Epson 3200 (was: New Scanner)

[Derby Chang]

JC,

Sorry for the late response, but I've only just been catching up on PDML 
mails since Nov.

Love the 3200. No big issues with it, scans beautifully. Only minor 
quibbles:

* Wish the 120 film holder could do strips instead of one frame at a time.

* The Epson photoshop driver could be better. Can't scan at an arbitrary 
resolution - I would like to do 2400dpi for small proof prints from neg 
scans, but it only lets you do 1200 or 3200 (I can downsample in 
photoshop, but then thats double much more work).  On the plus side, the 
12-frames a scan is very useful for proofing. I've downloaded v1.25 of 
the driver and there doesn't seem to be that much of a change. The 
software dust removal now seems to work sort of, but is more trouble 
than it's worth IMHO - some nasty artifacts pop up with detailed areas 
like hair and specular highlights.

*Silverfast LE is pretty handy for serious scans, although it only seems 
to do one scan at a time (but moving the marquee each scan is not _that_ 
much of a hass). Don't use the dust removal much in this either. The big 
plus is that it has profiles for different neg types. Saves mucho time 
colour balancing. Wish it could do 48-bit scans' tho.

* Wish it scanned to the edge of the glass, only because that would make 
it easier to align things against the bezel.

I think I've saved its cost already just from not having to develop all 
the "mucking around" rolls I've been shooting lately, as well as the 
weekly 8x12s that I print at home instead of handing over to the labs. I 
can't compare to a proper 4000dpi film scan, but it looks pretty good to 
me compared to the wet prints I used to spend a fortune on.

D

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc

Re: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom Reese"
Subject: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

I have come to the conclusion that the casual photographer can no longer
protect his copy rights in any meaningful way.
I haven't bothered trying for at least 10 years.
I just hand over the film or files to the client at the final payment.

William Robb


> I shot some B & G portraits a little while ago at cost as a favor to a
> photographer friend. I was very pleased with the pictures as were the B &
G.
> I was going to give the B & G the professional lab enlargements at cost
too.
> I hoped to get a few more portrait jobs out of the assignment through word
> of mouth. I shot the pictures with medium format (non Pentax) and they
were
> tack sharp. The enlargements would have been beautiful. The numbskull
> (deleted much stronger verbiage) bride took the 5x5 proofs to some jiffy
> print outfit and scanned them then got enlargements made from the scans to
> save a few dollars.
>
> The more I think about this the angrier I get. The B & G got greatly
> inferior prints that don't in any way reflect the quality of my work. They
> passed up a great bargain and I feel like my reputation will be damaged
> every time someone looks at those lousy prints.
>
> I guess it's true that no good deed goes unpunished.
>
> Tom Reese
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Processing color negative film

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Miers"
Subject: Processing color negative film


> Hi
>
> All this talk of film getting harder and harder to get processing has made
> me think that maybe I should pursue this idea of mine to process my own.
I
> only need to process the film into negatives and have no need of prints
from
> a lab as I will scan and digitally process from there.
>
> I've searched somewhat for info on this and haven't found out what I need
to
> know or what equipment I need to buy.  If anyone is selling this equipment
I
> might be very interested also, but first I need to get a handle on what
I'm
> getting myself into and how much it will strain my wallet.
>
> I know many of you don't like the time and effort involved with all this
> scanning etc, but I truly get a much better sense of satisfaction with
this
> process then just picking up my pictures from the lab.  I feel that
> processing the negatives as well would not only make me more independent,
> but also enhance the satisfaction I get from this.
>
> Any advice on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

I wouldn't sweat it until I was seeing actual signs of loss of service.
C-41 film is pretty easy.
A pan of water in the kitchen sink will give close enough temperature
control for it, and you only have to hold the temperature steady for just
over 3 minutes, after that it isn't so critical.
E-6 is a lot harder, it is best if you have some sort of processing machine.
Jobo is a very good choice for the home darkroom enthusiast, as it is
compatable with pretty much any common process.

William Robb

Re: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Brogden"
Subject: Re: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?



> How does the work for hire law work in Canada and the US?  Does the
> photographer automatically get copyright for her work, or does she have to
> specify in the contract that she retains all rights to the negatives and
> proofs and that the client is not allowed to have prints made?

In Canada, in the absence of a contract, copyright is owned by the person
who has paid for the pictures to be taken.
Generally, this will be the client, as most photographers charge some sort
of shooting fee.

If there is a written contract, then whatever is in it will generally be
taken as an agreement, though if the agreement is obviously unfair, the
courts may overturn it.
If it gets that far, it has become a matter of principle, not money.

William Robb

Re: What do you think?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Anthony Farr"

Subject: Re: What do you think?



> >
>
>
 I would expect to see a continuing supply of pro films from
> them , for the statutory period of support.

I wouldn't, based on Fuji's history in the market. Fuji is a high volume
market company.
They don't offer much support to the niche user.
When a product stops making money, Fuji will drop it pretty quickly.

William Robb

Re: What do you think?

[Jim Apilado]

A friend just came home to visit from Japan. He showed me his new camera.  A
digital? No. An APS camera.  He loves the prints it makes.  I couldn't
believe he hadn't gone digital since digital is all the rage nowadays.

Jim A.

> From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:18:35 -0500
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: What do you think?
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:18:22 -0500
> 
> you are being extremely foolish if you believe the transparency doesn't
> undergo manipulation to get it to print right. i work with the print side of
> the trade. what can be done on film can be done in digitally if they take
> the trouble to, including making it look like any specific film you want
> from any specific format and through any particular lens.
> 
> Herb...
> - Original Message -
> From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 10:34 PM
> Subject: Re: What do you think?
> 
> 
>> Also, they control everything about the shoot so thoroughly that that big
> virgin
>> tranny needs no manipulation prior to prepress. And therefore there is no
>> economic advantage to shooting digitally.
> 
> 

Re: What do you think?

[graywolf]

Hell, even the junk yards mostly don't support cars more than 7 years old 
anymore. There are parts for my '94 S-10 Blazer that you can not get anywhere. 
Couldn't get soom trim parts even 4 years ago and had to fabricate something to 
substitute. Luckily most of the drive train parts are still used in current GM 
vehicles. As far as I know the only parts that the car companies are required by 
law to support for 15 years are emissions control. Safety (restraint system) 
parts are I think 7 years. Otherwise you are pretty much SOL.

--

Paul Stenquist wrote:

I don't know if it applies to all US industries, but car companies have 
to support product for fifteen years.
On Dec 24, 2003, at 10:35 AM, graywolf wrote:

50 years ago companies in the US were required to support their 
products for a minimum of 7 years after production ceased. I do not 
think that is so any longer. Strangely, we seem to have quietly done 
away with most of the consumer protection laws here in the US during 
the past couple of decades.

--

Anthony Farr wrote:

Not at all, Bob.
The specialist camera makers can shelter under the umbrella of the 
film and
camera manufacturers.  So long as Kodak and Fuji sell film cameras the
~hardware only~ manufacturers can rest assured that film will be 
available
for the required period.
But on the day that no film manufacturer also sells a film camera 
there will
be much rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic.  I predict that no
company would risk the legal ramifications of selling a film camera 
if Kodak
and Fuji also withdraw from film camera sales.
Like I said, while Kodak and Fuji sell film ~cameras~, film has ten 
years
minimum life expectancy.
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message - From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Hi,

that would not be a very clever argument. It would imply that the
camera makers such as Pentax also had to be film makers. Or that
kitchen equipment makers also had to be food retailers; printer
manufacturers would have to be paper makers. Law-makers would have to
be Fagins. Cup makers would have to guarantee a water supply.
--
Cheers,
Bob
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."



--
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: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[graywolf]

I recommend doing it as TV says, charge a service fee for you work, "I charge 
$1000 (or whatever) to shoot a wedding which covers my time, equipment, my 
assistant, film, processing, and proofs". Then let them do what they want with 
the negatives, one of the the options being for you to get professional prints 
made for them for a modest fee, "I will supervise the lab and check their prints 
for quality and make them redo any that are not up to my standards for 15% of 
their cost of the print order".

If you are a very artistic type and figure your printing and selection is 
important too, you can simply charge a package price. "I will shoot your wedding 
produce an album similar to my samples with X number of prints for $2000."

Those ways of working seem to be the only viable options in today's world. Note 
the both are basically a flat fee job. The days of shooting for little or 
nothing then making your money on the prints are pretty much gone, if they ever 
existed. I never met anyone making a living doing it that way although I have 
met many trying to do so. It seems to work only for guys writing books on how to 
make money shooting weddings (grin).

Remember no matter what you do for a living, if your customers (or employer) are 
not willing to pay your wage, plus costs, you can not make a living working for 
them. That is a simple fact of life.

--

Cotty wrote:

On 24/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:


The
numbskull
(deleted much stronger verbiage) bride took the 5x5 proofs
to some jiffy
print outfit and scanned them then got enlargements made
from the scans to
save a few dollars.
I feel your pain.

I used to think b+g's were just cheap, but I think in general they
just don't know any better. I have found that if you explain to people
that a) this sort of thing results in crappy prints, b) it's a federal
offense, and c) this is how you make a living, and you make sure they
sign a contract that states the above, then you'll have fewer
problems.
Now, how did you find out she made copy prints? You can still read her
the riot act.
The last issue is that it sounds like this was done for free, more or
less. This may or may not say something about how she values
photography. Some people don't...it sounds like you value your work
and effort more than she does. The way to avoid this sort of client is
higher prices, or at least an *explicit* understanding of what your
value is. I still do the occasional cheap gig for friends, but these
days I make sure they understand what they're getting, what sort of
work is involved on my end, what's expected of them, etc.


Also, I would imagine it helps a tiny bit to ensure there's plenty of
text across everything but the faces like 'SAMPLE' or 'PROOF' - in fact
also lots of small text as a few large letters are pretty easy to dispose
of in Photoshop
.02



Cheers,
  Cotty
___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

--
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: What do you think?

[Otis Wright]

What are you including in costs.   Direct, burdened, G&A, R&D deprec. etc.

Otis Wright

Herb Chong wrote:

does high margin mean double, triple, or more for your cost of a roll of
film plus processing?
Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: What do you think?

 

I take a different view. Consumer photography, and probably most
professional photography, will quickly become exclusively digital,
for all intents and purposes. Film photography is likely to be more
like B&W has been for the last 40 years - a niche for enthusiasts. The
film that will be available will be a low volume / high margin product
available from specialist outlets, and processed at a small number of
labs who cater for enthusiasts. Much like Kodachrome and Scala
(although they happen to be the cheapest films for me). It will be
   

expensive,
 

but high quality because the enthusiasts will only want high quality.
   



 

Re: Slightly Dodgy looking Auction

[Ann Sanfedele]

graywolf wrote:

> Old American joke. The Brooklyn Bridge between Manhattan island and Brooklyn was
> started in 1867 just after the Civil War and not completed until 1883. There
> were many people killed in the construction of it including the designer. Most
> of them from a mysterious caission disease, now know to have been the bends
> caused by working at depths as much as 78 feet below sea level.
>
> At the time it was built it was the longest open span bridge in the world. It
> was also the first steel cable suspension bridge, and had the highest towers of
> any bridge (200ft). The New York (Manhattan) side tower was built on sand as
> they never found bedrock though having gone down to that 78 feet below sea level
> mentioned above.
>
> It was the biggest engineering feat in the world at the time, but it took so
> long, had so many problems, and cost so much that "buying the Brooklyn bridge"
> became a joke meaning buying something that was very expensive and would never
> be completed. In other words a very stupid thing to buy. Most people use the
> joke without having any real idea how it came about.
>
> http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/bbridge/bbridge.html
>
> --
>

Glad to hear that story, as I've often used the expression  - to mean selling
something
that one does not own.  I think that is the more popular meaning these days.

ann

Re: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[graywolf]

Been there, done that, never got no effing tee shirt.

I feel your pain, but found out it is lot better to work for people who say, 
"That's resonable. Not cheap, but reasonable." as did one of my first corporate 
clients way back when. Just something one has to learn from experience, I guess.

--

Tom Reese wrote:
I shot some B & G portraits a little while ago at cost as a favor to a
photographer friend. I was very pleased with the pictures as were the B & G.
I was going to give the B & G the professional lab enlargements at cost too.
I hoped to get a few more portrait jobs out of the assignment through word
of mouth. I shot the pictures with medium format (non Pentax) and they were
tack sharp. The enlargements would have been beautiful. The numbskull
(deleted much stronger verbiage) bride took the 5x5 proofs to some jiffy
print outfit and scanned them then got enlargements made from the scans to
save a few dollars.
The more I think about this the angrier I get. The B & G got greatly
inferior prints that don't in any way reflect the quality of my work. They
passed up a great bargain and I feel like my reputation will be damaged
every time someone looks at those lousy prints.
I guess it's true that no good deed goes unpunished.

Tom Reese




--
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: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[Robert Chiasson]

When I did a few weddings back in the 70's (along with my normal PR work),
he who paid for the job owned the copyright, but he who did the shooting
owned the negatives as "part of the artistic process" (without right to
reproduce, unless he had a model telease).

So I guess it comes down to what's written in the contract - if there was
one.

UMMV
--
Robert


- Original Message -
From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?


>
> How does the work for hire law work in Canada and the US?  Does the
> photographer automatically get copyright for her work, or does she have to
> specify in the contract that she retains all rights to the negatives and
> proofs and that the client is not allowed to have prints made?
>
> chris
>

Re: A Safe & Happy Christmas

[Chris Brogden]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, Anthony Farr wrote:

> If you fancy too much to drink, please don't drive.  If you need to
> drive, please don't drink too much.  I'll be drinking Hahn Premium Lite,
> a low alcohol Lager brewed in Sydney, and I'll raise my first one to the
> folks at the PDML in about eight hours time.

Started drinking at 8:30 this morning at work.  :)  Had some beer,
Baileys, white wine, peach Schnapps and gin (separately, not mixed!), then
sold some cameras while in a very relaxed state.  I love working Christmas
Eve.  :)

chris

Re: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[Chris Brogden]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Tom Reese wrote:

> The numbskull (deleted much stronger verbiage) bride took the 5x5 proofs
> to some jiffy print outfit and scanned them then got enlargements made
> from the scans to save a few dollars.

This is illegal.  No lab should ever make prints from wedding proofs if
the clients don't have the negatives or a signed letter from the
photographer granting them permission to reproduce the photos.

How does the work for hire law work in Canada and the US?  Does the
photographer automatically get copyright for her work, or does she have to
specify in the contract that she retains all rights to the negatives and
proofs and that the client is not allowed to have prints made?

chris

Re: Happy Holidays to All

[Paul Stenquist]

On Dec 24, 2003, at 6:25 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:.
back to the kitchen and the duck now...

annsan


Hi Ann,
Good luck with the duck. I love duck, particularly as served at Shun 
Lee Palace on 53rd Street. I'm doing a goose this year. I've eaten 
goose in Germany serveral times and always enjoyed it, but this will be 
the first attempt at roasting on. Six dollars a pound by the way. We'll 
also have some figgy pudding. I guess you might call it a Dickens 
Christmas.
Paul

Re: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[Pat White]

Most wedding pros here only let the B&G take away the proofs if they've
bought them.  They select the ones for enlargement at the studio precisely
to discourage scanning and cheap copies.  I assume your proofs had your
copyright stamp on the back.  Most one-hour photo places won't copy
copyrighted work.  One pro that I know has little gold stickers marked
"studio recommends" or something similar, which she sticks on the front of
the best proofs.  This helps the customer choose, and may discourage
copying.

The problem may be in the attitude of customers toward photos in general.
You want to sell them a high-quality keepsake that they will treasure, while
they may just want a half-decent record of the event, at the cheapest price
possible.  It's a good idea to clarify where they stand before you take the
job.

Pat White

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Robert Gonzalez]

Thats a big "if".  Whats not a big "if" is that I have an *istD now with 
no prime under 85mm and one zoom 15-30 that work with the camera.  So I 
don't need to buy "a bunch of new lenses", I need at least one lens 
somewhere around 28-50 mm to fill that gap.

rg

Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Robert Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Yeah, I was thinking of getting either that (FA35/2) or the 16-45 DA 
lens.  My 28 & 50 mm are M lenses, so either I have to use them in 
manual mode, which means a little more hassle and less spontaneity, or I 
have to use my 15-30 or 85 and compensate for my FOV/location somehow. 
But its not the same as having the right lens generally.


If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future,
the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying
a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon.
Kind regards
Kevin

Re: Holiday wishes from the List Guy

[Pat White]

Many thanks, Doug, for your work in maintaining this forum for a pretty
motley community of camera and photo enthusiasts.  Your work is really
appreciated.

As well, best wishes to you and yours for a great Christmas and a wonderful
New Year!

Pat White

Re: Happy Holidays to All

[Ann Sanfedele]

Paul Stenquist wrote:

> Whether you celebrate Christmas, Chanukah or another holiday, I hope
> you have a great one. This is my fifth holiday season as a list member,
> and I've come to enjoy the company of this cyberspace family very much.
> Best wishes to all.
> Paul Stenquist

Very sweetly put, Paul - and I second it  (lazy person that I am:) )

I think this is my 3rd year on the list.

back to the kitchen and the duck now...

annsan

Re: What do you think?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Dec 24, 2003, at 5:23 PM, Herb Chong wrote:

does high margin mean double, triple, or more for your cost of a roll 
of
film plus processing?


I don't thinks so. The film manufacturers will still want to achieve 
decent volume. And since they've eliminated R&D, the technology is 
already paid for. I doubt if prices for film will soar. No more than 
prices for oil paint soared when photography was invented.

Season's Greetings

[John Coyle]

For those who celebrate Christmas, have a happy one: for those who don't,
may this time of year be happy and joyful for you too.  For all, now is the
time when family is the most important thing of all.


John Coyle
(This may be the first message written on Christmas Day itself, with the
advantage of the International Date Line!  Written at 9:10 am, outside
temperature 32C, inside only marginally better, except in the office where
it's a very pleasant 24!)
Brisbane, Australia

RE: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[Cotty]

On 24/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>>  The
>> numbskull
>> (deleted much stronger verbiage) bride took the 5x5 proofs
>> to some jiffy
>> print outfit and scanned them then got enlargements made
>> from the scans to
>> save a few dollars.
>
>I feel your pain.
>
>I used to think b+g's were just cheap, but I think in general they
>just don't know any better. I have found that if you explain to people
>that a) this sort of thing results in crappy prints, b) it's a federal
>offense, and c) this is how you make a living, and you make sure they
>sign a contract that states the above, then you'll have fewer
>problems.
>
>Now, how did you find out she made copy prints? You can still read her
>the riot act.
>
>The last issue is that it sounds like this was done for free, more or
>less. This may or may not say something about how she values
>photography. Some people don't...it sounds like you value your work
>and effort more than she does. The way to avoid this sort of client is
>higher prices, or at least an *explicit* understanding of what your
>value is. I still do the occasional cheap gig for friends, but these
>days I make sure they understand what they're getting, what sort of
>work is involved on my end, what's expected of them, etc.

Also, I would imagine it helps a tiny bit to ensure there's plenty of
text across everything but the faces like 'SAMPLE' or 'PROOF' - in fact
also lots of small text as a few large letters are pretty easy to dispose
of in Photoshop

.02




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

RE: pentax service questions

[Alan Chan]

I don't have this camera but usually the CF door should be easy to remove. 
If you can do this yourself, it might be better to buy a new piece from them 
and fix it yourself. Parts like this should be cheap.

Yours regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
My *ist D had an accidental meeting with the dining room floor
yesterday when my camera strap caught onto a chair as I was picking it
up.  Functionally the camera appears to be fine, but the CF door took
the brunt of the fall and is now cracked.
I called Pentax Service and just got a recording telling me to mail
the camera to them with a note of what went wrong and my return
address and a telephone number.  Is this their normal service model?
It seems odd not to talk to a human about the problem, get an estimate
up front, find out how long service takes, and get some sort of
service RMA number.
I'm not real excited about mailing a $1500 camera into what could just
be a black hole.  How long are typical service times?
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Kevin Waterson]

This one time, at band camp, "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> think of the opportunities they never captured because they locked
> themselves in to one FOV. i have 35mm lenses covering from 15mm to 500mm and
> there are many things i do that are simply impossible without such a range.
> i'm not a niche photographer.

If the APS size sensor is to be the norm and the 24x36mm sensor the Medium Format
size sensor, perhaps we could see the end of 35mm

Kevin

-- 
 __  
(_ \ 
 _) )            
|  /  / _  ) / _  | / ___) / _  )
| |  ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / 
|_|   \) \_||_| \) \)
Kevin Waterson
Port Macquarie, Australia

Re: What do you think?

[Herb Chong]

that to me says they don't know how to use their digital camera tools
adequately yet. if they are happy with the resolution of current digital
solutions, you can simulate the rest of film's characteristics digitally.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: What do you think?


> But most also shoot film concurrently because
> they say it gives a different look and the additional step in the
> process -- the scan from film to digital -- provides additional
> control.

Re: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[Herb Chong]

what did your contract say? if your contract doesn't forbid this, you have
no legal recourse. if you have no contract doing work for hire

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 3:00 PM
Subject: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?


> I shot some B & G portraits a little while ago at cost as a favor to a
> photographer friend. I was very pleased with the pictures as were the B &
G.
> I was going to give the B & G the professional lab enlargements at cost
too.
> I hoped to get a few more portrait jobs out of the assignment through word
> of mouth. I shot the pictures with medium format (non Pentax) and they
were
> tack sharp. The enlargements would have been beautiful. The numbskull
> (deleted much stronger verbiage) bride took the 5x5 proofs to some jiffy
> print outfit and scanned them then got enlargements made from the scans to
> save a few dollars.
>
> The more I think about this the angrier I get. The B & G got greatly
> inferior prints that don't in any way reflect the quality of my work. They
> passed up a great bargain and I feel like my reputation will be damaged
> every time someone looks at those lousy prints.

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Herb Chong]

think of the opportunities they never captured because they locked
themselves in to one FOV. i have 35mm lenses covering from 15mm to 500mm and
there are many things i do that are simply impossible without such a range.
i'm not a niche photographer.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Leonard Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?


> Hey, I know pros that used medium and large format cameras for years and
> never owned anything other than the normal lens for their cameras. It
> certainly never kept them from making great pictures or earning a living.
> They zoomed with their feet or they cropped under the enlarger.  Rollei
TLRs
> have made a lot of great pictures and still continue to do so.

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Herb Chong]

the incremental cost for a full frame sensor in medium format is a lot less
than for a 35mm system.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Steve Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?


> So then they`ll just put in a 24X36 sensor in 645`s?
> Doesn`t make sense to me.
> Steve Larson
> Redondo Beach, California

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Herb Chong]

planning a several billion dollar experiment just to test the waters isn't
in the realm of what most corporations can afford, even spread over 10
years. R&D costs are substantial and building a manufacturing line isn't
cheap. the Olympus E-1 is such an experiment and i think it is unlikely to
succeed unless they get some more cameras out there very quickly at cheaper
prices and at much higher resolution. if the E-1 had been introduced at its
current list price with an 8 megapixel sensor, it might have had a lot more
chance of suceeding. right now, i see it as a non-event.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Chiasson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?


> This is what I believe. Manufactures like to have an experimental run that
> can be walked away from in case of problems before committing to new
> technology, and that's how I view the entire APS experiment - just proving
> the manufacturing technology for future purposes. Yes they are rumoured to
> have made billions on APS - profitable experiments are well received!

Re: What do you think?

[Herb Chong]

does high margin mean double, triple, or more for your cost of a roll of
film plus processing?

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: What do you think?


> I take a different view. Consumer photography, and probably most
> professional photography, will quickly become exclusively digital,
> for all intents and purposes. Film photography is likely to be more
> like B&W has been for the last 40 years - a niche for enthusiasts. The
> film that will be available will be a low volume / high margin product
> available from specialist outlets, and processed at a small number of
> labs who cater for enthusiasts. Much like Kodachrome and Scala
> (although they happen to be the cheapest films for me). It will be
expensive,
> but high quality because the enthusiasts will only want high quality.

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Herb Chong]

if you have sensor capable of full medium format quality, why would you want
to have an interchangeable back for 35mm film? the number of people wanting
such would be vanishingly small which means very high price.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Thomas Stach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?


> Hello,
>
> if you think large chips are going to replace medium-format,
> why then not make a body in MF-style (cubic body with perhaps
> interchangeable backs for digi& 35mm-film, interchangeable viewfinders
> like prism and waistlevel of course) that takes 35mm lenses?
> There once was the Rollei 3003 in exactly that style...well, that would
> be a fantastic digital one!

Re: Vs: OT - Decerebrate Turnip

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo]

"Leonard Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>>What is Berliner Weisse, then?

> Wheat flour used for making doughnuts?

Wheat is right, but it's beer, not flour.  :-)

-tih
-- 
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway
www.eunet.no  T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901

Re[4]: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[Bruce Dayton]

On a wedding I do charge extra to deal with the order processing.

In general I have found little to no resistance to clients
understanding that they should be paying for a service.  The service
is to take the wedding photos or family portraits.  Most of them are
quite happy to see the breakout of my time/service vs prints/lab
charges.

Perhaps if I was doing this full time as a profession, I might have
different feelings.  Hard to say.  So far it is working.  I get my
money up front, I don't really care or worry about how much they order
and the couple seem to order more (maybe cause they don't feel like I
am gouging them for the prints).  They seem very good about separating
my fee from the prints.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce



Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 12:58:46 PM, you wrote:

>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> Not an easy thing to deal with.  Cheap people are just cheap!  One
>> route that I have gone is to quit trying to make money on the prints
>> and just charge up front for the job/time.

t> The only quibble I have with this is that order processing is so time
t> consuming and annoying. If you really want to go this route, make
t> *all* your money up front and *give* them the negs or high res files.

t> tv

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Mark Roberts]

Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Mark Roberts wrote:
>> There's an inexorable trend for sensors to increase in size and decrease
>> in price.
>
>A 24x36mm chunk of silicon wafer will always be a 24x36mm chunk of 
>silicon wafer, and there's no real reason that I can see to expect the 
>price of silicon to plummet.  Yields will probably go up slightly, but 
>CCDs aren't pushing the limits of feature size in the way that CPUs are, 
>so I wouldn't expect that to have much of a price impact.
>
>The general reason why digital devices keep plummeting in price is 
>because advancing technology allows them to be made smaller, and smaller 
>is cheaper.  Fix the size of the device and you lose that advantage. 
>You can still get "economies of scale" of course - up to a point, the 
>cost of your product decreases if you can sell it to more people.

Cost reduction will come from three factors (in increasing order of
significance):

Improvement in yield
Economies of scale
New, less expensive, manufacturing processes

Canon has been hammering away on #3 and their success has helped achieve
#2. Everyone else is lagging behind for now. Just wait until others
begin to catch up. We ain't seen nuthin' yet.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[Paul Stenquist]

I've been burned in a similar way many times. i don't give a shit. Let 
them have crap if they want it. I make the pictures. If they want good 
prints I'll provide them. If they want xerox copies, the hell with 
them.
paul
On Dec 24, 2003, at 3:00 PM, Tom Reese wrote:

I shot some B & G portraits a little while ago at cost as a favor to a
photographer friend. I was very pleased with the pictures as were the 
B & G.
I was going to give the B & G the professional lab enlargements at 
cost too.
I hoped to get a few more portrait jobs out of the assignment through 
word
of mouth. I shot the pictures with medium format (non Pentax) and they 
were
tack sharp. The enlargements would have been beautiful. The numbskull
(deleted much stronger verbiage) bride took the 5x5 proofs to some 
jiffy
print outfit and scanned them then got enlargements made from the 
scans to
save a few dollars.

The more I think about this the angrier I get. The B & G got greatly
inferior prints that don't in any way reflect the quality of my work. 
They
passed up a great bargain and I feel like my reputation will be damaged
every time someone looks at those lousy prints.

I guess it's true that no good deed goes unpunished.

Tom Reese

Happy Holidays to All

[Paul Stenquist]

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Chanukah or another holiday, I hope 
you have a great one. This is my fifth holiday season as a list member, 
and I've come to enjoy the company of this cyberspace family very much. 
Best wishes to all.
Paul Stenquist

Re: MAAARY CHRITMOO...

[Paul Stenquist]

Merry Christmas to  you and yours Tanya. I was especially taken by your 
remark that you will all be getting sunburnt. I spent New Years down 
under one year, and it was just a mind blowing experience. It kind of 
reverses one's whole perspective. Have a great day. I hope all your 
children sleep until at least seven and are overjoyed when they awake. 
My kids are all grown up now, but I miss the excitement of Christmas 
morning. Happy, happy.

On Dec 24, 2003, at 10:46 AM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:

Well, it has been Christmas day here for exactly 1 hour and 36 
minutes.  I
have finished playing Santa, blown up a jumping castle, wrapped many
presents, filled the Santa Claus Pinata, nibbled the cookies and tipped
Santa's milk down the sink, emptied the water left out for the 
"reindeer"
and we have just finished carving "sled marks" into our (new!) front 
lawn...
I am now going to eat and watch some mind-numbing late night tv for a 
while
to "wind down" before probably drifting off to sleep in front of the 
tv, to
be woken (with a sore neck from sleeping on the sofa) by three very 
excited
mini-Pentaxians at around 5am (eek, that is only 3.5 hours away!), and 
then,
it will be ALL SYSTEMS GO for approximately 15 hours when we will all 
fall
into a heap as a result of too much eating, drinking, getting sunburnt 
and
being MERRY!

So, a Merry Aussie Christmas to you all, and lets hope the big red 
fella
brings you all something for those camera bags, preferably with a big 
"P" on
it, but I guess being Christmas and all, we can accept "rip off" 
brands too,
those starting with N, and C and the like...   

I LOVE Christmas, but, bloody hell, it wears you out...  I will be 
floating
around until late in the afternoon and then will be back online in a 
couple
of days, but might need a day or two sleep to recover from tonights 
effort,
and all of tomorrow's "festivities" (we are driving to Mackay, which 
is 3.5
hours away after lunch to visit with the in-laws, and that in itself 
is an
exhausting task - yes, both the drive and the "visiting the in-laws" 
bit!
lol)... So, hope you can all handle my "absence" (hehe), and don't go
forgetting the "nice" bit in favour of too much "naughty"...

With lots of Christmas cheer and three very excited cherubs,
tan.x.

Re: What do you think?

[Paul Stenquist]

I don't know if it applies to all US industries, but car companies have 
to support product for fifteen years.
On Dec 24, 2003, at 10:35 AM, graywolf wrote:

50 years ago companies in the US were required to support their 
products for a minimum of 7 years after production ceased. I do not 
think that is so any longer. Strangely, we seem to have quietly done 
away with most of the consumer protection laws here in the US during 
the past couple of decades.

--

Anthony Farr wrote:

Not at all, Bob.
The specialist camera makers can shelter under the umbrella of the 
film and
camera manufacturers.  So long as Kodak and Fuji sell film cameras the
~hardware only~ manufacturers can rest assured that film will be 
available
for the required period.
But on the day that no film manufacturer also sells a film camera 
there will
be much rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic.  I predict that 
no
company would risk the legal ramifications of selling a film camera 
if Kodak
and Fuji also withdraw from film camera sales.
Like I said, while Kodak and Fuji sell film ~cameras~, film has ten 
years
minimum life expectancy.
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message - From: "Bob Walkden" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,

that would not be a very clever argument. It would imply that the
camera makers such as Pentax also had to be film makers. Or that
kitchen equipment makers also had to be food retailers; printer
manufacturers would have to be paper makers. Law-makers would have to
be Fagins. Cup makers would have to guarantee a water supply.
--
Cheers,
Bob
--
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: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Paul Stenquist]

If memory serves me right, a 127 on a 4x5 is much tighter than a 31 mm 
on a 35 mm camera.. But i'll have to get out both cameras and do some 
visual comparisons to be sure. In any case, the reason photographers 
tend to communicate in terms of 35mm focal lengths is because the 
customers understand that. When I shoot a special request for my stock 
house, they frequently ask for it in terms of 35mm lensing although 
they know I shot medium format for most of their work. It's just a 
common language.
On Dec 24, 2003, at 10:18 AM, graywolf wrote:

Hum? I figure that 127 is the equivalent of a 31mm on 135 camera. And 
the 105 is the equivalent of a 46mm. I have always found it strange 
that people do this stuff, because one works differently in different 
formats, one tends to use much closer points of view with a large 
format camera and thus shorter relative focal length lenses. 
Furthermore prior to the 70's when there was a 35mm explosion and it 
became the norm no one hardly thought in those terms. As Shel says it 
seems to be a dumbing down factor (I am ignorant of anything but 35mm 
make it understandable to me without my having to think).

For anyone interested the old Press/View Camera rules of thumb are:

Normal = diagonal of the film. Approximately 43mm on 135 format. 150mm 
on a press camera.

Wide angle = the short side of the film. Approximately 24mm on 135. 
90mm on a press camera.

Wide field = the long side of the negative. Approx 35mm on 135. 
127-135 on a press camera.

Portrait = the sum of the short and long sides of the film. 
Approximately 60mm. Usually 200mm on a press camera (that is almost 
exactly what you get from a 50mm lens on 135 cropped to an 8x10 print, 
BTW).

Telephoto = Twice (or more) the long side of the film. Approximately 
70mm on 135. 250-380mm on a press camera.

You will note that those are all shorter than we normally think of 
them in 135 format, though the WA as gotten down to about right in 
recent years.

Once again manufactures's of P&S digitals started using 35mm 
equivalent focal length because there are no standards for sensor size 
which can vary from the equivalent of a Minox to an APS negative size 
from camera to camera. It is simply a way to compare the zoom lens 
equivalent between disparitent cameras. It has no optical meaning 
other than that.

--

Paul Stenquist wrote:

On Dec 23, 2003, at 8:19 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Y'know, it's funny how, when using other formats, rarely is it said 
that an 80mm
lens for a 6x6 is "equivalent" to a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera.  
When's the
last time you heard a 4x5 user ask "What's that lens in 35mm terms?"
Hi Shel,
I've heard that a lot, and I frequently use 35mm focal lengths as a 
mental point of comparison. For example, I know that my 127mm 4x5 
lens is somewhere around 45mm in 35 terms and my 105mm 6x7 lens is 
approximately the same as a "normal" 35mm lens. I work in advertising 
and I've found that most art directors understand 35mm angle of view, 
so when working in other formats they frequently ask, "What's that in 
35mm?" The same is true on television shoots where 35mm lenses are 
closer to APS or the current crop of digitals in focal length vs. 
angle of view (because the neg is actually half of what we call 
35mm.) The still camera 35mm focal lengths are a reference point for 
many working pros and their clients.
Paul
--
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: What do you think?

[Mark Roberts]

"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Processing availablity will be the killer for colour negative film, as you
>say. As film volumes start to drop, players will start to get out of the
>processing game. They won't have any choice. Processors require a certain
>minimum volume of product to maintain chemical control, and once that
>minimum volume is no longer being met, it is no longer viable to offer the
>service.
>As the number of labs offering film processing diminishes, more consumers
>will go to digital out of either necessity or convenience.
>
>This has the potential to snowball very quickly, especially since the
>processing industry would be quite happy if film went away for good, and is
>actively behind bringing digital to the masses as quickly as they can sign
>lease agreements.

Yep, and the minilabs in non-photo stores will be amongst the first to
go. They're the ones with the least tolerance for dealing with these
things. (And many of them also have the added incentive of selling
digital point-and-shoots.)

>> >   On a positive note, I think quality black & white film will remain a
>> > viable niche market.
>>
>> I took some Tri-X to a local professional lab a few weeks ago and they
>> more or less laughed at me. They hadn't processed any for 3 years. 

I've *never* had a lab process black & white for me. Many other people
who shoot B&W are the same way. That's the factor that will help it
survive. I expect digital to equal silver halide B&W in terms of image
quality within a few years, but there's a certain panache to a genuine
"silver gelatine" print, even if it's largely snobbery.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: What do you think?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Dec 24, 2003, at 8:01 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:

  More importantly to serious photography enthusiasts like ourselves is
the matter of *what* film remains available. As high-end photography
goes almost exclusively digital, I'd expect the film emulsions that
remain in production to be those made for weekend point-and-shoot users
I would think that the opposite will prove true. Point and shoot will 
be fully digital within a couple of years. But some serious 
photographers will want to continue working with film because it 
provides some other dimensions. I've seen some of that already among 
the high dollar car shooters. Most shoot digital some of the time or 
even most of the time. But most also shoot film concurrently because 
they say it gives a different look and the additional step in the 
process -- the scan from film to digital -- provides additional 
control. What's more you have the Leica crowd and their counterparts in 
the rest of the photographic world. They are dedicated film users but 
not point and shoot people. Hey, I remember that just three months ago 
or so the Pentax crowd was wedded to film. Now they're proclaiming it 
dead. Don't forget digital has been around for quite a few years. It's 
only new here at Pentas. It's old news everywhere else. Yes, it will be 
the dominant medium, but it won't replace film completely for quite 
some time -- if ever. A hundred  years ago a lot of people thought that 
photography would make painting obsolete. But artists still paint. And 
artists will continue to record images on silver halide. The process is 
part and parcel of the art.

RE: Re[2]: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[tom]

> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Not an easy thing to deal with.  Cheap people are just cheap!  One
> route that I have gone is to quit trying to make money on the prints
> and just charge up front for the job/time.

The only quibble I have with this is that order processing is so time
consuming and annoying. If you really want to go this route, make
*all* your money up front and *give* them the negs or high res files.

tv

Re[2]: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[Bruce Dayton]

Not an easy thing to deal with.  Cheap people are just cheap!  One
route that I have gone is to quit trying to make money on the prints
and just charge up front for the job/time.  I get no quibbles about
people valuing my time and skills.

One real problem of this digital age is that it has cheapened the
value of a print.  Because of viewing on monitors (no prints),
scanning, photo-copying, etc., the client just does not put much stock
into the prints themselves.  In reality, they shouldn't be able to get
lab services any cheaper than you can.  Seems that the Kiosk style
pages are still at least $5-10 page.  I get lab prints between 1.65
and $6.50 worst case for 8X10's.  So you hit 'em hard up front with
your fees for doing the job and then help them with (cheap) prints
after the fact.  That way you still have some control of the output.
I haven't really had any problems with this direction so far.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce



Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 12:20:55 PM, you wrote:

mw> Hi,

mw> Tom Reese wrote:
>> 
>> I shot some B & G portraits a little while ago at cost as a favor to a
>> photographer friend. I was very pleased with the pictures as were the B & G.
>> I was going to give the B & G the professional lab enlargements at cost too.
>> I hoped to get a few more portrait jobs out of the assignment through word
>> of mouth. I shot the pictures with medium format (non Pentax) and they were
>> tack sharp. The enlargements would have been beautiful. The numbskull
>> (deleted much stronger verbiage) bride took the 5x5 proofs to some jiffy
>> print outfit and scanned them then got enlargements made from the scans to
>> save a few dollars.

mw> The _only_ way to deal with this, if you really want to, is to issue
mw> legal proceedings against the expletive deleted and the print company
mw> for copyright violation.  The more people that do this, the fewer times
mw> it will happen.  Put it in the hands of the legal bandits on a no-win,
mw> no-fee basis and watch the fur fly.  It could be your Christmas present
mw> to yourself.

mw> mike

RE: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[tom]

> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  The
> numbskull
> (deleted much stronger verbiage) bride took the 5x5 proofs
> to some jiffy
> print outfit and scanned them then got enlargements made
> from the scans to
> save a few dollars.

I feel your pain.

I used to think b+g's were just cheap, but I think in general they
just don't know any better. I have found that if you explain to people
that a) this sort of thing results in crappy prints, b) it's a federal
offense, and c) this is how you make a living, and you make sure they
sign a contract that states the above, then you'll have fewer
problems.

Now, how did you find out she made copy prints? You can still read her
the riot act.

The last issue is that it sounds like this was done for free, more or
less. This may or may not say something about how she values
photography. Some people don't...it sounds like you value your work
and effort more than she does. The way to avoid this sort of client is
higher prices, or at least an *explicit* understanding of what your
value is. I still do the occasional cheap gig for friends, but these
days I make sure they understand what they're getting, what sort of
work is involved on my end, what's expected of them, etc.

tv

Re: how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[mike wilson]

Hi,

Tom Reese wrote:
> 
> I shot some B & G portraits a little while ago at cost as a favor to a
> photographer friend. I was very pleased with the pictures as were the B & G.
> I was going to give the B & G the professional lab enlargements at cost too.
> I hoped to get a few more portrait jobs out of the assignment through word
> of mouth. I shot the pictures with medium format (non Pentax) and they were
> tack sharp. The enlargements would have been beautiful. The numbskull
> (deleted much stronger verbiage) bride took the 5x5 proofs to some jiffy
> print outfit and scanned them then got enlargements made from the scans to
> save a few dollars.

The _only_ way to deal with this, if you really want to, is to issue
legal proceedings against the expletive deleted and the print company
for copyright violation.  The more people that do this, the fewer times
it will happen.  Put it in the hands of the legal bandits on a no-win,
no-fee basis and watch the fur fly.  It could be your Christmas present
to yourself.

mike

how do you protect your work from inferior copies?

[Tom Reese]

I shot some B & G portraits a little while ago at cost as a favor to a
photographer friend. I was very pleased with the pictures as were the B & G.
I was going to give the B & G the professional lab enlargements at cost too.
I hoped to get a few more portrait jobs out of the assignment through word
of mouth. I shot the pictures with medium format (non Pentax) and they were
tack sharp. The enlargements would have been beautiful. The numbskull
(deleted much stronger verbiage) bride took the 5x5 proofs to some jiffy
print outfit and scanned them then got enlargements made from the scans to
save a few dollars.

The more I think about this the angrier I get. The B & G got greatly
inferior prints that don't in any way reflect the quality of my work. They
passed up a great bargain and I feel like my reputation will be damaged
every time someone looks at those lousy prints.

I guess it's true that no good deed goes unpunished.

Tom Reese

Vs: Vs: OT - Decerebrate Turnip

[Raimo Korhonen]

You could not be more wrong - although wheat is correct.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Leonard Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 24. joulukuuta 2003 19:27
Aihe: RE: Vs: OT - Decerebrate Turnip


>Wheat flour used for making doughnuts?
>
>Len
>---
>* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
>
>>What is Berliner Weisse, then?
>>Season´s Greetings!
>>Raimo
>

RE: pentax service questions

[tom]

> -Original Message-
> From: alex wetmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> I called Pentax Service and just got a recording telling me to mail
> the camera to them with a note of what went wrong and my return
> address and a telephone number.  Is this their normal service model?

Yeah. You can talk to someone (if they're there), but they'll just
tell you to mail it in.

Send it with some sort of delivery confirmation. You can tell them you
want rush service, in which case they'll call you with an estimate.
Otherwise they'll mail it.

tv

Re: Holiday wishes from the List Guy

[Otis Wright]

Many thank to you, Doug.

Merry Christmas..

Otis Wright

Doug Brewer wrote:

Just a quick note to thank you all for your contributions to the list 
and keeping me entertained for another year. Whatever your persuasion, 
I hope this is a joyous season for you and yours.

Doug

Merry Xmas- NORAD tracks Santa

[Steve Desjardins]

I hope everyone has a nice holiday season.

And those of you that don't believe in Santa should check out the NORAD
"Santa-tracking"  website at 

http://www.noradsanta.org/ 

They dutifully report his appearance and progress through North
American air space every year.

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Steve Desjardins]

I don't see why this is implied by the APS sensor.  35 mm style bodies
can take both APS and FF sensors.  They may make a 24x36 sensor back for
a 645 camera so that MF cameras can have both film and digital and so
that back will be cheaper than a full 645 sized sensor.

All I'm saying is that there is a market for the smaller sensors.  Many
PJ's just don't need the more than 4-6 MP, so why deal with storing or
transmitting the larger file?  The D2H is on 4.2 MP after all. 

The APS sensor may survive for the same reason 35 mm took off over MF,
i.e., it was smaller, cheaper, and good enough.



Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/24/03 12:34PM >>>
So then they`ll just put in a 24X36 sensor in 645`s?
Doesn`t make sense to me.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California


- Original Message - 
From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?


> A very big "if".  More to the point. would they release a FF camera
and
> stop producing APS?  I don't think of the APS sensor as a "stop gap".
 I
> think it's a new format thet will persist for a long time.
> 
> 
> Steven Desjardins
> Department of Chemistry
> Washington and Lee University
> Lexington, VA 24450
> (540) 458-8873
> FAX: (540) 458-8878
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/25/03 10:41AM >>>
> This one time, at band camp, Robert Gonzalez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, I was thinking of getting either that (FA35/2) or the 16-45
DA
> 
> > lens.  My 28 & 50 mm are M lenses, so either I have to use them in

> > manual mode, which means a little more hassle and less
spontaneity,
> or I 
> > have to use my 15-30 or 85 and compensate for my FOV/location
> somehow. 
> > But its not the same as having the right lens generally.
> 
> If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future,
> the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying
> a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon.
> 
> Kind regards
> Kevin
> 
> 
> -- 
>  __  
> (_ \ 
>  _) )            
> |  /  / _  ) / _  | / ___) / _  )
> | |  ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / 
> |_|   \) \_||_| \) \)
> Kevin Waterson
> Port Macquarie, Australia
> 

Re: MAAARY CHRITMOO...

[Anders Hultman]

Tanya Mayer Photography:

Well, it has been Christmas day here for exactly 1 hour and 36 minutes.
Over here, Christmas is almost over. We celebrate on the 24th you see.

anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/

Re: Holiday wishes from the List Guy

[graywolf]

And, thank you, Doug, for keeping the list going for all of us. Happy Yuletide.

Doug Brewer wrote:

Just a quick note to thank you all for your contributions to the list 
and keeping me entertained for another year. Whatever your persuasion, I 
hope this is a joyous season for you and yours.

Doug


--
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: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Robert Chiasson]

This is what I believe. Manufactures like to have an experimental run that
can be walked away from in case of problems before committing to new
technology, and that's how I view the entire APS experiment - just proving
the manufacturing technology for future purposes. Yes they are rumoured to
have made billions on APS - profitable experiments are well received!

Full-frame sensors may come, but why bother? They're making bags of money
with APS-sized sensors, and from a manufactures point of view, APS works for
them, it's good enough.

"Krap is King - Digital Rules!"
--
Robert


- Original Message -
From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?


> A very big "if".  More to the point. would they release a FF camera and
> stop producing APS?  I don't think of the APS sensor as a "stop gap".  I
> think it's a new format thet will persist for a long time.
>
>
> Steven Desjardins

Re:eBay insurance [was: More lens problems.]

[Robert Chiasson]

I'm a lurker here (but I have a Pentax Program Plus) and have been using
eBay for 3 years.

If your eBay buyer refuses insurance, he's on his own, then? I don't see
when you're responsible to make up for his cheapness. If you hadn't offered
insurance, then that would be different.

Did you keep a copy of his email refusing insurance? Did you notify him that
the responsibility would be his if he declined insurance? (It's a standard
condition of my auctions.)

--
Robert


- Original Message -
From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: More lens problems.


>
> I should have took my own advice recently. I sold a piece of gear on
> ebay, sent it uninsured because the guy declined to pay for the
> insurance, he now says he did not get it, and it looks like I will be
> out my gear and having to pay a refund. Rats.
>
> --
> John Mustarde
> www.photolin.com
>

Re: Merry Christmas and Pentastic New Year

[Michel Carrère-Gée]

> Merry Christmas and a very Pentastic New Year. ...
Joyeux Noêl et bonne année à tous.
Bonjour de France
Michel

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Steve Desjardins]

A very big "if".  More to the point. would they release a FF camera and
stop producing APS?  I don't think of the APS sensor as a "stop gap".  I
think it's a new format thet will persist for a long time.


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/25/03 10:41AM >>>
This one time, at band camp, Robert Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Yeah, I was thinking of getting either that (FA35/2) or the 16-45 DA

> lens.  My 28 & 50 mm are M lenses, so either I have to use them in 
> manual mode, which means a little more hassle and less spontaneity,
or I 
> have to use my 15-30 or 85 and compensate for my FOV/location
somehow. 
> But its not the same as having the right lens generally.

If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future,
the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying
a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon.

Kind regards
Kevin


-- 
 __  
(_ \ 
 _) )            
|  /  / _  ) / _  | / ___) / _  )
| |  ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / 
|_|   \) \_||_| \) \)
Kevin Waterson
Port Macquarie, Australia

Re: More lens problems.

[John Mustarde]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:13:03 -0500, you wrote:

>After speaking with Pentax USA and having no luck cleaning the contacts,
>I'm going to send them the *istD body and the FA 50, FA 100 macro, and
>the FA 135.  Although it seems funny, they still think it might be the
>lenses even though they work on the MZ-S and the ZX-7.   What really
>confused them was that the aperture wouldn't register AND the AF won't
>engage.  I'll wait a week, however, so I can use the camera over the
>holidays (since it works with other lenses).
>
>
>Steven Desjardins
>Department of Chemistry
>Washington and Lee University
>Lexington, VA 24450
>(540) 458-8873
>FAX: (540) 458-8878
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]


That's a lot of gear to send. May I caution you to have everything
insured yourself before you send it, with something like an all-risks
policy.  

Pentax USA screwed me out of an thousand-dollar A* 200/4 Macro several
years back. I sent it for repair, I never got it back, and Pentax in
Colorado refused to file a claim with UPS.  

Luckily for me this lens was covered by my State Farm all-risks
policy, which paid off immediately, or else I would have been left
holding a very empty bag.

I should have took my own advice recently. I sold a piece of gear on
ebay, sent it uninsured because the guy declined to pay for the
insurance, he now says he did not get it, and it looks like I will be
out my gear and having to pay a refund. Rats.

--
John Mustarde
www.photolin.com

MAAARY CHRITMOO...

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Well, it has been Christmas day here for exactly 1 hour and 36 minutes.  I
have finished playing Santa, blown up a jumping castle, wrapped many
presents, filled the Santa Claus Pinata, nibbled the cookies and tipped
Santa's milk down the sink, emptied the water left out for the "reindeer"
and we have just finished carving "sled marks" into our (new!) front lawn...
I am now going to eat and watch some mind-numbing late night tv for a while
to "wind down" before probably drifting off to sleep in front of the tv, to
be woken (with a sore neck from sleeping on the sofa) by three very excited
mini-Pentaxians at around 5am (eek, that is only 3.5 hours away!), and then,
it will be ALL SYSTEMS GO for approximately 15 hours when we will all fall
into a heap as a result of too much eating, drinking, getting sunburnt and
being MERRY!

So, a Merry Aussie Christmas to you all, and lets hope the big red fella
brings you all something for those camera bags, preferably with a big "P" on
it, but I guess being Christmas and all, we can accept "rip off" brands too,
those starting with N, and C and the like...   

I LOVE Christmas, but, bloody hell, it wears you out...  I will be floating
around until late in the afternoon and then will be back online in a couple
of days, but might need a day or two sleep to recover from tonights effort,
and all of tomorrow's "festivities" (we are driving to Mackay, which is 3.5
hours away after lunch to visit with the in-laws, and that in itself is an
exhausting task - yes, both the drive and the "visiting the in-laws" bit!
lol)... So, hope you can all handle my "absence" (hehe), and don't go
forgetting the "nice" bit in favour of too much "naughty"...

With lots of Christmas cheer and three very excited cherubs,
tan.x.

Re: What do you think?

[Anthony Farr]

- Original Message - 
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

(earlier post snipped)

> >
>
> I did say "mostly goes away", you seem to have translated that into
> "completely goes away" in your post.
>
> Anyway, it's seven years in North America, I believe.
> But how is "support" defined?
>
> The market is full of products that have ceased to be supported in one way
> or another by their parent company.
> Canon stopped making lenses for the FD mount well short of ten years after
> discontinuing the cameras that used that mount.
> This would certainly qualify as no longer supporting the product, but I
> don't recall any court cases.
>
> Support could mean that they supply one, and only one film type (probably
> Max 800, under a new name) to keep things nice and legal, and this is what
> "mostly goes away" could mean.
>
> William Robb
>
>

I agree almost completely.  Film choice and outlets will be minimal.  Kodak
makes no pro-grade cameras so have no need to support non-existent products
with pro-grade film.  OTOH Fuji does make pro cameras (sold outside Japan as
Hasselblads) so I would expect to see a continuing supply of pro films from
them, for the statutory period of support.  K or F, or for that matter
Konica, Agfa, Ilford or any other film manufacturer needn't actually ~make~
emulsions for the whole period they plan to sell them.  They could always
crank up the plants any time sooner and lay down a stockpile.  Maybe even
send them to Greenland, Alaska, the Northwest Territories or Siberia for low
cost refrigerated storage.

Ten years is the number lodged in my memory for product support.  I think I
read it as the requirement in Japan, and it is the requirement for home
appliances and motor vehicles in Australia.  It's better than even odds that
it also applies to all manufactured products.  Unlike the situation in the
early 1900s Australia does ~not~ lead the world in any ctizens' or
customers' rights issues, so would not have chosen ten years as a support
period without a foreign precedent.

The Canon example can be answered by pointing out that FD mount cameras and
lenses were supported by mechanical servicing including the supply of spare
parts, and continued availability of consumables, whether from Canon or a
third party, for the statutory period.  The ability to indefinitely expand
or enhance a superceded product was not the purpose of the law, simply to
ensure that a product ~as it was sold~ remains useable for a period that is
acceptable from a consumer POV.

Companies may well vanish without a trace and leave products unsupported,
but companies that want a continuing presence in the market don't leave
customers pissing in the wind too many times before their future becomes
history.

Of course a good legal mouthpiece can make any case, the manufacturers could
counter that cameras have become a disposable commodity not expected to last
more than a few years.  Kodak could make that claim based on its film camera
offerings, Fuji couldn't.

One thing that major corporations do, especially when they have symbiotic
relationships like camera manufacturers and film manufacturers have, is to
get a "memorandum of intent" to enhance investor confidence in their future
projects.  I cannot believe that a single camera maker would plan a single
film camera if they did not hold a "memorandum of intent" on the future
availability of film from at least two and preferably four or more film
manufacturers.

By the way, it just occurred to me that Minolta recently tied its fortunes
to a film manufacturer.  Interesting times we live in, indeed.

regards,
Anthony Farr

Christmas greetings

[Pentaximees]

http://home.delfi.ee/tiikmaa/files/joul/


Raivo from Estonia :o)

Re: What do you think?

[graywolf]

50 years ago companies in the US were required to support their products for a 
minimum of 7 years after production ceased. I do not think that is so any 
longer. Strangely, we seem to have quietly done away with most of the consumer 
protection laws here in the US during the past couple of decades.

--

Anthony Farr wrote:

Not at all, Bob.

The specialist camera makers can shelter under the umbrella of the film and
camera manufacturers.  So long as Kodak and Fuji sell film cameras the
~hardware only~ manufacturers can rest assured that film will be available
for the required period.
But on the day that no film manufacturer also sells a film camera there will
be much rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic.  I predict that no
company would risk the legal ramifications of selling a film camera if Kodak
and Fuji also withdraw from film camera sales.
Like I said, while Kodak and Fuji sell film ~cameras~, film has ten years
minimum life expectancy.
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Hi,

that would not be a very clever argument. It would imply that the
camera makers such as Pentax also had to be film makers. Or that
kitchen equipment makers also had to be food retailers; printer
manufacturers would have to be paper makers. Law-makers would have to
be Fagins. Cup makers would have to guarantee a water supply.
--
Cheers,
Bob




--
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: What do you think?

[brooksdj]

I think you hit the nail on the head here,Bill(ohhh poor nail)

So far my 2.74meg D1 is producing nice,saleable prints and my clients are very happyy 
to
have same 
hour service. Hopefully the D2H will live up to its claims if i can get one next year. 
I
too am sticking with 
B&W film as i am not happy with my digital makeovers.
I am able to develop and print my own negs,thanks to a great night school teacher,and
enjoy it.It only 
takes a few min of my time to develop and hang a roll to dry.I'm fine with contact 
sheets
too.

If push comes to shove,i'll stock up on essentials,freeze a bag of film and carry 
on,the
dinasour i am.

Availability is not an issue here in Ontario,yet.Several bigger stores and "pro" labs
stock slide and B&W 
and IR.

Keeping my fingers crossed it does not happen over night

Dave
 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "WW"
> Subject: Re: What do you think?
> What will save black and white (if it is, in fact in any danger) is that
> digital doesn't support it very well, and it is still very viable for the
> home user to do the labour.
> Colour film isn't so simple to process at home, and digital does an adequate
> job of replacing it for the vast majority of consumers, who don't really
> care what is going on in their camera as long as they can get pictures
> easily.
> 
> William Robb
> 

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Steve Jolly]

Mark Roberts wrote:
There's an inexorable trend for sensors to increase in size and decrease
in price.
A 24x36mm chunk of silicon wafer will always be a 24x36mm chunk of 
silicon wafer, and there's no real reason that I can see to expect the 
price of silicon to plummet.  Yields will probably go up slightly, but 
CCDs aren't pushing the limits of feature size in the way that CPUs are, 
so I wouldn't expect that to have much of a price impact.

The general reason why digital devices keep plummeting in price is 
because advancing technology allows them to be made smaller, and smaller 
is cheaper.  Fix the size of the device and you lose that advantage. 
You can still get "economies of scale" of course - up to a point, the 
cost of your product decreases if you can sell it to more people.

So, personally I don't expect to see an *enormous* reduction in DSLR 
prices - it'd be nice to be proved wrong tho' ;-)

S

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[graywolf]

Hum? I figure that 127 is the equivalent of a 31mm on 135 camera. And the 105 is 
the equivalent of a 46mm. I have always found it strange that people do this 
stuff, because one works differently in different formats, one tends to use much 
closer points of view with a large format camera and thus shorter relative focal 
length lenses. Furthermore prior to the 70's when there was a 35mm explosion and 
it became the norm no one hardly thought in those terms. As Shel says it seems 
to be a dumbing down factor (I am ignorant of anything but 35mm make it 
understandable to me without my having to think).

For anyone interested the old Press/View Camera rules of thumb are:

Normal = diagonal of the film. Approximately 43mm on 135 format. 150mm on a 
press camera.

Wide angle = the short side of the film. Approximately 24mm on 135. 90mm on a 
press camera.

Wide field = the long side of the negative. Approx 35mm on 135. 127-135 on a 
press camera.

Portrait = the sum of the short and long sides of the film. Approximately 60mm. 
Usually 200mm on a press camera (that is almost exactly what you get from a 50mm 
lens on 135 cropped to an 8x10 print, BTW).

Telephoto = Twice (or more) the long side of the film. Approximately 70mm on 
135. 250-380mm on a press camera.

You will note that those are all shorter than we normally think of them in 135 
format, though the WA as gotten down to about right in recent years.

Once again manufactures's of P&S digitals started using 35mm equivalent focal 
length because there are no standards for sensor size which can vary from the 
equivalent of a Minox to an APS negative size from camera to camera. It is 
simply a way to compare the zoom lens equivalent between disparitent cameras. It 
has no optical meaning other than that.

--

Paul Stenquist wrote:

On Dec 23, 2003, at 8:19 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Y'know, it's funny how, when using other formats, rarely is it said 
that an 80mm
lens for a 6x6 is "equivalent" to a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera.  
When's the
last time you heard a 4x5 user ask "What's that lens in 35mm terms?"


Hi Shel,
I've heard that a lot, and I frequently use 35mm focal lengths as a 
mental point of comparison. For example, I know that my 127mm 4x5 lens 
is somewhere around 45mm in 35 terms and my 105mm 6x7 lens is 
approximately the same as a "normal" 35mm lens. I work in advertising 
and I've found that most art directors understand 35mm angle of view, so 
when working in other formats they frequently ask, "What's that in 
35mm?" The same is true on television shoots where 35mm lenses are 
closer to APS or the current crop of digitals in focal length vs. angle 
of view (because the neg is actually half of what we call 35mm.) The 
still camera 35mm focal lengths are a reference point for many working 
pros and their clients.
Paul


--
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: Seasons Greetings

[Francis Alviar]

I would like to wish one and all a Very Merry
Christmas and a Wonderful New Year.

May the new year bring you lots of peace, joy,
happiness, wealth, and love.

And most importantly may it enable you to acquire your
Pentax pieces and keep shooting.


Francis M. Alviar


--

Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:01:54 US/Eastern
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Seasons Greetings
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To you and the rest of the gang.
Have a good one,and may your cf cards store
pictures,and  your film 
pull through the
sproket holes.

Dave Liz Erin and a bunch of horses, cats, mites, and
such.

> To those who celebrate Christmas, I wish the 
best of the season.
> To those who do not, I wish peace, prosperity, and a
long and happy 
life.
> 
> Take care
> Bill, Charmian and the Fellas
> 



--


__
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Re: More lens problems.

[Steve Desjardins]

After speaking with Pentax USA and having no luck cleaning the contacts,
I'm going to send them the *istD body and the FA 50, FA 100 macro, and
the FA 135.  Although it seems funny, they still think it might be the
lenses even though they work on the MZ-S and the ZX-7.   What really
confused them was that the aperture wouldn't register AND the AF won't
engage.  I'll wait a week, however, so I can use the camera over the
holidays (since it works with other lenses).


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: New Pentax cameras

[Steve Desjardins]

Of course, in camera IS would only work with the digital cameras, but
that seems to be the way of the world right now.


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Christmas greetings

[Lasse Karlsson]

I wish you all a peaceful Christmas.

Lasse

May all have a great day!

[Rob Brigham]

Whether celebrating or not, I hope everybody has a good one tomorrow!

See y'all in the new year...

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[graywolf]

I have decided to introduce a device which will double the focal length of any 
135 format lens with no reduction of f-stop. I consists of a thin metal plate 
with a 12x18mm hole in the middle. You simply insert it into the film gate under 
the film in any 35mm camera.

'Nuff said?

--

William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Ryan Charron"
Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?



Hi Robert,

My Pentax 35mm FA f2 makes a great 52mm lens on my
*ist D.


At the risk of being pendantic, how can a 35mm lens be anything other than a
35mm lens, great or otherwise?
William Robb


--
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: What do you think?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Walkden"
Subject: Re: What do you think?



> I take a different view. Consumer photography, and probably most
> professional photography, will quickly become exclusively digital,
> for all intents and purposes. Film photography is likely to be more
> like B&W has been for the last 40 years - a niche for enthusiasts. The
> film that will be available will be a low volume / high margin product
> available from specialist outlets, and processed at a small number of
> labs who cater for enthusiasts. Much like Kodachrome and Scala
> (although they happen to be the cheapest films for me). It will be
expensive,
> but high quality because the enthusiasts will only want high quality.

Processing availablity will be the killer for colour negative film, as you
say. As film volumes start to drop, players will start to get out of the
processing game. They won't have any choice. Processors require a certain
minimum volume of product to maintain chemical control, and once that
minimum volume is no longer being met, it is no longer viable to offer the
service.
As the number of labs offering film processing diminishes, more consumers
will go to digital out of either necessity or convenience.

This has the potential to snowball very quickly, especially since the
processing industry would be quite happy if film went away for good, and is
actively behind bringing digital to the masses as quickly as they can sign
lease agreements.

>
> >   On a positive note, I think quality black & white film will remain a
> > viable niche market.
>
> I took some Tri-X to a local professional lab a few weeks ago and they
> more or less laughed at me. They hadn't processed any for 3 years. Yet
> I can still get it done at Snappy Snaps, and to a far higher standard
> - especially 'contact' prints - than I ever got from any pro lab in the
> past. I can also get very high quality colour 'contacts'. They're not
> literally contact prints, but digitally-produced index prints laid out &
> sized like a contact print, but every frame is perfectly exposed.

In Canada, it is almost impossible to get quality black and white processing
unless you live in one of about half a dozen major cities. Most everything
goes to Qualux Canada, who the last time I heard, was shipping the stuff to
a lab in Paramus, New Jersey, though they said they were setting up a
processing facility in Halifax for it.
Around here, black and white now means chromogenic. I think there are still
a couple of stores that stock black and white film and slide film with any
sort of selection, but thats about all.

What will save black and white (if it is, in fact in any danger) is that
digital doesn't support it very well, and it is still very viable for the
home user to do the labour.
Colour film isn't so simple to process at home, and digital does an adequate
job of replacing it for the vast majority of consumers, who don't really
care what is going on in their camera as long as they can get pictures
easily.

William Robb

Best wishes to all

[Kevin Waterson]

In the spirit of the season, regardless of your faith,
I extend to all best wishes and good fortune in the coming year.

Here is quick peak inside my home at our tree (decorated by the 
kids themselves)
http://220.240.55.75/xmas.jpg

May your God bless you all
Kevin

-- 
 __  
(_ \ 
 _) )            
|  /  / _  ) / _  | / ___) / _  )
| |  ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / 
|_|   \) \_||_| \) \)
Kevin Waterson
Port Macquarie, Australia

Re: What do you think?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Anthony Farr"
Subject: Re: What do you think?



>
> Don't a lot of countries have a ten year support rule for newly sold
> products?  I thought that was the reason the LX is still fully serviced by
> Pentax but M and A series camera bodies are no longer serviced by them.
It
> wouldn't be hard for a clever legal mind to argue that "support" also
means
> the provision of consumables that the product requires.  I notice that
Fuji
> and Kodak still sell film cameras, so I guess that commits them to selling
> film for ten more years at least.  But of those two companies, only Fuji
> sells pro-grade film cameras, so perhaps only Fuji has any obligation
either
> legal or moral to keep pro-grade film on the shelves.
>

I did say "mostly goes away", you seem to have translated that into
"completely goes away" in your post.

Anyway, it's seven years in North America, I believe.
But how is "support" defined?

The market is full of products that have ceased to be supported in one way
or another by their parent company.
Canon stopped making lenses for the FD mount well short of ten years after
discontinuing the cameras that used that mount.
This would certainly qualify as no longer supporting the product, but I
don't recall any court cases.

Support could mean that they supply one, and only one film type (probably
Max 800, under a new name) to keep things nice and legal, and this is what
"mostly goes away" could mean.

William Robb

Vs: OT - Decerebrate Turnip

[Raimo Korhonen]

What is Berliner Weisse, then?
Season´s Greetings!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Peter Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 24. joulukuuta 2003 14:09
Aihe: Re: OT - Decerebrate Turnip


>There is a town in Southern Germany called, Wank.
>
>JFK got gently laughed at for his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" line. (In
>German a Berliner is a doughnut.)
>
>It's a pity (insert name of least favourite politician here) doesn't go to
>Wank and tell the world what they already know.
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Pat White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 3:38 AM
>Subject: Re: OT - Decerebrate Turnip
>
>
>> Funny thing, that word "wanker".  In England, it's an fight-provoking
>> insult.  To a North American, the equivalent word would be "jerk-off".
>Over
>> here in Canada, the word "wanker" is an amusing British import used to
>mean
>> "twit", or something similar.  It's not that offensive.
>>
>> A Toronto radio station with call letters CFNY, or NY for short, called
>> their baseball team the NY Wankees, and their playing field Wankee
>Stadium.
>> So there ya go.
>>
>> Pat White
>>
>>
>

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Steve Larson]

Now that`s a digital camera! I wonder how big you could go with
that, 4ft.X 6ft.?
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California


Mark Roberts
> Heck, that's only a 24 x 36 mm sensor! That ain't nuthin' compared to
> this 37 x 52 mm beauty:
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03121901fujifilmback.asp
> 
> OK, so it's not available in the U.S. (yet) and it's a lot of money.
> There's an inexorable trend for sensors to increase in size and decrease
> in price.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
> 

Re: What do you think?

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 1:01:36 PM, you wrote:

>   More importantly to serious photography enthusiasts like ourselves is
> the matter of *what* film remains available. As high-end photography
> goes almost exclusively digital, I'd expect the film emulsions that
> remain in production to be those made for weekend point-and-shoot users
> :(

I take a different view. Consumer photography, and probably most
professional photography, will quickly become exclusively digital,
for all intents and purposes. Film photography is likely to be more
like B&W has been for the last 40 years - a niche for enthusiasts. The
film that will be available will be a low volume / high margin product
available from specialist outlets, and processed at a small number of
labs who cater for enthusiasts. Much like Kodachrome and Scala
(although they happen to be the cheapest films for me). It will be expensive,
but high quality because the enthusiasts will only want high quality.

>   On a positive note, I think quality black & white film will remain a
> viable niche market.

I took some Tri-X to a local professional lab a few weeks ago and they
more or less laughed at me. They hadn't processed any for 3 years. Yet
I can still get it done at Snappy Snaps, and to a far higher standard
- especially 'contact' prints - than I ever got from any pro lab in the
past. I can also get very high quality colour 'contacts'. They're not
literally contact prints, but digitally-produced index prints laid out &
sized like a contact print, but every frame is perfectly exposed.

Bob

Re: No More Light Leak

[frank theriault]

Uh, that would be Vic, of this list, who sold it to me...

The rest of the camera seems just fine, thank the Pentax Gods.  Vic doesn't 
recall any bad things happening to the camera, and I believe him.  I think 
that a camera (especially if it has a big lens on) would have enough weight 
that if, for instance it started to fall during film loading, and one 
grabbed at the door, it might be possible to distort it a bit (not saying 
that's what happened, but it's a possibility).

I think there are all sorts of ways it could be inadvertantly and 
unknowingly bent, without a catastrophic fall occurring.

In this case, it's not as if I bought the camera from a stranger.  It's from 
a person I know from this list, and who lives less than an hour away from 
me.  I'm not worried...  

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No More Light Leak
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:46:27 +0100 (CET)
But now I can't sleep for worrying how that back got distorted in the first 
place; what horrendous blow buckled the back. What cruel owner dropped the 
LX from such a height (with the back open mind you) for it to smash onto a 
concrete floor on its open back. What damage was done to the shutter at 
this time?

No sleep for me.
Freeserve AnyTime - HALF PRICE for the first 3 months - Save £7.50 a month
www.freeserve.com/anytime
_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

Re: Merry Christmas and Pentastic New Year

[frank theriault]

Snail mail cards?  What are those?  Somehow my snail-mail output has lowered 
dramatically since I got a computer.  Hooray for e-cards!

All the best to you and yours, E.R.N.!!  See you @ GFM!  

merry Christmas,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas and Pentastic New Year
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:24:09 CST
I was slow enough on my snail-mail cards -- let me not be TOO late here ...

Merry Christmas to all (who celebrate Christmas); and,
Peace and good wishes to those celebrating other holidays in this season!
All the best for 2004.

E.R.N.
Reed
_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

Re: Slightly Dodgy looking Auction

[Ann Sanfedele]

Cotty wrote:

> On 24/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>
> ...
> >
> >Tanya, there is also a country song in our part of the globe where there is a
> >line
> >"I have ocean front property in Arizona"
> >
> >Time for you to google :)
> >
> >annsan
>
> Speaking of which, I could sell you a bridge in Arizona -d'oh! I already
> did sell it!
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty

We have been to that bridge, Cotty :)  I even have pictures
(not anywhere I can find them of course)

ann

Re: Christmas greetings...

[frank theriault]

Hmm...

I've got an MX, and of late (as you all know), now an LX.  It doesn't get 
any "better Pentax" than  that, does it?  

Thanks for the thoughts, Alin.  All the best to your and yours.

merry Christmas,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Christmas greetings...
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:17:55 -0500
Hey, I'll buy that. But it has to be much better :-)
Paul
On Dec 23, 2003, at 5:39 PM, Alin Flaider wrote:
  Second part is not just to you... ;o)

  http://ro.umt.com/alin/xmas/MerryXPentax.jpg

  Servus, Alin


_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

Re: OT - Decerebrate Turnip

[Peter Jordan]

There is a town in Southern Germany called, Wank.

JFK got gently laughed at for his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" line. (In
German a Berliner is a doughnut.)

It's a pity (insert name of least favourite politician here) doesn't go to
Wank and tell the world what they already know.

Peter





- Original Message -
From: "Pat White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: OT - Decerebrate Turnip


> Funny thing, that word "wanker".  In England, it's an fight-provoking
> insult.  To a North American, the equivalent word would be "jerk-off".
Over
> here in Canada, the word "wanker" is an amusing British import used to
mean
> "twit", or something similar.  It's not that offensive.
>
> A Toronto radio station with call letters CFNY, or NY for short, called
> their baseball team the NY Wankees, and their playing field Wankee
Stadium.
> So there ya go.
>
> Pat White
>
>

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Mark Roberts]

Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>This one time, at band camp, "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> highly unlikely for a long time to come. if they can make a full frame
>> sensor camera at an affordable price, they will be able to make an APS frame
>> sensor at a much cheaper price. if the sensor also delivers as low noise as
>> current APS sensors at about 8-10 megapixels, it will completely replace
>> 35mm film. the point of going larger than APS is to replace medium format.
>
>> > If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future,
>> > the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying
>> > a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon.
>
>I guess the APS size will provide a cheap alternative, and if it can
>do the job of current 35mm, all the better.
>
>The Medium Format digital backs, such as this offering by Fuji 
>http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Products.jsp?nav=1&parent=PRODUCT_CATEGORY_476108&product=43026002
>are still a long way off. So I guess there is plenty of time to sell
>lenses specifically for the APS size sensor.

Heck, that's only a 24 x 36 mm sensor! That ain't nuthin' compared to
this 37 x 52 mm beauty:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03121901fujifilmback.asp

OK, so it's not available in the U.S. (yet) and it's a lot of money.
There's an inexorable trend for sensors to increase in size and decrease
in price.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: What do you think?

[Mark Roberts]

"Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>The future of film from Kodak & Fuji:
>
>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20031223/D7VK80IO0.html

Well, there's nothing in this article that's actually *wrong*, in my
opinion, but I think the time frames mentioned are very optimistic in
terms of how long film will last. When I visited RIT (the main source
for information for this article) a couple of months ago I was amazed at
how far behind the curve they are with regards to digital. Perhaps this
is a by-product of their close physical proximity to and close working
relationship with Kodak.
  More importantly to serious photography enthusiasts like ourselves is
the matter of *what* film remains available. As high-end photography
goes almost exclusively digital, I'd expect the film emulsions that
remain in production to be those made for weekend point-and-shoot users
:(
  On a positive note, I think quality black & white film will remain a
viable niche market.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Mark Roberts]

Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
>> Y'know, it's funny how, when using other formats, rarely is it said that
>> an 80mm lens for a 6x6 is "equivalent" to a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera.
>> When's the last time you heard a 4x5 user ask "What's that lens in 35mm
>> terms?"
>
>Ummm... pretty much every time I show a large or medium format camera to a
>customer.  :)  I've been playing with 35mm cameras for a long time.  Maybe
>after I've used my 67 for long enough with enough different lenses, I
>won't need to translate angle of coverage into 35mm terms.  But that's a
>long way in the future.  Right now, every MedF lens except for the handful
>that I've used doesn't make sense to me unless I translate it into 35mm
>coverage.

I always think of my 645 lenses in terms of their 35mm equivalents. In
fact, I've been considering getting a 135mm lens (for my 35mm cameras)
after discovering how much I like the 200mm focal length on my 645.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Thomas Stach]

Hello,

if you think large chips are going to replace medium-format,
why then not make a body in MF-style (cubic body with perhaps
interchangeable backs for digi& 35mm-film, interchangeable viewfinders
like prism and waistlevel of course) that takes 35mm lenses?
There once was the Rollei 3003 in exactly that style...well, that would
be a fantastic digital one!

Have a nice christmas time!

Thomas



Kevin Waterson schrieb:
> 
> This one time, at band camp, "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > highly unlikely for a long time to come. if they can make a full frame
> > sensor camera at an affordable price, they will be able to make an APS frame
> > sensor at a much cheaper price. if the sensor also delivers as low noise as
> > current APS sensors at about 8-10 megapixels, it will completely replace
> > 35mm film. the point of going larger than APS is to replace medium format.
> 
> > > If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future,
> > > the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying
> > > a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon.
> 
> I guess the APS size will provide a cheap alternative, and if it can
> do the job of current 35mm, all the better.
> 
> The Medium Format digital backs, such as this offering by Fuji
> http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Products.jsp?nav=1&parent=PRODUCT_CATEGORY_476108&product=43026002
> are still a long way off. So I guess there is plenty of time to sell
> lenses specifically for the APS size sensor.
> 
> Kind regards
> Kevin
> 
> --
>  __
> (_ \
>  _) )           
> |  /  / _  ) / _  | / ___) / _  )
> | |  ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ /
> |_|   \) \_||_| \) \)
> Kevin Waterson
> Port Macquarie, Australia

Re: What do you think?

[Otis Wright]

Like I said, while Kodak and Fuji sell film ~cameras~, film 
has ten years
   minimum life expectancy.

 regards,
  Anthony Farr
But it might not be much of a life.   Forcing the supply of  film 
doesn't mean it will be of the type and quality you want.  Either 
quality, selecton, or price will give and I expect dramatically. 
When the profits are gone, so is the product  as it was then known  -- 
for all practical purposes and the volume dependant margin enviroment 
that film has developed into is IMHO not llikely to lanquish long  at 
least with any great breadth of selection with even moderate declines in 
volume.  

Otis Wright



Anthony Farr wrote:

Not at all, Bob.

The specialist camera makers can shelter under the umbrella of the film and
camera manufacturers.  So long as Kodak and Fuji sell film cameras the
~hardware only~ manufacturers can rest assured that film will be available
for the required period.
But on the day that no film manufacturer also sells a film camera there will
be much rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic.  I predict that no
company would risk the legal ramifications of selling a film camera if Kodak
and Fuji also withdraw from film camera sales.
Like I said, while Kodak and Fuji sell film ~cameras~, film has ten years
minimum life expectancy.
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 

Hi,

that would not be a very clever argument. It would imply that the
camera makers such as Pentax also had to be film makers. Or that
kitchen equipment makers also had to be food retailers; printer
manufacturers would have to be paper makers. Law-makers would have to
be Fagins. Cup makers would have to guarantee a water supply.
--
Cheers,
Bob
   



 

~Re: What do you think?

[Anthony Farr]

Bob,

No argument from me that film will be easy to find, it will be at the back
of the store or behind the counter in all likelihood, perhaps even by
special order only in many stores.

Did you read the article at
 that kicked off
this discussion?  Disc film was discontinued in 1998!  Come again?  Who sold
it?  Where was it?  I haven't seen a Disc film since the mid-80s.  It
reminds me of "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy", when it was revealed
both where Arthur Dent's municipal council and the Vogons placed their
respective development plans for public perusal.  It won't be easy, but film
~will~ be available somewhere and somehow for at least ten years after the
last own-brand film camera from a film manufacturer is withdrawn from sale.

You'd better believe that every other camera manufacture is watching Kodak
and Fuji ~very~ closely, and not making any major new development in film
cameras that isn't simply a spinoff or a parallel development of a digital
camera, so that any project investment isn't a total loss if they miss the
"ten year bell", i.e. if Kodak and Fuji kill their lines of film cameras
without warning.  A warning would be if "new" K or F film cameras started to
be just minor tweaks or relabellings of existing ones, and no new shapes,
chassis or features were forthcoming for a year or two.  Don't rule out
industrial espionage as a form of information exchange, either.

Fuji only recently launched (with Hasselblad) a major new line of  medium
format cameras.  I also believe that they have recently launched, or are
soon to launch, a new version of the X-Pan (again jointly with Hasselblad).
They will certainly want several years of sales from these cameras.  Thus
any non-film producing manufacturer can be confident that Fuji is in the
~camera~ business for a few more years, and will therefore be in the ~film~
business for a few more years plus ten.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hi,
>
> no serious business is going to hang large parts of their future
> income on that kind of fragile dependency or by sheltering under some
> other company's umbrella. It would be impossible to plan for longer
> than the very shortest term if they had to keep looking up to see if
> Kodak & Fuji were still making cameras.
>
> It would be foolish to plan any business on the assumption that
> consumer levels of film will still be around in 10 years. The mass
> market will be all digital very soon. Even if Kodak and Fuji are still
> making film, the mainstream retailers won't be selling it. Some film
> will still be available, of course - I have no plans to sell all my film
> cameras - but you'll have to go out of your way to get it.
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>  Bob
>

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Kevin Waterson]

This one time, at band camp, "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> highly unlikely for a long time to come. if they can make a full frame
> sensor camera at an affordable price, they will be able to make an APS frame
> sensor at a much cheaper price. if the sensor also delivers as low noise as
> current APS sensors at about 8-10 megapixels, it will completely replace
> 35mm film. the point of going larger than APS is to replace medium format.

> > If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future,
> > the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying
> > a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon.

I guess the APS size will provide a cheap alternative, and if it can
do the job of current 35mm, all the better.

The Medium Format digital backs, such as this offering by Fuji 
http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Products.jsp?nav=1&parent=PRODUCT_CATEGORY_476108&product=43026002
are still a long way off. So I guess there is plenty of time to sell
lenses specifically for the APS size sensor.

Kind regards
Kevin


-- 
 __  
(_ \ 
 _) )            
|  /  / _  ) / _  | / ___) / _  )
| |  ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / 
|_|   \) \_||_| \) \)
Kevin Waterson
Port Macquarie, Australia

Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Herb Chong]

highly unlikely for a long time to come. if they can make a full frame
sensor camera at an affordable price, they will be able to make an APS frame
sensor at a much cheaper price. if the sensor also delivers as low noise as
current APS sensors at about 8-10 megapixels, it will completely replace
35mm film. the point of going larger than APS is to replace medium format.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Kevin Waterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?


> If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future,
> the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying
> a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon.

Re: Pentax Annual 2003

[Keith Whaley]

I thought it was great!
You go in fully expecting to not be able to read it, and can't. I've
seen a ton of similar Japanese pages, and just look at the pictures, so
this didn't surprise me.
Until, all of a sudden I found I could read something! What?!
Then it all immediately became clear!

What a kick, Ryan! And thanks for a humorous Christmas eve for some of
us!  

keith whaley

Ryan Lee wrote:
> 
> Alan: As always, I don't doubt your finely tuned radar Alan! I just put it
> together in PSP using a nice font I've found; it's as Japanese as I could
> make it look :-)
> 
> John: Ta!
> 
> Season's Best,
> Ryan
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 6:08 PM
> Subject: RE: Pentax Annual 2003
> 
> > There are many publications about Pentax in Japan, but nobody seems to
> care
> > outside. But this picture doesn't look like Japanese.
> >
> > Yours regards,
> > Alan Chan
> > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
> >
> > >http://www.geocities.com/heygoosey/RyansXmasGreeting.jpg
> > >In the spirit of those wonderful publications in weird and wacky Japan
> > >nobody bothers to translate for us..
> > >
> > >Best of the Season to All!
> > >:-)
> > >Ryan
> > >
> > >PS. Taken with a Sony- and since they make our CCDs, it's all good?

Re: What do you think?

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

no serious business is going to hang large parts of their future
income on that kind of fragile dependency or by sheltering under some
other company's umbrella. It would be impossible to plan for longer
than the very shortest term if they had to keep looking up to see if
Kodak & Fuji were still making cameras.

It would be foolish to plan any business on the assumption that
consumer levels of film will still be around in 10 years. The mass
market will be all digital very soon. Even if Kodak and Fuji are still
making film, the mainstream retailers won't be selling it. Some film
will still be available, of course - I have no plans to sell all my film
cameras - but you'll have to go out of your way to get it.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 10:33:20 AM, you wrote:

> Not at all, Bob.

> The specialist camera makers can shelter under the umbrella of the film and
> camera manufacturers.  So long as Kodak and Fuji sell film cameras the
> ~hardware only~ manufacturers can rest assured that film will be available
> for the required period.

> But on the day that no film manufacturer also sells a film camera there will
> be much rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic.  I predict that no
> company would risk the legal ramifications of selling a film camera if Kodak
> and Fuji also withdraw from film camera sales.

> Like I said, while Kodak and Fuji sell film ~cameras~, film has ten years
> minimum life expectancy.

> regards,
> Anthony Farr

Re: Slightly Dodgy looking Auction

[Cotty]

On 24/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>> > Sorry Kenneth, I might be a bit lacking in the geography department here,
>> so
>> > the joke hasn't hit its target... What is the name of the bridge that you
>> > are referring to?
>>
>
>Um, well we in New YAWK actually call it the Brooklyn Bridge :)
>
>>
>> I could also sell you a very nice island, just off that bridge. It
>> originally sold for a few beads and trinkets.
>> Make me an offer.
>> WW
>
>Actually, it was sold for $24.  Paid to the regular purveyors of beads and
>trinkets.  :)
>
>Tanya, there is also a country song in our part of the globe where there is a
>line
>"I have ocean front property in Arizona"
>
>Time for you to google :)
>
>annsan

Speaking of which, I could sell you a bridge in Arizona -d'oh! I already
did sell it!


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: What do you think?

[Anthony Farr]

Not at all, Bob.

The specialist camera makers can shelter under the umbrella of the film and
camera manufacturers.  So long as Kodak and Fuji sell film cameras the
~hardware only~ manufacturers can rest assured that film will be available
for the required period.

But on the day that no film manufacturer also sells a film camera there will
be much rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic.  I predict that no
company would risk the legal ramifications of selling a film camera if Kodak
and Fuji also withdraw from film camera sales.

Like I said, while Kodak and Fuji sell film ~cameras~, film has ten years
minimum life expectancy.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Hi,
>
> that would not be a very clever argument. It would imply that the
> camera makers such as Pentax also had to be film makers. Or that
> kitchen equipment makers also had to be food retailers; printer
> manufacturers would have to be paper makers. Law-makers would have to
> be Fagins. Cup makers would have to guarantee a water supply.
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>  Bob
>

RE: Slightly Dodgy looking Auction

[Malcolm Smith]

Tanya Mayer wrote:

> You know what - in this instance, I think I believe the poor 
> guy.  I still wouldn't part with any $$$ BUT, it does make me 
> wonder if he wasn't completely genuine.  I would say that his 
> main mistake was listing without a reserve price, having had 
> no feedback.

There some people out there trying to make a fast buck. I have to say that
zero feedback alone would make me not want to bid, let alone the further
complications you highlight. Of course a lot of feedback isn't really what
it says. Graywolf already pointed this out that most 'positive' comments are
really neutral, not bad, just what you would expect from a deal. Because I
want a positive record, I'm just as guilty for giving positive feedback!

I followed a recent sale of a non-mu 67 and 90mm lens that went for GBP435.
Ten or so days after the sale, the buyer had it up for sale again with a
reserve of GBP500. Given the amount of film cameras up for sale, I wonder if
we will have more speculative buyers, seeing a quick profit. I'm still left
with that nagging doubt that this way of buying an expensive item is fraught
with danger, from exchange of funds, the postal system (some eBay purchases
I have had were incredibly badly packed), to trusting your idea of good
condition is also the same as the seller. 

Malcolm 

Re: What do you think?

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

that would not be a very clever argument. It would imply that the
camera makers such as Pentax also had to be film makers. Or that
kitchen equipment makers also had to be food retailers; printer
manufacturers would have to be paper makers. Law-makers would have to
be Fagins. Cup makers would have to guarantee a water supply.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob



Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 9:42:19 AM, you wrote:

> Don't a lot of countries have a ten year support rule for newly sold
> products?  I thought that was the reason the LX is still fully serviced by
> Pentax but M and A series camera bodies are no longer serviced by them.  It
> wouldn't be hard for a clever legal mind to argue that "support" also means
> the provision of consumables that the product requires.  I notice that Fuji
> and Kodak still sell film cameras, so I guess that commits them to selling
> film for ten more years at least.  But of those two companies, only Fuji
> sells pro-grade film cameras, so perhaps only Fuji has any obligation either
> legal or moral to keep pro-grade film on the shelves.

> Remember in the late 1970s when Kodak was forced to cease selling instant
> film-packs and Ektaflex (correct name?) instant enlarging paper, because
> they'd infringed Polaroid's patents.  They were also obliged to buy back all
> the hardware that had been sold, because obviously they were unable to
> continue support of those products with consumables.  But at other times
> when a product has failed (e.g. Disc) or demand for it has dried up (e.g.
> 110 Instamatic) they've let the consumables trickle onto the shelves for the
> required period at least, so no legal liability to the owners of orphaned
> cameras.

> When Kodak and Fuji both withdraw film cameras from sale is when I'll begin
> stockpiling film.

> regards,
> Anthony Farr

Re: No More Light Leak

[handmaid]

But now I can't sleep for worrying how that back got distorted in the first place; 
what horrendous blow buckled the back. What cruel owner dropped the LX from such a 
height (with the back open mind you) for it to smash onto a concrete floor on its open 
back. What damage was done to the shutter at this time? 

No sleep for me.
Freeserve AnyTime - HALF PRICE for the first 3 months - Save £7.50 a month 
www.freeserve.com/anytime

Re: What do you think?

[Anthony Farr]

- Original Message - 
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

(snip)

> This is why I am giving colour print film 5 years before it mostly goes
> away.
>
> William Robb
>
>

Don't a lot of countries have a ten year support rule for newly sold
products?  I thought that was the reason the LX is still fully serviced by
Pentax but M and A series camera bodies are no longer serviced by them.  It
wouldn't be hard for a clever legal mind to argue that "support" also means
the provision of consumables that the product requires.  I notice that Fuji
and Kodak still sell film cameras, so I guess that commits them to selling
film for ten more years at least.  But of those two companies, only Fuji
sells pro-grade film cameras, so perhaps only Fuji has any obligation either
legal or moral to keep pro-grade film on the shelves.

Remember in the late 1970s when Kodak was forced to cease selling instant
film-packs and Ektaflex (correct name?) instant enlarging paper, because
they'd infringed Polaroid's patents.  They were also obliged to buy back all
the hardware that had been sold, because obviously they were unable to
continue support of those products with consumables.  But at other times
when a product has failed (e.g. Disc) or demand for it has dried up (e.g.
110 Instamatic) they've let the consumables trickle onto the shelves for the
required period at least, so no legal liability to the owners of orphaned
cameras.

When Kodak and Fuji both withdraw film cameras from sale is when I'll begin
stockpiling film.

regards,
Anthony Farr

RE: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?

[Len Paris]

Was he a pediatrician or a pediatrist?

Len
 * There's no place like 127.0.0.1
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 3:01 AM
> To: pentax list
> Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
> 
> 
> On 23/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
> 
> >> My Pentax 35mm FA f2 makes a great 52mm lens on my
> >> *ist D.
> >
> >At the risk of being pendantic, how can a 35mm lens be 
> anything other than a
> >35mm lens, great or otherwise?
> 
> I was pedantic once, but doctor recommended some shoes that 
> fit properly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty