RE: GFM envy
Gianfranco, I still have to get some digitals up. Too busy to give them justice and put up a true webpage. There are a bunch at my msn site though. let me take a peek and see if I can put up a URL. Like Frank, I took quite a few with film. I will be picking them up on Monday if I cannot get enough of a break tomorrow - oops, today - to get them. Definitely hoping that everyone can show up next year, César Panama City, Florida -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:27 PM Gianfranco, Some old-fashioned guys (like me g) had to wait to get film back from the lab! First pix just posted, with another 5 or 6 rolls back by next Tuesday. I've only just begun!! BTW, if you show up next year, I'm there for sure! (not to scare you away or anything g). I really hope you can make it! cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Gianfranco Irlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GFM envy Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Hi GFM guys and gals, Just a few words to say how much I appreciated your reports and all the pictures posted (although I was expecting way more...) I guess I should start planning (and saving) for the next year. Ciao, Gianfranco PS: second attempt to send the message, something doesn't seem to work...
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
Peter J. Alling remarked: Frank, I'm surprised, some of these are really quite good. That's a little harsh, isn't it? :-)
Re: pics
Ryan, Thanks for the comments. I suspect if you hung around the lion area for quite a while perhaps you would get a better shot. They don't seem like they like to move around too much. I was shooting with the longest lens I have (K 300/4) and there were some guys there with some real bazookas - maybe they had better luck. Anyway, glad you enjoyed viewing - I had a great time taking them. -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, June 11, 2004, 10:44:20 PM, you wrote: RL Only just got a chance to take a look at the pics, but Bruce they're RL fantastic! And I agree with Steve on the mountains fading into the next- RL very nice. RL Any of the mountain lion not playing hard-to-get though? RL Regards, RL Ryan RL - Original Message - RL From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] RL To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RL Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 5:57 AM RL Subject: Re: pics I really like those pictures of the mountains slowly fading with each ridge. I see this all the time where I live (same mountains), but you caught some good examples.
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Hey Frank, There is no need for shouting or foul language. If you cant debate a point like and adult, do us all a favour, dont debate it at all. The subject is photography and Pentax lenses and I will stop debating a point when I decide that I dont want to debate it anymore thank you very much. You are not the censor of this list. I notice that you feel you are able to jump on that same dead horse and ride it a little more, so what gives? Compared to the other 135s that are available I still think that it is a bad lens and would not recommend buying it.. Bad resolution all round. Bad colour rendition. Poor 3d rendition. Suffers from flare. Poorly made. Not recomended. Antonio p.s. On 12 Jun 2004, at 05:40, frank theriault wrote: Christ, Antonio, Give it a freaking rest!! You've made your freaking point, do you have to go on and on and on and on? Do you kniow what beating a dead horse is? We know you don't like the lens. We know you used to own one. Enough already. Just because Christain says it's not worth the $50 that whoever it was saw it for, doesn't mean it's a bad lens. It means that because of their reputation (whether deserved or not) and because they're so plentiful, the going price is like $20 or $30, that's what it means. The market value ~can~ be quite independant of it's quality. The Super Tak f1.4 50mm screwmount can usually be picked up for under $50. It's an OUTSTANDING lens (as long as it doesn't have the yellow curse, which can be fixed anyways). If made today, Pentax would have to market it for over $1000, likely much more. Because it's routinely available on eBay for under $50 doesn't mean it's a bad lens. Just that it's supply is more plentiful than the demand. Basic economics. But, really, take a Valium and chill out, dude. You're becoming bothersome... cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:24:45 +0200 Yes, you loved it so much you would not recomend spending more than $20 on it. Contradiction? A. On 12 Jun 2004, at 04:23, Christian Skofteland wrote: I loved it. So there! :-p Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/ premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/ encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: OT:For my fellow Reagan fans.
Now you have blown it. This doesn't belong on the list anymore than the other accusations. President speeches offend me. Please do not do so. Thanks fra
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Antonio, who wrote: Hey Frank, There is no need for shouting or foul language. If you cant debate a point like and adult, do us all a favour, dont debate it at all. also wrote (to Christian): What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. Antonio, there really isn't anyone picking apart your opinion on the lens. You've said it's a dog, and people nod and acknowledge you think it's a substandard lens. On the other hand, when Christian says it's a great lens but he wouldn't pay more than $30 dollars, he just means it's a good lens that is not physically worth that much (just like one wouldn't pay $30 for a good peanut). You did not show a disagreement with his opinion, but made it personal. Your method of dialogue hasn't left any leeway for discussion, nor does it foster the environment for it. I can understand Frank's frustration, and wasn't nice to witness, because Frank is one of the most pleasant, neutral people on this list. I don't have any quarrel with you, but recommend that sometimes, take a step back before you make yourself feel better by trying to make someone else feel worse. The quarrel is with the photographic conditions, not with the subject in your viewfinder. Cheers, Ryan
Re: Developing tanks (yes, it's not digital!)
Saturday, June 12, 2004, 5:08:14 AM, Butch wrote: BB We actually use chlorine bleach in water to clean the stabilizer tanks if BB they get too scummy with algae. I agree with Mike that changing the water BB regularly would be the best option. How hard is draining and refilling the BB water bath on a JOBO? I would consider draining after each session and BB refilling if it's not a PITA. In labs I've worked in that have drained the BB stabilizer tanks monthly there has not been an algae problem. In labs that BB didn't we'd have to drain and clean the tanks a couple times a year. Hi, presently, changing the water is a PITA, because of placement of the tank (I don't have that much space where it is now) nearly on floor, and the drain is of course the lowest point. When I manage to put it elsewhere, it will not be such a big problem. It is interesting to know if the silver buildup on bottles with old fixer is sufficient to act as biocide. Chlorine bleach probably the easiest way, it's brute force and working well :) But I was a bit afraid of trying it because of JOBO's warnings. What if the whole tank melts ;) Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Ryan, Christian and I differ as to our judgement of the lens. I state my views clearly and leave others to make their own. There is no need for shouting or foul language. If I think someone is talking rubish I will tell them, that is different. There is plenty of room for disagrement and discussion as you yourself have witnessed. Your position in all this however is somewhat unclear, as is your motivation, as you do not bring your own views to the debate. Your method of dialogue seems to involve not stating an opinion yourself but jumping on those who do. Christians arguments did not hold water IMO as I feel you can not say that a lens is a penut (using your analogy) and at the same time say it is a great lens. As to Frank, my experience of him is that he is just another one of the abnoxious individuals on this list, who feel that mobbing is a perfectly legitimate way of behaving, along with Bob S, Bob Blakely, and a few others. I can assure you that I do not feel bad and certainly do not participate in these debates to make anyone else feel so, nor make myself feel better. Finally, you wrote that The quarrel is with the photographic conditions, not with the subject in the viewfinder. Care to elaborate? Antonio On 12 Jun 2004, at 12:07, Ryan Lee wrote: Antonio, who wrote: Hey Frank, There is no need for shouting or foul language. If you cant debate a point like and adult, do us all a favour, dont debate it at all. also wrote (to Christian): What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. Antonio, there really isn't anyone picking apart your opinion on the lens. You've said it's a dog, and people nod and acknowledge you think it's a substandard lens. On the other hand, when Christian says it's a great lens but he wouldn't pay more than $30 dollars, he just means it's a good lens that is not physically worth that much (just like one wouldn't pay $30 for a good peanut). You did not show a disagreement with his opinion, but made it personal. Your method of dialogue hasn't left any leeway for discussion, nor does it foster the environment for it. I can understand Frank's frustration, and wasn't nice to witness, because Frank is one of the most pleasant, neutral people on this list. I don't have any quarrel with you, but recommend that sometimes, take a step back before you make yourself feel better by trying to make someone else feel worse. The quarrel is with the photographic conditions, not with the subject in your viewfinder. Cheers, Ryan
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Chrissy, I thought we were debating a point about a lens, not having an argument. Why is it that when I make valid points in a debate, points that go without response, I then either get criticised for being off topic or in this instance arguing! Given the company the 135mm is in a $20 valuation IS indicative that it isnt a good lens. The 135/2.5 SMC for example goes for between $135 - $165 on ebay. And even the cheap SMC-M 135/2.5 goes for between $45-$65. Saying it is a good lens for $20 is just putting a positive spin on a bad lens. A. On 12 Jun 2004, at 06:00, Christian Skofteland wrote: Tony, why do you like to argue so much? I REALLY, honestly, think that the Takumar (Bayonet) 135 F2.5 lens is a good lens for $30. My recommendations to the original post were: $50 is too high. I got mine for $20 or $25 I think. I wouldn't pay more than $30 for it. That was a fair and honest assessment of the value and a Don't pay the $50 asking price recommendation. Screw the rest of the list, I had the lens in question for quite some time and used it a lot for portraiture. It's a great, CHEAP portrait lens. It's my opinion (and that is what is being sought by the original post: an OPINION). I'm not a sheep, Tony, I don't go along with other people to fit in. I have experience with something and I can formulate my own opinions, thank you very much. If you think I'm arguing with you personally because I get some whacked-out cheap thrill from it, don't flatter yourself. I'd argue with anyone (including the almighty, exalted, pillars-of-the-list) that this lens isn't the dog it's made out to be in actual use. It's a bad rep that it gets from not being SMC and a consumer lens. Build quality is high; higher than the plastic crap that is pumped out these days. I've been told that it's soft but I haven't noticed anything in PRINTS. And I recommend not shooting into the sun. And again: I wouldn't pay more than $30 for it. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:35 PM Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. If anyone else where to have said it wasnt a good lens - as many have over the years you would no doubt have agreed and said, yes its only worth $20 or $30 ... given that the questioner is being asked $40 for the lens the only honest reply you should have given was, no its not worth it mate.
Film and Development
I need to make a withdrawal from the PDML wisdom bank, please. I am getting the impression, that is is getting harder to get decent film development these days. Is this true? I know my digital images are very sharp due to the smaller format/better DOF. But I also know that film images can be extreemly sharp as well. But I'm getting bad films back from my small dealers lab these days. Is this a common tendency? Which films are the sharpest (200-1600 ASA) today (135 and 120) ? Do we have to send our films to pro labs to get decent result? All the best Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Yellowing on a 50 1.4 SMC Tak ROFL!!
This probably has been posted before, but I was browsing the uk.rec.humour newsgroup (needed a break from the troll activity at aus.photo and rec.photo.equipment.35mm) and trust finding this link.. http://www.hermes.net.au/bayling/repair.html Cheers, Ryan
Re: Film and Development
Jens, I have noticed this too. I dont think pro-labs help much either, it depends on the lab. Personally I have found a lab near me that works for me and just stick with them. I get the impression that with the move to digital, the old optical process is not getting the attention it deserves. Perhaps it is a skills shortage, or most likely people cant be bothered to do a good job. My opinions. Feel free to differ at will. A. On 12 Jun 2004, at 12:26, Jens Bladt wrote: I need to make a withdrawal from the PDML wisdom bank, please. I am getting the impression, that is is getting harder to get decent film development these days. Is this true? I know my digital images are very sharp due to the smaller format/better DOF. But I also know that film images can be extreemly sharp as well. But I'm getting bad films back from my small dealers lab these days. Is this a common tendency? Which films are the sharpest (200-1600 ASA) today (135 and 120) ? Do we have to send our films to pro labs to get decent result? All the best Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Re: Yellowing on a 50 1.4 SMC Tak ROFL!!
Excellent!!! I bet you couldn't sell that one on eBay LOL John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:29:38 +1000 Subject: Yellowing on a 50 1.4 SMC Tak ROFL!! This probably has been posted before, but I was browsing the uk.rec.humour newsgroup (needed a break from the troll activity at aus.photo and rec.photo.equipment.35mm) and trust finding this link.. http://www.hermes.net.au/bayling/repair.html Cheers, Ryan --- End of Original Message ---
Re: Film and Development
shoot some ISO 50 print film and compare the results when processed in a professional lab with your *istD results. be sure you are comparing prints at the same sizes. Herb... - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 6:26 AM Subject: Film and Development I need to make a withdrawal from the PDML wisdom bank, please. I am getting the impression, that is is getting harder to get decent film development these days. Is this true? I know my digital images are very sharp due to the smaller format/better DOF. But I also know that film images can be extreemly sharp as well. But I'm getting bad films back from my small dealers lab these days. Is this a common tendency?
Re: Film and Development
Hi, I have noticed this too. I dont think pro-labs help much either, it depends on the lab. Personally I have found a lab near me that works for me and just stick with them. I get the impression that with the move to digital, the old optical process is not getting the attention it deserves. Perhaps it is a skills shortage, or most likely people cant be bothered to do a good job. My opinions. Feel free to differ at will. Do you mean a completely optical/chemcial process, or one that includes a digital step? Many of the Snappy Snaps chain in London produce better C41 minilab prints, at a better price, than the professional labs in London. These prints are made from scans as part of the standard process. Of course, they are not up to the best standards of professional hand-made prints (chemical or digital), but in my opinion and experience the quality of standard prints has improved significantly since the introduction of digital mini-labs. Which films are the sharpest (200-1600 ASA) today (135 and 120) ? I quite like Kodak Royal Supra. My local Snappy Snaps prints it on matching Kodak paper and the results are good. The annoying thing about the film is that it's not available in speeds below 200. Do we have to send our films to pro labs to get decent result? I don't think pro / amateur is necessarily a worthwhile distinction. If they are both using minilabs then what matters is how much care they take in the process. You can really only discover this through personal recommendation or trial-and-error. The quality of hand-printing is mostly down to the individual printer, not to the lab. In the UK the best hand-printers seem to work from their own labs to individual commission, rather than for other labs. Unfortunately it can cost about £50/hour to work with them. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
On 11/6/04, GONZ, discombobulated, offered: Great snaps Cotty. Love the one with the alien and the bridge. You're commentary made my laugh, you are a natural comedian. Looks like you guys had a lot of fun. Are you doing it next year again? Thanks. I just think that sometimes we take things too seriously. I like it when I laugh so I figure what the heck. I'd love to do it again next year, although I might just arrange a different format, involving my own transport and slower agenda. Cost will decide it for me. best Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
GFM: Nature Photos
Well, if you aren't heartedly sick of them by now, here are some of my GFM nature photos. Nothing fantastic, though I did get shots of all the animals. But the whole time I was, I was wishing for longer glass. Some images will be slightly familiar by now. ;-) http://members.aol.com/eactivist/GFMNature/Pages/ Marnie aka Doe
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
On 11/6/04, CORY, discombobulated, offered: Cotty gets the award for the best snap of me so far. Only problem is, he placed me in a grouping where my piddly little 70-210 zoom looks simply pitiful next to those HUGE lenses. Hence 'small but perfectly formed' ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
FS (late--sorry)
Pentax-F 50/1.7 $75 Used but in very good condition
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
Got back my first GFM roll today. Discovered that I suck as a landscape/nature photog, so I'll spare you the grief. These were taken the first day, so many of the contingent had yet to arrive. They were also taken with the MX, and since I used the LX as the flash cam, no night (ie: party g) pix in here. These are just snaps - a few are underexposed, and the focus off on one or two, but I hope you enjoy: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=404595 Several more rolls ready next week, including the dreaded party pix. Nice one Frank - thanks. Hey, you got 2 of those motherloving aliens ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Cotty's GFM pics
Spectacular, Cotty! I'm glad you put Tan to my left (right, on the screen), for the one where I'm looking out the corner of my eyes. Whatta hoot!! Great stuff. Thanks for posting them. Thanks mate - much appreciated. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Cotty's GFM pics
Great people shots. Lots of fun. Thanks for sharing. Paul Cheers Paul. You on coarse for next year? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Tanja versus Britney Spear
On 11/6/04, FRANK, discombobulated, offered: I'd take Tan over that Spears chick any day of the week. I bet Britney can't handle an *istD like our Tanja!! She's My Type of Girl!! LOL Uh oh, better put some bromide in his tea. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Testing
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 2:04 AM Subject: RE: Testing Lasse, Is it me, or have you been away. It's you. You have been away. To Grandfather Mountain. That was in the U.S. of A. Remember? It was only last week. Kinda exhausting trip, eh? Seriuosly. Thanks, Frank. No, I haven't really been away. Just busy doing stuff. Shooting some. And the list being quite occupied with GFM, it felt a bit like vacation time on the list too. Glad to hear that you all had a great time, and that everyone seems to have made it back in one piece. On the bike? I don't know. Did you bring it? You'll have to ask the other GFM attendees on this. You did bring your ears though... Seriously. Yes, I go on my bike everyday. But just locally away, and back. Nice to see ya, Nice to see you too, Frank. Thanks, Lasse From: Lasse Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Testing Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:50:25 +0300 Just testing.
RE: Cotty's GFM pics
On 11/6/04, FAIRYGIRL, discombobulated, offered: Cotty, those are fantastic shots, it feels like I am still there. I can't believe that I am a world away from everyone yet again... I love those papped shots of tv, they are so funny. And that one of him looking like he is about to punch me, we can't even remember you taking that! BUT, you have it all wrong, I believe he was actually threatening to punch me for putting tomato sauce (ketchup) on my bacon and eggs! hehehe. The Symatree shots are fantastic, and I love the close up of Ann too! You've captured everyone perfectly! BTW, thanks for your email, I had sick kids all night last night so haven't had a chance to respond, will do my best to get one off to you today... You're too kind, but as is the case with any photog, we all see where improvements can be made in our won work and I am no different. For a start, I didn't shoot nearly enough (only about 200 shots the whole weekend!) maybe because I was so tired and there was so much going on. But this is all part of the personal challenge thing. I guess this means that I'll have to do it all again ;-) Thanks for the very kind words. BTW, you didn't look like the back end of a dingo. More like a wombat :o] Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
Thanks for sharing - it brings out much of the fun that was there and even a few things I missed out on. Bruce You're welcome Bruce. I'm sorry if i didn't post everyone, there were some shots that were utter bollocks and I digitally ripped them to shreds ! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Film and Development
Yes, completely optical/chemical process is what works best for me. I had some pics done at Snappy Snaps in London last time I was there and they were awfull. If they were scanning the negs and then priting that explains it. I would have to differ therefore with you view that quality has gone up. Here in Spain I use a guy that has a standard C-41 machine, with no digital intervention at all and the results are first class. Antonio On 12 Jun 2004, at 12:55, Bob W wrote: Hi, I have noticed this too. I dont think pro-labs help much either, it depends on the lab. Personally I have found a lab near me that works for me and just stick with them. I get the impression that with the move to digital, the old optical process is not getting the attention it deserves. Perhaps it is a skills shortage, or most likely people cant be bothered to do a good job. My opinions. Feel free to differ at will. Do you mean a completely optical/chemcial process, or one that includes a digital step? Many of the Snappy Snaps chain in London produce better C41 minilab prints, at a better price, than the professional labs in London. These prints are made from scans as part of the standard process. Of course, they are not up to the best standards of professional hand-made prints (chemical or digital), but in my opinion and experience the quality of standard prints has improved significantly since the introduction of digital mini-labs. Which films are the sharpest (200-1600 ASA) today (135 and 120) ? I quite like Kodak Royal Supra. My local Snappy Snaps prints it on matching Kodak paper and the results are good. The annoying thing about the film is that it's not available in speeds below 200. Do we have to send our films to pro labs to get decent result? I don't think pro / amateur is necessarily a worthwhile distinction. If they are both using minilabs then what matters is how much care they take in the process. You can really only discover this through personal recommendation or trial-and-error. The quality of hand-printing is mostly down to the individual printer, not to the lab. In the UK the best hand-printers seem to work from their own labs to individual commission, rather than for other labs. Unfortunately it can cost about £50/hour to work with them. -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Tanja versus Britney Spears
A second reading reveals that Cotty was replying to Treena, not Tanja. Oh well, just substitute appropriate names where necessary, and substitute Pentax for *istD (since I don't know if Treena has one). Or, better yet, just ignore my earlier post. Now that I think of it, just ignore all my posts. That I've ever made. I'm going to bed now. ROTFLMAO Frank, I love you man. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Antonio, Ryan, Christian and I differ as to our judgement of the lens. I state my views clearly and leave others to make their own. There is no need for shouting or foul language. If I think someone is talking rubish I will tell them, that is different. There is plenty of room for disagrement and discussion as you yourself have witnessed. 'Stating your own views and leaving others to make their own' and insulting the integrity of someone else's point of view is different. You will never get someone to say, 'Oh I see where I was wrong' by starting off, 'What a load of rubbish'. It is effectively the difference between discussion and dictation. Your position in all this however is somewhat unclear, as is your motivation, as you do not bring your own views to the debate. Your method of dialogue seems to involve not stating an opinion yourself but jumping on those who do. I haven't got an opinion on this debate as I have never used the aforementioned lens. On the topic of the ways we make our points, and how it nurtures community on the list, I have a very clearly neutral position. I am not jumping on your opinion at all, but the way you choose to enforce it. Furthermore, my position on this issue is incidental, and bringing it up appears to be a defensive reflex- unnecessary considering the last thing on my mind is to start an additional argument. On the other hand, your reply to Jens' post seemed more civil than your response to Christian's, and shows that you can be polite if you choose to be. Perhaps you should take care that in expressing contrary opinions, you still maintain respect for the other person's dignity. Christians arguments did not hold water IMO as I feel you can not say that a lens is a penut (using your analogy) and at the same time say it is a great lens. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on the analogy. Try to follow me on this, no matter how silly it sounds- The lens can be a peanut, but that doesn't mean it can't be a great peanut. Like, it is cheap, and better tasting than all the peanuts you've eaten, but at the end of a day, it is just a peanut, and you can't expect it to be a cashew, a macadamia or a pistachio. However, for a peanut, it was good. As to Frank, my experience of him is that he is just another one of the abnoxious individuals on this list, who feel that mobbing is a perfectly legitimate way of behaving, along with Bob S, Bob Blakely, and a few others. My experience differs; my views on this are that his post to you reflects more of a frustration with the way you deal with opinions which different from yours, as sometimes it seems you (perhaps unintentionally) create more friction than work towards a mutually agreed upon resolution. I can assure you that I do not feel bad and certainly do not participate in these debates to make anyone else feel so, nor make myself feel better. Which is why I say it is possibly unintentional that you cause other list members to feel frustrated. Knowing this, perhaps you could put in extra effort not to make it so, afterall, many of the members that are involved in this conflict are respected, if not founding members, who have been on the list for years, and through this, have earned the respect of other members. Finally, you wrote that The quarrel is with the photographic conditions, not with the subject in the viewfinder. Care to elaborate? So much for my exit. I was drawing a parallel- Just as in photography you master light and equipment to capture the the subject (instead of manipulating the subject), also in discussion- you balance reason with diplomacy (instead of manipulating opinion) to achieve an outcome. You do not have to be aggressive, to be assertive. Cheers, Ryan On 12 Jun 2004, at 12:07, Ryan Lee wrote: Antonio, who wrote: Hey Frank, There is no need for shouting or foul language. If you cant debate a point like and adult, do us all a favour, dont debate it at all. also wrote (to Christian): What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. Antonio, there really isn't anyone picking apart your opinion on the lens. You've said it's a dog, and people nod and acknowledge you think it's a substandard lens. On the other hand, when Christian says it's a great lens but he wouldn't pay more than $30 dollars, he just means it's a good lens that is not physically worth that much (just like one wouldn't pay $30 for a good peanut). You did not show a disagreement with his opinion, but made it personal. Your method of dialogue hasn't left any leeway for discussion, nor does it foster the environment for it. I can understand Frank's frustration, and wasn't nice to witness, because Frank is one of the most pleasant, neutral people on this list. I don't have any quarrel with you, but recommend that sometimes, take a step back before you make yourself feel better by trying to make someone else
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
Hi Cotty, You're shots are really good. And motivating... I must admit that I've seen the pictures and read the stores of all you lucky GFM attendants with envy ;-) I'd love to do it again next year, although I might just arrange a different format, involving my own transport and slower agenda. Cost will decide it for me. Maybe I could manage it to take part next year and reinforce the European rabble... Cheers, Heiko
ISTD in-camera corruption of RAW images
Hi all, I have shot almost a thousand RAW images now with the *ISTD, and noticed that a few images turned out to be corrupted when trying to process them. You can't tell this from looking at the preview on the camera, probably because that uses the embedded JPG data rather than the real RAW data for display. However, when viewing with the Pentax-browser is will report a 'loading error' on that image, and not show a thumbnail. Using the Photoshop-CS browser, and even converting/opening the image give no error messages (they don't check checksums perhaps :-) But, they do show corruption in the image, in the form of areas shifted within the image resulting in the image shown consisting of 3 or 4 different areas with one of them often having a huge blue or magenta color cast. Of course this makes the image useless ... I have found 3 out of the 1000 I have sofar that have this corruption, all have been shot using SanDisk 1Gb or Sandisk Ultra 512Mb cards. In all cases it may have been a shot from a short sequence, so the in-camara buffer might have been partly filled. I sucpect there is a firmware bug somewhere ... Has anyone else experienced the same kind of corruption ? Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Of course. I meant to say the M 135/3.5. On Jun 12, 2004, at 1:56 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: The SMC 2.5/135mm is not an M, it's a K. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juni 2004 01:50 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? You can get an M 135/2.5 for $60 or so. It's far superior to the Takumar lens. BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here. On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote: is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred
RE: Film and Development
Hmmm I might jsut do that - except I don't have a *ist D. (I bought a MZ-Z, a scanner and a SONY DSC F717 (appr. same cost as a *ist D body) instead. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juni 2004 12:46 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Film and Development shoot some ISO 50 print film and compare the results when processed in a professional lab with your *istD results. be sure you are comparing prints at the same sizes. Herb... - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 6:26 AM Subject: Film and Development I need to make a withdrawal from the PDML wisdom bank, please. I am getting the impression, that is is getting harder to get decent film development these days. Is this true? I know my digital images are very sharp due to the smaller format/better DOF. But I also know that film images can be extreemly sharp as well. But I'm getting bad films back from my small dealers lab these days. Is this a common tendency?
Re: GFM: Nature Photos
Most of these are very nice, it's really hard to get good animal photos even if they're more or less captive. I especially like the otter... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if you aren't heartedly sick of them by now, here are some of my GFM nature photos. Nothing fantastic, though I did get shots of all the animals. But the whole time I was, I was wishing for longer glass. Some images will be slightly familiar by now. ;-) http://members.aol.com/eactivist/GFMNature/Pages/ Marnie aka Doe
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
By now Frank knows most of what I say is tongue in cheek. John Francis wrote: Peter J. Alling remarked: Frank, I'm surprised, some of these are really quite good. That's a little harsh, isn't it? :-)
Re: Film and Development
At our lab we still process considerably more film than digital prints, although our minilab is digital (Fuji Frontier 375). I would guess that close to half of the film we process though is from one time use cameras, which will probably keep 400 and 800 ISO films profitable for film makers for some time to come. Bill
RE: Film and Development
... and I might wait for the new baby *ist D this autumn - like the D70 it might even be better (image quality) than some more expensive models! I guess Pentax has to do something about the sharpness issue, which a lot of reviews (and some PDML'ers) seem to be complaining about. 'Hmmm I might jsut do that - except I don't have a *ist D. (I bought a MZ-Z, a scanner and a SONY DSC F717 (appr. same cost as a *ist D body) instead. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juni 2004 12:46 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Film and Development shoot some ISO 50 print film and compare the results when processed in a professional lab with your *istD results. be sure you are comparing prints at the same sizes. Herb... - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 6:26 AM Subject: Film and Development I need to make a withdrawal from the PDML wisdom bank, please. I am getting the impression, that is is getting harder to get decent film development these days. Is this true? I know my digital images are very sharp due to the smaller format/better DOF. But I also know that film images can be extreemly sharp as well. But I'm getting bad films back from my small dealers lab these days. Is this a common tendency?
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
John Francis wrote: Peter J. Alling remarked: Frank, I'm surprised, some of these are really quite good. That's a little harsh, isn't it? :-) JOhn, I laughed so loud at your one liner as I browsed the GFM stuff I worry I might have awoken the sleeping Scrabble star in my livingroom. annsan
Re: GFM: Nature Photos
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if you aren't heartedly sick of them by now, here are some of my GFM nature photos. Nothing fantastic, though I did get shots of all the animals. But the whole time I was, I was wishing for longer glass. Some images will be slightly familiar by now. ;-) http://members.aol.com/eactivist/GFMNature/Pages/ Marnie aka Doe You know, there are quite a few lovely shots there Marnie - even if you did use a dark side camera. :) annsan
Re: Film and Development
My lab is using Fuji Frontier exclusively because they aren't willing to expend resources maintaining their optical equipment. The Frontier is new and they get better contract support right now. I would guess that using the Frontier makes their life easier also??? For the most part I like the prints I get--good skin tones, etc. Occasionally I get prints in which overexposed background objects are enhanced' digitally so as to look fake or pasted in. Hope this makes sense to a professional film processor/developer like yourself. Robert - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 9:08 AM Subject: Re: Film and Development - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: Film and Development I need to make a withdrawal from the PDML wisdom bank, please. I am getting the impression, that is is getting harder to get decent film development these days. Is this true? I know my digital images are very sharp due to the smaller format/better DOF. But I also know that film images can be extreemly sharp as well. But I'm getting bad films back from my small dealers lab these days. Is this a common tendency? Labs are going digital. This means your films are being scanned as part of the process. Personally, I think scanned film prints look like crap compared to optical prints. Unfortunately, consumers are adopting digital cameras in droves, and are pushing labs into digital. The marketplace is never wrong. Digital must be better. Which films are the sharpest (200-1600 ASA) today (135 and 120) ? Do we have to send our films to pro labs to get decent result? You should probably find a lab (pro or amatuer doesn't matter) that is still printing optically and try to keep it in business. William Robb
Re: SV: Film and Development
By optical I mean shining a light through a negative to get a print rather than priting a scanned negative from a digital file. Antonio On 12 Jun 2004, at 16:17, Jens Bladt wrote: Thanks, but There's no optical process - just chemistry (film development only). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juni 2004 12:31 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Film and Development Jens, I have noticed this too. I dont think pro-labs help much either, it depends on the lab. Personally I have found a lab near me that works for me and just stick with them. I get the impression that with the move to digital, the old optical process is not getting the attention it deserves. Perhaps it is a skills shortage, or most likely people cant be bothered to do a good job. My opinions. Feel free to differ at will. A. On 12 Jun 2004, at 12:26, Jens Bladt wrote: I need to make a withdrawal from the PDML wisdom bank, please. I am getting the impression, that is is getting harder to get decent film development these days. Is this true? I know my digital images are very sharp due to the smaller format/better DOF. But I also know that film images can be extreemly sharp as well. But I'm getting bad films back from my small dealers lab these days. Is this a common tendency? Which films are the sharpest (200-1600 ASA) today (135 and 120) ? Do we have to send our films to pro labs to get decent result? All the best Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Re: Film and Development
- Original Message - From: Robert Leigh Woerner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 10:45 AM Subject: Re: Film and Development The enhanced look good very well be due to the person operating the machine. I quite often adjust the exposure on my customer's prints because of the limitations of most one time use and PS cameras. Many of their close ups of people are blown out due to the flash being too close to the subject. It's amazing how much 2 or 3 stops of darken can restore detail that appears to be lost. On the other hand, those shots where the subjects appear too dark, a little bit of brighten can sometimes bring out detail in shadows. I'm still learning the machine, so I'm sure I'll get better with more experience. Bill My lab is using Fuji Frontier exclusively because they aren't willing to expend resources maintaining their optical equipment. The Frontier is new and they get better contract support right now. I would guess that using the Frontier makes their life easier also??? For the most part I like the prints I get--good skin tones, etc. Occasionally I get prints in which overexposed background objects are enhanced' digitally so as to look fake or pasted in. Hope this makes sense to a professional film processor/developer like yourself. Robert
Re: Developing tanks (yes, it's not digital!)
WR Jobo wants you to buy their biocide. Usual marketing :) I am pretty much immune. WR If you can still get old style C-41 stabilizer, a wee bit of that WR will do it (it's formadehyde). WR Of course, it smells awful and is relatively toxic. WR I just put a very small amount of chlorine bleach (a really small WR amount, just a few drops) into the water bath. Thanks. Probably small amount won't hurt. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
voigtlander, cosina, vivitar
Spurred by Rob Studdert's fantastic results with his 125 f2.5 Voigtlander Cosina Apo Lanthar, I thought of reading up on what else Voigtlander offered. Amongst the cheaper lenses, I noticed the 19-35 3.5-4.5 Ultragon was coated with VMV or Voigtlander's own coating www.voigtlander.com. Also, I understand that the ones rebadged under the Cosina or Vivitar label are essentially the same lens. My question is this: Do they all use the same coating? bh and Adorama don't seem to stock the Voigtlander version, so I couldn't check if there was a price difference. Anyone?
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Tony; Do you even read my e-mails? I said it was a good lens for $30 not $20. Furthermore I'd buy another one for $30 if I was so inclined before spending $135 - $165 on ebay for the K or $45-$65 for the M. The cost of the lens is a function of Market value not quality. The lens in question has a bad (in my OPINION, undeserved) reputation which lowers its market value. Saying I'd pay only $30 for it means that you can EASILY find it for this price on eBay and other places. $50 is too high based on what it sells for in the real world. Saying I'd pay at most $30 for it does not mean I feel that it is a crappy lens. The argument we are having is that you seem to have a hard time understanding the points I am making above. Just because the lens is inexpensive and I have a ceiling price that I, personally, would pay for it does not make it a crappy lens. I think it's a fine lens and it's value in the current used lens market place is about US$30.00. Chrissy - Original Message - From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 6:25 AM Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Chrissy, I thought we were debating a point about a lens, not having an argument. Why is it that when I make valid points in a debate, points that go without response, I then either get criticised for being off topic or in this instance arguing! Given the company the 135mm is in a $20 valuation IS indicative that it isnt a good lens. The 135/2.5 SMC for example goes for between $135 - $165 on ebay. And even the cheap SMC-M 135/2.5 goes for between $45-$65. Saying it is a good lens for $20 is just putting a positive spin on a bad lens. A.
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
Hi, Cotty wrote: http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps As idiosyncratic as we have come to expect.which _is_ a compliment... The alien does it for me... mike
Re: GFM: Nature Photos
In a message dated 6/12/2004 7:42:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You know, there are quite a few lovely shots there Marnie - even if you did use a dark side camera. :) annsan - Hehehehehehe. Thanks. Wait until you see Jostein's animal pics. I hope he puts them up. But I presume he will, once he and Adelheid get back home. Now those are GOOD. The bears were especially hard to shoot. They were moving around a lot. And they were very dark against bright/light grass. I'll be curious to see if anyone got some decent shots of them. (Don't think I've seen any on PDML yet. They were in the trees a lot.) Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: GFM: Nature Photos
In a message dated 6/12/2004 7:25:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Most of these are very nice, it's really hard to get good animal photos even if they're more or less captive. I especially like the otter... - Thanks! Yup, it is. I like the way they eat. They look like they are making faces about their food when they are probably just throwing their heads up/back to swallow. Marnie aka Doe
Re: GFM: Nature Photos
The bears were especially hard to shoot. They were moving around a lot. And they were very dark against bright/light grass. I'll be curious to see if anyone got some decent shots of them. (Don't think I've seen any on PDML yet. They were in the trees a lot.) Marnie aka Doe :-) Well, here's one begging for peanuts. http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=82 Bill
Re: Developing tanks (yes, it's not digital!)
Hi, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: presently, changing the water is a PITA, because of placement of the tank (I don't have that much space where it is now) nearly on floor, and the drain is of course the lowest point. When I manage to put it elsewhere, it will not be such a big problem. It is interesting to know if the silver buildup on bottles with old fixer is sufficient to act as biocide. Chlorine bleach probably the easiest way, it's brute force and working well :) But I was a bit afraid of trying it because of JOBO's warnings. What if the whole tank melts ;) I don't think the tank will melt; more likely, it will, over a period of time, become brittle, weak and liable to fracture under the weight of water or a processing tank. If the bleach is very diluted, the effect should take much longer to happen. OTOH(s) the dilution may then be too much to prevent formation of whatever it is and the process of degradation may be one that self promulgates once started. mike
Re: Film and Development
BW Of course, they are not up to the best standards of professional BW hand-made prints (chemical or digital), but in my opinion and BW experience the quality of standard prints has improved significantly BW since the introduction of digital mini-labs. I have a different opinion. Both the Frontier or Noritsu labs aren't up to average good standards of optical machine prints in pro lab. The resolution of the scanning part is really low and shows grain aliasing even with 400 iso film. Another thing is banding, which shows due to 8-bit nature of these. With dark slides. So I really like much more good optical prints. YMMV, of course. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Yellowing on a 50 1.4 SMC Tak ROFL!!
Ryan Lee wrote: This probably has been posted before, but I was browsing the uk.rec.humour newsgroup (needed a break from the troll activity at aus.photo and rec.photo.equipment.35mm) and trust finding this link.. http://www.hermes.net.au/bayling/repair.html The pitiful thing is that, if he'd just left it on the rock for a few weeks, it would have cured itself. mike
Re: GFM: Nature Photos
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://members.aol.com/eactivist/GFMNature/Pages/gfm5.html You have vegetarian otters in the USA? mike
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
You're shots are really good. And motivating... I must admit that I've seen the pictures and read the stores of all you lucky GFM attendants with envy ;-) Bugs Ny, thanks Doc. /Bugs All the more incentive to try and come along next year. We could do with a doctor in the house - you could give Frank a complete check-up ;-) Glad you enjoyed the pics. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
OT: DDD ( Re: Cotty's GFM pics
I get a lot of quotes and captions from films, the Ewoks obviously being Star Wars. There's bonus points if anyone knows what film this line is from: these things always travel in pairs. Debbie Does Dallas? -- Cheers, Bob Nope. Give you a clue - it's a Woody Allen film. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
On 12/6/04, PAUL MOTORMA STENQUIST, discombobulated, offered: I hope so. This year I was in the midst of a disaster, which I haven't quite resolved yet. But I hope to be ready and able by next May. Paul If you do, what kinda car you planning on turning up in :-D There are *fantastic* venues for a few auto-pics, as exemplified by a Porsche owners club that turned up and snapped a few cars at the roadside Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
I thought about this. The GFM habitats are really special places, and in some ways far removed from a 'zoo' setting. They harbour animals that have been injured or are not fit to return to the wild for whatever reason. Keeping animals confined goes right against my grain and I really don't like it. However, there are good reasons (as GFM) for a lot and so it happens. I suppose GFM thought about the signs, and simply putting 'feeding time' on there would have engendered a 'zoo' feeling, and they obviously are trying to get away from that image (and successfully IMO). These animals would normally capture their prey in the wild, and so simply survive. This process can be called enrichment, so in that sense - and given that they are not actually in the wild as such - they are undergoing an 'aided' enrichment thanks to caring human benefactors. 'Enrichment' sits fine with me. But it *is* very American ;-) I think it's fantastic that it was implemented because often it's the case that someone comes up with a forward-thinking idea, which gets killed by the change-loathing status quo. Plus the unplanned bonus that the 'unusualness' of its phrasing makes people talk about it- great for awareness building.. Cheers, Ryan Holy cop-out Batman, you're full a the same crap as I am! LOL Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Zoom lens shading
Okay folks, here's a gen-u-ine question with gen-u-ine Pentax content. In Washington I was able to crack my pile (blecch) and get to grips with a new lens, the Canon 24-70 2.8 - and immediately I noticed it did one thing which surprised me. At 70mm, the lens is compact (LOL) and at it's 'normal' physical size, but when I zoomed out to 24mm, the lens increased in length by some inches. First, I was not expecting this so it was a total surprise, and second, I didn't like the idea of this because I've always had zooms that remained physically the same size (with internal focus etc). Then it dawned on me what was going on. The lens shade is very deep - so deep that at 70mm, it is perfect for the focal length (although not necessarily for a smaller digi sensor). Zoom out to 24mm and the hood becomes far too deep, and will obviously produce bad vignetting. So, to counter this effect, the front group of elements shoots forward during the zoom and sits much closer to the front of the lens hood, in turn providing a perfect hood length for the wider focal length. In the past, I have only had Sigma and Tokina zooms, and neither did this. In fact, with the Tokina 28-70 2.6/2.8, the hood is very shallow indeed - and the front lens group does actually move in and out similar to the Canon, but within a lens barrel recess, so that the hood (which is attached to the outer barrel) does not rotate. The front element does rotate, but you get around this with polarisers etc by having them screw into the outer barrel filter ring, which does not rotate. Apologies if this is not clear. So, eventually I ask the question. Zoom lenses - especially fast 2.8 zooms - do any others, particulary from Pentax, do this? Does the 28- 70 2.8 Pentax move the front elements backwards/forwards during zooming, to dynamically alter the effective lens hood depth ? Does this change the physical size of the lens, or does this happen with the constant outer confines of the lens? Is this activity engineered to provide a dynamic lens hood depth? Or is it an engineering necessity that just so happens to provide good lens shading through the relevant movement of the optics? Or both? Any relevant comments? I ask because I have never had a Pentax zoom and am curious. TIA Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Film and Development
I think some cameras oversharpen. The *ist-D seems just about right when set to maximum sharpness. For those images where more sharpness is desired, the RAW converter in PhotoShop CS does a beautiful job, probably better than any in-camera software could do. Paul On Jun 12, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: ... and I might wait for the new baby *ist D this autumn - like the D70 it might even be better (image quality) than some more expensive models! I guess Pentax has to do something about the sharpness issue, which a lot of reviews (and some PDML'ers) seem to be complaining about. 'Hmmm I might jsut do that - except I don't have a *ist D. (I bought a MZ-Z, a scanner and a SONY DSC F717 (appr. same cost as a *ist D body) instead. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juni 2004 12:46 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Film and Development shoot some ISO 50 print film and compare the results when processed in a professional lab with your *istD results. be sure you are comparing prints at the same sizes. Herb... - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 6:26 AM Subject: Film and Development I need to make a withdrawal from the PDML wisdom bank, please. I am getting the impression, that is is getting harder to get decent film development these days. Is this true? I know my digital images are very sharp due to the smaller format/better DOF. But I also know that film images can be extreemly sharp as well. But I'm getting bad films back from my small dealers lab these days. Is this a common tendency?
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
On 12/6/04, STEVE DJ, discombobulated, offered: - The 18 ft lens definitely captures the ambiance of the crowd - Good shot of Mark. - I too enjoyed the phrase Cougar Enrichment. It sounds so much better than Get the cameras ready we're gonna throw out the raw meat. Nicely done. Thanks Steve, appreciated. It was a pleasure to meet you BTW. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: DDD ( Re: Cotty's GFM pics
Everything you always wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask Chrissy - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] I get a lot of quotes and captions from films, the Ewoks obviously being Star Wars. There's bonus points if anyone knows what film this line is from: these things always travel in pairs. Nope. Give you a clue - it's a Woody Allen film. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
Wow, is that slow, it took almost 4 seconds to load. (glad I ain't on a 300 baud connection though). Cotty wrote: http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps Warning - one large page with 43 pics (non larger than 60k), dial-uppers: go make a nice hot cup of tea-earl-grey-hot while it loads. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Regular programming
Its amazing boys and girls. Set up a couple of filters and suddenly fully 1/3 of the content of the PDML, all of it apparently randomly generated noise, judging from a cursory QC inspection, goes straight to the bit bucket. It's a beautiful thing. William Robb Bill, I am shortly unsubbing from the digests and going 'full time' shock when my broadband gets activated in a couple of weeks. I can't tell you what a pleasure it will be to be able to set up some filters Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
HI Cotty, If I drive that many miles, it will be in my daily driver, which at the moment is a PT Cruiser. My 55 Chevy gets only about 1000 miles per year. It's hard enough to keep it looking new at that rate. But I bet it would be a nice place to shoot some cars. I always have a tough time finding decent locations. Paul On Jun 12, 2004, at 10:49 AM, Cotty wrote: On 12/6/04, PAUL MOTORMA STENQUIST, discombobulated, offered: I hope so. This year I was in the midst of a disaster, which I haven't quite resolved yet. But I hope to be ready and able by next May. Paul If you do, what kinda car you planning on turning up in :-D There are *fantastic* venues for a few auto-pics, as exemplified by a Porsche owners club that turned up and snapped a few cars at the roadside Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Nature Photos
Hi Marnie, There are many nice shots in there. If you got some longer glass, it looks like you'd have to take a few steps backwards before shooting...:-) I'm reluctant to show any more of mine now. Thanks for sharing. Jostein -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 7:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Nature Photos Well, if you aren't heartedly sick of them by now, here are some of my GFM nature photos. Nothing fantastic, though I did get shots of all the animals. But the whole time I was, I was wishing for longer glass. Some images will be slightly familiar by now. ;-) http://members.aol.com/eactivist/GFMNature/Pages/ Marnie aka Doe
RE: GFM 2004 links and postings.
Thanks for compiling the links, Malcolm, and for including my site...:-) See below. From: Malcolm Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Marnie http://members.aol.com/eactivist/gfm/gfm.html Mark R http://www.robertstech.com/temp/gfm2004.htm Jostein http://www.oksne.net Cotty http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps There are a few more that needs adding, imo: Graywolf: http://journal.graywolfphoto.com/summer-04.html#050604 Tom van Veen: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tan/index.htm Frank Theriault: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=404595 Bruce Dayton: www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/index.htm Cory Waters: http://community.webshots.com/album/151148136OOdVUM Bill Owens: http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?Page=1 Ann Sanfedele: http://users.rcn.com/annsan/pdmlcentralsign.jpg http://users.rcn.com/annsan/carolinarhododendron.jpg http://users.rcn.com/annsan/mountainlaurel.jpg http://users.rcn.com/annsan/namelessplant_hmmm.jpg http://users.rcn.com/annsan/markrsetsupgroupshotasdebwatches.jpg ... And hopefully we haven't seen the last of it yet. Frank is still waiting for some films, and so are probably others too. César took heaps of pics that I'd love to see, and Charles Braswell jr. too. Hopefully Tanya has more to show once she gets her jetlag sorted, I really enjoyed the ones by her and TvV on Tom's site. -And Tom's comments of course.:-) Cheers from Philadelphia, Jostein
RE: Yellowing on a 50 1.4 SMC Tak ROFL!!
HAR! tan. -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 13 June 2004 1:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Yellowing on a 50 1.4 SMC Tak ROFL!! Ryan Lee wrote: This probably has been posted before, but I was browsing the uk.rec.humour newsgroup (needed a break from the troll activity at aus.photo and rec.photo.equipment.35mm) and trust finding this link.. http://www.hermes.net.au/bayling/repair.html The pitiful thing is that, if he'd just left it on the rock for a few weeks, it would have cured itself. mike
Re: GFM: Nature Photos
In a message dated 6/12/2004 8:23:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=82 Bill Definitely shows up better against rock than grass. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: GFM: Nature Photos
In a message dated 6/12/2004 8:34:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You have vegetarian otters in the USA? mike --- That puzzled me. But both the otters and cougar were eating some kind of melon. (I tried to keep the melon out of the shots because I thought it looked zoo-like, but couldn't succeed with the otters.) I guess it's a treat that both like. They were feeding them, really, so the photographers could see them. But they probably have to feed them all the time anyway. It's just that I am not sure that at other times they feed them something as neat and discrete as melon. Marnie aka Doe Hehehe.
Re: SV: Film and Development
Jens, I work the same way you do. I haven't been able to find a lab that consistently develops my negatives without scratches, water spots, or embedded crud showing up in the emulsion. Sadly this more than anything else is driving me to investigate digital, at least for color. (If the BW negatives are screwed up I have no one to blame but myself). Jens Bladt wrote: Thanks all for your participation in my film problem. But - I am NOT TALKNING ABOUT PRINTS. It's exclusivly about unsharp negs. Some of them look as if they were developed in the dishwasher along with the pots, plates, cups, knives and forks. I never oder prints from negs anymore. I take photographs every day and I don't want a lot of prints. Only the best and only from manipulated jpeg's or tiff's. So its is a problem realated to the film (Superia 200 most of the time) or to the developing process. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juni 2004 19:18 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Film and Development It is getting more difficult, but not impossible to find a good mini lab. You mention getting bad films back from your lab. What is wrong? If it is the 4x6 prints aren't quite sharp, mention it to the lab manager. It might be simply that the printer needs it's focus adjusted. If you're comparing a scan from a digital minilab to an image from a digital camera, most mini lab scans are only around 1536x1024 (a bit under 2 MP). Here in the US all the drug store chains and the big box discount retailers like Wal-Mart all have mini labs and compete on price. Given their pay scale, and lack of spending for training, few have a knowledgeable enough staff to provide much more then minimally acceptable work on a consistent basis. Your best bet is to find an independent lab. Talk to the lab manager or owner to see if they seem knowledgeable and the lab is committed to producing quality work. They are still out there. Also expect to pay more then the drug store chain lab prices. Jens wrote: I need to make a withdrawal from the PDML wisdom bank, please. I am getting the impression, that it is getting harder to get decent film development these days. Is this true? I know my digital images are very sharp due to the smaller format/better DOF. But I also know that film images can be extremely sharp as well. But I'm getting bad films back from my small dealers lab these days. Is this a common tendency? Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: ISTD in-camera corruption of RAW images
Hi Rob, On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:53:31 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: I have found 3 out of the 1000 I have sofar that have this corruption, all have been shot using SanDisk 1Gb or Sandisk Ultra 512Mb cards. In all cases it may have been a shot from a short sequence, so the in-camara buffer might have been partly filled. I sucpect there is a firmware bug somewhere ... Has anyone else experienced the same kind of corruption ? Hi Jan, I've shot many more than 1000 RAW images and had zero corruption. What you don't mention in your post is what method you use to transfer the captured data to the application. Do you transfer the data to the local hard disk or were you reading the files using the camera/USB connection? Do you use a card reader or external hdd (like an X-Drive) or do you transfer image data direct from the camera via USB? I transfer the files by putting the CF-card in a PC-CARD adapter inserted in laptop (IBM thinkpad). I copy the files to a special 'images' partition there. Afterwards, I copy the new images over to my Photoshop system over a local area network. That is the first time I can look at the RAW image content and notice the corruption. Since a few people have mentioned some problems due to copying, with the original image being OK, I will retry that step. The last image that turned out to be corrupt is still on the 1Gb Sandisk CF-card so I can retry. I will also install the Pentax image browser on the laptop to see if it is Ok there ... Thanks everyone for the tips. Regards, JvW If a second copy also fails, I might try to use the USB connection directly from the camera. (Which I never have used before :-) -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: reagan cortege
Well, it may have been stupid, but it made him angry enough to steal the email address. Sorry :-) DagT På 12. jun. 2004 kl. 18.32 skrev Anthony Farr: Hey, you can insult a guy, but that was just idiotic, sorry man. Regards, Anthony Farr -Original Message- From: Dag T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reagan cortege AHAHAHAHAHA That is funny!!! Who's it about?? AHAHAH ITS EVEN FUNNIER!!! (This is a sarcastic joke because you think you need a professional psychologist to understand you.) DagT På 12. jun. 2004 kl. 18.17 skrev Shawn K.: AHAHAHAHAHA That is funny!!! Who's it about?? ME ??? AHAHAH ITS EVEN FUNNIER!!! (This is a sarcastic joke for those of you prone to amateur psychological rants) -Shawn -Original Message- From: Anthony Farr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 12:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reagan cortege LOL regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:48 AM Subject: Re: reagan cortege (snip) there should be a comma between your face and your asshole. As written, it means you have an asshole on your face.
Re: Regular programming
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its amazing boys and girls. Set up a couple of filters and suddenly fully 1/3 of the content of the PDML, all of it apparently randomly generated noise, judging from a cursory QC inspection, goes straight to the bit bucket. It's a beautiful thing. Yes it is. William Robb
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
I can actually live with the photo you posted of me, frank. :-) Nice ones, all around. But want to see more. Marnie aka Doe
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
Most? (besides, John put a smiley on it) -frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] By now Frank knows most of what I say is tongue in cheek. John Francis wrote: Peter J. Alling remarked: Frank, I'm surprised, some of these are really quite good. That's a little harsh, isn't it? :-) _ Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
Marnie, MUCH more next week. If for no other reason, to piss of those who are tired of GFM chatter. vbg Glad you liked. g cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed! Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:49:18 EDT I can actually live with the photo you posted of me, frank. :-) Nice ones, all around. But want to see more. Marnie aka Doe _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
Just wanted to clarify things, what with the current unpleasantness on the list, (it would be difficult to even dignify it by calling it a flame war). frank theriault wrote: Most? (besides, John put a smiley on it) -frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] By now Frank knows most of what I say is tongue in cheek. John Francis wrote: Peter J. Alling remarked: Frank, I'm surprised, some of these are really quite good. That's a little harsh, isn't it? :-) _ Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
Besides, sometimes I make heartfelt comments, really... ;-) frank theriault wrote: Most? (besides, John put a smiley on it) -frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] By now Frank knows most of what I say is tongue in cheek. John Francis wrote: Peter J. Alling remarked: Frank, I'm surprised, some of these are really quite good. That's a little harsh, isn't it? :-) _ Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Vivitar 24/2
Hi, Henri Toivonen wrote: I got an offer to buy a Vivitar 24/2 for about $40 Can anyone tell me some info about it? Is it any good? I have a SMC-M 28/3.5 I use as my wide-angle prime, and I'm thinking of getting an even wider one. I had a Vivitar 24/2, then a Kiron 24/2, and now an SMC-A 24/2.8. The Vivitar was quite sharp, but had heavy flare problems. The Kiron had the same sharpness, with much better coatings and mechanics. The SMC-A beats all the above... Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: THis Vivitar is in fact Kino Optical/Kiron 24/2 Are you sure? :-) http://www.cameraquest.com/VivLensManuf.htm Peter J. Alling wrote: This is considered a cult classic. If it's in good shape $40 is a steal. You can read a bit about it here: http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html You mean the Series1 one. Do not mix it up with the other Vivitars! Bye, Gabor
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
Yes, Peter, We live in strange and troubling times... vbg cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just wanted to clarify things, what with the current unpleasantness on the list, (it would be difficult to even dignify it by calling it a flame war). frank theriault wrote: Most? (besides, John put a smiley on it) _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: GFM 2004 links and postings.
Marnie wrote: Oops, sorry, I was mucking around last night and changed the url. http://members.aol.com/eactivist/GFMPeople/ http://members.aol.com/eactivsit/GFMNature/Pages/ Not consistent, I know. I am trying to revamp my site. Right now the index to eactivist pulls up only PAWs and I need to correlate everything so that it can be a one stop site with the index being an index to various subsites. I.E. Right now the index goes no where else. Marnie aka Doe Nice to be included, though. :-) And nice for you to put that together. LOL! Soon update that correctly! Thanks, Malcolm
Re: GFM reflections
Ahh, I just convinced the others that your position is no longer needed (grin). No, actually, I only fit into the incorporate bored room. I want to thank you again for the darkroom stuff. It was far more than I expected. If you bought it new you must have had it since college. I did not realize a B-22 was quite that old, they apparently quit making them in 1974. Anyway I set the B-22 up and cleaned it off a bit. Seems to be in great condition. As I told you the Gra-Lab 300 is a god send, I really needed something like it. T'was very nice meeting you, Stan, even if you had not been bearing gifts. -- Stan Halpin wrote: Greywolf is not the shaggy mountain man I expected. Put him in a coat and tie and he would fit well in a corporate boardroom. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
GFM 2004 links as at 12th June.
Marnie: http://members.aol.com/eactivist/GFMPeople/ http://members.aol.com/eactivist/GFMNature/Pages/ Mark Roberts: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/gfm2004.htm Jostein: http://www.oksne.net Cotty: http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps Graywolf: http://journal.graywolfphoto.com/summer-04.html#050604 Tom van Veen: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tan/index.htm Frank Theriault: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=404595 Bruce Dayton: www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/index.htm Cory Waters: http://community.webshots.com/album/151148136OOdVUM Bill Owens: http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?Page=1 Ann Sanfedele: http://users.rcn.com/annsan/pdmlcentralsign.jpg http://users.rcn.com/annsan/carolinarhododendron.jpg http://users.rcn.com/annsan/mountainlaurel.jpg http://users.rcn.com/annsan/namelessplant_hmmm.jpg http://users.rcn.com/annsan/markrsetsupgroupshotasdebwatches.jpg Malcolm
SV: Film and Development
Thanks all for your participation in my film problem. But - I am NOT TALKING ABOUT PRINTS. It's exclusively about unsharp negs. Some of them look as if they were developed in the dishwasher along with the pots, plates, cups, knives and forks. I never order prints from negs anymore. I take photographs every day and I don't want a lot of prints. Only the best and only from manipulated jpeg's or tiff's. So its is a problem related to the film (Superia 200 most of the time) or to the developing process. Sorry. I'm on the digest, so when responding I often get useful information after I send my reply. If you mean by developed in the dishwasher that there is a soapy film on the negatives then it could be old, dirty or overly concentrated stabilizer or dirty squeegee or dryer rollers. Ask when the last time they changed the stabilizer tanks. According to most manufacturers of mini labs you never need to dump tanks as a part of routine maintenance, which is a crock. But because in a lot of labs decisions are being made by people who don't have a background in photo finishing nor use the machines themselves, they blindly do the minimum required by the manufacturer. You might also try cleaning your negs with a good film cleaner prior to scanning. Nothing in the film development process can affect the focus end of sharpness, so if that is your problem it's not the labs fault. Weak developer can produce thin, flat negs however. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
graywolf wrote: They also spend some time playing with the animals. Tossing them balls, toys, etc. Makes life a bit more interesting for the animals, and brings them up so the visitors can seem them. These animals are all about 80% tame, though AnnSan and I saw a bit of a spat between a couple of the bears that made it clear being in the habitat with them could become dangerous. I did find out what that Whaw, whaw... I have heard in the woods from time to time is, angry bear. -- Unfortunately, they were having the dispute in a camera-unfriendly location and I was unwilling to have graywolf hold onto my legs while I leaned wayyy over the edge of the embankment to snap them. Very uncooperative bears! Oh yeah, guys, the bird songs I so ineptly tried to capture on my mini recorder turned out to be the eagles! all those I had met previously were mute. annsan
RE: canon vs pentax
Or Mercedes vs. Volkswagen. I'm not saying which car is to be copmpared to which camera brand. But in my country 85% of all taxies (professional cars) are from Mercedes Benz. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 11. juni 2004 04:01 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: canon vs pentax Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/10/2004 10:17:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd expect that the 70-200IS is one of Canon's best lenses. - Yes, reportedly it is -- at least according to Canon owners's comments that I have read. Pentax may offer a lot more choices in glass than Canon does. Not sure about that, but I think it could well be. Wouldn't be surprised. (Canon owner.) Last I heard, Canon currently sells more lens designs than anybody else. Many of them, of course, are out of reach of most folks. Over the years, Pentax may well have put out more, and the interoperability across generations has only recently been compromised. Each system has advantages/disadvantages. Yep. Even without going into camera differences. Nikon, for example, doesn't make a 24/2 AF or a 400/5.6 AF like Pentax does. Pentax doesn't make a small 85 any more, or a 105. DJE
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
They were probably talking about all those PDML'ers they saw hanging around. Damn, useless photographers, and them with the Pentax's are the worse of the lot. -- Ann Sanfedele wrote: Oh yeah, guys, the bird songs I so ineptly tried to capture on my mini recorder turned out to be the eagles! all those I had met previously were mute. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: ISTD in-camera corruption of RAW images
Hi Paul, On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:03:05 -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote: I do own an *ist-D, and the software works fine whether it identifies the lens or not. In fact, with K or M lenses, it does not identify the lens, and, quite obviously, it can't. I've shot about 5000 RAW images and have not experienced any corruption. Most of them were on Lexar 1 gig and half gig cards that were downloaded to my Mac over USB. I've also shot a few images on a Sandisc 1 gig card, and it worked fine. OK, thanks. For everyone that is curious about the corruption (and has broadband :-) I have uploaded the corrupt RAW file in a ZIP-file at: http://www.dfsee.com/gallery/corrupt_pef.zip This is an 8Mb file! The image was taken in a theatre, using the ISTD with FA* 85mm. You will see that the whole bottom half of the picture is 'shifted' or 'rotated' to the right, by about one fourth of the image width. The quarter that ends up in the lower left corner has a magenta color shift. (visible in PS-CS browser, Pentax browser reports 'load error') I have also retested the copy, and the files on the CF-card, the laptop and my Photoshop system are identical. (binary compare). So my conclusion is that this corruption was done to the image on the CF-card, and most likely while it was written by the camera. Regard, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: GFM reflections
Oops! Sorry! Even a note on the monitor does not seem to help. Meant as an off list comment. Please, pretend you never saw it unless your name is Stan. -- graywolf wrote: Ahh, I just convinced the others that your position is no longer needed (grin). No, actually, I only fit into the incorporate bored room. I want to thank you again for the darkroom stuff. It was far more than I expected. If you bought it new you must have had it since college. I did not realize a B-22 was quite that old, they apparently quit making them in 1974. Anyway I set the B-22 up and cleaned it off a bit. Seems to be in great condition. As I told you the Gra-Lab 300 is a god send, I really needed something like it. T'was very nice meeting you, Stan, even if you had not been bearing gifts. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: GFM: Nature Photos
When I was there, they fed the otters, fish. And no, it was not very clean and neat, but the otters really went for it. Bruce Saturday, June 12, 2004, 8:52:35 AM, you wrote: Eac In a message dated 6/12/2004 8:34:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, Eac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Eac You have vegetarian otters in the USA? Eac mike Eac --- Eac That puzzled me. But both the otters and cougar were eating some kind of Eac melon. (I tried to keep the melon out of the shots because I thought it looked Eac zoo-like, but couldn't succeed with the otters.) Eac I guess it's a treat that both like. They were feeding them, really, so the Eac photographers could see them. But they probably have to feed them all the time Eac anyway. It's just that I am not sure that at other times they feed them Eac something as neat and discrete as melon. Eac Marnie aka Doe Hehehe.
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Wow, this discussion sure took off. Those of you who gave your opinion of the lens in question based on your experience, thank you. Those who dislike the lens will probably be happy to hear I've decided not to buy it, instead I found a SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5 cheaper than the Takumar was. I really wanted a Pentax-A lens, but the SMC A 135/2.8 doesn't have very nice reviews on Stan's page, plus it seems to be expensive... which is why I was going to consider the non-SMC lens as a cheap alternative. Now if I had a few more lenses, I could almost do without my Sears 80-200/4. ;) A Pentax-A 100/2.8 and perhaps the Pentax-A 200/4 would be nice. Also, the -A 70-210/4 and -A 35-70 (3.5-4.5) look like nice lenses. Dang, I think I'm catching Pentax disease. __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Jon M wrote: Wow, this discussion sure took off. Those of you who gave your opinion of the lens in question based on your experience, thank you. Those who dislike the lens will probably be happy to hear I've decided not to buy it, instead I found a SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5 cheaper than the Takumar was. I really wanted a Pentax-A lens, but the SMC A 135/2.8 doesn't have very nice reviews on Stan's page, plus it seems to be expensive... which is why I was going to consider the non-SMC lens as a cheap alternative. Now if I had a few more lenses, I could almost do without my Sears 80-200/4. ;) A Pentax-A 100/2.8 and perhaps the Pentax-A 200/4 would be nice. Also, the -A 70-210/4 and -A 35-70 (3.5-4.5) look like nice lenses. Dang, I think I'm catching Pentax disease. Abandon all hope now, it's much easier... __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: ISTD in-camera corruption of RAW images
i have had this happen only when the batteries run out during a sequence. this is because i am unable to tell when the batteries are actually low or whether the camera's power indicator says they are low. if you are using an external card reader, i would most suspect a problem with your reader. Herb... - Original Message - From: Jan van Wijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax discussion forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 7:38 AM Subject: ISTD in-camera corruption of RAW images I have found 3 out of the 1000 I have sofar that have this corruption, all have been shot using SanDisk 1Gb or Sandisk Ultra 512Mb cards. In all cases it may have been a shot from a short sequence, so the in-camara buffer might have been partly filled. I sucpect there is a firmware bug somewhere ... Has anyone else experienced the same kind of corruption ?
Re: Zoom lens shading
the DA 16-45 works the way yours does. no other Pentax zoom i tried works that way. the Sigma 24-70/2.8 gets longer when zooming wider. Herb - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 11:34 AM Subject: Zoom lens shading Is this activity engineered to provide a dynamic lens hood depth? Or is it an engineering necessity that just so happens to provide good lens shading through the relevant movement of the optics? Or both?
Re: canon vs pentax
On Jun 12, 2004, at 2:18 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: Over the years, Pentax may well have put out more, and the interoperability across generations has only recently been compromised. In what way? With the new firmware, the K and M lenses can be used on the *ist D with what amounts to ap priority auto exposure. What more could one expect? Pentax continues to serve us well. Note also how Mercedes has dropped out of the top ten in JD Power customer satisfaction. Perhaps it's not an apt symbol of excellence. Cadillac, on the other hand, is now number three. Sometimes the old timers rally and come back. Paul
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
On Jun 12, 2004, at 3:22 PM, Jon M wrote: instead I found a SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5 cheaper than the Takumar was. Congratulations. That's a very sharp and contrasty lens. Probably one of the best bargains in Pentax land. Ditto that a 200/4 you want. The M 200/4 is also very good, although it doesn't have the auto exposure capability of the A version. Paul
Re: DDD ( Re: Cotty's GFM pics
On 12/6/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, offered: Everything you always wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask Chrissy Bingo. Cigar? BTW - - Chrissy ?? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
On 12/6/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, offered: If I drive that many miles, it will be in my daily driver, which at the moment is a PT Cruiser. My 55 Chevy gets only about 1000 miles per year. It's hard enough to keep it looking new at that rate. But I bet it would be a nice place to shoot some cars. I always have a tough time finding decent locations. Holy hemi, a 55 Chevy? Is that the one I have seen pictured before? was it yellow? That's a nice car. Well if you can't bring the car, bring a few anecdotes ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: reagan cortege
More stupid comments from his highness the king of stupid. (LOL) Dag T Blimey, it takes a fair bit to rattle a Norwegian's cage! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Film and Development
Butch and all you other guys that run labs: I've received some pretty dirty stuff back from the local discount place, but never anything optically fuzzy. I've since moved my business to another place. Help me understand, since I've only developed black and white negs and color slides at home. What would cause the sharpness of color negatives to degrade during the developing process? My totally uniformed guess would be that the process would have to be off pretty far to have an effect on the emulsion. Can you lend some insight? Thanks, gs
