Re: Politics on the PDML.
Good one Steve... Regards, Bob... -- Politically incorrect sig line deleted to prevent socialists, statists, elitists and weekend golfers from receiving discomforting enlightenment. Determination courtesy of: -William Robb. From: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] You`re right, I shouldn`t have voiced an opinion, I let my patriotism get the best of me. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Steve Larson P.S., love the sig. I don't. It has no place on this list. Regards
Re: Politics on the PDML.
Bob, sometimes you are so incredibly immature. This is one of those times. You protested my bringing politics here when I posted that link about impeaching your president, but you won't give me the same courtesy when I protest your bringing politics to the list? Give yer head a shake, booboo. William Robb - Original Message - From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Politics on the PDML. Good one Steve... Regards, Bob... -- Politically incorrect sig line deleted to prevent socialists, statists, elitists and weekend golfers from receiving discomforting enlightenment. Determination courtesy of: -William Robb. From: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] You`re right, I shouldn`t have voiced an opinion, I let my patriotism get the best of me. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Steve Larson P.S., love the sig. I don't. It has no place on this list. Regards
Re: Politics on the PDML.
She's a politically conservative commentator given to hyperbole with an occasional comic twist. http://www.talkingpresidents.com/products-af-coulter.shtml Regards, Bob... -- Politically incorrect sig line deleted to prevent socialists, statists, elitists and weekend golfers from receiving discomforting enlightenment. Determination courtesy of: -William Robb. From: Bucky [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're right in that it's certainly one of the two. From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Huh? Why the strong reactions, either way? Not recognizing the name quoted as the author, I can't tell if it was a weird rant by an insane person, or a parody written by a comedian, but surely it's no big deal?
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Hi, Bob Walkden wrote: There's an interesting article here which touches on this question of permission, use and re-use, and raises some of the same issues that people have discussed with respect to Shel's photo: http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/indexen.html Try http://zonezero.com/magazine/articles/jacobson/magnum1.html The essay is by Colin Jacobson, who is one of the UK's leading photo editors. He discusses Martin Parr's work used for very unflattering advertisements, and has comments from David Hurn, Parr's colleague in Magnum, and others. Very interesting article. Leaving aside values in photographs (I find my own feelings and beliefs on this subject are far too complex to have an easily atriculated response to the majority of the base thread) I found the following quote rather suprising, reference Martin Parr: His stylistic approach has been widely imitated by contemporary photographers, and is generally perceived to represent a rejection of the black and white documentary tradition passed down by magazines such as Picture Post and Life. I have always thought that his work is more of an extension of the documentary tradition. Photographers of the past might have used low-key to emphasise grimy, industrial landscapes, or high key to demostrate happy times. Martin uses colour, in a different way but to the same ends. mike
Re: Politics on the PDML.
Hi, Sunday, November 23, 2003, 3:47:49 PM, you wrote: She's a politically conservative commentator given to hyperbole with an occasional comic twist. http://www.talkingpresidents.com/products-af-coulter.shtml or Yan to Michael Moore's Ying. Or is it Yin and Yang, or Chang and Eng, or Chi Chi and An An? Who knows? Who cares? http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20010716.html http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html Treat them as self-cancelling polarities. Suggestion: the sig. part of an email is like an e-Speakers' Corner, where anything goes. We ought to resist the temptation to reply. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is it always the intelligent people who are socialists? -- Alan Bennett
Re: and now me - 011101100... + Q
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: After lng negotiations with my wife (now I know why corruption statistics in Poland are so bad ;-), I can finally go *istD too. Just before I go and buy it, I would like to ask some questions to *istD brotherhood, as I noticed some strange things testing *istD: 1. It had misaligned superimposed AF points in viewfinder (all were slightly shifted up). Has abybody problems with it? 2. Flash confirmation with AF360 didn't some up? Anybody? 3. Has anybody used Microdrive 1GB with it? Is it very power hungry, slow and very delicate? Would you recommend it for use with *istD? 4. Some of my flash (with AF360) shots were alightly underexposed. Should it work this way? I noticed this also. The focal length indicated on the 360 seemed to multiply the lens focal length in the wrong direction, i.e. down instead of up. So I manually adjusted the focal length on the 360 and the exposures came out right. Me thinks its a firmware bug on the *istD. TIA for any answers and I hope to join 111001000111010hood soon ;-)
RE: TTL Slave Flash, corded and on bracket?
-Original Message- From: Greg Lovern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi folks, I'm new to the list; hope you don't mind if I jump right in with a question.. Hi Greg, that's what we're here for. More or less. Sort of. Well, not really, but I'll jump in anyway. This is a slave flash newbie question, and if it is answered in a faq or primer somewhere I'd be grateful for any links to them. http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/ Click on flashes, then off-camera flash setups. I'd like to be able to use smaller aperatures with slow film while using TTL bounce flash, with a Stofen diffuser. Ideally, I'd like to mount a second flash on a simple bracket, link the two flashes with a short cord, and have the second flash both fire and stop when the primary flash (either in TTL mode, or in one of its auto modes) fires and stops. I'm not following you 100%are you saying you want both flashes to pump out equal power? Basically you want one flash above the lens and the other a bit out to the side? You want 2 flashes so you can pump out more light? tv
Subject must have some meaning...
Please, when your (or somebody else's) comments are bringing discussion into a rather different topic, please change subject of your message, so that anybody can get an idea about which messages are likely to be of some interest to them, and follow them accordingly. Aren't you seeing how many different threads are spreading within that morality title? Can you truly follow mixed discussions this way? Thanks to everybody. Dario Bonazza (I already asked this in the past, and it's time for asking again)
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Hi again, mike wilson wrote: an easily atriculated response Told you I couldn't do it I meant articulated m
Re: Politics on the PDML.
Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20010716.html http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html Treat them as self-cancelling polarities. Thanks for the URLs -- and yes, whackos like those two can be very entertaining, but should not be considered politically relevant. Suggestion: the sig. part of an email is like an e-Speakers' Corner, where anything goes. We ought to resist the temptation to reply. Yup, that's the traditional way to see it. -tih -- Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Hi guys ... This was a very interesting, and for me, disturbing article. Since many photos are already manipulated images by dint of their printing (crop, tonal manipulations, perspective, choice of film, etc.) I'd like to think that they represent the point of view of the photographer, and a close, if not exact, representation of the captured scene. To then use a photo, which was taken in a specific context, to make a particular point or to offer a point of view, and remove it from its intended purpose (which is already removed from reality) and put it to use for some other purpose, far removed from its origins, is an awful thing, IMO. Adding captions that further remove the photograph from its origins compounds the sin if you will. And then there's Magnum ... has the agency sold out? The reference to Erwitt having been doing commercial work for years is a red herring. When Erwitt joined Magnum he was known for his commercial work ... perhaps asked to join because of it. But when a documentary photog's work is resurrected years later and used for advertising financial services, that's completely different. The photographer was not previously involved in commercial work, and the photograph was taken in an entirely different context. To compare Parr's documentary photographs to Erwitt's commercial work is a great leap over a large chasm. I guess the current times require that the $ or the £ be given greater consideration than integrity ... sigh Time to grab a camera and see what's out there today. shel mike wilson wrote: Hi, Bob Walkden wrote: There's an interesting article here which touches on this question of permission, use and re-use, and raises some of the same issues that people have discussed with respect to Shel's photo: http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/indexen.html Try http://zonezero.com/magazine/articles/jacobson/magnum1.html The essay is by Colin Jacobson, who is one of the UK's leading photo editors. He discusses Martin Parr's work used for very unflattering advertisements, and has comments from David Hurn, Parr's colleague in Magnum, and others. Very interesting article. Leaving aside values in photographs (I find my own feelings and beliefs on this subject are far too complex to have an easily atriculated response to the majority of the base thread) I found the following quote rather suprising, reference Martin Parr: His stylistic approach has been widely imitated by contemporary photographers, and is generally perceived to represent a rejection of the black and white documentary tradition passed down by magazines such as Picture Post and Life. I have always thought that his work is more of an extension of the documentary tradition. Photographers of the past might have used low-key to emphasise grimy, industrial landscapes, or high key to demostrate happy times. Martin uses colour, in a different way but to the same ends. mike
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Bob Walkden: There's an interesting article here which touches on this question of permission, use and re-use, and raises some of the same issues that people have discussed with respect to Shel's photo: http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/indexen.html Unfortunately I can't find a way to link directly to the 3-page article. Here is a direct link: http://zonezero.com/magazine/articles/jacobson/magnum1.html So follow the link above, type 'Hurn Parr' into the search box, Click 'Search', then open one of the Untitled links that appear. At the bottom you can use the page navigation to get to the first page in the article. It's worth the effort. Right click on the link and you'll get an option to grab the direct address. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/
Signiture Lines (was Politics on the PDML)
I found the quote amusing, funny and added it to my signature file where it gets attached automatically to _all_ my outgoing mail through Netidentity. Your post, on the other hand, was directly on a political topic. This may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, but only a very small portion of my outgoing mail is to this list. What you are asking me (and anyone else with signature lines you find incorrect) to do is change them specifically for this list just because they offend your personal sensibilities or views. I now find the attached signature amusing. Most of the groups I belong to are scientific, engineering, technical and political in nature and for the most part, they find such signature lines amusing too. Now, you may still not approve of the new, modified just for you, signature line. Well, keep in mind that I am incredibly immature, but I'm 56 years old and unlikely to change under your control. This being the case, you might as well learn to live with it. Regards, Bob... -- Politically incorrect sig line deleted to prevent socialists, statists, elitists and weekend golfers [you know who you are] from receiving discomforting enlightenment. -Larry Elders From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bob, sometimes you are so incredibly immature. This is one of those times. You protested my bringing politics here when I posted that link about impeaching your president, but you won't give me the same courtesy when I protest your bringing politics to the list? Give yer head a shake, booboo. From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] Good one Steve... From: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] You`re right, I shouldn`t have voiced an opinion, I let my patriotism get the best of me. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Steve Larson P.S., love the sig. I don't. It has no place on this list. Regards
Re: Politics on the PDML.
Har! Regards, Bob... -- Politically incorrect sig line deleted to prevent socialists, statists, elitists and weekend golfers [you know who you are] from receiving discomforting enlightenment. -Larry Elders From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, Sunday, November 23, 2003, 3:47:49 PM, you wrote: She's a politically conservative commentator given to hyperbole with an occasional comic twist. http://www.talkingpresidents.com/products-af-coulter.shtml or Yan to Michael Moore's Ying. Or is it Yin and Yang, or Chang and Eng, or Chi Chi and An An? Who knows? Who cares? http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20010716.html http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html Treat them as self-cancelling polarities. Suggestion: the sig. part of an email is like an e-Speakers' Corner, where anything goes. We ought to resist the temptation to reply. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is it always the intelligent people who are socialists? -- Alan Bennett
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Hi, Sunday, November 23, 2003, 4:19:29 PM, you wrote: http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/indexen.html Try http://zonezero.com/magazine/articles/jacobson/magnum1.html The essay is by Colin Jacobson, who is one of the UK's leading photo editors. He discusses Martin Parr's work used for very unflattering advertisements, and has comments from David Hurn, Parr's colleague in Magnum, and others. His stylistic approach has been widely imitated by contemporary photographers, and is generally perceived to represent a rejection of the black and white documentary tradition passed down by magazines such as Picture Post and Life. I have always thought that his work is more of an extension of the documentary tradition. Photographers of the past might have used low-key to emphasise grimy, industrial landscapes, or high key to demostrate happy times. Martin uses colour, in a different way but to the same ends. It's a different type of documentary style from the Picture Post and Life style. Parr is more in the tradition of Tony Ray-Jones, who worked in the style of people like Joel Meyerowitz (they were friends), and turned that style onto the English scene. Parr has extended that with the use of colour and, in my opinion, a less sympathetic, perhaps even hostile, eye. You can trace the development by looking at Parr's early black white work, comparing it with Ray-Jones (probably a genius), and see how it has changed. I admire Parr's work enormously, and his massive influence on British photography and film-making, but I don't like the attitude he seems to express in his work. I prefer the old-fashioned ideas of humanism and dignity that Jacobson mentions. Jacobson has an essay in the current edition of 'ei8ht' (www.foto8.com) in which he laments the attitude of the art world towards photojournaism and documentary photography. In it he takes a swipe en passant at Parr: I just make it to 'Cruel + Tender' at Tate Modern before it closes. [...] The show itself seems an incoherent mess, randomly thrown together to make some kind of 'statement'. The usual suspects are included from British photography, Martin Parr and Paul Graham ... [...] The art world feels threatened by good photojournalism, and feels the need to rubbish it and then subsume it into the gallery circuit to control it, like a dangerous wild animal. I have an explanation for this. Successful reportage photography is hard work, time-consuming and requires huge amounts of talent, energy, patience and committment. It's much easier and quicker to resort to 'biographical' me-me-me photography, the more obscure the better. He goes on. Very enjoyable. Subscribe! -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Sheesh... Lasse I have plenty of empathy, the mistake people are making is presuming to think they know how she would feel about her photograph. How can they know? I wasn't going to say anymore, I was trying to make a point and I knew it would be taken wrong. But by leaping to her defense that she would not want her photograph to be shown, I feel people are saying IF IT WAS THEM, they wouldn't want it. Fine. But it isn't them. Maybe she's just fine with herself and likes herself, even if others have a problem with her fat. (Note she saw Shel's camera and did not make an effort to make sure he was not photographing her.) I really feel people are reacting to their own ideas about fat, more than they are reacting to her. The photograph is interesting, she is interesting. You know what she would/wouldn't want is really besides the point. The street photographer is just shooting what is there. She was there. Asking Shel or others doing street photography to not shoot what is out there, to shoot only what the viewer is comfortable with, would be censorship. And on the matter of that particular photo, if you can't see that *assuming* she'd want to hide her body, hide herself -- slink off in a corner -- is a lot of condescension on people's part, then you can't. I was trying to avoid saying that, but I am afraid you pissed me off. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Smithsonian contest (was: Defining previously Published for a photo contest)
On Saturday, Nov 22, 2003, at 16:01 America/New_York, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Ryan, nice to know they are letting you in... I'm wondering if they will be seeing tons of Pentaxes in this contest! That's up to all of us, Ann! --jc
Re: B on *ist-D
On Saturday, Nov 22, 2003, at 18:37 America/New_York, Herb Chong wrote: i tried a 30 second exposure of the inside of a lens cap and i can see only one obvious hot pixel. i haven't looked all that hard yet though, and i do have the noise reduction turned on. If you're looking for hot pixels, you may have to turn off noise reduction and minimize all in-camera processing. And you'd have to shoot at a number of different shutter speeds and look for pixels that are consistently hot across all the different exposures. I had a hot pixel in an old Olympus digital PS. No matter what shutter speed I used, it would show up as a bright green dot visible even on the camera LCD when zoomed in. It was easy to retouch in PS but became too much of a nuisance so I sold the camera. --jc
OT: Be Gone for A While
I have an idea I want to share with the PDML that I think some will like. But right now I am involved in a fruitless disucssion/argument and at the same time I am behind in studying for a college course I am taking. So I am unsubscribing for a week or two. Be back soon! BTW, I still feel the list is a cool place with lots of photography/camera info. And I'll share my idea when I get back. Marnie aka Doe
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Hi, Bob Walkden wrote: It's a different type of documentary style from the Picture Post and Life style. Parr is more in the tradition of Tony Ray-Jones, who worked in the style of people like Joel Meyerowitz (they were friends), and turned that style onto the English scene. Parr has extended that with the use of colour and, in my opinion, a less sympathetic, perhaps even hostile, eye. He does have a less than sympathetic eye for his subjects 8-) You can trace the development by looking at Parr's early black white work, comparing it with Ray-Jones (probably a genius), and see how it has changed. I admire Parr's work enormously, and his massive influence on British photography and film-making, but I don't like the attitude he seems to express in his work. I prefer the old-fashioned ideas of humanism and dignity that Jacobson mentions. Seconded. The point I was trying to make, rather obtusely, is that many documentary photographers emphasise things in their work and Martin is continuing this tradition, albeit in a different way. I feel he is more rejecting old values in his view of the subjects rather than his technical means of portraying them. I just make it to 'Cruel + Tender' at Tate Modern before it closes. [...] The show itself seems an incoherent mess, randomly thrown together to make some kind of 'statement'. The usual suspects are included from British photography, Martin Parr and Paul Graham ... [...] The art world feels threatened by good photojournalism, and feels the need to rubbish it and then subsume it into the gallery circuit to control it, like a dangerous wild animal. I have an explanation for this. Successful reportage photography is hard work, time-consuming and requires huge amounts of talent, energy, patience and committment. It's much easier and quicker to resort to 'biographical' me-me-me photography, the more obscure the better. I see this all the time at work: poor, deluded students taking Alevel photography, producing (very low quality, technically) work that is obviously meant to be photojournalism but is nothing more than a cracked mirror held up to their short, consumerist lives. I wouldn't waste good film and paper on it but someone in the Art department obviously thinks that they have found a mine of talent. He goes on. Very enjoyable. Subscribe! I have looked at this site (www.foto8.com) before. I am rather tempted. mike
Re: TTL Slave Flash, corded and on bracket?
On Sunday, Nov 23, 2003, at 05:28 America/New_York, Greg Lovern wrote: I'd like to mount a second flash on a simple bracket, link the two flashes with a short cord, and have the second flash both fire and stop when the primary flash (either in TTL mode, or in one of its auto modes) fires and stops. I like some of the brackets I see at http://www.camerastore.com/dl_cat_E/-E07_flashbrk.html You may want to consider putting one of the flash units off-camera on a lighting stand with one of these adaptors: http://www.camerastore.com/dl_cat_F/-F07a_lsa.html I use one that looks like DL-0316. As for TTL operation, I don't know if it's possible with your Vivitar and then it depends on what lighting ratios you want to achieve between the master and slave flash(es). I think even with a TTL setup and Pentax flashes, the contrast-control feature doesn't let you specify the lighting ratio. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. It helps very much to have a handheld flash meter. --jc
Re: and now me - 011101100... + Q
At 10:30 AM 11/23/2003 -0600, you wrote: Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: After lng negotiations with my wife (now I know why corruption statistics in Poland are so bad ;-), I can finally go *istD too. Just before I go and buy it, I would like to ask some questions to *istD brotherhood, as I noticed some strange things testing *istD: .. 3. Has anybody used Microdrive 1GB with it? Is it very power hungry, slow and very delicate? Would you recommend it for use with *istD? Yes, very delicate! Get a pair of 512M and you'll be happier!
Re: Politics on the PDML.
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20010716.html http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html Treat them as self-cancelling polarities. Well, what do you call it if neither cancels the other? Hmmm. Thanks for the URLs -- and yes, whackos like those two can be very entertaining, but should not be considered politically relevant. What two? The authors of SpinSanity's articles? Whackos? ...politically revelant? So far, I do see care exhibited by SpinSanity to (in accordance with their platform promises) be equally complete (n on-partisan) in revealing untruths, and inequities in statements by public figures. I still see both authors as potential fire-starters (= inflammatory rhetoric) of an ultra-liberal bent, but after carefully listening to (reading) their individual diatribes, I must admit, they gave me food for thought. . . All this is quite academic, if you didn't mean those two authors! g keith Suggestion: the sig. part of an email is like an e-Speakers' Corner, where anything goes. We ought to resist the temptation to reply. Yup, that's the traditional way to see it. -tih -- Tom Ivar Helbekkmoe
Re: Basketball on film
Hi! Thanks from Israel to Scandinavia... By the way, it could be, we would be heading there for our vacation, if such thing ever arrives. It is indeed my, well, actually, second attempt. The first one took place a week prior to that, and it was exactly that - first attempt... LK However, although the picture may be just fine for the private LK albums of the players, the picture doesn't excite me that much. Thanks. I am serious. This is probably the right opinion of this photo, as the guy who's jumping asked to print him some enlargement - I am going for 20x20 cm (not inches grin)... I published it in order to get opinions, and I got some. LK Firstly - no ladies around - well. that's obviously not your fault... This is not a tournament game - this is just few folks from the same company having fun - so sorry, no cheerleaders, if that's what you meant. LK Secondly - the surrounding and background poses a problem, those LK empty green seats, the bright window and those red tubes(?) etc LK are very distracting. Along with the random variety of players' LK clothings - well it's a difficult task to make a picture of this LK scene catch much interest from me. This is something that perhaps you would be able to help me with. I have the following set of equations: 1. If I shoot without flash I have windows on the top (like on this shot) and windows on the bottom (on the opposite side of the hall). One gives me plain back-lighting problem which my ZX-L seems to be able to solve easily. Another gives me long stripes of light on the floor that I cannot get rid of. 2. If I shoot with flash (and I have only AF220T (5 m range)) then I cannot use my 24 mm due to vignetting and I cannot really use a 200 lens (zoom) that I have due to range restrictions. I can however get some of the shots, say with 35 mm like this one or even better with my FA 50 lens. 3. I cannot get players to wear different clothes, nor can I get windows to close... I would appreciate any advise as to how to deal with this set of equations. LK Having this shot placed under my hands I would definitely have LK tried cropping it into a rectangular form, down to maybe right LK above the basket, and closer up to their feet. (But that bright LK window might still be so disturbing that I'd be debating to clone LK it out altogether, or just sigh and leave it at that.) And maybe a LK bit off to the left and a bit off to the right too. And then blow LK it up in size, in order to get closer to whatever action and LK interaction there actually is in there. I did not think of cloning anything, because you know, folks wouldn't quite like that grin. On the other hand, I think that due to height of my co-workers being non-typical for the game (trying to be PC with respect to their rather regular physique grin), I thought that square might actually do good in this case... LK 1. the lighting - ideally you'd want to have the background LK completely blacked out - like if you could get some sort of spot LK lighting from above just covering the area of the players or the LK like, I will try that with zoom lens and with flash. Perhaps I would get some success. LK 2. getting closer in on the action, where you'd have the players' LK faces and bodies(parts) right into your eyes and make the viewer LK almost physically feel some of the action involved. Try for LK instance shooting from floor level, or somewher from above - that LK way you may suddenly find some spectacular views. If you can do LK second curtain sync on your flash, you could try that too. I can understand everything but second curtain sync. Isn't it some kind of a slow sync? Why that would be helpful? I don't think that with ZX-L and AF220T I can do second curtain sync, but I will look up in the manual. I will however try to get closer to them. I tried some shots from the floor level but so far with little success. I will have to try more, that's certain. LK Well, just my two cents, since you asked for them, LK Lasse Both of these two cents are greatly appreciated, no matter whether you believe it or not grin... Thanks! Boris
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Hi, Sunday, November 23, 2003, 5:29:05 PM, you wrote: I see this all the time at work: poor, deluded students taking Alevel photography, producing (very low quality, technically) work that is obviously meant to be photojournalism but is nothing more than a cracked mirror held up to their short, consumerist lives. I wouldn't waste good film and paper on it but someone in the Art department obviously thinks that they have found a mine of talent. He goes on. Very enjoyable. Subscribe! I have looked at this site (www.foto8.com) before. I am rather tempted. You must. By subscribing you will help to keep open an outlet for excellent photojournalism. That in turn means that those poor deluded students won't be reduced to photographing their own genitals for display in The Photographer's Gallery, and we might have something more interesting to look at. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Subject must have some meaning...
If you're not reading every post, you're not really participating. ;-) Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 Please, when your (or somebody else's) comments are bringing discussion into a rather different topic, please change subject of your message, so that anybody can get an idea about which messages are likely to be of some interest to them, and follow them accordingly. Aren't you seeing how many different threads are spreading within that morality title? Can you truly follow mixed discussions this way? Thanks to everybody. Dario Bonazza (I already asked this in the past, and it's time for asking again)
Re: IR and winter advise, brooksdj
Actually,is the snow going to be a problem with IR film,as in bright reflective light. Hi Dave, have a look at W.J.Markerink's site dealing with all infrared: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/ He has an article on INFRARED photography and SNOW and its effects. The page is very long, just do a search for word snow. Frantisek
Re: England Wins!
And I assume that the photo of the guy holding up the trophy was taken with a Pentax? Joe
Consecutive Shooting With *ist D
I wanted to see what it could do. In Raw mode, the answer is 5 frames. Then it pauses for a long time before you can take another. I assumed that this was due to the size of the buffer, so I tried it in Tiff mode. Again, it shot 5 consecutive frames before it had to pause to catch its breath. This means that the buffer holds at least 85 mb. It also means that the buffer could have held 6 Raw photos (13 mb apiece) in consecutive mode. So the buffer size is not the limiting factor. I tried it again at highest jpeg. Again it took 5 shots before pausing, but recovered and took number 6 much quicker that in Raw or Tiff. So does the processor's capability set the limitation on consecutive mode shooting? Joe
More Thoughts on Slide Projectors
Kodak used to sell the Kodal Caramate. I wanted to buy one for my office a few years ago, but searching on Kodak Caramate turned up nothing. The product still exists, but it is now the Telex Carmate. Apparently Kodak sold the product to Telex. So perhaps this is what will happen when Kodak stops manufacturing the Carousel projector. Perhaps Kodak will just sell the business to some smaller company which will be satisfied with today's reduced level of sales for slide projectors. Optimistically, Joe
Re: Consecutive Shooting With *ist D
I wanted to see what it could do. In Raw mode, the answer is 5 frames. Then it pauses for a long time before you can take another. I assumed that this was due to the size of the buffer, so I tried it in Tiff mode. Again, it shot 5 consecutive frames before it had to pause to catch its breath. This means that the buffer holds at least 85 mb. A questionable assumption. The buffer almost certainly holds the images in a format very close to raw mode, before any time has been spent processing. It's probably fairly close to 64MB in size (5 x 12MB, plus settings). The conversion to the selected output mode (plus adding thumbnail images) will take place as the images are read from the buffer and written out to the CF card.
Re: TTL Slave Flash, corded and on bracket?
Thanks, but this isn't for use in a studio. I would need to be able to walk around and not have to set up a lighting stand. Thanks, Greg On Sunday, Nov 23, 2003, at 05:28 America/New_York, Greg Lovern wrote: I'd like to mount a second flash on a simple bracket, link the two flashes with a short cord, and have the second flash both fire and stop when the primary flash (either in TTL mode, or in one of its auto modes) fires and stops. I like some of the brackets I see at http://www.camerastore.com/dl_cat_E/-E07_flashbrk.html You may want to consider putting one of the flash units off-camera on a lighting stand with one of these adaptors: http://www.camerastore.com/dl_cat_F/-F07a_lsa.html I use one that looks like DL-0316. As for TTL operation, I don't know if it's possible with your Vivitar and then it depends on what lighting ratios you want to achieve between the master and slave flash(es). I think even with a TTL setup and Pentax flashes, the contrast-control feature doesn't let you specify the lighting ratio. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. It helps very much to have a handheld flash meter. --jc
Re: vinyl Was: RE: Digital/Film body pricing
Remember the old high fidelity rule. Your speakers should be 1/2 your system cost so that $2K system would have a pair of $500 speakers. Though all speakers at a given price point do not produce the same quality sound, so they are the part you really need to listen to before you buy. If you read the guys comments on the Ultra High Fidelity website he says the source is the most important part of the system. As you comment that is true, but only after you system reaches a certain quaility point. Also if one does not crank the sound up where it blows you out of the room source noise is not so obvious. Another thing: I understand that most high-end vinyl is not pressed but individually lazer cut these days. Someday I hope I will get to hear one of those on a good system, at $100 a recording I'm not going to be able to buy them. That is for sure. Being poor these days I listen on a 10 year old boom-box I bought when the Charlotte library dumped everything but CD's from their audio collection. The sound from it is fairly clean (at low volumn), but dead sounding. OK for background music, but not for serious listening. Recently I decided I wanted something that sounds as good as my old earily 1980's system. It was a low Technics receiver, tape deck, and turntable hooked up to a pair of Baby Advent speakers. Nice clean sound. Those Baby Advents cost $300 each and were considered at the time to be the best bookshelf speakers available. I go down to the so called high-fi department of the computer/audio/electronic chain stores and nothing they are selling has that clean sound. Of course all they sell is consumer grade stuff even if some of it costs more than the real thing. I decided to look for some old but good used stuff, then the truck breaks down and I have to put that idea on the back burner. This thread started just about then so the whole thing was on my mind anyway. My listening preferences are about 60% jazz, 30% classical, and 10% other; so it is rather easy to tell the difference. Wouldn't you know that when I moved up into the mountains I moved out of the area where I could receive the only 100% jazz station in the Carolinas (sad smile). -- David Mann wrote: graywolf wrote: The funny thing here is I think we old folks need a better sound system then the younger folks. Why? Well, I at least have a far harder time separating noise, so the less noise the better the sound to my ears. Current consumer sound is: 1. loud. 2. excessively bassy. 3. noisy. In my experience I've found that the more expensive the equipment, the more of the subtle recording flaws I can pick out. If you buy expensive hi-fi gear the recordings you buy had better be good or it'll just frustrate you. I guess its similar to a high-end film scanner picking out more grain along with the extra image detail. I will say though that the sound coming out of cheap consumer systems is a lot better for the money than what was available 10 years ago... once you switch off the subwoofer(s). That said I don't think many of us could tell the difference between a good $2000 system and a fine $20,000 system, but most of us who care can easily tell the difference between a $2000 high fidelity system and a $500 home theater system. I'm young enough that I could probably tell a difference at the higher end (more due to the speakers than anything else) but I doubt I'd consider that difference to be worth spending an extra 18,000 hypothetical dollars on. Heck, at the moment I don't even have a listening room that would do justice to the $2,000 system. Note that us who care part up there, I understand that that is only about 30% of the music listening public. The other 70% would be happy with a $29 system. Just before reading PDML tonight I put one of my new CDs on. Bic Runga with the Christchurch Symphony live in concert. It was performed in our Town Hall in October. I didn't attend but I went to see Anika Moa with the Christchurch Symphony two weeks ago, and I hope they do a CD of that one as well because I thoroughly enjoyed it. You guys have probably never heard of these people. Anyway, my stereo is a small bookshelf system I bought about 10 years ago. It was the bottom model of its series and the sound is far from any kind of hi-fi standard. But somehow I'm still enjoying my CD. It sounds a _lot_ better on my Sennheisers but I don't care right now. I'm listening to the music, not the sound. Another thing is that the other 70% aren't likely to be listening to music which will benefit from a high-end system. I'm not sure if Britney Spears would be any more compelling on vinyl than as an mp3 file. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
RE: TTL Slave Flash, corded and on bracket?
Hi Tom, Thanks for the link. Both flashes to pump out equal power? -- Yes. Basically you want one flash above the lens and the other a bit out to the side? -- Doesn't matter, but that would be fine. You want 2 flashes so you can pump out more light? -- Yes. Thanks, Greg -Original Message- From: Greg Lovern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi folks, I'm new to the list; hope you don't mind if I jump right in with a question.. Hi Greg, that's what we're here for. More or less. Sort of. Well, not really, but I'll jump in anyway. This is a slave flash newbie question, and if it is answered in a faq or primer somewhere I'd be grateful for any links to them. http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/ Click on flashes, then off-camera flash setups. I'd like to be able to use smaller aperatures with slow film while using TTL bounce flash, with a Stofen diffuser. Ideally, I'd like to mount a second flash on a simple bracket, link the two flashes with a short cord, and have the second flash both fire and stop when the primary flash (either in TTL mode, or in one of its auto modes) fires and stops. I'm not following you 100%are you saying you want both flashes to pump out equal power? Basically you want one flash above the lens and the other a bit out to the side? You want 2 flashes so you can pump out more light? tv
Re: TTL Slave Flash, corded and on bracket?
Hi Bob, Thanks, that's exactly what I had in mind. Too bad they don't seem to make them anymore. I'll monitor eBay for one. Thanks, Greg Greg, I do like the Super Program and TTL flash. I have used two AF280T flashes on it. I found a simple connecting cord by Altrex (?). (Two blocks connected by a black spiral telephone handset cord) You see them on ebay from time to time for $10-$15US. One block is a pick-up and both serve as a flash shoes. You put one on the camera and the other into your brackets. Then, mount a flash on top of both. You would need a 2nd cord to put both flashes off camera. This works but can get a bit fiddley. Pentax also makes flash shoes and distributor cords, but you are talking $100+ to get all the parts for 2 flashes off camera. As to doing this with any flash in auto mode on a KX, good luck. I don't know how that could be accomplished. Regards, Bob S, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, I forgot to mention what flash unit I have, in case that makes a difference. I have a Vivitar Auto Thyristor 550FD, M/P/O edition. I've also been losing several eBay auctions for a Pentax AF-280T, trying to get one relatively cheaply, but eventually I'll pay whatever I have to to get one.
RE: TTL Slave Flash, corded and on bracket?
-Original Message- From: Greg Lovern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Tom, Thanks for the link. Both flashes to pump out equal power? -- Yes. Basically you want one flash above the lens and the other a bit out to the side? -- Doesn't matter, but that would be fine. You want 2 flashes so you can pump out more light? -- Yes. And you said you want to bounce...are both flashes ttl? You also said you wanted to use slow film and small apertures. You're going to get dark backgrounds. What exactly is your subject matter? I'm no 4p expert, I'll leave the actual connections to someone else. tv
Re: TTL Slave Flash - private
Greg, Talk to me about what you wanted to pay for an AF280 flash. I've got a couple of extras - one nice and one cosmetically scruffy, but working fine. I might be willing to sell you the flash and Altrex cord. (I'll digi up pictures if this gets serious.) Regards, Bob S.
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Thanks, Bob, That's an interesting article, which comes back to what I believe several of our august members said in relation to Shel's photo that got this whole thing rolling. The use of the photo is what's moral or not. Taking the photo in and of itself is an amoral issue (that's me talking, not necessarily our august members). We all take photos that maybe we realize later just didn't work. I'm not talking morality here, just the what the hell was I thinking when I took that one? category. But, we also, on the spur of the moment, take photos that shouldn't really be shown in certain venues or in certain contexts. So, to get back to Shel's photo, if it were to be part of a reportage series on Life in America, or Life in the West, or Life in the First World, or whatever, it might be okay. If Shel were to sell it to an ad agency for a dietary weight loss supplement, I'd never speak to him again! hyperbole for the purposes of emphasizing my point... g Thanks again for an interesting article, Bob, cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:36:41 + Hi, There's an interesting article here which touches on this question of permission, use and re-use, and raises some of the same issues that people have discussed with respect to Shel's photo: http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/indexen.html Unfortunately I can't find a way to link directly to the 3-page article. So follow the link above, type 'Hurn Parr' into the search box, Click 'Search', then open one of the Untitled links that appear. At the bottom you can use the page navigation to get to the first page in the article. It's worth the effort. The essay is by Colin Jacobson, who is one of the UK's leading photo editors. He discusses Martin Parr's work used for very unflattering advertisements, and has comments from David Hurn, Parr's colleague in Magnum, and others. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/featurespgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
First, let me say, that I'm really enjoying this discussion. It's making me think about many issues, and confront things that I wouln't normally confront. So, today, I was thinking about all of this when I was walking around with my LX. I had the 19mm Vivitar on it, as I've not really used it to take street photos much. It was, to say the least, interesting. It really makes one interact with the subjects; they can't help but know you're there!! Of course, you can also use that lens for stealth work, since you can hyperfocus, and then not even look throught the viewfinder as you thrust the camera at people and snap - well, that's not really stealth, but almost guerrilla photography. But, I digress. I took a few shots of street people, which I usually don't do. On both occasions they asked me. I offered to give them some coins, which they said they would accept, but that payment wasn't necessary for me to take photos. So, I felt comfortable taking their photos on that basis (and yes, I did give them a couple of bucks each, but that had nothing to do with the photographs). I didn't take their photos because they were street people, but because they looked interesting. One fellow was taking pennies that he'd collected during the day, and was spelling out Jesus loves you, or words to that effect on the sidewalk. I thought that was interesting. I had a nice chat with him while I took 3 or 4 photos of him and his coin-words. I don't really care if the photos turn out, I really enjoyed talking with this gentle stranger. I got a lot out of the situation. But, here's my point (yes I do have a point). I tend not to take photos of street people unless I'm 100% certain that they consent. I feel I'm exploiting them otherwise. Other non-vagrant interesting people I run into, I'm not quite so concerned about consent, but I'll chat with them if I have a chance. Of the photos I posted yesterday, I didn't talk with the Asian girl, as she was whizzing by me in a dense crowd - I couldn't have talked to her if I wanted to. The one of the man (I presume father) reading to the child, I don't think they even knew I took the photo. Stop, snap and walk on. A one shot deal. I really didn't want to disturb their tender moment together, so I didn't chat with them. I wish I had, because I wonder if they'd have appreciated a print of the photo, which I'd have offered to them had it turned out (which I think it did - I'm actually quite proud of that one). The Boy Scout sellin apples, I felt bad I didn't talk with him. He seemed so cute. I should have at least bought an apple from him (expect I already bought one from another kid I didn't photograph). I guess I'm a bit squeamish about chatting with kids, and of taking photos of them - I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, if you know what I mean. But, here's my point (again, there is one... g). I tend to take photos of able-bodied people. I don't take photos of obese people, out of fear that they'll be offended. Same thing with people in wheel chairs, or street people who are in very rough shape, or clearly intoxicated, or who are in some other way disabled or disadvantaged. But, since I take lots of photos of normally-abled folks, am I not discriminating against non-beautiful people? Not to take it to the extreme suggested by Marnie in an earlier post, but I often wonder if by ~not~ taking photos of such people, I'm actually discriminating against them in a certain way? Any thoughts on this dilemma? BTW, I have taken photos of wheelchair bound people when invited to - they just haven't turned out... cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Lasse Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] snipMaybe so. May I ask you why you think this lady is interesting? Is it possibly just because she is abnormally fat?snip _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
About discrimination by non-inclusion.. hmm. I guess it would be if there weren't as many (more than the stereotypical 'normal' person) possible adverse reactions to take into account. It's a good example of a pretty perverse catch-22 isn't it.. I suppose a compromise would be a more proactive approach, where you could have this same discussion with every 'non-standard' subject. That way, you get the shot, no folk gonna say you ain't not discriminating noburdy, and you prevent all those why-you-little-son-of-a walking stick bruises and wheelchair tyre marks. Of course you'd prolly die a couple of years earlier due to dehydration from excessive saliva loss, but hey who wants to live forever anyway. :) Btw Frank, I enjoyed your insight on the issue.. can't say the same about the thread anymore though. Cheers, Ryan From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:04 PM Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph First, let me say, that I'm really enjoying this discussion. It's making me think about many issues, and confront things that I wouln't normally confront. So, today, I was thinking about all of this when I was walking around with my LX. I had the 19mm Vivitar on it, as I've not really used it to take street photos much. It was, to say the least, interesting. It really makes one interact with the subjects; they can't help but know you're there!! Of course, you can also use that lens for stealth work, since you can hyperfocus, and then not even look throught the viewfinder as you thrust the camera at people and snap - well, that's not really stealth, but almost guerrilla photography. But, I digress. I took a few shots of street people, which I usually don't do. On both occasions they asked me. I offered to give them some coins, which they said they would accept, but that payment wasn't necessary for me to take photos. So, I felt comfortable taking their photos on that basis (and yes, I did give them a couple of bucks each, but that had nothing to do with the photographs). I didn't take their photos because they were street people, but because they looked interesting. One fellow was taking pennies that he'd collected during the day, and was spelling out Jesus loves you, or words to that effect on the sidewalk. I thought that was interesting. I had a nice chat with him while I took 3 or 4 photos of him and his coin-words. I don't really care if the photos turn out, I really enjoyed talking with this gentle stranger. I got a lot out of the situation. But, here's my point (yes I do have a point). I tend not to take photos of street people unless I'm 100% certain that they consent. I feel I'm exploiting them otherwise. Other non-vagrant interesting people I run into, I'm not quite so concerned about consent, but I'll chat with them if I have a chance. Of the photos I posted yesterday, I didn't talk with the Asian girl, as she was whizzing by me in a dense crowd - I couldn't have talked to her if I wanted to. The one of the man (I presume father) reading to the child, I don't think they even knew I took the photo. Stop, snap and walk on. A one shot deal. I really didn't want to disturb their tender moment together, so I didn't chat with them. I wish I had, because I wonder if they'd have appreciated a print of the photo, which I'd have offered to them had it turned out (which I think it did - I'm actually quite proud of that one). The Boy Scout sellin apples, I felt bad I didn't talk with him. He seemed so cute. I should have at least bought an apple from him (expect I already bought one from another kid I didn't photograph). I guess I'm a bit squeamish about chatting with kids, and of taking photos of them - I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, if you know what I mean. But, here's my point (again, there is one... g). I tend to take photos of able-bodied people. I don't take photos of obese people, out of fear that they'll be offended. Same thing with people in wheel chairs, or street people who are in very rough shape, or clearly intoxicated, or who are in some other way disabled or disadvantaged. But, since I take lots of photos of normally-abled folks, am I not discriminating against non-beautiful people? Not to take it to the extreme suggested by Marnie in an earlier post, but I often wonder if by ~not~ taking photos of such people, I'm actually discriminating against them in a certain way? Any thoughts on this dilemma? BTW, I have taken photos of wheelchair bound people when invited to - they just haven't turned out... cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Lasse Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] snipMaybe so. May I ask you why you think this lady is interesting? Is it possibly just because she is abnormally fat?snip
FS: F 85mm Soft Focus Hood and K85/1.8 Hood
Hi, 2 Hoods for sale: Original Hood for K85/1.8. Original Metal hood for F 85mm Soft Focus Lens. Make me an offer. Regards, Paul
Re: *istD Frames Per Second
- Original Message - From: Kevin Waterson Subject: *istD Frames Per Second How many FPS can I expect from the istD? About 2.5 for the first two seconds. After that, it depends on your shooting mode. It goes from really slow to you might as well go home. This is not a camera for the photographer needing high frame rates. William Robb
dc-pdml last Monday
Took me a while to get around to posting images from the ist-D (so much for digital being quick!). I was laid out all week with a stomach virus-thingy that I think I picked up from the Indian food we had at tv's place:-p http://home.mindspring.com/~skofteland/id10.html Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dc-pdml last Monday
You say that cos tv picked up that canon isn't it! j/k.. you look like a cosy bunch :) cheers, ryan - Original Message - From: Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was laid out all week with a stomach virus-thingy that I think I picked up from the Indian food we had at tv's place:-p http://home.mindspring.com/~skofteland/id10.html Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Hi Frank ... People are people ... some have useful arms and legs, others don't and may need help to get around (wheel chair, crutches, what have you). Some may look pretty scruffy, or appear to be drunk, but they are just people, and you're not exploiting them any more or less than you may be some guy in a suit (who, just for the sake of argument, may have some other, perhaps less noticeable problem), who, it seems, you'd have little or no problem talking with or photographing. People in wheel chairs, people who have disabilities, who don't fit some norm are just people. You ride a bike, they travel in a wheelchair. Treat 'em the same way. In most cases they'll appreciate your interest since they are often shunned. And, if you can get to talking with them, which is generally helpful BEFORE making a photo, you'll learn about them, and their life, and their problems, and maybe learn a few things about your self as well. But, since this is the PDML, maybe it should just be said that it'll improve the photos you do make. Y'know, I'll sometimes sit on the sidewalk alongside the street panhandlers, or sit alongside someone in a cafe or restaurant, and just strike up a conversation, and see where it goes. One of the most difficult photos I've taken was of a guy in a wheel chair ... he had no feet, and he was sitting in his chair, panhandling, right in front of a shop called the Shoe Pavillion, in the window of which were dozens of pairs of shoes that he could never wear. I couldn't pass up that shot, but I couldn't just sneak a shot either, so I struck up a conversation with him, and he told me how his situation came to be. At that point I asked if I could make a few photos ... But don't hesitate to grab a shot without asking permission. You can always discuss their situation afterwards. http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/eric-at-work.html This guy is homeless, but I discovered that he's a hard worker. Here he is with just a small portion of the plastic bottles he'd collected that day, busy removing the caps, emptying their contents. After talking with him for a while I learned where he sells the recyclables he collects, where the best free meals in Berkeley are, who some of his colleagues and competition is, about how much he earns each day. Thing is, Frank, unless you talk to the people you're uncomfortable talking with, you'll always remain uncomfortable around them. You'll never really know who they are. What I discovered about Eric is that he's a very hard worker, and seemingly a very responsible and caring person. He's not just some slacker who's on the dole ... he works every day. shel frank theriault wrote: But, here's my point (again, there is one... g). I tend to take photos of able-bodied people. I don't take photos of obese people, out of fear that they'll be offended. Same thing with people in wheel chairs, or street people who are in very rough shape, or clearly intoxicated, or who are in some other way disabled or disadvantaged. But, since I take lots of photos of normally-abled folks, am I not discriminating against non-beautiful people? Not to take it to the extreme suggested by Marnie in an earlier post, but I often wonder if by ~not~ taking photos of such people, I'm actually discriminating against them in a certain way?
