OT: eBay fined.
From London 'Metro' newspaper 10th March '04. Auction website eBay's payment service has agreed to hand over £82,000 compensation after admitting it misled shoppers into believing it offered credit card-style protection. PayPal struck the deal after eBay customers found they were not entitled to refunds when their goods did not turn up. The firm, which dealt with transactions worth £7billion last year, also told prosecutors in New York it would be more open about the protection it offers it's 25 million customers. The fine may be the first of many payouts for PayPal, which is being investigated by several other US states and the Federal Trade Commission. Malcolm
Re: PAW and WOW
Bot PAW and WOW are great ideas. Thanks to Shel for PAW, and to Lasse for WOW. Cheers, Jostein -- Photos at: http://www.oksne.net --
Re: XP-2
Hi, Clint wrote: I did the scans myself I just purchased a film scanner. I dont know how that could be possible for just one to be scanned backwards, BUT I am new to scanning. If you look at the two of the scales, the close up is the right way round (you can read the writing) but the background of the wider shot is reversed. The wide shot is scanned back to front or the close up is and was then flipped. Or the wide shot was flipped after scanning the right way round. You will have to go back to the original scans to see. If one of them is on a different strip to the other and has been scanned back to front, probably all of the strip has been. Back to front scanning can affect sharpness. voice of experience It's easy to do in the excitement of a new process. /voice of experience mike
Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re: Computer Talk
On 11/3/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: the useful content - what the email is actually about - is overwhelmed by textual barnacles. HOW NOW WOW COW? SAW MAW, PAW, JAW JAW RAW! From the 'Rights for Textual Barnacles Party' Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
more stuff from fairygirl...
hi guys, just posting a link to a gallery of kid portraits that I shot yesterday for those who asked about portraits and the *istD. The lighting was ideal for this shoot and the results were much, much better than the couple that I posted the other day. This little girl is a very unusual looking child, and it was hard to make her look cute. PLUS, boy does she ever have an attitude, she DID NOT want to be photographed and is very intense and totally precocious! She is two years old and was telling her mum to Get Lost! So initially, I had to shoot without flash using a 200mm lens to keep a safe distance from her to capture her candidly. Toward the end, she relaxed a little and I distracted her by bribing her with lollies and picking some lillies out of the water for her to play with, so she became a little easier to work with. Her mum is a good friend of mine who I have shot many times in the past (whilst she was pregnant and when the little girl was a newborn), but this time she insisted on paying me properly and on me treating her as I would a true client as she felt sick of getting freebies from me all the time. It was really nice to be appreciated by a friend! So, she is over the moon with the results, and I was quite happy too, I can definitely see my work with the *ist D improving as I get to know it better... Still, I think there is a bit too much flash on some of those shots toward the end - still learning about flash in a major way, so I expect that this will improve over time... Here's the link: http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/index.html I love this one... http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/pages/IMGP1398.html Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I may soften the effect of the flash? I do have a diffuser over it, but I'm not getting hotspots anyways, which is a great thing. I am just wanting to soften so that it doesn't appear to dominate the entire picture, such as in this shot: http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/pages/IMGP1386.html Obviously, I can't bounce it when I am shooting on location such as these. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Ok, so I am off to Brisbane again in the morning, so may be a bit quiet until Monday - will check my emails in my motel tomorrow night though, so don't go talking behind my back, ok?!? lol... Have a great weekend all! tan.
Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re: Computer Talk
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Bob W wrote: email. I would like to make a plea for something else: don't use the PAW or WOW prefixes at all. I would like to make the opposite plea: please use the PAW and WOW prefixes, they are only 5 characters long (incl colon and space) but help me and other filter such messages to folders. I have no objection to the following though: 1. write them in lower case - this would mean they don't dominate the rest of the subject line 2. put them at the end of the subject line - when the eye scans a list it needs some variety at the beginning of each line to rest on and navigate by. The prefixes make this very difficult*. Thanks, Kostas
RAW Conversion comparison
I have been reading many people sceptical about the differences in the quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools around. I have done a comparison between PhotoLab Photoshop CS which, to my eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences. http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg Look at the edge between the sleeve background. The Pentax conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line around the edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail. IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go... http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on. Cheers
Re: more stuff from fairygirl...
From: Tanya Mayer Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] just posting a link to a gallery of kid portraits that I shot yesterday for those who asked about portraits and the *istD. The lighting was ideal for this shoot and the results were much, much better than the couple that I posted the other day. This little girl is a very unusual looking child, and it was hard to make her look cute. She doesn't look very unusual to me, and I do think she's cute, but I guess you meant cute as in kind of fairy-cute(?) or the like. PLUS, boy does she ever have an attitude, she DID NOT want to be photographed and is very intense and totally precocious! She is two years old and was telling her mum to Get Lost! :-) Make a note of this, and remind her about it, when you do another portrait series of her in twenty years. (I'd love to see that.) In between make yourself available for shoots of her at intervals of a couple of years. I think it's a great series of photographs. I feel like I've got a good glimpse of this young lady's personality. (I like the one you picked out too very much.) There are many good shots. Some of my favourites are of the mother and daughter together. A few great ones there. Would have liked to see all of them in colour. There is a (just) a handful that I would personally have left out for a presentation. One thing about the framing: there is a tendency to put the subject in the middle of the horizontal(?) frames, which I think could have been a bit more varied. Also there is a tendency to frame in to half-body shots, as well as - in my taste - cropping the top of her head a bit tight. I think this could have been varied to a greater extent too. If this is your style, I respect that, but as a viewer, I wouldn't mind some more variation. These minor reflections of mine doesn't take away a bit of the fact that both you and the mother, as well as the young lady when she will review them at a later time, have all reasons to be very happy about what you produced. (I am no expert on shooting flash, in fact I too await good advice on the questions you posed. However, I think some of the flash shots could digitally be made a bit warmer.) Good work! Thanks for sharing. Lasse Here's the link: http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/index.html I love this one... http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/pages/IMGP1398.html
RE: Fairygirl's first attempt at concert pix...
Tan these are fantastic. From your story you did an amazing job because most of them look pretty sharp. I actually like some of the colour versions better because of the coloured smoke etc. Artistic views aside I am guessing that at higher magnification the noise is less objectionable in BW though - this is what I find. This is where DSLRs really shine - ISO1600 is totally usable. I think you could have a whole new sideline to your career here! -Original Message- From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 March 2004 22:17 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fairygirl's first attempt at concert pix... So I went to a concert last night with singer Shannon Noll (was runner up on Australian Idol). BIG news in our sleep little country hicksville. Over 5000 people attended the concert, that is like double the population of my entire town! Anyways, had some fun trying my hand at concert pix. Was extremely difficult though as all were handheld and I was in the middle of the mosh pit, so you can imagine the problems I faced! And they kept spraying the damn crowd with water (it was BLOODY hot in that there pit!), but I spent half the night trying to protect my camera from the fire hose! Anyways, all shots taken on the *ist D with Tamron 28-200mm f4-5.6 Asph lens at between 135mm and 200mm. All handheld at f5.6 and usually around 1/8 and sometimes up to 1/20 if I was lucky. All shot with NR on at ISO 1600. Actually, come to think of it, I reckon I did pretty well to get even a few in focus with those settings. My arm muscles must be building up! Word of advice - never try to take sharp pics in a mosh pit with a long zoom lens. It ain't pretty lemme tell you! There will be quite a few drunken concert goers with bumps on their drunken heads today as a result of them jumping into my camera (I know, I know, it is a public liability nightmare, but I figure they were mostly too drunk to remember and besides, it WAS a mosh pit - most people EXPECT to get bashed on the head with something! lol)... Anyways, boy did my reflexes get good last night as I tried to shoot quickly between crowd crushes! Here's a few of the better shots, the black blurry bits in the foreground of some shots are people's heads! It does pay to be that bit taller at times. I had some poor lady who was like 4ft standing next to me and whinging all night about how she was shorter than most of the 12 year olds there and could see less than them cause she didn't have the energy to be jumping around like a maniac to see over the heads...! lol. These two are my favourites: http://www.tanyamayer.com/shannonnoll/pages/ShannonNoll11.html http://www.tanyamayer.com/shannonnoll/pages/ShannonNoll09.html And here are the rest of them http://www.tanyamayer.com/shannonnoll/index.html tan.
Re: Pentax (film) vs. 5MP (SONY)
Hi! A friend of mine who sold me my (formely his) Epson 2450 attached to it a plastic slide frame modified in a certain way. My mechanical set up is like this: first I take the film and put it into slide frame. Then I take the slide scanning piece of plastic provided by Epson. I put the slide frame on the glass and the Epson's original frame above it in order to fix it and align it properly. Then I scan. You've been seeing results for several month now and I don't remember many complaints about scans being soft. I cannot say that it is tack sharp but it is sharp enough this way. HTH Boris
RE: more stuff from fairygirl...
If you have the 360FGZ then you could lower the flash out put using the compensation on the flash? Alternatively you could take a projector screen or some white card with you and bounce off that. The other thing you may want to look at is a gold diffuser, stofen do them and they can give pleasing skin tones. Alternatively, you could use contrast techniques in your image editor to adjust things like this: http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/TanIMGP1386.jpg I think that may be closer to what you are looking for? Rob -Original Message- From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Still, I think there is a bit too much flash on some of those shots toward the end - still learning about flash in a major way, so I expect that this will improve over time... Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I may soften the effect of the flash? I do have a diffuser over it, but I'm not getting hotspots anyways, which is a great thing. I am just wanting to soften so that it doesn't appear to dominate the entire picture, such as in this shot: http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/pages/IMGP1386.html
Re: Fairygirl's first attempt at concert pix...
Hi! I second that. Tanya you're one strong woman... To hand hold the total mass of the lens and the camera... Take into account focal length and location... Tanya, you rule g... Boris
Re: PAW - Session 1
From: Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi All, Haven't had a chance to read any of the (1200!) unread messages since Friday, but thought I'd submit my first PAW. This is from the first portrait session I've done with a willing adult sitter; http://members.iinet.net.au/~celsim/Session1/pages/Quarter1.htm The others are http://members.iinet.net.au/~celsim/Session1/index.htm , but that would make it 4paw, which is cheating. :-) I took a look at all four of them. The first one is really good. The second one in BW has everything in it to make a really good portrait, but there is an uneven light (did the high burn out? or is it the other way araound?) that prevents showing some characteristic facial featuers. Maybe it would make a great high key portrait, but then you'd have to take it a bit further. As is, it's somewhere i between. In the third one, although probably not correct, it looks as if she isn't really ready for the shot and as if she's asking a question that I can't possibly give her. As someone else pointed out, she's got big eyes, and occasionally such features may get enhanced in photos. Other than that, I think the general set up looks useful. The fourth one, I think is almost very good. But there is something to the light - maybe it's still a bit too harsh, or I find the highs too bright. I like her pose though, it's kind of classic. To me she looks comfortable enough, but her big eyes get a bit over-emphisized here too. (I did download it and tried to soften the contrast and retreive som details in the highs, but I don't know - I may have taken away something that's essential to you.). I'm looking forward too seeing more as you proceed in portrait shooting. You are a bit ahead of me in shooting studio portraits and learning how to use and master studio lights - at least you seem to have got them already... Finally I'd like to point out one thing. I have previously seen a number of shots by you, aimly of your son, I think, and they have been very, very good. In these four portrait shots I actually think that I'm already spotting a bit of a Simon King-style or approach. I just want to mention this, because it means that I think you got something good there coming. Thanks, Lasse
Re: Rolleiflex Sale
Ignore my previous question as to where you live, Chris! The net.au on the end of your email address almost bit me! keith Chris wrote: Is any body interested in purchasing this Rolleiflex 2.8E 80mm Planar?Seems to work ok to my untrained eye.Comes with a cover and lens covers.Please contact off list if interested. Regards Chris Kennedy
Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] For those of you who didn't read the very long thread about *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution, I have posted shots made made with a Pentax MZ-S and different lenses compared to almost identical shots made with a Sony DSC F717 - a 5MP camera with a Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar lens and a 6x8mm chip. I believe practical tests are equally informative as the facts of the figures (according to which a 6x5mm chip should not be able to produce much resulution). The link is this: http://gallery50012.fotopic.net/c132825_1.html Nest time I'll use and a dedicated film scanner. J.C. O'Connell suggested I'd use 50 or 100 ISO, but I guess the SONY (as well as the 'ist D) does not feature less than 200 ASA. And f 1:8 is the upper limit of the Sonnar lens, but not of the *ist D. (I believe that most lenses have their best reslolution/performance at f. 1:8 - 1:11, though). This bring me to suggset - again - that somone on this list will do similar tests, using the *ist D Quite frankly, your comparison is incredibly flawed. The equivalencies you seem to have drawn between film and digital are off. The ISO's of a digital point shoot are not comparable to film. The f stops are not comparable either. And that you scanned the film on an flatbedFor this test to be equal, you need to open up that Sony, bend the sensor at the corners, and cover it with with Vaseline G Mark
Re: dorkily enabled
Greg Lovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mirror lock-up (of a sort) I was under the impression that the KX was one of the only two Pentax models to ever have true mirror lock-up (the other one is the LX). Nope, the K2 has manual mirror lock-up too. other Pentax models that have mirror lockup, have it only with the self-timer, which makes it hard to capture the moment if that's what you're trying to do. Also, I recall reading that when you lock up the mirror on the KX, the aperature is also stopped down in advance, eliminating that much more vibration. That's true. Am I confused about the KX? Nope :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: What gear is on your lust list ? Recommendations? 70-210
There have been manual focus two-touch zooms made. The Pentax A 35-70 f4, etc. What I really want is a variable aperature manual focus Pentax lens without the F/FA feel or the bulk of the A 70-210. Sigh Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: I thought that historically One Touch and MF are almost one and the same. If the issue with One Touch is creep, the Kiron has a zoom and focus lock. In any case, unless the F is the one that is too expensive, it is reasonably short, relatively close-focusing and two touch. Would flare-resistance go into your equation? Because then, in principle, you are really limited in choice ;-) Have you checked Stan's page for reviews of the post-F zooms? Interested, Kostas
Re: more stuff from fairygirl...
Some very nice shots! Please explain how you select lenses i.e. 90mm through 200mm seem to produce good portraits in the right situation. You mention 200mm for safe distance. Which others did you use? - Original Message - From: Tanya Mayer Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:14 AM Subject: more stuff from fairygirl... hi guys, just posting a link to a gallery of kid portraits that I shot yesterday for those who asked about portraits and the *istD. The lighting was ideal for this shoot and the results were much, much better than the couple that I posted the other day. This little girl is a very unusual looking child, and it was hard to make her look cute. PLUS, boy does she ever have an attitude, she DID NOT want to be photographed and is very intense and totally precocious! She is two years old and was telling her mum to Get Lost! So initially, I had to shoot without flash using a 200mm lens to keep a safe distance from her to capture her candidly. Toward the end, she relaxed a little and I distracted her by bribing her with lollies and picking some lillies out of the water for her to play with, so she became a little easier to work with. Her mum is a good friend of mine who I have shot many times in the past (whilst she was pregnant and when the little girl was a newborn), but this time she insisted on paying me properly and on me treating her as I would a true client as she felt sick of getting freebies from me all the time. It was really nice to be appreciated by a friend! So, she is over the moon with the results, and I was quite happy too, I can definitely see my work with the *ist D improving as I get to know it better... Still, I think there is a bit too much flash on some of those shots toward the end - still learning about flash in a major way, so I expect that this will improve over time... Here's the link: http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/index.html I love this one... http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/pages/IMGP1398.html Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I may soften the effect of the flash? I do have a diffuser over it, but I'm not getting hotspots anyways, which is a great thing. I am just wanting to soften so that it doesn't appear to dominate the entire picture, such as in this shot: http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/pages/IMGP1386.html Obviously, I can't bounce it when I am shooting on location such as these. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Ok, so I am off to Brisbane again in the morning, so may be a bit quiet until Monday - will check my emails in my motel tomorrow night though, so don't go talking behind my back, ok?!? lol... Have a great weekend all! tan.
Re: XP-2
Yeah, but if you're doing your own developing, you'll get less spots and scratches than if you let the 1-hour lab folks do it. Meaning, say, 15 minutes with the Photoshop Clone Brush instead of an hour and a half. Clint Austin wrote: I did the scans myself I just purchased a film scanner. I dont know how that could be possible for just one to be scanned backwards, BUT I am new to scanning. I dont know which way I will go traditional BW is cheaper in the long run to process but I might just shoot slides and then use PS to convert them. Has anyone here had problems scanning traditonal style BW films ? My understanding was that the silver confuses ICE ?
Re: dorkily enabled, KX
You are not confused. Greg Lovern wrote: I was under the impression that the KX was one of the only two Pentax models to ever have true mirror lock-up (the other one is the LX). All other Pentax models that have mirror lockup, have it only with the self-timer, which makes it hard to capture the moment if that's what you're trying to do. Also, I recall reading that when you lock up the mirror on the KX, the aperature is also stopped down in advance, eliminating that much more vibration. Am I confused about the KX? Greg
Rolleiflex Sale
The reason I asked interested parties to contact me off list was so I could answer their questions without boring the pants off every body else.Keith, naturally I did not mention the net.auin my email to you as i was brung up proper. Some how knew you would twig anyway.Hope my reply elucidates. Regards Chris K
OT: Vacation in London
A question for Londoners and UK PDML'ers - We have a ten day stay in London coming up in May; it will be our seventh stay in the city. I think we have visited most of the obvious places and some not so obvious. I would like your suggestions for places to see and photograph - places that a tourist from Indiana might otherwise miss grins. Rather than replying on list, I would appreciate your sending to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Lewis _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Re: more stuff from fairygirl...
On 11 Mar 2004 at 19:14, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: This little girl is a very unusual looking child, and it was hard to make her look cute. What's this thing about cute? Everyone who's had children know what they can be like when they are two years old and discover that they actually can have a say in things. Most notably the word no. PLUS, boy does she ever have an attitude, she DID NOT want to be photographed and is very intense and totally precocious! She is two years old and was telling her mum to Get Lost! LOL. Sounds like a true toddler to me. When I looked at the pictures, I could sense the attitude in that kid. She's probably going to be a little monster for a while, and then catch up with cute when it suits her. I'm not a portraits photographer, but your photos tell a good story about a young person. For that reason, I really like them. I can't tell you much about techniques and stuff, but as for capturing the nature of a strong-headed toddler, I'm impressed. Cheers, Jostein -- Photos at: http://www.oksne.net --
Re: What gear is on your lust list ? Recommendations? 70-210
I have an SMC Pentax-A 1:4-5.6 35-80mm zoom that performs very well. It's a little lighter than my SMC Pentax-FA 1:4 28-70mm AL. The feel is about the same, when I use them on manual focus on my M-Series bodies. . . Or, you might check out Vivitar's 28-70mm 1:3.5-4.8 MC Macro-focusing zoom. This IS a one-touch, and has a heavier feel to it, more like the older Pentax lenses. Don't know if that helps you or not. . . keith whaley Lon Williamson wrote: There have been manual focus two-touch zooms made. The Pentax A 35-70 f4, etc. What I really want is a variable aperature manual focus Pentax lens without the F/FA feel or the bulk of the A 70-210. Sigh Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: I thought that historically One Touch and MF are almost one and the same. If the issue with One Touch is creep, the Kiron has a zoom and focus lock. In any case, unless the F is the one that is too expensive, it is reasonably short, relatively close-focusing and two touch. Would flare-resistance go into your equation? Because then, in principle, you are really limited in choice ;-) Have you checked Stan's page for reviews of the post-F zooms? Interested, Kostas
Re: RAW Conversion comparison
Good illustration, Rob. Especially the black line on the shoulder. I think also the difference in detail level around the lips and on the blue fleece over his brow is markedly different. Time to upgrade. Now where did all my money go...:-) Cheers, Jostein On 11 Mar 2004 at 10:14, Rob Brigham wrote: I have been reading many people sceptical about the differences in the quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools around. I have done a comparison between PhotoLab Photoshop CS which, to my eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences. http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg Look at the edge between the sleeve background. The Pentax conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line around the edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail. IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go... http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on. Cheers -- Photos at: http://www.oksne.net --
Re: OT: A tax question for EU residents
Rob Studdert escribió: If I shipped a used camera from Australia that was purchased new (with tax paid) from a vendor inside the EU to an EU member country would it attract a second round of tax? I am not sure whether I have understood your question clearly but if you ship from within the EU, for example, from Spain to Germany, no taxes will apply. Carlos Royo - Zaragoza (Aragon), Spain The struggle of people against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting Milan Kundera (La lucha del pueblo contra el poder es la lucha de la memoria contra el olvido)
Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re: Computer Talk
I would be in favour of keeping them in upper case and at the front of the subject line. That way they are easily visible. At the end of the subject line makes them disappear completely when a subject line is long in the overview of emails. On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 10:46, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Bob W wrote: email. I would like to make a plea for something else: don't use the PAW or WOW prefixes at all. I would like to make the opposite plea: please use the PAW and WOW prefixes, they are only 5 characters long (incl colon and space) but help me and other filter such messages to folders. I have no objection to the following though: 1. write them in lower case - this would mean they don't dominate the rest of the subject line 2. put them at the end of the subject line - when the eye scans a list it needs some variety at the beginning of each line to rest on and navigate by. The prefixes make this very difficult*. Thanks, Kostas -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: Music from our musicians?
Glenn's post got me to thinking - we have some very talented musicians on the list, where's the music? So drag out those links, post 'em if you got 'em. I'd love to hear some of Glenn's tunes, for sure. Hey, maybe he'll produce a Best Of PDML cd... and Amita already the cover shot! I can't carry a tune in a bucket, but I am an appreciative fan. My son-in-law plays bass with this band: http://www.drivebysatellite.com/ His name is Adam, he is third from left in the topmost photo on the main page. The one with the decent haircut. He's Canadian, hopefully they will get rich and famous and he can buy a nice trophy house in Scottsdale so our daughter will be close to her mom. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: OT: Music from our musicians?
John Mustarde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Glenn's post got me to thinking - we have some very talented musicians on the list, where's the music? So drag out those links, post 'em if you got 'em. http://www.robertstech.com/music.htm MP3's you can download for free! :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: RAW Conversion comparison
Yeah, when I tried this image I couldn't believe how bad the Pentax Lab was. I also couldn't believe I hadnt really niticed it before. Now I keep seeing it everywhere and had to get CS as I couldn't live with it anymore. Managed to get CS a bit cheaper by importing from the states though, so not as bad as I first thought! The full size preview is really good too, as is the conversion speed. I don't think CS does batch conversion though, does it? Maybe less of an issue as the single image conversion is so much quicker... -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 March 2004 12:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAW Conversion comparison Good illustration, Rob. Especially the black line on the shoulder. I think also the difference in detail level around the lips and on the blue fleece over his brow is markedly different. Time to upgrade. Now where did all my money go...:-) Cheers, Jostein On 11 Mar 2004 at 10:14, Rob Brigham wrote: I have been reading many people sceptical about the differences in the quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools around. I have done a comparison between PhotoLab Photoshop CS which, to my eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences. http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg Look at the edge between the sleeve background. The Pentax conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line around the edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail. IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go... http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on. Cheers -- Photos at: http://www.oksne.net --
Re: OT: A tax question for EU residents
Well, you'd probably have grounds for putting up a spirited argument along those lines, but revenue-collectors aren't noted for their understanding and leniency in my experienct. In practice I think it'd get taxed again, and the recipient would have to decide whether or not to try and chase it up. The original receipt would be necessary, at the very least. S Rob Studdert wrote: If I shipped a used camera from Australia that was purchased new (with tax paid) from a vendor inside the EU to an EU member country would it attract a second round of tax? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re: Computer Talk
On 11 Mar 2004 at 13:34, Frits Wüthrich wrote: I would be in favour of keeping them in upper case and at the front of the subject line. That way they are easily visible. At the end of the subject line makes them disappear completely when a subject line is long in the overview of emails. Whether the prefix remains a prefix or is placed at the end of the subject line or is placed in the body of text any reasonable email client should be able to filter based on the WOW or PAW designation to an alternate sub-directory (folder thingy for the Mac people) or flag them for automatic deletion. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Teleconverter question
-Original Message- From: Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Teleconverter question Snip I think there might be something about the optical formula of the F* and FA* 300mm F4.5 lenses that makes them unsuitable for use with teleconverters. --Mark I truly doubt it with Pentax Converters, I get excellent results with the 1.4XS on my 300mm FA. Ken Waller PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: PAE #?
Boris, FWIW, if you ask for a critique, take it, digest it, learn from it if possible, but don't defend it - you're asking for someone's opinion. If they solicit an answer to some aspect of the image then give it. My $.02 worth. It's no rule. Ken Waller -Original Message- From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PAE #? Hi! TMP The tree to the left looks a bit strange due to it actually being taller TMP than the skyscrapers, for me, it puts the perspective out a little. Maybe TMP (I'm not sure where you were standing), you could have moved a little more TMP to the right to not include the tree in the frame? Just by changing the TMP angle, you should still have been able to keep all of the sunset and the TMP rays, cityscape etc in the frame... Although then the light may have been TMP coming through the clouds differently... I have no idea, just ignore me, I TMP am thinking out loud and talking rubbish, I fear! lol... Tanya, with all due respect, I do think that the tree actually makes the shot. Which I wrote in my comments I believe. It is light, tree and city - three components, not less. I hope I am not breaking any rules here by countering someone else's opinion... If I do, I apologize in advance. Boris PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
RE: Dissatisfied
Then I can understand why you don't want to shoot XP-2 anymore. Photography is supposed to be fun and if we are not happy with our results it's not fun. David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 10:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dissatisfied I've not printed it yet ... I've looked at it on three monitors and three computers. It just looks like crap to me. I don't know how to explain it other than it doesn't seem to have a smooth tonality. Likewise all the other XP-2 shots I've worked with.
Re: What gear is on your lust list ? Recommendations? 70-210
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Lon Williamson wrote: The Pentax A 35-70 f4, etc. What I really want is a variable aperature manual focus Pentax lens without the F/FA feel or the bulk of the A 70-210. Sigh http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/zooms/long/A80-200f4.7-5.6.html Not seen one. According to Boz it is still in production, so you may be able to play with one at your friendly camera shop. Kostas
RE: RAW Conversion comparison
I also noticed the CS converter remembers your settings, like colour temp, exposure corrections and rotation. Next time you open the same pef file it uses those settings to start with. On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 13:46, Rob Brigham wrote: Yeah, when I tried this image I couldn't believe how bad the Pentax Lab was. I also couldn't believe I hadnt really niticed it before. Now I keep seeing it everywhere and had to get CS as I couldn't live with it anymore. Managed to get CS a bit cheaper by importing from the states though, so not as bad as I first thought! The full size preview is really good too, as is the conversion speed. I don't think CS does batch conversion though, does it? Maybe less of an issue as the single image conversion is so much quicker... -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 March 2004 12:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAW Conversion comparison Good illustration, Rob. Especially the black line on the shoulder. I think also the difference in detail level around the lips and on the blue fleece over his brow is markedly different. Time to upgrade. Now where did all my money go...:-) Cheers, Jostein On 11 Mar 2004 at 10:14, Rob Brigham wrote: I have been reading many people sceptical about the differences in the quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools around. I have done a comparison between PhotoLab Photoshop CS which, to my eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences. http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg Look at the edge between the sleeve background. The Pentax conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line around the edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail. IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go... http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on. Cheers -- Photos at: http://www.oksne.net -- -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAW Conversion comparison
Does it remember them at a file level? Or does it just default to the last used settings? -Original Message- From: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 March 2004 13:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RAW Conversion comparison I also noticed the CS converter remembers your settings, like colour temp, exposure corrections and rotation. Next time you open the same pef file it uses those settings to start with. On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 13:46, Rob Brigham wrote: Yeah, when I tried this image I couldn't believe how bad the Pentax Lab was. I also couldn't believe I hadnt really niticed it before. Now I keep seeing it everywhere and had to get CS as I couldn't live with it anymore. Managed to get CS a bit cheaper by importing from the states though, so not as bad as I first thought! The full size preview is really good too, as is the conversion speed. I don't think CS does batch conversion though, does it? Maybe less of an issue as the single image conversion is so much quicker... -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 March 2004 12:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAW Conversion comparison Good illustration, Rob. Especially the black line on the shoulder. I think also the difference in detail level around the lips and on the blue fleece over his brow is markedly different. Time to upgrade. Now where did all my money go...:-) Cheers, Jostein On 11 Mar 2004 at 10:14, Rob Brigham wrote: I have been reading many people sceptical about the differences in the quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools around. I have done a comparison between PhotoLab Photoshop CS which, to my eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences. http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg Look at the edge between the sleeve background. The Pentax conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line around the edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail. IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go... http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on. Cheers -- Photos at: http://www.oksne.net -- -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe
unsubscribe -- Content-Type: text/plain pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 04 : Issue 551 Today's Topics: Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) [ Mark Dalal [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: dorkily enabled [ Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: What gear is on your lust list [ Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: more stuff from fairygirl... [ Hal Sandra Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: dorkily enabled, KX [ Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: XP-2 [ Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Rolleiflex Sale [ Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] OT: Vacation in London[ Lewis Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: more stuff from fairygirl... [ Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: What gear is on your lust list [ Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: RAW Conversion comparison [ Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: OT: A tax question for EU reside [ Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re [ Frits =?ISO-8859-1?Q?W=FCthrich?= ] OT: Music from our musicians? [ John Mustarde [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: RAW Conversion comparison [ Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: OT: Music from our musicians? [ Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: OT: A tax question for EU reside [ Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re [ Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Teleconverter question[ Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: PAE #?[ Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Dissatisfied [ David Madsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] -- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:38:28 -0600 From: Mark Dalal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] For those of you who didn't read the very long thread about *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution, I have posted shots made made with a Pentax MZ-S and different lenses compared to almost identical shots made with a Sony DSC F717 - a 5MP camera with a Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar lens and a 6x8mm chip. I believe practical tests are equally informative as the facts of the figures (according to which a 6x5mm chip should not be able to produce much resulution). The link is this: http://gallery50012.fotopic.net/c132825_1.html Nest time I'll use and a dedicated film scanner. J.C. O'Connell suggested I'd use 50 or 100 ISO, but I guess the SONY (as well as the 'ist D) does not feature less than 200 ASA. And f 1:8 is the upper limit of the Sonnar lens, but not of the *ist D. (I believe that most lenses have their best reslolution/performance at f. 1:8 - 1:11, though). This bring me to suggset - again - that somone on this list will do similar tests, using the *ist D Quite frankly, your comparison is incredibly flawed. The equivalencies you seem to have drawn between film and digital are off. The ISO's of a digital point shoot are not comparable to film. The f stops are not comparable either. And that you scanned the film on an flatbedFor this test to be equal, you need to open up that Sony, bend the sensor at the corners, and cover it with with Vaseline G Mark -- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:47:13 -0500 From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: dorkily enabled Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Greg Lovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mirror lock-up (of a sort) I was under the impression that the KX was one of the only two Pentax models to ever have true mirror lock-up (the other one is the LX). Nope, the K2 has manual mirror lock-up too. other Pentax models that have mirror lockup, have it only with the self-timer, which makes it hard to capture the moment if that's what you're trying to do. Also, I recall reading that when you lock up the mirror on the KX, the aperature is also stopped down in advance, eliminating that much more vibration. That's true. Am I confused about the KX? Nope :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com -- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:12:06 -0500 From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What gear is on your lust list ? Recommendations? 70-210 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There have been manual focus two-touch zooms made. The Pentax A 35-70 f4, etc. What I really want is a variable aperature manual focus Pentax lens
more stuff from fairygirl...
Hi Tanya, Nice work with the child portraiture. Shooting kids that age is never easy. I could see how the little model and the photographer got more and more comfortable with one another as the shoot went on. It was quite noticable in the quality of expression in your photographs. The flash problems you describe are much less of a distraction to me than the backgrounds of most of the pictures I'm the first to admit that I am no expert with flash but there are simple flash attachments that will help soften the light. These can be attached with velcro right on to the flash... and they are not overly expensive... Back to the backgrounds. I think the shots that show background would benefit from a much shallower depth of field. If these were shot with a longer lens and opened up to F2.8 or something like that, the background would really soften up. I think you would be much happier with some of the results. I don't know what lens you used here (maybe your 28-200.) The problem with these zooms is that they are relatively slow lenses and you begin to lose the ability to really soften the backgrounds. The background is also a little hot for my liking. I suggest moving around as much as possible to get the subject in a position that has a more pleasing background. Other than that, keep up the good work... Vic
Spot scratch removal in Photoshop (was: XP-2)
Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...if you're doing your own developing, you'll get less spots and scratches than if you let the 1-hour lab folks do it. Meaning, say, 15 minutes with the Photoshop Clone Brush instead of an hour and a half. Here's a great way to speed up spot retouching of scanned negatives and slides in Photoshop (works in 7.0 - I'm not certain of earlier versions): Open your image in Photoshop, zoom to 100% and find some representative examples of the spots you want to retouch. Under the Filter menu, go to the Noise option and choose Dust and Scratches. Adjust the radius control in the Dust and Scratches dialog until most or all of your annoying spots disappear. Your image will be hopelessly blurry at this point; don't worry about it. Click OK. Now you have a blurry image with no dust spots. Go to the History palate (if you don't have it open, pull down the Window menu and click on History). Click on the history step that's immediately before (above) the Dust and Scratches step you just implemented (this will usually be Open). Now you'll be viewing the original image as it looked prior to the Dust and Scratches filter. You've essentially gone back in time to before used the filter and all your spots will be back. Now click on the History brush box next to the Dust and Scratches step in the History Palate. (This is the square box on the left edge of the History Palate, next to the Dust and Scratches step.) When you click on this box, a picture of a brush with a circular arrow should appear in it. Now go over to the Tools palate and select the History Brush tool (a brush with a circular arrow just like the smaller one you activated in the History palate). Set the brush size to about that of the spots you're going to retouch. I usually use a feathered edge brush. If you're retouching white spots on an image from a scanned negative, set the brush Mode (small drop-down box at top of screen - default setting is Normal) to Darken. If you're retouching dark spots on a scanned slide, set to Lighten. Now use the History Brush on your spots. Every spot you hit will be transported forward in time to after the Dust and Scratches was applied. But ONLY that spot will be subject to the filter, not the entire image. I've been pretty detailed in this description, so it may look more complex than it is. Trust me, it's really fast to set up once you've done it for the first time. It's *vastly* faster than using the clone tool, especially for negs with a lot of spots. You may still need to use the clone tool afterwards if you have any really big spots or scratches, but the time saving is still enormous. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: RAW Conversion comparison
At a file level, really cool. I guess it stores the information separately, as it builds a database for thumbnails. After I did that in CS, the Pentax software doesn't recognise the changes made. If you use the browser in CS, it will show the rotation of the pef files that you rotated when you converted the image, and colour and exposure corrections. If you convert the pef file again it starts with your last settings for the specific image. I rotated two images, adjusted the colour temperature of several of them, and all of that information is shown in the browser of CS. On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 14:13, Rob Brigham wrote: Does it remember them at a file level? Or does it just default to the last used settings? -Original Message- From: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 March 2004 13:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RAW Conversion comparison I also noticed the CS converter remembers your settings, like colour temp, exposure corrections and rotation. Next time you open the same pef file it uses those settings to start with. On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 13:46, Rob Brigham wrote: Yeah, when I tried this image I couldn't believe how bad the Pentax Lab was. I also couldn't believe I hadnt really niticed it before. Now I keep seeing it everywhere and had to get CS as I couldn't live with it anymore. Managed to get CS a bit cheaper by importing from the states though, so not as bad as I first thought! The full size preview is really good too, as is the conversion speed. I don't think CS does batch conversion though, does it? Maybe less of an issue as the single image conversion is so much quicker... -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 March 2004 12:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAW Conversion comparison Good illustration, Rob. Especially the black line on the shoulder. I think also the difference in detail level around the lips and on the blue fleece over his brow is markedly different. Time to upgrade. Now where did all my money go...:-) Cheers, Jostein On 11 Mar 2004 at 10:14, Rob Brigham wrote: I have been reading many people sceptical about the differences in the quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools around. I have done a comparison between PhotoLab Photoshop CS which, to my eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences. http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg Look at the edge between the sleeve background. The Pentax conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line around the edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail. IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go... http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on. Cheers -- Photos at: http://www.oksne.net -- -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: more stuff from fairygirl...
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Rob Brigham wrote: If you have the 360FGZ then you could lower the flash out put using the compensation on the flash? Does the exposure compensation trick work with the *ist-D? Kostas
RE: PAW: guitar
From: David Madsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spell check failed me. It should be an acoustic guitar, not a caustic guitar. Or maybe it should. Having absolutely nothing to do with acid rock. Opposite end of the ph scale, to say the least. Nice pic, btw. Maybe tilt it a degree or two to the left. It seems to be listing to the right just a bit. (Or maybe I need to take my medication.) But nice as it sits. Good work. This was fascinating to see. Two weeks ago I did some bw experimenting taking pics of my Yamaha G-235. Those Japanese sure make good stuff. Collin (driving a 257K-mile Camry working @ Honda RD) Brendemuehl
OT: Can you discriminate between grays?
The images contained the following URLs illustrate colour ambiguity, or how easily the eyes and gray matter can be fooled: http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/Dale%27s%20Illusion1.jpg http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/Colorcross1.html I makes you wonder if naturally occurring illusions may be the reason that some images look wrong but are near impossible to quantify why? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: PAE #?
Boris wrote: Tanya, with all due respect, I do think that the tree actually makes the shot. Which I wrote in my comments I believe. It is light, tree and city - three components, not less. I hope I am not breaking any rules here by countering someone else's opinion... If I do, I apologize in advance. Hey Boris! It takes alot more than this to offend me! lol. As I said in my comments, the tree didn't do anything FOR ME, it has absolutely no bearing on yours (or anyone elses) opinions. Photography is such a subjective genre. I truly believe that no-one is right or wrong. Many times I have taken shots that I thought were total crap to have someone come back and love it. And vice versa - I have MANY times taken shots that I loved, with a less than encouraging response from others. And I often see things posted here that I don't necessarily like that others do, and sometimes I will love a shot that someone has posted whilst everybody else tears it to bits. It is your work Boris, and as long as you love it, it works for you, and tells the story that you want, then that is all that matters! Unless, like some silly people around here you are trying to make money from selling said work, and then you spend your entire life ignoring what you want and trying to make others happy. Why anyone would be so silly as to try such a thing, I truly don't know...? vbg tan.
FS: Pentax FA-J 18-35mm f/4-5.6, like new
I bought this lens for film use soon after it became available in November. I more recently got the 24-90 Pentax zoom, and this one has not seen enough use. In like new condition, with all papers, caps, hood, and box. Will work in program and shutter-priority mode with all A-series and later Pentaxes, from the Super Program and P series to the SF, PZ, MZ and *ists. It can be used in aperture priority and manual with the PZ-1 and PZ-1p, as well as with the *ist-D. It works beautifully, though it is weak in the corners at 18mm and at wider apertures. A wonderfully inexpensive super-wide Pentax alternative to the Vivitars, etc., with Pentax SMC and ghostless coatings. I paid $165 in November; I'm asking $125, shipping included to U.S. addresses. Joe -- Joe Wilensky Staff Writer Communication and Marketing Services 1150 Comstock Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-2601 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 607-255-1575 fax: 607-255-9873
Re: OT: Epson 2200 mac osx 10.3 and PhotoShopCS
Yes, it's very helpful. I'd like the bigger output size as well, but I can't afford to spend $1500 or more on a printer. But 16x20 capability would be awesome. Paul Kenneth Waller wrote: Paul, from what I've read the 2200 is supposed to be better than the 2000P. (Doesn't have the Metarism - sp-? issue, like the 2000P. I have used my 2000P for several years now and have NO complaints with it. My Gallery show was all done (35 images) with the 2000P, most viewers were amazed that the images were done by a home printer. My only qualm in thinking about my next printer will be output size, but we're talking a 2 to 3 X cost increase over the 2200. Hope this helps. Ken Waller Paul Stenquist wrote: My old printer is on its last legs. It's an Epson 1200 and it has produced more than 1000 12 x 18s. It's not printing very well with OS X 10.3 and Photoshop CS. I think the drivers haven't been uptdated beyond system 10.1, which is quite diffferent. Since it's a clunker anyway, I'm thinking of replacing it with the Epson 2200. Is anyone using this printer with OSX 10.3 and PhotoShop CS. Are you happy? Is this printer due to be replaced? Is there a better printer in the $500 to $800 range that's proven itself with PS CS and OSX 10.3? Paul PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: What gear is on your lust list ? Recommendations? 70-210
Looks and feel just like the FA. -Original Message- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mar 11, 2004 8:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What gear is on your lust list ? Recommendations? 70-210 On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Lon Williamson wrote: The Pentax A 35-70 f4, etc. What I really want is a variable aperature manual focus Pentax lens without the F/FA feel or the bulk of the A 70-210. Sigh http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/zooms/long/A80-200f4.7-5.6.html Not seen one. According to Boz it is still in production, so you may be able to play with one at your friendly camera shop. Kostas
Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peculiar as in unique, special ... Uhhmmm...special...yeah, that must be itspecialokay...whatever you say Shel ; ) Mark
RE: more stuff from fairygirl...
So sorry! I forgot to include the technical stuff! Most of them were shot on AV at around f4-f6.7. I didn't open my lenses too wide as she was moving around to much and it was difficult to keep her in focus. Also, I actually had too much light and could only sync at 1/150th, so I needed to stop down as far as I could to avoid overexposure. Lenses - I used the Tamron 28-200 for a few of them (all would have been around the 135-200mm mark), but most were shot with my Tamron 135mm f2.5. It is an old, heavy all metal manual lens. I LOVE this lens to death, it yields beautiful results. It is a little soft between f2.5 and f4 but that is actually perfect for the portraits that I shoot. Does anyone know anymore about this lens? I have no idea about it - it was one of my first every photography related Ebay purchases and it was a pure fluke as I really had no idea what I was bidding on at the time. Would love to hear if anyone else has any experience with this lens? tia, tan. -Original Message- From: Hal Sandra Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 11 March 2004 10:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: more stuff from fairygirl... Some very nice shots! Please explain how you select lenses i.e. 90mm through 200mm seem to produce good portraits in the right situation. You mention 200mm for safe distance. Which others did you use? - Original Message - From: Tanya Mayer Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:14 AM Subject: more stuff from fairygirl... hi guys, just posting a link to a gallery of kid portraits that I shot yesterday for those who asked about portraits and the *istD. The lighting was ideal for this shoot and the results were much, much better than the couple that I posted the other day. This little girl is a very unusual looking child, and it was hard to make her look cute. PLUS, boy does she ever have an attitude, she DID NOT want to be photographed and is very intense and totally precocious! She is two years old and was telling her mum to Get Lost! So initially, I had to shoot without flash using a 200mm lens to keep a safe distance from her to capture her candidly. Toward the end, she relaxed a little and I distracted her by bribing her with lollies and picking some lillies out of the water for her to play with, so she became a little easier to work with. Her mum is a good friend of mine who I have shot many times in the past (whilst she was pregnant and when the little girl was a newborn), but this time she insisted on paying me properly and on me treating her as I would a true client as she felt sick of getting freebies from me all the time. It was really nice to be appreciated by a friend! So, she is over the moon with the results, and I was quite happy too, I can definitely see my work with the *ist D improving as I get to know it better... Still, I think there is a bit too much flash on some of those shots toward the end - still learning about flash in a major way, so I expect that this will improve over time... Here's the link: http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/index.html I love this one... http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/pages/IMGP1398.html Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I may soften the effect of the flash? I do have a diffuser over it, but I'm not getting hotspots anyways, which is a great thing. I am just wanting to soften so that it doesn't appear to dominate the entire picture, such as in this shot: http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/pages/IMGP1386.html Obviously, I can't bounce it when I am shooting on location such as these. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Ok, so I am off to Brisbane again in the morning, so may be a bit quiet until Monday - will check my emails in my motel tomorrow night though, so don't go talking behind my back, ok?!? lol... Have a great weekend all! tan.
Re: more stuff from fairygirl...
Tan, A good job of portaiture, that. WRT your request for suggestions about flash Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I may soften the effect of the flash? I do have a diffuser over it, but I'm not getting hotspots anyways, which is a great thing. I am just wanting to soften so that it doesn't appear to dominate the entire picture, such as in this shot: my preference when a portrait subject is in the shade, but the background is fully lit, is to let the background overexpose about a stop. This prevents the ambiguity of lighting where the shadows in the foreground of the shot are brighter than the sunlight in the background, which draws attention to the presence of the flash. Simple as that, and the same thing applies when the outside world is visible through an open window, it should be brighter by at least a stop otherwise it doesn't look natural. regards, Anthony Farr
Re: OT: Epson 2200 mac osx 10.3 and PhotoShopCS
Paul, For a short while, I used a Mac as my personal computer. I found that with OS X 10.2, I couldn't print centered on the page and I had to use a third party drivers for my Epson 820. When the 2200 drivers were release, the same issue existed in terms of being able to print centered on the page. I would highly recommend confirming that the latest set of drivers and or OS X 10.3 has addressed this problem. This was a big problem as I could never predict where the printer was going to place the print on the paper. Good luck, Mark
Photographer a week - Homo ludens
Hi, Not quite one a week so far but here is a photographic journey. Well worth reading to the end. There is a series of galleries from the /photo/ directory. http://www.qsl.net/xq2fod/photo/equip/equip.html If you understand what Homo ludens means, it's worth going to his home page and looking through his stuff on model aeroplanes. There is one _very_ funny story in there mike
Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
Mark Dalal wrote:
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peculiar as in unique, special ...
Uhhmmm...special...yeah, that must be
itspecialokay...whatever you say Shel ; )
Mark
Subject: define peculiar
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:41:19 -0500
From: Wordsmith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2 definitions found
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Peculiar \Pe*culiar\, n.
1. That which is peculiar; a sole or exclusive
property; a
prerogative; a characteristic.
Revenge is . . . the peculiar of Heaven.
--South.
2. (Eng. Canon Law) A particular parish or church which
is
exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary.
{Court of Peculiars} (Eng. Law), a branch of the Court
of
Arches having cognizance of the affairs of
peculiars.
--Blackstone.
{Dean of peculiars}. See under {Dean}, 1.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Peculiar \Pe*culiar\, a. [L. peculiaris, fr. peculium
private
property, akin to pecunia money: cf. OF. peculier. See
{Pecuniary}.]
1. One's own; belonging solely or especially to an
individual; not possessed by others; of private,
personal,
or characteristic possession and use; not owned in
common
or in participation.
And purify unto himself a peculiar people.
--Titus
ii. 14.
Hymns . . . that Christianity hath peculiar
unto
itself.
--Hooker.
2. Particular; individual; special; appropriate.
While each peculiar power forgoes his wonted
seat.
--Milton.
My fate is Juno's most peculiar care.
--Dryden.
3. Unusual; singular; rare; strange; as, the sky had a
peculiarappearance.
Syn: {Peculiar}, {Special}, {Especial}.
Usage: Peculiar is from the Roman peculium, which was a
thing
emphatically and distinctively one's own, and
hence
was dear. The former sense always belongs to
peculiar
(as, a peculiar style, peculiar manners, etc.),
and
usually so much of the latter as to involve
feelings
of interest; as, peculiar care, watchfulness,
satisfaction, etc. Nothing of this kind belongs
to
special and especial. They mark simply the
relation of
species to genus, and denote that there is
something
in this case more than ordinary; as, a special
act of
Congress; especial pains, etc.
Re: OT: Epson 2200 mac osx 10.3 and PhotoShopCS
Hi Mark ... My friend, Rus, has no such problem with his Mac and 2200 shel Mark Dalal wrote: Paul, For a short while, I used a Mac as my personal computer. I found that with OS X 10.2, I couldn't print centered on the page and I had to use a third party drivers for my Epson 820. When the 2200 drivers were release, the same issue existed in terms of being able to print centered on the page. I would highly recommend confirming that the latest set of drivers and or OS X 10.3 has addressed this problem. This was a big problem as I could never predict where the printer was going to place the print on the paper. Good luck, Mark
Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
I think the film advance lever is a nice touch! Christian - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:43 AM Subject: OT: Digital Rangefinder Imminent At last, a manufacturer that understands what I want. A 6MP digital rangefinder camera with a Leica M mount, and an optical viewfinder. Now that was pretty simple, wasn't it? I want one. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0403/04031101epsonrd1.asp Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
I understand that it's for cocking the shutter ... a nice touch indeed ;-)) Christian wrote: I think the film advance lever is a nice touch!
Re: RAW Conversion comparison
Interesting. I do see the edge difference. I also see a general difference in the color balance. The pentax version looks more saturated to me, maybe a little warmer also. rg Rob Brigham wrote: I have been reading many people sceptical about the differences in the quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools around. I have done a comparison between PhotoLab Photoshop CS which, to my eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences. http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg Look at the edge between the sleeve background. The Pentax conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line around the edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail. IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go... http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on. Cheers
Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2004-03/11/epson-2.JPG So, I was wrong ;-(( Shel Belinkoff wrote: I understand that it's for cocking the shutter ... a nice touch indeed ;-)) Christian wrote: I think the film advance lever is a nice touch!
Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
Not necessarily. If you look at the angles, there is no way the lever could be the on/off switch unless it is geared inside to move the on/off thingy in the opposite direction. The on/off is the little lever in the front. I think the film advance lever is used to cock the shutter as you originally stated... Christian - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:57 AM Subject: Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2004-03/11/epson-2.JPG So, I was wrong ;-(( Shel Belinkoff wrote: I understand that it's for cocking the shutter ... a nice touch indeed ;-)) Christian wrote: I think the film advance lever is a nice touch!
Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
Well, we don't really know, do we, although I'd tend to think that Epson/Cosina wouldn't mislabel the function. I looked at the angles and wondered the same as you ... I guess we'll just have to wait for some more information to be absolutely certain about the features and functions of the camera. Perhaps a full review will be forthcoming. Christian wrote: Not necessarily. If you look at the angles, there is no way the lever could be the on/off switch unless it is geared inside to move the on/off thingy in the opposite direction. The on/off is the little lever in the front. I think the film advance lever is used to cock the shutter as you originally stated...
ye olde film v D debate
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] DSLRS/Digicams may be matching or beating 35mm film in some or all ways but they cannot compete with analog LF film for quality, now or in the near future.. In general I'd agree with you, but the rate of improvement of digital is pretty staggering compared to the very low rate of improvement in film. Film technology is pretty mature, which means to get much better quality you pretty much HAVE to go to a bigger negative. Consider that in the late 1990s the Nikon D1 came out at about $5000 with just under 3MP. This year, the Canon EOS1Dmk2 came out at about $4500 with just over 8MP and better everything else as well. With the current pace of improvement, digital will get competitive pretty fast. It's really only one jump now to the highest equals 35mm film numbers I've seen, and there is no particular reason to stop there. Sure, there are supposed to be physical limits of the technology, but they said that about computers, too, and they just keep getting faster. I'm not sure 35mm-sized digital will ever rival LF film, but I do think it will begin to worry MF pretty soon. Of course some insane company could produce a LF digital sensor, but it would be cumbersome to use in a traditional LF way and cost more than any individual could afford. DJE
RE: Music from our musicians?
-Original Message- From: John Mustarde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Glenn's post got me to thinking - we have some very talented musicians on the list, where's the music? So drag out those links, post 'em if you got 'em. I'd love to hear some of Glenn's tunes, for sure. My band played an open mic a few weeks agowe'd never played in front of people before, and actually we'd never thought of ourselves as a band before. I was petrified and flubbed half the hard parts We do have a recording of it, but it's awful! BTW, my gear lust these days is directed towards guitar. I just bought a 1963 Gibson acoustic tv
SV: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
Did I forget to mention - I allready did that. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Mark Dalal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 11. marts 2004 12:38 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] For those of you who didn't read the very long thread about *ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution, I have posted shots made made with a Pentax MZ-S and different lenses compared to almost identical shots made with a Sony DSC F717 - a 5MP camera with a Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar lens and a 6x8mm chip. I believe practical tests are equally informative as the facts of the figures (according to which a 6x5mm chip should not be able to produce much resulution). The link is this: http://gallery50012.fotopic.net/c132825_1.html Nest time I'll use and a dedicated film scanner. J.C. O'Connell suggested I'd use 50 or 100 ISO, but I guess the SONY (as well as the 'ist D) does not feature less than 200 ASA. And f 1:8 is the upper limit of the Sonnar lens, but not of the *ist D. (I believe that most lenses have their best reslolution/performance at f. 1:8 - 1:11, though). This bring me to suggset - again - that somone on this list will do similar tests, using the *ist D Quite frankly, your comparison is incredibly flawed. The equivalencies you seem to have drawn between film and digital are off. The ISO's of a digital point shoot are not comparable to film. The f stops are not comparable either. And that you scanned the film on an flatbedFor this test to be equal, you need to open up that Sony, bend the sensor at the corners, and cover it with with Vaseline G Mark
Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
In any case, it should be interesting! Christian - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent Well, we don't really know, do we, although I'd tend to think that Epson/Cosina wouldn't mislabel the function. I looked at the angles and wondered the same as you ... I guess we'll just have to wait for some more information to be absolutely certain about the features and functions of the camera. Perhaps a full review will be forthcoming.
Re: ye olde film v D debate
There are already several LF digital sensors and backs available, and the results, according to numerous sources, are staggering. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure 35mm-sized digital will ever rival LF film, but I do think it will begin to worry MF pretty soon. Of course some insane company could produce a LF digital sensor, but it would be cumbersome to use in a traditional LF way and cost more than any individual could afford.
RE: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
Anyone heard what the price might be? tv
RE: RAW Conversion comparison
I should say to ignore the colour balance as I did a very quick grey/white point selection and left it at that. I HAVE found the Photolab to saturate reds a little more than Photoshop, and actually prefer their look, so have recalibrated the PS convertor to do the same. I have noticed that CS seems to have much greater lattitude for recovering blown highlights compared to PhotoLab too. This is looking very good IMO... -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 March 2004 14:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAW Conversion comparison Interesting. I do see the edge difference. I also see a general difference in the color balance. The pentax version looks more saturated to me, maybe a little warmer also. rg Rob Brigham wrote: I have been reading many people sceptical about the differences in the quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools around. I have done a comparison between PhotoLab Photoshop CS which, to my eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences. http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg Look at the edge between the sleeve background. The Pentax conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line around the edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail. IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go... http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on. Cheers
Re: Spot scratch removal in Photoshop (was: XP-2)
At 08:26 AM 3/11/2004 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: Here's a great way to speed up spot retouching of scanned negatives and slides in Photoshop (works in 7.0 - I'm not certain of earlier versions): Thanks, Mark - I've read about this technique before but never got it - now I understand! - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
1 million dollars! - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:58 AM Subject: RE: Digital Rangefinder Imminent Anyone heard what the price might be? tv
re: DA lenses
From: edwin I think the answer is that the DA lenses are smaller than they would be if they were not DA. Does anybody make a 16-45 that covers 35mm format? Sigma's 15-35 is not exactly small. by the same reasoning lenses in 35mm format and, say, 6x6, covering the same angle, should be about the same size. well, apparently (luckily!) my SMCA 24mm/2.8 is *much* smaller than hassy's 50mm/2.8 g best, mishka
RE: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
Ha. Ha ha. Bwahahahahaha! -Original Message- From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent 1 million dollars! - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:58 AM Subject: RE: Digital Rangefinder Imminent Anyone heard what the price might be? tv
unique K2
Somebody pointed out that the K2 was quite different from the rest of the K series, or for that matter from anything else pentax ever made, in terms of control layout and such. I've been looking over my new KX in comparison to the K2 and Spot F and it's got me thinking. The KM and KX are pretty clearly spotmatic designs updated with a K-mount and some other improvements. The K2 looks like it was also based on Spotmatic technology (with the mirror-up lever in the same spot as the old meter-on, for example) but appears to be aiming at something different. I'd suggest that that something different was the Nikon Nikkormat EL, which was introduced a few years earlier as Nikon's first electronic-shutter AE camera. The K2 is actually MORE like the EL than it is like other Pentaxes. The K2 looks like an attempt to match or slightly one-up the EL, starting from a Spotmatic body. If the goal were simply to make a K-mount AE camera, one would expect it to look a lot more like the existing ESII (a fine camera, from what I can tell). It looks like the K2 and KX/KM are essentially two completely different development lines. KX and KM may be evidence of a bit of a technological stutter at Pentax, suggesting some timing issues in the rather rapid transition from Spotmatic SP F to MX/ME cameras and SMC-T to M lenses. Pentax had been working towards bayonet mount for a while by 1975. I've wondered about the name, too. There was a K type in the early days, top-of-the-line at the time I think. Gerjan suggests that it stands for King, but given the K mount I'll bet some Japanese word like best or progress is hiding behind the K. Myself I don't see the philosophical similarity between the Asahi Pentax K and the Pentax K2, whereas the Canon A2 makes sense to those of us who remember the A1. I also wonder if X as in KX, ZX-M, etc, has been used in any consistant nomenclature sense. It could stand for old fashioned, essentially. I'd argue for mechanical but for the ZX series. DJE
Gulls photos
Hello PDMLers, Finally I finished the work on my photos with the gulls. I don't have time to set up a webpage now, but you can view them at http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=382884 Comments/suggestions are wellcome as usual. Attila
Re: OT: Music from our musicians?
http://www.offwidth.co.uk/cam Listening with earplugs firmly inserted is strongly advised. S John Mustarde wrote: Glenn's post got me to thinking - we have some very talented musicians on the list, where's the music? So drag out those links, post 'em if you got 'em. I'd love to hear some of Glenn's tunes, for sure. Hey, maybe he'll produce a Best Of PDML cd... and Amita already the cover shot! I can't carry a tune in a bucket, but I am an appreciative fan. My son-in-law plays bass with this band: http://www.drivebysatellite.com/ His name is Adam, he is third from left in the topmost photo on the main page. The one with the decent haircut. He's Canadian, hopefully they will get rich and famous and he can buy a nice trophy house in Scottsdale so our daughter will be close to her mom. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: RAW Conversion comparison
I'm constantly amazed at the talent on this list. Making a version for sale John.?? Dave Interesting. I do see the edge difference. I also see a general difference in the color balance. The pentax version looks more saturated to me, maybe a little warmer also. rg Rob Brigham wrote: I have been reading many people sceptical about the differences in the quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools around. I have done a comparison between PhotoLab Photoshop CS which, to my eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences. http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg Look at the edge between the sleeve background. The Pentax conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line around the edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail. IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go... http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on. Cheers
Re: PAW: guitar
Which points out that studying graphic design is another way to improve your photography. I wonder what Amita's instructor had to say about the shot. Which I like, by the way. -- Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! I must say this is among the most original shots I've seen. The geometry is well thought through. Though usually this is called composition, but to my sense of beautiful it appeals more like a geometrical drawing. Everything is flawless about this picture. It deserves to be enlarged and used as a welcome work of art in some modern art studio... Thanks for sharing. Boris -- 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: RAW Conversion comparison
I think you misunderstood. We havent seen a comparison of John's conversion yet. This is Pentax PhotoLab vs Photoshop CS. Mind you, bloody amazing that he has written a convertor!! I would be really interested to see his results with this image! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 March 2004 11:30 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAW Conversion comparison I'm constantly amazed at the talent on this list. Making a version for sale John.?? Dave Interesting. I do see the edge difference. I also see a general difference in the color balance. The pentax version looks more saturated to me, maybe a little warmer also. rg Rob Brigham wrote: I have been reading many people sceptical about the differences in the quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools around. I have done a comparison between PhotoLab Photoshop CS which, to my eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences. http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg Look at the edge between the sleeve background. The Pentax conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line around the edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail. IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go... http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on. Cheers
Re: WOW:No picture,but need advice
Dave, If you shot raw files, you can compensate by changing the white balance. If you shot jpg, I think the best way is to apply some filter simulation. Jostein - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:13 PM Subject: WOW:No picture,but need advice Hi Wow'ers:-) The other day i was driving around shooting some 6x7 BW when the sun came out and i shot a few frames with the D2H of a barn surrounded by snow(same one as my Feb Pug)I shot it in P mode and did a +0.7 EV to allow for whiter snow.(as i do with the bw film) When i looked at them last night,the snow had a blue tint to it and using my meager PS knowledge could not seem to get rid of it. Any ideasThe barn and trees are fine. Should i have even worried about EV with the 3D matrix metering the D series has. I think Dag has done some snow *istD shots.Any comments for this concern.?? Scott Kelbys PS book has a page on setting up a filter to mimic a 81 for warmer tones.Do you think this would work,by setting up a filter.If so which do you suggest. Thanks Dave
RE: OT: Music from our musicians?
-Original Message- From: Steve Jolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.offwidth.co.uk/cam Listening with earplugs firmly inserted is strongly advised. Cool. Now I feel ok to post this - http://www.bigdayphoto.com/okra.html (you may need to right click on the link and open in a new window) Please bear in mind I've never had a guitar lesson, and this is the first time I'd played in front of anyone. Felt more nervous than the first time I shot a wedding... Yes, that's #7 on vocals. Jerome, this is about an hour after you called me regarding your CF card. tv
photographer of the week
Yesterday, I saw this guy present a slide show, and I was quite impressed with his technique. He's an underwater photographer, and has lately taken a lot of interest in Spitsbergen... http://privat.egersund.com/erling/ Cheers, Jostein -
Re: PAW and WOW
Mark Roberts wrote: Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whats wrong with a PC as long as you don't run Windows on it? I just look terrible wearing one of those propeller beanies ;-) Can you see this guy in a propeller beanie? http://graywolfphoto.com/paw.html I can. Actually, I think Cesar had just offered to reskin Marks new MZ-S, or something. -- 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: WOW:No picture,but need advice
Humm. Thanks Actually, i shot both,but have only tried to adjust the jpg one.I'll try it in Nikon Capture 4.Althougth the trial version does not seem to like my P-400 driver.Every time i go to print from capture it says its has found new hardware and want to instalkl it.Even though its been on the computer since Nov.??? Dave Dave, If you shot raw files, you can compensate by changing the white balance. If you shot jpg, I think the best way is to apply some filter simulation. Jostein - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:13 PM Subject: WOW:No picture,but need advice Hi Wow'ers:-) The other day i was driving around shooting some 6x7 BW when the sun came out and i shot a few frames with the D2H of a barn surrounded by snow(same one as my Feb Pug)I shot it in P mode and did a +0.7 EV to allow for whiter snow.(as i do with the bw film) When i looked at them last night,the snow had a blue tint to it and using my meager PS knowledge could not seem to get rid of it. Any ideasThe barn and trees are fine. Should i have even worried about EV with the 3D matrix metering the D series has. I think Dag has done some snow *istD shots.Any comments for this concern.?? Scott Kelbys PS book has a page on setting up a filter to mimic a 81 for warmer tones.Do you think this would work,by setting up a filter.If so which do you suggest. Thanks Dave
Re: PAW and WOW
Well, Mac's have become more pc like over the years and Windows has become more Mac like. I still want a DEC Alpha Cluster though. -- Rob Studdert wrote: On 10 Mar 2004 at 23:40, Cotty wrote: Whats wrong with a PC as long as you don't run Windows on it? Frits Wüthrich LOL. Yes I guess, if the Mac O/S was ever ported to the PC hardware platform Apple would be screwed. :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- 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: PAW: Bronze Pour
Shel, Thanks for the complements. Sacramento has a vibrant art community, and there are quite a number of commercial galleries concentrated in the downtown/midtown area (the area bordered on the west by I5, the east by the Capital City Freeway, the south by highway 50, and the north by the American river). There is another concentration on Del Paso road north of the American river, and there are other galleries scattered around further to the east. Here's a website with a bit more information: http://www.sacramento-second-saturday.org/ Businesses that typically show photographic work include Camera/Arts (http://www.cameraarts.net), The Viewpoint Gallery (http://www.viewpointgallery.org), The Darkroom, and others. Turns out Sacto has more to it than just politicians and weighlifting governors. :-) --Mark Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Hi Mark, This is an interesting photo, a very nice documentary shot. I like it quite a bit for what it shows, and for the great exposure. It would be easy to overexpose the crucible and be left with nothing but white. Great colors, too. Now, tell us more about about Second Saturday. Is the event throughout Sacramento, or located in a specific are, like Old Town? Sounds like it's worth a short drive up there for photos and fun. shel
RE: RAW Conversion comparison
Opps,misunderstood,but your right,it is amazing. Maybe John can get my capture 4 and P-400 to like one another.LOL Dave I think you misunderstood. We havent seen a comparison of John's conversion yet. This is Pentax PhotoLab vs Photoshop CS. Mind you, bloody amazing that he has written a convertor!! I would be really interested to see his results with this image! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 March 2004 11:30 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAW Conversion comparison I'm constantly amazed at the talent on this list. Making a version for sale John.?? Dave Interesting. I do see the edge difference. I also see a general difference in the color balance. The pentax version looks more saturated to me, maybe a little warmer also. rg Rob Brigham wrote: I have been reading many people sceptical about the differences in the quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools around. I have done a comparison between PhotoLab Photoshop CS which, to my eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences. http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg Look at the edge between the sleeve background. The Pentax conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line around the edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail. IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go... http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on. Cheers
RE: PDML Members websites list update
Hi Mine is still missing, though: http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt Cheers Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. marts 2004 01:35 Til: PDML Emne: PDML Members websites list update Hi, I've added 5 new entries to the list: http://www.nrg666.com/pdml/ Regards, Paul
Re: Gulls photos
Nice shots and layout Attila. My inital favorites are : The Gull v2 Cruising Gull Landing. I'v been trying to do this with geese and ducks.Its hard.:-) Good work Dave Hello PDMLers, Finally I finished the work on my photos with the gulls. I don't have time to set up a webpage now, but you can view them at http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=382884 Comments/suggestions are wellcome as usual. Attila
Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
I think they mean peculiar in the old sense of special... Are you sure they aren't just referring to Cotty in particular? ;-) You guys are way off the mark. I'm barking mad pal! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re: Computer Talk
Now some of you are beginnig to see why some of us have been opposed to labeling threads. However, a couple of suggestions: 1. Get a threaded mail client, it makes all the difference. If it is a good one it can even keep track of a thread that changes subject lines willy-nilly like this one. 2. Learn how to use your mail client. It can do most of the tedious stuff for you including never showing you threads you are not interested in, and moving all PDML messages to a separate folder when they come in. -- Frits Wüthrich wrote: I would be in favour of keeping them in upper case and at the front of the subject line. That way they are easily visible. At the end of the subject line makes them disappear completely when a subject line is long in the overview of emails. On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 10:46, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Bob W wrote: email. I would like to make a plea for something else: don't use the PAW or WOW prefixes at all. I would like to make the opposite plea: please use the PAW and WOW prefixes, they are only 5 characters long (incl colon and space) but help me and other filter such messages to folders. I have no objection to the following though: 1. write them in lower case - this would mean they don't dominate the rest of the subject line 2. put them at the end of the subject line - when the eye scans a list it needs some variety at the beginning of each line to rest on and navigate by. The prefixes make this very difficult*. Thanks, Kostas -- 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: Music from our musicians?
No recorded music unfortunately. However did make the by-lines in the local Boston music archives Link: http://www.dirtywater.com/a2z/b/bostonbakedblues/ I am the one on the far left. I gave up playing in the early 90's Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
RE: RAW Conversion comparison
Its on http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/IMGP1127.PEF but unfortunately my ISP is having some problems and speed for downloading from their webspace is dire. Anyone got anywhere I can FTP a 13Mb image file? cheers -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 March 2004 18:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAW Conversion comparison Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on. Send me email off list mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to let me know how to get the PEF (please *don't* send the image as an attachment :-) I'll be posting a few more details about my converter later today. It's still very much a work-in-progress, not a finished tool.
Re: Music from our musicians?
Nice, memorable history, tho' Butch! Lots to look back on. . . Been there. In some ways I wish I was still involved, until I recover my senses again! g keith whaley Butch Black wrote: No recorded music unfortunately. However did make the by-lines in the local Boston music archives Link: http://www.dirtywater.com/a2z/b/bostonbakedblues/ I am the one on the far left. I gave up playing in the early 90's Butch
OT: Shipping from Canada
When you ship something from Canada to the US does your postal system provide you with a customs tracking number of any sort? Collin
Re: PAW and WOW
I'll try again with this thread. What does WOW stand for? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde film v D debate
A lot of studio pros shoot 4x5 large format with a four sensor digital back. It yields a 60 meg RAW file if memory serves me correctly. The four tiled images are then assembled on a computer. Paul Keith Whaley wrote: Shel Belinkoff wrote: There are already several LF digital sensors and backs available, and the results, according to numerous sources, are staggering. As is the price, I'd wager! keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure 35mm-sized digital will ever rival LF film, but I do think it will begin to worry MF pretty soon. Of course some insane company could produce a LF digital sensor, but it would be cumbersome to use in a traditional LF way and cost more than any individual could afford.
Re: PAW and WOW
I wish someone would answer you because I have no idea what it means either!!! Christian - Original Message - From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 2:17 PM Subject: Re: PAW and WOW I'll try again with this thread. What does WOW stand for? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Shipping from Canada
There is a number on the form and a 1-800 number as well.Tracking can be done on the web.The only thinbg i dont know is if the tracking continues across the border or stops at it. Dave When you ship something from Canada to the US does your postal system provide you with a customs tracking number of any sort? Collin
Re: PAW and WOW
--- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wish someone would answer you because I have no idea what it means either!!! I'll try again with this thread. What does WOW stand for? Please Guys 'n Gals.. seems you have contracted acronimitis since I was here a few years ago, could we have a newbies guide to PDMLL.. Gosh it's cold here for mid MarchTom ___ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
