tube is the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter with lens > removed, for $50. The tubes without lenses cost around $150. > > What in the world is up with that? Does it really cost that much more to > *not* grind, polish, coat, and install glass? > -- > "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree > with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance > our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803. > >
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up?;-)
Mike Johnston wrote: > > > Another flower for mike http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=72 > > I find flowers disturbing. Especially in color. Disturbing? Hmmm. In person, or just in photos? keith > I think it was the French painter Edgar Degas who wrote that he was > disturbed by the visual cacaphony of bouquets of flowers. He seldom painted > them, with one famous exception, a painting that showed a vase of flowers on > a table and a woman off to the right. But he said he found this painting > distressing rather than pretty. > > Ancient memories here, I could be wrong. > > --Mike
Re: Mystery link
Oh Oh.Do i have to go to the principles office for this Its mine,Mike. Shot last spring(2002)early June if memory serves, in the backyard. Gear: Pentax Super Program and SMC A 70-210 using the macro on it.Film i think was Tmax but may have been Delta 100. Dave Begin Original Message From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:50:21 -0600 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mystery link Sorry, I missed something. Whose shot is this, and what was it taken with? http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/images/b&w2002-4-2.jpg TIA, --Mike End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada "Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins"--Frank Zappa 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: Mystery link
David Brooks. Good brokeh, eh? He didn't mention what camera or any other particulars... keith Mike Johnston wrote: > > Sorry, I missed something. Whose shot is this, and what was it taken with? > > http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/images/b&w2002-4-2.jpg > > TIA, > > --Mike
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
> Also, my clients prefer my MF stuff > over my 35mm stuff (when they have a choice). Bruce, How true. Fine-art buyers, also, are less impressed with 35mm prints, at least from contemporary photographers. Generally, buyers of all stripes tend to be more impressed the further you can get from something they can do themselves, or something "anybody" can do. --Mike
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!!
You can order one, I'll take the down payment and it'll be shipped just as soon as it's released, I promise. At 11:28 AM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >They may not even be released, it won't be the first time >a product has found it's way into a manufacturers literature >and never seen the light of day. For a non Pentax example my >1993 Saturn owners manual talks about the SL3 a vehicle that >was never manufactured. So I won't be able to order that 35mm f/1.4? Damn. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up? ;-)
No you wouldn't At 10:13 AM 2/11/2003 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Mark, >>> >>> How about cats playing in the flower bed? >> >> Hmm...I know I have some cat photos around here somewhere... > >AAUUUG! Flower shots are something I have mixed feelings about: I don't much like *looking* at flower photos, but I really like photographing flowers (which inevitably leaves me with a bunch of photos I'm not really interested in looking at, but if I were rational I wouldn't be on this list now would I?). I love working with the organic shapes and textures, especially getting in close enough to make them almost abstract. here's another (of the same plant in my previous shot, actually): http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7d300216.jpg Don't worry, I don't like taking *or* viewing cat photos. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up?;-)
> Another flower for mike http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=72 I find flowers disturbing. Especially in color. I think it was the French painter Edgar Degas who wrote that he was disturbed by the visual cacaphony of bouquets of flowers. He seldom painted them, with one famous exception, a painting that showed a vase of flowers on a table and a woman off to the right. But he said he found this painting distressing rather than pretty. Ancient memories here, I could be wrong. --Mike
Re: Optio S pre-order (and prices)
That's also true the initial price offering will drop rather quickly I'm sure. At 05:15 PM 2/11/2003 +0100, you wrote: Hi Peter, on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list: >>Amazon Germany (or the zshops) has it listed for 529 Euro >Must be the VAT. And a very conservative price policy by Amazon. You can find various German online shops offering the Optio S at 469,- Euro. That seems to be a realistic streeet price for Europe. Cheers, Heiko Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: SMC M 100/2.8
Almost on topic (not an M-series) but I have a perfect little Super-Multi-Coated Takumar f:2.8/105 that I've been dying to try out, but haven't yet. Has anyone an opinion on this lens while I'm waiting for better weather? keith whaley Bill Lawlor wrote: > > Thanks for the advice. It is in near mint condition, but $150 might be too > high. I think I'll take it for a test walk around the block. > > Bill Lawlor > > "> Has anyone an opunion about the SMC M 100/2.8 lens? > > The general consensus seems to be that it is one of the best all-around > bargains--very good optically and usually very inexpensive. > > --Mike "
Re: End of K-mount?
Good grief! How is possible to react in the way cited below to the fact that Pentax release two bottom level lenses? We had the same sort of reaction when they released the first plastic mount lenses. Suddenly all Pentax lenses would use plastic mounts! Pentax is just releasing the same crap as the competition. Those who buy these lenses don't give a damned about lens compatibilty. The rest don't care either as they would never buy any of them. This is a non issue! Pål - Original Message - From: "Iren & Henry Chu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:36 PM Subject: End of K-mount? > Dear all, > > I feel sick by the news of two new KAJ mount lenses. > > I think it signals the end of K-mount afterall. Obviously, the new user > manual is designed for future use, as the KAJ lenses are yet to be released. > This implies that there is no more plan from Pentax in the near future to > release any other lens for the current 135 lens/camera series. > > Probably the KAF3 patent application is just a smoke screen before the PMA. > Pentax is planning some complete reform in its lens/camera line-up. The KAJ > lenses (probably OEM products from Cosina?) are just for the unsold stock of > existing cameras. > > Great. I have a reason to switch to Canon after all the painful waiting of > D-SLR for so long. > > Regards, > > Henry Chu > 11/2/2003 > > _ > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail >
Re: End of K-mount?
Arnold wrote: > P - A - T- I - E - N - C - E!! We don't have to wait very long Pål
Re: Re[2]: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Alin wrote: >If it's no SMC then we can safely assume > these are low end lenses only - no danger of generalization. Isn't it enough that they lack focus scale to remove all doubt that they are strictly bottom level? Pål
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck????
> I think it would take alot to convince these parts of that case, as many > will then point to the VR Nikon G lens. What have Pentax lenses to do with Nikon? Pål
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
The information is here: http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6 Goto -->Lenses-->SMC FA Interchangeable Lenses (download the manual). The quote is on page 36 (I think). At 11:42 AM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: The "good" Nikon G lenses also have other features that can't be properly utilized by bodies that can't fully use G lenses, like AF motor in lens and VR. You need a current body to make best use of the body anyway, besides control of the aperture from the body. This hasn't stopped the wailing of some Nikon users though. I'm still looking for a link for the source of this J lens info. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many Nikon users hated the "G" series lenses when they came out, because they were entry-level pieces of dung. Now Nikon has started to make some excellent lenses with the G mount, so maybe Pentax is going that way. Looks like we're going to need cameras that set the aperture from the camera body. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
