from:"J C OConnell"

I was thinking about picking up one of these lenses, they sell for 
around $200 used, I already have an excellent
manual focus 35-70 F2.8 AT-X, but 35mm just isnt wide enough especially 
on aps format.

I was wondering if anyone here had tried the 28-70 F2.8 AT-X AF and what the
pros and cons to it were. Thanks in advance. P.S. This is a FF lens.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PRIMETIME to pick up used lenses, IMHO.


Ive been doing it for the last decade or so.
jco
On 2/14/2015 3:28 PM, John wrote:

On 2/14/2015 9:21 AM, Darren Addy wrote:

Everyone is (understandably) excited and focused about the Pentax full
frame offering and many may be saving their shekels for the body. But
I would suggest that this is Prime Time to be focusing upon filling
any holes in your lens inventory.


You might be a little late to the party. I've been doing that for 
several years now.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: An artists rendition of what a finished FF Pentax may look like.

there is already technology today to 3D print edible food, not sure 
chocaolate

is viable, but limited foods can already be done. google it.
jco
On 2/14/2015 3:05 PM, Darren Addy wrote:

Except that's not currently how 3D printers work. However, who knows
where 3D printer technology will be by the time the Pentax FF actually
ships!

I suggest the following alternative:
http://www.instructables.com/id/edible-party-hat/

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Steve Cottrell  wrote:

On 13/2/15, J C OConnell, discombobulated, unleashed:


Hey Cotty could use a 3D printer to make the hat and use chocaolate as
the material!

Not a bad idea!

--


Cheers,
   Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Production
--
_



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT Digital Dark Age and Digital Vellum

what was good about film either negatives or slides was the only 
hardware you needed to open it was your eyes.

On 2/14/2015 3:13 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:

Bruce Walker wrote:


But even relatively modern formats are effectively dead these days.
How many of us could read an 8 inch MDS-80 floppy? A 5.25" CP/M or MS-
DOS floppy? Even finding a PC or Mac with a 3.5" 1.44M floppy on it is
non-trivial lately. In a pinch I can read 3.5" floppies, but I'd have
to spend a couple of hours jury-rigging something together: an old PC
from the basement, running FreeBSD and networked.

I have tried to back up any files I've had stored on - for want of a better description - 
dead media formats, to the latest method of storage. At one point I had loads of 
5.25" floppy discs and thousands of 3.5" discs. I still have some of those from 
Kodak, where there was an option of providing a disc with your processed film. I have no 
way of opening those discs now, yet because I have the film, it's not important.

I wonder how many images will get tossed into the bin, as over the years so 
many people will come across old storage media that they have no way of 
opening, and memories or records of the past will disappear forever?

There is a certain irony to the fact in this time of continual technological 
advancement, that files/images stored twenty years ago on the hot media of the 
time is unreadable to most, yet you can use negatives that were taken many 
decades ago and recreate (and in many cases improve) the original with 
equipment bought in 2015.

Malcolm





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: An artists rendition of what a finished FF Pentax may look like.

2015-02-13 Thread J C OConnell

Hey Cotty could use a 3D printer to make the hat and use chocaolate as 
the material!

jco
On 2/13/2015 2:10 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

But if you use a 3D printer to create your time machine mockup, and
then photoshop the shots you'll convince way more people and ignite
some great firestorms on the Time Machine User forums.

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Bob W-PDML  wrote:

I seem to remember Pentax showing a mockup or prototype before, which never 
actually hit the streets. I could show a mockup of a time machine, doesn't mean 
I'll ever be able to travel forward to 2525 to watch Cotty eat his hat when the 
camera is available in whatever passes for shops then. That's why I want him to 
eat it now, on credit so to speak.

B




On 13 Feb 2015, at 17:02, Ken Waller  wrote:

Interestingly, the mockup has Pentax on the front and back - so there Cotty, its a 
Pentax 

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "P.J. Alling" 
Subject: An artists rendition of what a finished FF Pentax may look like.



It's a link to the Pentax Fora, sorry about that.


http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16-pentax-news-rumors/288490-unveiling-full-frame-prototype.html

--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Camera Watch report from CP+ Yokohama

2015-02-12 Thread J C OConnell

It sure seems like they are more than 10 months away from a finished, 
ready to sell product.

jco
On 2/12/2015 2:22 PM, John wrote:

I think they just finessed some of the details on the mockup.

There's a little bump on the back where the button for switching between
cards is on the back of the K-3.

I'm thinking that IF/when the product is finally available it will have
a card select button there, and the built in pop-up flash will be there
too.

The blocky screen shape suggests it will be articulating but they
haven't finalized how that's going to work, so they didn't know where to
put the release button on the mockup.

I also expect the other missing controls/items will be there in the end.

On 2/12/2015 11:18 AM, Darren Addy wrote:

Not sure how closely this prototype is actually going to be to the
real camera, but it appears similar in layout to the K-3 except:
No LIVE VIEW/Record Video button? No headphone jack or mic jack?
Doesn't appear that this camera will do video (not that this would be
a deal breaker for many).
It is supposed to have 2 card slots, so did they move that button to a
position over the top of the 4-way?
There is an extra button on the left side of the body (over the RAW/FX
button) and it appears that this model will not have a built-in flash?
No articulating screen?

Or do you think that they just aren't giving these details away in 
the mock-up?


On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:09 AM, P.J. Alling
 wrote:
So will the button layout be like a K-3 or like the new K-S2?  Looks 
like a
tilt screen on the back, built in wifi, or is that considered 
consumer level

like the built in flash, which the model seems to lack. Inquiring minds
want to know.  I still think the vibe in the design should be MZ-S 
rather

than 6x7 but that's just me.

I don't know if this is smarter than Pentax with the MZ-D where 
there was a
working prototype, (and nary a rumor until it was just about 
canceled), but

here they unvale a clay mockup...

On 2/12/2015 4:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:


Hi all, please anjoy:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20150212_688027.html

Looks like they have smarter people on board now, as they haven't 
missed

the 40th anniversary of the K mount.

Dario




--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.









--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Your guess on the Pentax Full Frame specs?

2015-02-07 Thread J C OConnell

with aps you are working with smaller format, thus making the lenses 
more critical.
true you are dealing with the sweet spot of FF lenses but not all FF 
lenses have noticable

corner problems.
On 2/6/2015 8:05 PM, Darren Addy wrote:

and a lot of the people will find out that FF puts less demand on the optical 
quality
of the lenses compared to aps for the same results, therefore better results for
lenses of same quality.

This is the opposite of what I have seen and read. The APS-C takes
only the central portion of the optical circle of 35mm glass. It is
normally in the corners where things begin to deteriorate - corners
you never even record on an APS-C sensor. I believe that this is why
Pentax chose to simultaneously release some great new full frame zoom
glass. A full frame sensor will expose lens deficiencies (pardon the
pun?).




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Your guess on the Pentax Full Frame specs?

and a lot of the people will find out that FF puts less demand on the 
optical quality
 of the lenses complared to aps for the same results, therefore better 
results for

lenses of same quality.

e.g. if you keep the Mpixels and optical quality of the lenses constant, 
the system

resolution increases as you increase the size of the format ( FF vs APSC).
jco


On 2/6/2015 2:56 PM, Larry Colen wrote:

Oops, I forgot to mention.  I think that a lot of people who have been
waiting for the 24x36 sensor to use their old glass will find when they
start pixel peeping that the new lenses handily outperform the old lenses.
I think that the people who just look at the final image, however, will
be ecstatic because the body will deliver the best images possible from
the vintage glass, and many of the inherent flaws of the glass will be
correctable in post processing.




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Your guess on the Pentax Full Frame specs?

if you prefer evf, why stick with dslr? mirrorless is better for that. I
much prefer optical vf.

jco
On 2/6/2015 2:46 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
You see, with K10D it worked. With K-7 it was a whole saga. With K-5 I
had to buy a special camera where someone already installed and
_properly shimmed_ the special focusing screen. Nowadays, I prefer EVF
and its focusing aids. My hit rate is higher and the strain on my eyes
is less.

On 2/6/2015 21:12, J C OConnell wrote:
I have no problem shooting with the k50/1.2, I dont use f1.2, I stop
down a little. Plus, I changed to a split image RF focus screen that
work excellent for MF lenses.

On 2/6/2015 2:02 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Right. I've got Pentax-K-to-Leica-M adapter of highest quality and A
50/1.2 that I occasionally use this way. However, I don't expect new
camera to be very good at precision manual focusing for 50/1.2
lenses. Pentax will want you to buy new glass...

Boris

On 2/6/2015 20:53, J C OConnell wrote:

Ive got a K50/1.2 I can slap on there
jco
On 2/5/2015 11:09 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
I'll just wait and see... However I doubt that this will have any
practical interest for me anyway...

My K-5 and Sigma 17-70 are more than enough. As well, Ricoh GXR-M
and Nokton 40/1.4 is a tough combo to beat in terms of portability
without giving up any image quality.

Oh, here is my take on the thread subject. This new camera will be
big, heavy, and expensive so that I'll probably won't buy it.

By the way, where is standard fast zoom for it?

Back to lurking...
Boris

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com

On February 6, 2015 2:55:41 AM Darren Addy
wrote:

Here is my guess:

36 MP Sony sensor, as found in the Sony A7r and Nikon D810
httDp://www.sonyalpharumors.com/competition-news-nikon-d810-features-sony-36mp-sensor/

dxomark comparison of those two camera's sensors with the existing
Pentax flagship K-3:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Sony-A7R-versus-Pentax-K-3___963_917_914

Same lack of AA filter /SR AA simulation found in the K-3

Pentax FluCard compatibility

Dual SD slots

Similar AF system as the K-3

I'm curious to see the FPS and video capabilities. Curious to see if
it is compatible with the O-GPS1.

ISO range: (Extended: 80-51,200)

--
Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly
above and follow the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: Your guess on the Pentax Full Frame specs?

I have no problem shooting with the k50/1.2, I dont use f1.2, I stop
down a little. Plus, I changed to a split image RF focus screen that
work excellent for MF lenses.

Boris

On 2/6/2015 20:53, J C OConnell wrote:

Ive got a K50/1.2 I can slap on there
jco
On 2/5/2015 11:09 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
I'll just wait and see... However I doubt that this will have any
practical interest for me anyway...

My K-5 and Sigma 17-70 are more than enough. As well, Ricoh GXR-M
and Nokton 40/1.4 is a tough combo to beat in terms of portability
without giving up any image quality.

Oh, here is my take on the thread subject. This new camera will be
big, heavy, and expensive so that I'll probably won't buy it.

By the way, where is standard fast zoom for it?

Back to lurking...
Boris

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com

On February 6, 2015 2:55:41 AM Darren Addy
wrote:

Here is my guess:

36 MP Sony sensor, as found in the Sony A7r and Nikon D810
httDp://www.sonyalpharumors.com/competition-news-nikon-d810-features-sony-36mp-sensor/

dxomark comparison of those two camera's sensors with the existing
Pentax flagship K-3:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Sony-A7R-versus-Pentax-K-3___963_917_914

Same lack of AA filter /SR AA simulation found in the K-3

Pentax FluCard compatibility

Dual SD slots

Similar AF system as the K-3

I'm curious to see the FPS and video capabilities. Curious to see if
it is compatible with the O-GPS1.

ISO range: (Extended: 80-51,200)

--
Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: Your guess on the Pentax Full Frame specs?

Ive got a K50/1.2 I can slap on there
jco
On 2/5/2015 11:09 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
I'll just wait and see... However I doubt that this will have any
practical interest for me anyway...

My K-5 and Sigma 17-70 are more than enough. As well, Ricoh GXR-M and
Nokton 40/1.4 is a tough combo to beat in terms of portability without
giving up any image quality.

Oh, here is my take on the thread subject. This new camera will be
big, heavy, and expensive so that I'll probably won't buy it.

By the way, where is standard fast zoom for it?

Back to lurking...
Boris

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com

On February 6, 2015 2:55:41 AM Darren Addy wrote:

Here is my guess:

36 MP Sony sensor, as found in the Sony A7r and Nikon D810
httDp://www.sonyalpharumors.com/competition-news-nikon-d810-features-sony-36mp-sensor/

dxomark comparison of those two camera's sensors with the existing
Pentax flagship K-3:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Sony-A7R-versus-Pentax-K-3___963_917_914

Same lack of AA filter /SR AA simulation found in the K-3

Pentax FluCard compatibility

Dual SD slots

Similar AF system as the K-3

I'm curious to see the FPS and video capabilities. Curious to see if
it is compatible with the O-GPS1.

ISO range: (Extended: 80-51,200)

--
Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: K-3 users - how often do you use the AA simulator?

isnt it true that the AA simulator doesnt work with flash, so classic 
portrait photography

must be done without the aa filter. ??
jco
On 2/5/2015 10:26 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:

I've had some moire issues with clothing materials when shooting full
length portraits, I hadn't had any problems before so I only spotted
the issue in post.



On 6 February 2015 at 13:46, John  wrote:

I"ve had no reason to use it so far.

On 2/5/2015 9:17 PM, Mark C wrote:

When the K-3 came out once feature that contributed to the press
coverage was the Anti Alias filter simulator. So after more than a year
with the K-3 I can say that I only turned the AA simulator on once, to
see what it would do. On my camera, it does make a distinct sound during
exposures when enabled... Otherwise I have never used it, but I really
don't shoot many images where there is fabric or other things that might
kick off moire' patterns.

So - do you use it?

Mark

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com



--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The new Pentax announcements.

about 3 weeks ago there was a guy on ebay selling new in the box K-3 for 
$599.99  I almost bought one, but
with rumors of FF floating for months I didnt. He had more than 10 of 
them but they sold out in one day.

That was a great value for a top line DSLR , even if it was APS-C.
jco
On 2/5/2015 4:03 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Based on the probably mythical digital camera 18 month product cycle, 
it's about time for a refresh. That doesn't mean the camera needs to 
be replaced but that's just the way it seems to happen, on average.  I 
expect that there will be a new DSLR announcement, because the 
production lifetime of a digital camera is still short.  Roughly three 
years between the introduction of the K-5 to the K-3 with the upgraded 
K-5II/s models being announced in between.  Pretty much fits that 
pattern.  Also the K-3 street price has fallen pretty propitiously in 
the last couple of months.


On 2/5/2015 2:58 PM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote:

Am 05.02.15 um 20:15 schrieb P.J. Alling:

I don't think there will be a
full K-3 replacement in the near future.


Why should there be one?

Ralf







--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Model number of new FF DSLR Body

It's anyone's guess what the model number will be ( I doubt it will be a 
K1) but once they
come out with a pro model with all the bells and whistles, "DLX" would 
be an obvious choice.

jco

On 2/5/2015 2:54 PM, Malcolm Smith wrote:

P.J. Alling wrote:


I think Leica already makes one of those, don't they.  Then there's the
cabal that want's a Fuji full frame, which is especially silly, since
the current Fuji system is designed around the APS-C format sensor and
is therefor already full frame...

Whatever they launch, someone will want a product they don't make. It is a
problem adding any camera to the market, as there are some excellent cameras
on sale now.

The 70-200mm f2.8 really catches my attention. I'd certainly like one of
them.

Any ideas what the new Pentax FF camera will be called? Given that their
first DSLR had a daft name, it's difficult to rule anything out. How about
the 'ist about FF time'.

Malcolm







--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: New Zoom Lenses : "Highest Zoom Ever"??


I don't know why they are calling the 150-450mm
their "highest zoom ever".  I own a Pentax
Zoom takumar that is 135-600mm F6.7. Even
though mine is a screwmount, they made the same
lens available in K mount back in the 70's
jco






On 2/5/2015 12:52 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

I don't know, this time I think you're hat should be worried.

On 2/4/2015 4:17 PM, Steve Cottrell wrote:

On 4/2/15, John, discombobulated, unleashed:


I think I'll save my frenzy until they actually announce a FF DSLR.

Me too!









--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: New Zoom Lenses

Pentax probaby wont support aperture rings on this new FF body to help 
keep it cost competitive, but once they get a few FF bodies under their 
belt, there's always the possibility of supporting the rings later on a 
top line model.  ??

jco

On 2/5/2015 12:42 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Just because you don't have a need to work in rabidly changing light 
doesn't mean no one does.I'm not saying everyone works the same or has 
the same needs,


Now Nikon at the top end supports their "aperture simulator" well at 
least one of them.  Pentax could make theirs work more easily, they 
don't have the issue where a "K" mount lens of the wrong series 
mounted on a "K" mount body might actually damage the Lens or Body.


Fuji has developed an entire series of new lenses that have *gasp* 
aperture rings, that photographers even new photographers, who have 
never shot film, think are the cat's meow, (yes, I chose that 
particular superlative for a reason), and find extremely intuitive, 
something a lot of us have known for years and never forgot.


It would be relatively trivial for Pentax to support the aperture ring 
on all legacy lenses that have one.


However I'm not making a point about any of that.  I'm just pointing 
out that if you need a whole new lens suite when moving up to a new 
body, there is no rational reason to stick with the old system.  
Rationally you should pick the system that offers the most cost 
effective solution.  Unfortunately that's not likely to be Pentax.


It's not that I have no interest in buying new lenses.  There are 
budgetary issues, and I have a full Pentax K mount range consisting of 
K, (and M), A, F and FA lenses from 17mm (Fisheye) to 300mm), with a 
few Classic Vivitar Series 1, (and a couple of oddballs that defy 
description), mixed in.  I bought the best I could at the time.  They 
were an investment in the best quality I could afford.


Thirty year old lenses are pretty good.  If you don't pixel peep but 
print out images at 300 DPI you will find that 30 year old lenses hold 
up pretty well.  I've got a couple of images of a Hawk taken with an 
A*300 F4.0 and F 1.7X where the lens and TC pretty much out preform 
the sensor, (K20D).  That's a 30 year old lens that's pretty much a 
mount update of a 35 year old lens design. For all practical purposes, 
while the later * 300 lenses may be marginally better, in a 250 DPI or 
300 DPI print, or for that matter reasonable screen resolution, not 
pixel peeping, (because God knows at a 400% view), you can find 
defects in anything, it's as good as you need.


My final word, (quoted by many, so I don't know who to attribute it 
to), "you date cameras. you marry lenses", if I've got to divorce my 
lenses, I won't necessarily, in fact probably won't marry back into 
the same family. There's only so much of any kind of abuse I can 
take.  I'll look for a different kind of abuse, at least it will be 
different.




On 2/4/2015 1:02 PM, Larry Colen wrote:



P.J. Alling wrote:

Kind of old news, they were displayed at CES with the new K-50
replacement, (still to be named). I don't know how much credence you
should put in a web site that lists as related news rumors of a
"cheaper" Pemtax mirrorless camera from 2012!

Really, since Pentax won't offer better aperture ring support for K and
M series lenses, then I don't really see any particular reason to go
full frame. To get the most out of the camera I would have to invest in
a whole new lens kit, Might as well switch to Nikon or Canon, in 
that case.




I'm getting a bit tired of the aperture ring simulator bollocks. 
Unless I am vastly mistaken, the presence of an aperture ring 
simulator does absolutely nothing to the optical path of the lens. 
The only functional difference that you would get is whether you have 
automatic or manual exposure.


In my experience, for about maybe 5-10% of the photos I take, the 
light situation is changing rapidly enough that while I am shooting 
action shots, automatic exposure gives me better results than manual. 
If all of your photography is sports photography, outdoors, in 
changing light, then I can see that having automatic exposure can 
make a significant difference.


In other situations, I find that about 30% of the time, automatic 
exposure will work well enough that thanks to the exposure latitude 
of the sensors, for any but my most critical shots, I wouldn't notice 
the difference between automatic and manual exposure. The vast 
majority of the time, I find that the metering on my camera is either 
wonky enough, or tuned for a different style of photography than 
mine, and automatic exposure simply does not work as well as manual. 
I do find it slightly reassuring that at least in these cases I'm 
smarter than a $20 microprocessor.


You have professed that you have no interest in buying new lenses. In 
reality this means that you are not a customer that Ricoh should 
worry nearly as much about as the person who will buy $10,000 worth 
o

Re: Poll

My favorite will always be the original Spotmatic (without the hot shoe, 
that
made it go from sexy to ugly real fast). It was so precision, and felt 
like a jewel

when you hand wound it.
jco
On 2/4/2015 11:09 PM, Alan C wrote:

1. ME Super. A little workhorse with AV mode.
2. P30. Much the same but never felt right.
3. S1a. My first.

-Original Message- From: CollinB
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 9:28 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Poll

Your top 3 Pentax film bodies, with reasons for each.

For me (though I have held but never fully used all of them)

1. MZ-S perfect ergonomics
2. LX sound design
3. KX unbreakable



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Full frame the wait is over


Ricoh is knocked up!


I'm surprised that the ever-astute Pentax marketing department isn't
using that...
"The full frame wait is over... in ten more months."




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Full frame the wait is over

I wonder if this announcement is going to affect this years sales of the 
K-3???

jco
On 2/4/2015 9:59 PM, Darren Addy wrote:

I'm surprised that the ever-astute Pentax marketing department isn't
using that...
"The full frame wait is over... in ten more months."

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Richard Womer  wrote:

I haven't been waiting.
http://photo.net/photos/RickW


On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Philip Northeast
 wrote:

Well nearly, according to this instagram post from Pentax Oz

https://flic.kr/p/r4a5F8
--
Philip Northeast

www.aviewfinderdarkly.com.au

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Poll


didnt the LX have a sticky mirror problem with its design?
jco
On 2/4/2015 2:51 PM, Jack Davis wrote:


1. MZ-S Agree: perfect ergonomics
2. LX Wonderful exposure meter
3. ME SUPER a good friend for a lot of miles

Jack

- Original Message -
From: "CollinB" 
To: "PDML" 
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 11:28:27 AM
Subject: Poll

Your top 3 Pentax film bodies, with reasons for each.

For me (though I have held but never fully used all of them)

1. MZ-S perfect ergonomics
2. LX sound design
3. KX unbreakable



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: New Zoom Lenses

I never even switched to an advanced film SLR, I was very happily using 
my spotmatics and takumars until
I bought a Pentax DSLR. I did have one K mount body to use K lenses and 
motordrive but it was a low model A3000.

jco
On 2/4/2015 11:44 AM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:



Malcolm, while I understand what you meant, -- the photographers who 
are "hooked" on a particular system and have invested in the glass, etc.

But that's only part of the picture.
Your conclusion is based on the assumption that there is no movement 
on the DSLR market.
First of all, there are always newcomers, for whom it could be the 1st 
DSLR (or the first FF DSLR).

Second, if it is a successful camera accompanied by a good set of lenses
("good" and "successful" include technical and financial aspects), 
then some people might switch to "Pentax system" when considering 
transition from the relatively crappy entry-level Canon APS DSLRs.[*]
... Or even from the entry-level Canon FF DSLRs and optics ... just 
because a good quality would be more affordable with Pentax.



=
[*] I haven't looked at the recent entry models of Canon DSLRs, but 
the earlier Digital Rebels (as well as film Rebels) were so-so. They 
were so mediocre that I stopped looking at them at anywhat serious 
contenders, when I was choosing my second SLR (first advanced one), 
and again, when considering a DSLR.


Igor



On 2/4/2015 2:35 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:


The real problem with selling an FF camera when the competition has 
had them
on the camera store shelves for years, is who are they going to sell 
it to

in a large enough quantity to justify the expense? Everyone who really
needed an FF camera has already bought one.

Malcolm






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: New Zoom Lenses

remember when Pentax was late with their first DSLR compared to the 
competition?

Using the same logic, everyone who wanted a DSLR would have already switched
to Canon, nikon. That didnt happen and Pentax caught up in the APSC DSLR 
competion.

On 2/4/2015 10:17 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:

On 2/4/2015 2:35 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:

Brian Walters wrote:


Via Asahi Man at DP Review, according to Photo Rumors, two new lenses
are to be released on 5 Feb.  Both are D-FA.

Let FFF (full frame frenzy) commence

HD Pentax-D FA 70-200mm f/2.8
Pentax-D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6

http://photorumors.com/2015/02/03/ricoh-to-announce-the-hd-pentax-d-fa-
70-200mm-f2-8-and-150-450mm-f4-5-5-6-lenses/
Better late than never. Sigma do a f/2.8 70-200mm and a 150-500mm but 
the

Pentax 150-450mm will be a bit faster than the f/5-6.3 from Sigma.

The real problem with selling an FF camera when the competition has 
had them
on the camera store shelves for years, is who are they going to sell 
it to

in a large enough quantity to justify the expense? Everyone who really
needed an FF camera has already bought one.

Malcolm


That really depends on why Pentax produces a FF camera.  If it's meant 
to keep the brand competitive, give that illusory upgrade path to 
APS-C users, it's advertising, and just breaking even selling the 
product is gravy.  If it's to actually make money, that's another story.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: New Zoom Lenses


these new D-FA lenses are larger, heavier, and more expensive than a
DA lens of the same focal length and speed so it seems there would be
no reason for pentax to develop and sell them UNLESS a FF digital DSLR
is on the way soon. I just hope the new FF body is not too expensive.
jco

On 2/4/2015 10:17 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:

On 2/4/2015 2:35 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:

Brian Walters wrote:


Via Asahi Man at DP Review, according to Photo Rumors, two new lenses
are to be released on 5 Feb.  Both are D-FA.

Let FFF (full frame frenzy) commence

HD Pentax-D FA 70-200mm f/2.8
Pentax-D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6

http://photorumors.com/2015/02/03/ricoh-to-announce-the-hd-pentax-d-fa-
70-200mm-f2-8-and-150-450mm-f4-5-5-6-lenses/
Better late than never. Sigma do a f/2.8 70-200mm and a 150-500mm but 
the

Pentax 150-450mm will be a bit faster than the f/5-6.3 from Sigma.

The real problem with selling an FF camera when the competition has 
had them
on the camera store shelves for years, is who are they going to sell 
it to

in a large enough quantity to justify the expense? Everyone who really
needed an FF camera has already bought one.

Malcolm


That really depends on why Pentax produces a FF camera.  If it's meant 
to keep the brand competitive, give that illusory upgrade path to 
APS-C users, it's advertising, and just breaking even selling the 
product is gravy.  If it's to actually make money, that's another story.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: It's like…

2015-02-01 Thread J C OConnell


that bonehead would be coach pete carrol

On 2/1/2015 11:17 PM, Paul wrote:
The Pats were covering the Hawks receivers the entire game.  What 
bonehead decided that a pass play from the 1 yard line would work 
better than trying to keep it on the ground and run it in?




On 2/1/2015 9:23 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote:


You're running to catch the bus at the corner of your block. Looks 
like you made it, but when you get there, you slip, fall, drop your 
change, tear your pant's crotch, then the bus runs you over.


The most miserable finish to a SuperBowl game I've ever watched. The 
Hawks couldn't have screw up their chance to win any more 
embarrassingly if they worked hard at blowing it.


Disgusted.

J J McA






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: It's like…

2015-02-01 Thread J C OConnell

The game had a double glitch at the end, first the patriots went ahead 
with a good chance to win the game
only to have it snatched away by the fluke seattle catch down near the 5 
yard line. Then it looked like Seattle

had the game won before they made their bonehead play call.
jco



On 2/1/2015 10:23 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote:

You're running to catch the bus at the corner of your block. Looks like you 
made it, but when you get there, you slip, fall, drop your change, tear your 
pant's crotch, then the bus runs you over.

The most miserable finish to a SuperBowl game I've ever watched. The Hawks 
couldn't have screw up their chance to win any more embarrassingly if they 
worked hard at blowing it.

Disgusted.

J J McA



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO Maui from Mauna Loa

2015-01-27 Thread J C OConnell


never heard of using K mount lenses on a spotmatic F.  ???
jco
On 1/27/2015 9:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

For Dan Matyola. I believe the mountain in the distance is on Maui. Dan will 
know for sure. I shot this from around 12,000 feet of elevation in 1999 or 
thereabouts. I think the camera was a Spotmatic F, and the lens may have been 
the K 200/4. The sun is setting into the ocean below the clouds. We were just 
wrapping a Viper commercial shoot and ended up driving down the mountain in the 
dark. Unfortunately, the scan is somewhat low-res. I probably have the neg 
somewhere in a box. If I ever run across it, I’ll rescan.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17955871&size=lg



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Two Feet of Snow

2015-01-27 Thread J C OConnell


we havent had snow here in Miami since '77.  I forgot what its like.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: Tropical Sunset

2015-01-22 Thread J C OConnell

longer focal length lens to enlarge the sun ( move camera pov further 
away from tree) might help.

On 1/22/2015 9:54 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:

Dan,
Great composition with the palm frawn featured on the right balancing
the sun, and
just the right moment with the clouds on the sun but before it
flattened out too much.
Regards,  Bob S.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17951894
K-5 II S, DA 18-135 F3.5-5.6
Comments are invited.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Auto Show Pics

2015-01-13 Thread J C OConnell

the last reissue production ford gt's were in 2005 and 2006 and have 
been hot on the collectors market selling in the range of $250-$350K.
now that they are back in production again, the '05 and '06 models might 
cool off a little in price.

On 1/13/2015 4:39 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

No, I didn’t shoot the GT. It was in transit from the ballroom back to the Ford 
display while I was there. Nice car though.

Paul

On Jan 13, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Ken Waller  wrote:

I was wondering if I'd see you in any of the press photos.

I didn't know the Times was eliminating it's auto section.

Nice pictures as usual Paul  But no Ford GT - the newly announced one that 
will be both a production car and a race car to be run in the 2016 LeMans ?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" 
Subject: Auto Show Pics



With the demise of the Time’s auto section, I had only a couple of things to 
accomplish at this year’s North American International Auto Show, so I was out 
of there in about five hours. Did manage to shoot a few pics: 
http://photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=1077197


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Go Pro

2015-01-02 Thread J C OConnell

not quite, there is analog video which was/is NTSC  and there is digital 
video which is ATSC
which can be one of  many formats either interlaced or progressive at 
various resolutions

and frame rates.
jco
On 1/2/2015 11:12 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:

On 2/1/15, Daniel J. Matyola, discombobulated, unleashed:


Does or has anyone on list use/used a Go Pro camera?  Is so, what have
you sued it for, and what do you like and dislike about it?

Any tips about how to use and operate it to advantage would be appreciated.

Now there's a thing. Hints and tips! I'll try and keep this short as I'm
heading off for a nap before traveling to Exeter for a job tomorrow.


Set the thing up properly first - go into the menus (link up the gopro
wifi to an iphone preferably, much easier to make the changes on a menu-
driven app rather than pressing buttons on gopro).

For starters, you're NTSC, so make sure it is switched to NTSC and not PAL.

You're shooting video on the kayaks and canoes? if stills, hit the
largest res and go. If video, select a resolution that suits your end
viewing requirements. Most will shoot 1920X1080 which is High
Definition. Note that you can always down-size later for a more
comfortable web-viewing size. In the USA your standard frame rate will
be 29.97 or 30fps.



A brief description of interlaced and progressive video:



24p will produce 24 separate images in one second of video. 24i will
produce 24 frames of 2-fields each = 48 separate images in one second of
video. The 24p will be a bit more 'jittery' giving a film-like look. 24i
will be a smoother 'video' look.

In broadcast TV all material is shot in interlaced (hence 1080i) and
broadcast interlaced. Cathode ray tube TVs display interlaced images.
All LCD and LED  and Plasma TVs display progressive images - they
convert on the fly in real time to progressive as you view. For web
viewing any interlaced footage needs to be converted into progressive
footage otherwise you will see nasty horizontal artifacts on any moving
images. So it may be as well to shoot progressive (eg 1080p) with the
gopro as you will no doubt want to share the video for viewing on
computers or other LCD screens. Shooting at 720p is another option, less
resolution but for web viewing, not a problem.

Note that there are settings for 'wide, medium, narrow' and these relate
to field of view. The gopro lens is fixed and cannot be zoomed, except
by this method. So if the image is too wide for your taste or needs, set
to medium for a less distorted image.

Otherwise, attach it securely and hit record :-)

Note that the gopro will readily sink if it gets knocked off the kayak
etc. Unless you buh and attach a 'floaty back door' or similar. Or run a
lanyard through the mount and tie off to the kayak.

They are amazing fun and you'll have a blast.

Cheers!





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Pentax sighting

2014-12-24 Thread J C OConnell


great action sequences
I watched that movie many times when it came out on home video.
jco
On 12/24/2014 6:43 PM, Zos Xavius wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgphD_ZO_jI#t=161

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:46 PM, J C OConnell  wrote:

I watched T2 last week for the first time in about 5 years and it did look
like the bystander was using a Pentax to photograph Arnie.
jco

On 12/24/2014 4:02 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

???

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 3:45 PM, CollinB  wrote:

T2, after the governator is thrown through mall store window.  SF1 it
appeared.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Pentax sighting

2014-12-24 Thread J C OConnell

I watched T2 last week for the first time in about 5 years and it did 
look like the bystander was using a Pentax to photograph Arnie.

jco
On 12/24/2014 4:02 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

???

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 3:45 PM, CollinB  wrote:

T2, after the governator is thrown through mall store window.  SF1 it appeared.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm

2014-12-13 Thread J C OConnell

with rumours of a FF Pentax dslr coming soon, doesnt seem like a good 
time to unload FF lenses.

On 12/13/2014 6:01 PM, Henk Terhell wrote:

Ralf,
Don't know about the DA 2.4/35, but there are data on the M 2/35 and 
FA 2/35 on Yoshihiko's site

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_35.html
The FA 2/35 is one of my favorite lens so I have no need for the DA 
version.


Henk

Ralf R Radermacher schreef op 13-12-2014 om 15:16:

Hello all,

I'm thinking about replacing my trusted M 2/35 mm through a AF lens. 
A look at Bojidar's website has taught me that the M has 7 elements 
in 7 groups while the FA and DA versions both have 6 elements in 5 
groups where one is an aspherical element.


Is there anyone who's ever been able to compare any two of all three 
of them? How similar are the FA and DA versions optically?


I'm quite happy with the M's optical quality but my eyes aren't as 
good anymore as they used to be and focussing is getting a little 
difficult.


Ralf







--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Application to read the shutter count on a digital body

2014-12-10 Thread J C OConnell

thanks to everyone who replied, I found my answer, I have nearly 19K 
operations on my pentax dslr.

hardly used considering its almost 8 years old. jco
On 12/10/2014 8:50 PM, Zos Xavius wrote:

http://www.camerashuttercount.com/

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Bill  wrote:

On 10/12/2014 6:29 PM, J C OConnell wrote:

Does anybody have a suggestion for a simple application to read the
information
buried within a digital image file? I need to read the shutter count in
particular.
thanks in advance,jco



PhotoMe
www.photome.de/

It reads all the exif of an image file, not just the shutter count. I think
if you want something to just read the shutter count you will need software
used for repair diagnosis.

bill


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Application to read the shutter count on a digital body

2014-12-10 Thread J C OConnell

Does anybody have a suggestion for a simple application to read the 
information
buried within a digital image file? I need to read the shutter count in 
particular.

thanks in advance,jco


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO - Dusk Walk

2014-11-29 Thread J C OConnell

the second one is a beautiful shot, but Id like to see a version with 
the tv antenna and the background cars cloned out.

On 11/29/2014 4:22 PM, Jack Davis wrote:

The first is a well done exposure, but the second is one you had better 
archive. Brilliant

Jack!

- Original Message -
From: "Steve Cottrell" 
To: "PDML" 
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 10:17:04 AM
Subject: PESO - Dusk Walk

Actually two for the price of one #blackfriday

Fuji XE-1 and Pentax M35/2.8



Very quick and minimal processing on these. I noticed a focus problem
with this lens (my wife's) and need to do some tests. Still, thse were
just about in the ballpark...






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Sony a7ii puts the squeeze on a possible Pentax FF

NO as always, anyone who posts an opposing opinion to yours is called 
ignorant. Im sick of your postsYour last sentence was not necessary.

On 11/27/2014 5:21 PM, Bill wrote:

On 27/11/2014 10:55 AM, J C OConnell wrote:

I dont think the $1500 cameras are for beginners who dont know anything
about cameras and lenses.


They may not "be for beginners" but beginners buy them in droves. I 
hang out ona forum dedicated to Fuji Mirrorless these days, there are 
a lot of rank beginners buying the X-T1, which is not an entry level 
camera with an entry level price.
As always, you display a separation from the real world, and a rather 
ignorant view of other peoples desires and motivations.


bill





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Sony a7ii puts the squeeze on a possible Pentax FF

I dont think the $1500 cameras are for beginners who dont know anything 
about cameras and lenses.

jco
On 11/27/2014 11:37 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:

On 27/11/14, J C OConnell, discombobulated, unleashed:


If all  you want is a camera and kit lens, might as well buy a point and
shoot
if your buying with intent to buy multiple lenses, then the mount
matters because its the
lens system your stuck with.

I want to buy a good camera with a standard range zoom lens on. I have
had point and shoot cameras in the past, but now want a good quality
proper camera. I go to my camera shop to try some out and get advice. I
look at Canon and Nikon because that's what the salesman will show me.
He tries to sell me entry level but I explain that I am happy to pay
good money for the right camera. I am in a good job and have 2 or 3
thousand bucks to play with. He shows me a few other things. I take it
all in and go home to do some more research. I figure that there are
quite a few players out there in the price range I would like to be in.
Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji, Sony, and maybe even a
few more. Quite a choice. It wouldn't make a jot of difference to me
what 'full frame' meant - I don't have that level of knowledge. I like
the idea I can maybe buy a lens or two in the future and play about with
that. Later I may get to handle some the smaller ones - the Olympus and
Fuji - 'mirrorless' ?? Cool. And the Sony. Or do I go for the Nikon or
Canon... such a choice.

You cannot place your preferences and values on other people - they
don't think like you. Sure, to you (and even me) you will get locked
into a lens system, but a lot of people out there don't even consider
it. When I look at a camera system I look at the lenses first and then
the bodies. Not our well-to-do customer up there. He has X amount of
money to spend and he will spend it without considering what lens mount
he is 'stuck' with.


I put it to you that Pentax is in direct competition with Sony and all
of the above makes.




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Sony a7ii puts the squeeze on a possible Pentax FF

If all  you want is a camera and kit lens, might as well buy a point and 
shoot
if your buying with intent to buy multiple lenses, then the mount 
matters because its the

lens system your stuck with.
On 11/27/2014 11:02 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:

On 27/11/14, J C OConnell, discombobulated, unleashed:


pentax is not in direct competition with the sony a7ii because pentax is
a DSLR with a k mount, and the sony is a mirrorless with a sony mount.

With the greatest of respect, if I am in the market to buy a good camera
with a kit lens, in what way are these two cameras not in direct competition?




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Sony a7ii puts the squeeze on a possible Pentax FF

pentax is not in direct competition with the sony a7ii because pentax is 
a DSLR with a k mount, and the sony is a mirrorless with a sony mount.

On 11/27/2014 12:15 AM, Darren Addy wrote:

By now you have probably seen the Sony announcement for the 24.3 MP
a7ii full frame with in-body 5-axis image stabilization. This camera
is has specs that are pretty close to what I expected from a first
Pentax FF camera, and I think the most surprising thing about it the
price of $1698 for the body only.

I think this pretty much forces Pentax to price their (allegedly
in-the-works) FF camera at close to the same price, if not less, and I
wonder if this is going to make the bean counters decide there is not
enough margin in a full frame product, after all.

Still, the one thing that the Sony a7 series does not provide to
Pentax owners is AF for their lenses. With the m42 and k-mount
adapters one must focus manually. Here is one Pentax aficianado's
impressions and images: http://photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00cfJ5

Also, I wonder if Pentax will not skip the 24.3MP FF sensor and go for
a sensor that more closely bridges the gap between the APS-C flagship
K-3 and the 645z. It seems more reasonable to me that they would go
with the 36.3 IMX094AQP Sony sensor used in the Nikon D800 and Sony
A7r (reportedly). If they did, that would allow Pentax to position its
offering closer to the Nikon D810 (currently $3295). It is with that
pixel density that I think a Pentax FF could get away with the same
sort of Anti-Alias scheme as found in the K-3. I have to believe that
the a7ii with its lower pixel density will have to have an AA filter
to avoid moire.

Time will tell.




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Peso-Pastoral CA

giving it a second look, you could just as easily crop off the left side 
of the image putting the horse and red tree on the left third of the 
image rather than centered.

On 11/12/2014 2:23 PM, Jack Davis wrote:

Minor issue with your crop, the horse is facing the short side of the scene and
I see no relief of my red tree/horse awkwardness.
I consider this rather common image fully fruited as shot.
Thanks much for suggestion JC and Igor.

Jack

- Original Message -
From: "J C OConnell" 
To: "PDML" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 11:13:43 AM
Subject: Re: Peso-Pastoral CA

here's what Im thinking of:

http://www.jchriso.com/temp/horse2.jpg





On 11/12/2014 1:40 PM, Jack Davis wrote:

Lower CA foothill pastoral scene.
The horse being in line with that dominant red tree is slightly uncomfortable, but the 
fence to the right was not good and it "needed"
a fence. Didn't want to go much to my left due to horse's position. 

Taken on the way back from the Cabin shoot.

Comments appreciated.

Jack

http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=856






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Peso-Pastoral CA


yeah, get the red tree AND horse out of the center and on the third

On 11/12/2014 2:13 PM, Jack Davis wrote:

Well, I can move the horse out of the center, but that tree will still be in 
line with him.
Is that what you're addressing, J C?

Jack

- Original Message -
From: "J C OConnell" 
To: "PDML" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:48:58 AM
Subject: Re: Peso-Pastoral CA

I would go with portrait orientation and crop off the right side to just
right of the right most fence post.
jco
On 11/12/2014 1:40 PM, Jack Davis wrote:

Lower CA foothill pastoral scene.
The horse being in line with that dominant red tree is slightly uncomfortable, but the 
fence to the right was not good and it "needed"
a fence. Didn't want to go much to my left due to horse's position. 

Taken on the way back from the Cabin shoot.

Comments appreciated.

Jack

http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=856






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Peso-Pastoral CA


here's what Im thinking of:

http://www.jchriso.com/temp/horse2.jpg





On 11/12/2014 1:40 PM, Jack Davis wrote:


Lower CA foothill pastoral scene.
The horse being in line with that dominant red tree is slightly uncomfortable, but the 
fence to the right was not good and it "needed"
a fence. Didn't want to go much to my left due to horse's position. 

Taken on the way back from the Cabin shoot.

Comments appreciated.

Jack

http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=856




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Peso-Pastoral CA

I would go with portrait orientation and crop off the right side to just 
right of the right most fence post.

jco
On 11/12/2014 1:40 PM, Jack Davis wrote:


Lower CA foothill pastoral scene.
The horse being in line with that dominant red tree is slightly uncomfortable, but the 
fence to the right was not good and it "needed"
a fence. Didn't want to go much to my left due to horse's position. 

Taken on the way back from the Cabin shoot.

Comments appreciated.

Jack

http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=856




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO B&W Challenge Day 1

2014-10-26 Thread J C OConnell


I'd photoshop out the empty earring hole...
jco
On 10/26/2014 8:35 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

Very lovely candid portrait indeed!

Attila, since eyelids, lashes (ie mascara) and brows are put on after
stuff like foundation and concealer, most of what's necessary to make
her complexion smooth has already been done, thus the
no-more-makeup-needed look. Knowing Rob's recent work she's a
burlesque performer, so makeup specifically for that intent would be
next; colour, blush, and such.

Also, simply converting to B&W solves a lot of retouching issues.
Especially so if you employ a red filter in the conversion. One of the
most important reasons to retouch skin is to remove blotchy skin tones
and hide reddish blemishes. Doing a red filtered black and white
conversion removes all those issues for you free. I'm convinced many
portrait photographers swear by black and white for that reason alone.


On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Attila Boros  wrote:

Very nice rendering with delicate highlight detail in the fabric. I'd
risk to say she doesn't need more makeup, but the ladies know better.

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Rob Studdert  wrote:

For those not FB savvy there's a thing going on there called the "five
day black and white photo challenge" it's a bit like the idiotic
neknominate thing but without the alcohol. In any case two PDLMers who
lurk on that other site nominated me for the challenge, Frank and
Boros Attila, I succumbed and this is my day 1 submission.

It's hard to go wrong when you are presented with a stunning subject
as I was last weekend, waiting for more makeup.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9304908/temp/IMGL77418.jpg

Tech: K3 ISO1250 1/125s, DA*50-135/2.8 at 135mm f4, hand held,
available light, no retouching

Cheers,

--
Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Post-processing - CC vs. PSE

2014-10-23 Thread J C OConnell

yes, I would have had to return it as unusable to the seller if adobe 
didnt offer free upgrade to ps CS2

or buy PS CS3 instead.
jco
On 10/23/2014 12:25 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

Ok, good reasons to get it again, but it did prove to be dicey after
all, did it not? You couldn't activate it so you can't use it.


On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:52 AM, J C OConnell  wrote:

the reason I bought PS CS (1) was I was very familair with it, I had been
using it for years
and it met all my needs so it wasnt dicey.

On 10/23/2014 11:08 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

A moot point now I suppose, but rather than buying a dicey old copy of
CS off eBay you could have bought a brand-new copy of PS Elements 13
for not much more than $70 (assuming shopping around / waiting for a
sale). PS CS is quite ancient (eleven years) and PSE 13 would likely
be quite a bit more powerful and useful. (Although I see that CS did
support 16 bits in some operations.)


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:59 PM, J C OConnell  wrote:

I get by fine ( quite nicely actually)  with older versions of PS, so
when
my hard drive crashed without backup recently
I purchased a sealed copy of photoshop CS off ebay for $70.  It
registered
and runs fine on win8 but I had trouble activating the
software past its 30 day trail period.  To make a long story short, I
found
out the adobe is giving away photoshop CS2
at there website with a registration number and it needs no activation.
yippie! Why buy PS when you can get a good working
version from 2005 free forever? JCO

On 10/21/2014 4:40 PM, Brian Walters wrote:

Quoting Ed Keeney :


I currently use and older version of Photoshop Elements (v5) to
post-process my images.  It works and I've been happy with it.

I currently don't use the Organizer that is paired with the
application.  My organization is all in my head (I separate images by
month/year).  I don't have any tagging, so if I wanted to find an
image of my father-in-law, I would need to know which image I want and
then approximate the year and date.

I was thinking about moving to the Adobe Cloud offering for
photographers, $10/month and I get PS and Lightroom.

Should I just continue to use the standalone PSE product and get
myself into its Organizer product.

Since I don't upgrade too often (version 13 is the latest PSE), I'm
not sure its worth the $120/year for the full PS and Lightroom over
the $79 one time cost for PSE or a switch to the standalone Lightroom.

Thoughts?


I opted for the Adobe Cloud for photographers subscription and I'm quite
happy with it although I rarely use the Lightroom component.  I was
never
going to be able to justify buying CS6 outright but the Cloud model is a
affordable way to get the latest version of Photoshop.

Previously I'd been using a hand-me-down version of CS3 and, if I'm
honest, there's not a lot more that CC offers that I can't do in CS3.
So, if
Adobe increases the monthly subscription excessively I'd undoubtedly
just go
back to the earlier version even if that would involve an extra step in
post
processing to convert raw images to a CS3 readable format.

As for organisation, I don't use Bridge CC either.  I've been using
Studioline Photo Classic for years for image organisation and I'm more
than
happy with it.




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Post-processing - CC vs. PSE

2014-10-23 Thread J C OConnell

the reason I bought PS CS (1) was I was very familair with it, I had 
been using it for years

and it met all my needs so it wasnt dicey.
On 10/23/2014 11:08 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

A moot point now I suppose, but rather than buying a dicey old copy of
CS off eBay you could have bought a brand-new copy of PS Elements 13
for not much more than $70 (assuming shopping around / waiting for a
sale). PS CS is quite ancient (eleven years) and PSE 13 would likely
be quite a bit more powerful and useful. (Although I see that CS did
support 16 bits in some operations.)


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:59 PM, J C OConnell  wrote:

I get by fine ( quite nicely actually)  with older versions of PS, so when
my hard drive crashed without backup recently
I purchased a sealed copy of photoshop CS off ebay for $70.  It registered
and runs fine on win8 but I had trouble activating the
software past its 30 day trail period.  To make a long story short, I found
out the adobe is giving away photoshop CS2
at there website with a registration number and it needs no activation.
yippie! Why buy PS when you can get a good working
version from 2005 free forever? JCO

On 10/21/2014 4:40 PM, Brian Walters wrote:

Quoting Ed Keeney :


I currently use and older version of Photoshop Elements (v5) to
post-process my images.  It works and I've been happy with it.

I currently don't use the Organizer that is paired with the
application.  My organization is all in my head (I separate images by
month/year).  I don't have any tagging, so if I wanted to find an
image of my father-in-law, I would need to know which image I want and
then approximate the year and date.

I was thinking about moving to the Adobe Cloud offering for
photographers, $10/month and I get PS and Lightroom.

Should I just continue to use the standalone PSE product and get
myself into its Organizer product.

Since I don't upgrade too often (version 13 is the latest PSE), I'm
not sure its worth the $120/year for the full PS and Lightroom over
the $79 one time cost for PSE or a switch to the standalone Lightroom.

Thoughts?



I opted for the Adobe Cloud for photographers subscription and I'm quite
happy with it although I rarely use the Lightroom component.  I was never
going to be able to justify buying CS6 outright but the Cloud model is a
affordable way to get the latest version of Photoshop.

Previously I'd been using a hand-me-down version of CS3 and, if I'm
honest, there's not a lot more that CC offers that I can't do in CS3. So, if
Adobe increases the monthly subscription excessively I'd undoubtedly just go
back to the earlier version even if that would involve an extra step in post
processing to convert raw images to a CS3 readable format.

As for organisation, I don't use Bridge CC either.  I've been using
Studioline Photo Classic for years for image organisation and I'm more than
happy with it.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Post-processing - CC vs. PSE

yes, I did use the word "forever" lightly.  Well as long as its 
compatible with future operating systems and it does work fine with win8 
for now.

On 10/21/2014 7:13 PM, Bruce wrote:

The 'forever' could be fleeting as at some point, there could be an 
incompatibility with current software (OS, drivers, etc).  So while it may work 
today, because it is so old, it may not work in the future - just don't know 
when that might be.

--
Bruce


Sent from my iPad


On Oct 21, 2014, at 4:02 PM, J C OConnell  wrote:

yes IM SURE as I myself downloaded and registered PS CS2 and also saved a copy 
to CDR forever.
there is a  web page ( sorry didnt save the url, dont need it anymore) with the 
download links
and the serial numbers to use for PS CS2.
jco

On 10/21/2014 6:55 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
are you sure. All i found is some 2013 info on deactivating CS2
application. Mine you i clicked on the Canada-English so it may not be
available to us Canucks



On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:12 PM, J C OConnell  wrote:
correction, you need to download photoshop CS2 from adobe.com and they
provide a SERIAL number to go along with it, no activation is required.
its freeware, no strings attached.


On 10/21/2014 5:59 PM, J C OConnell wrote:
I get by fine ( quite nicely actually)  with older versions of PS, so when
my hard drive crashed without backup recently
I purchased a sealed copy of photoshop CS off ebay for $70.  It registered
and runs fine on win8 but I had trouble activating the
software past its 30 day trail period.  To make a long story short, I
found out the adobe is giving away photoshop CS2
at there website with a registration number and it needs no activation.
yippie! Why buy PS when you can get a good working
version from 2005 free forever? JCO


On 10/21/2014 4:40 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
Quoting Ed Keeney :


I currently use and older version of Photoshop Elements (v5) to
post-process my images.  It works and I've been happy with it.

I currently don't use the Organizer that is paired with the
application.  My organization is all in my head (I separate images by
month/year).  I don't have any tagging, so if I wanted to find an
image of my father-in-law, I would need to know which image I want and
then approximate the year and date.

I was thinking about moving to the Adobe Cloud offering for
photographers, $10/month and I get PS and Lightroom.

Should I just continue to use the standalone PSE product and get
myself into its Organizer product.

Since I don't upgrade too often (version 13 is the latest PSE), I'm
not sure its worth the $120/year for the full PS and Lightroom over
the $79 one time cost for PSE or a switch to the standalone Lightroom.

Thoughts?

I opted for the Adobe Cloud for photographers subscription and I'm quite
happy with it although I rarely use the Lightroom component.  I was never
going to be able to justify buying CS6 outright but the Cloud model is a
affordable way to get the latest version of Photoshop.

Previously I'd been using a hand-me-down version of CS3 and, if I'm
honest, there's not a lot more that CC offers that I can't do in CS3. So, if
Adobe increases the monthly subscription excessively I'd undoubtedly just go
back to the earlier version even if that would involve an extra step in post
processing to convert raw images to a CS3 readable format.

As for organisation, I don't use Bridge CC either.  I've been using
Studioline Photo Classic for years for image organisation and I'm more than
happy with it.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Post-processing - CC vs. PSE

well of course, if you want to pay $120 a year for the features gained, 
its worth it, by all means go for it.
But for me, I used photoshop CS for nearly 10 years and got very 
comfortable with it and CS2 was close
enough that I didnt have to "relearn" the software and it meets my needs 
at a price that cant be beat so

Im happy with that too.
On 10/21/2014 7:02 PM, Bill wrote:

On 21/10/2014 3:59 PM, J C OConnell wrote:

I get by fine ( quite nicely actually) with older versions of PS, so
when my hard drive crashed without backup recently
I purchased a sealed copy of photoshop CS off ebay for $70.  It
registered and runs fine on win8 but I had trouble activating the
software past its 30 day trail period.  To make a long story short, I
found out the adobe is giving away photoshop CS2
at there website with a registration number and it needs no activation.
yippie! Why buy PS when you can get a good working
version from 2005 free forever? JCO


Some of us actually use the features and improvements that the more 
recent software has. For people with simpler needs, an old version of 
Photoshop, or even Elements is fine.


bill





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Post-processing - CC vs. PSE

go here

http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/creative-suite-2-activation-end-life.html

and see step 2, under "how to Install"

jco

On 10/21/2014 6:55 PM, David J Brooks wrote:

are you sure. All i found is some 2013 info on deactivating CS2
application. Mine you i clicked on the Canada-English so it may not be
available to us Canucks

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:12 PM, J C OConnell wrote:

correction, you need to download photoshop CS2 from adobe.com and they
provide a SERIAL number to go along with it, no activation is required.
its freeware, no strings attached.

On 10/21/2014 5:59 PM, J C OConnell wrote:

I get by fine ( quite nicely actually) with older versions of PS, so when
my hard drive crashed without backup recently
I purchased a sealed copy of photoshop CS off ebay for $70. It registered
and runs fine on win8 but I had trouble activating the
software past its 30 day trail period. To make a long story short, I
found out the adobe is giving away photoshop CS2
at there website with a registration number and it needs no activation.
yippie! Why buy PS when you can get a good working
version from 2005 free forever? JCO

On 10/21/2014 4:40 PM, Brian Walters wrote:

Quoting Ed Keeney :

I currently use and older version of Photoshop Elements (v5) to
post-process my images. It works and I've been happy with it.

I currently don't use the Organizer that is paired with the
application. My organization is all in my head (I separate images by
month/year). I don't have any tagging, so if I wanted to find an
image of my father-in-law, I would need to know which image I want and
then approximate the year and date.

I was thinking about moving to the Adobe Cloud offering for
photographers, $10/month and I get PS and Lightroom.

Should I just continue to use the standalone PSE product and get
myself into its Organizer product.

Since I don't upgrade too often (version 13 is the latest PSE), I'm
not sure its worth the $120/year for the full PS and Lightroom over
the $79 one time cost for PSE or a switch to the standalone Lightroom.

Thoughts?

I opted for the Adobe Cloud for photographers subscription and I'm quite
happy with it although I rarely use the Lightroom component. I was never
going to be able to justify buying CS6 outright but the Cloud model is a
affordable way to get the latest version of Photoshop.

Previously I'd been using a hand-me-down version of CS3 and, if I'm
honest, there's not a lot more that CC offers that I can't do in CS3. So, if
Adobe increases the monthly subscription excessively I'd undoubtedly just go
back to the earlier version even if that would involve an extra step in post
processing to convert raw images to a CS3 readable format.

As for organisation, I don't use Bridge CC either. I've been using
Studioline Photo Classic for years for image organisation and I'm more than
happy with it.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: OT: Post-processing - CC vs. PSE

yes IM SURE as I myself downloaded and registered PS CS2 and also saved 
a copy to CDR forever.
there is a  web page ( sorry didnt save the url, dont need it anymore) 
with the download links

and the serial numbers to use for PS CS2.
jco
On 10/21/2014 6:55 PM, David J Brooks wrote:

are you sure. All i found is some 2013 info on deactivating CS2
application. Mine you i clicked on the Canada-English so it may not be
available to us Canucks


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:12 PM, J C OConnell  wrote:

correction, you need to download photoshop CS2 from adobe.com and they
provide a SERIAL number to go along with it, no activation is required.
its freeware, no strings attached.

On 10/21/2014 5:59 PM, J C OConnell wrote:

I get by fine ( quite nicely actually)  with older versions of PS, so when
my hard drive crashed without backup recently
I purchased a sealed copy of photoshop CS off ebay for $70.  It registered
and runs fine on win8 but I had trouble activating the
software past its 30 day trail period.  To make a long story short, I
found out the adobe is giving away photoshop CS2
at there website with a registration number and it needs no activation.
yippie! Why buy PS when you can get a good working
version from 2005 free forever? JCO

On 10/21/2014 4:40 PM, Brian Walters wrote:

Quoting Ed Keeney :


I currently use and older version of Photoshop Elements (v5) to
post-process my images.  It works and I've been happy with it.

I currently don't use the Organizer that is paired with the
application.  My organization is all in my head (I separate images by
month/year).  I don't have any tagging, so if I wanted to find an
image of my father-in-law, I would need to know which image I want and
then approximate the year and date.

I was thinking about moving to the Adobe Cloud offering for
photographers, $10/month and I get PS and Lightroom.

Should I just continue to use the standalone PSE product and get
myself into its Organizer product.

Since I don't upgrade too often (version 13 is the latest PSE), I'm
not sure its worth the $120/year for the full PS and Lightroom over
the $79 one time cost for PSE or a switch to the standalone Lightroom.

Thoughts?



I opted for the Adobe Cloud for photographers subscription and I'm quite
happy with it although I rarely use the Lightroom component.  I was never
going to be able to justify buying CS6 outright but the Cloud model is a
affordable way to get the latest version of Photoshop.

Previously I'd been using a hand-me-down version of CS3 and, if I'm
honest, there's not a lot more that CC offers that I can't do in CS3. So, if
Adobe increases the monthly subscription excessively I'd undoubtedly just go
back to the earlier version even if that would involve an extra step in post
processing to convert raw images to a CS3 readable format.

As for organisation, I don't use Bridge CC either.  I've been using
Studioline Photo Classic for years for image organisation and I'm more than
happy with it.







--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Post-processing - CC vs. PSE

correction, you need to download photoshop CS2 from adobe.com and they 
provide a SERIAL number to go along with it, no activation is required.

its freeware, no strings attached.
On 10/21/2014 5:59 PM, J C OConnell wrote:
I get by fine ( quite nicely actually)  with older versions of PS, so 
when my hard drive crashed without backup recently
I purchased a sealed copy of photoshop CS off ebay for $70.  It 
registered and runs fine on win8 but I had trouble activating the
software past its 30 day trail period.  To make a long story short, I 
found out the adobe is giving away photoshop CS2
at there website with a registration number and it needs no 
activation. yippie! Why buy PS when you can get a good working

version from 2005 free forever? JCO

On 10/21/2014 4:40 PM, Brian Walters wrote:

Quoting Ed Keeney :


I currently use and older version of Photoshop Elements (v5) to
post-process my images.  It works and I've been happy with it.

I currently don't use the Organizer that is paired with the
application.  My organization is all in my head (I separate images by
month/year).  I don't have any tagging, so if I wanted to find an
image of my father-in-law, I would need to know which image I want and
then approximate the year and date.

I was thinking about moving to the Adobe Cloud offering for
photographers, $10/month and I get PS and Lightroom.

Should I just continue to use the standalone PSE product and get
myself into its Organizer product.

Since I don't upgrade too often (version 13 is the latest PSE), I'm
not sure its worth the $120/year for the full PS and Lightroom over
the $79 one time cost for PSE or a switch to the standalone Lightroom.

Thoughts?




I opted for the Adobe Cloud for photographers subscription and I'm 
quite happy with it although I rarely use the Lightroom component.  I 
was never going to be able to justify buying CS6 outright but the 
Cloud model is a affordable way to get the latest version of Photoshop.


Previously I'd been using a hand-me-down version of CS3 and, if I'm 
honest, there's not a lot more that CC offers that I can't do in CS3. 
So, if Adobe increases the monthly subscription excessively I'd 
undoubtedly just go back to the earlier version even if that would 
involve an extra step in post processing to convert raw images to a 
CS3 readable format.


As for organisation, I don't use Bridge CC either.  I've been using 
Studioline Photo Classic for years for image organisation and I'm 
more than happy with it.










--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Post-processing - CC vs. PSE