OT: Controversial subjects now the Goriller of 3B
I knew that PDML's wide ranging discussions covered almost everything imaginable, but I never ever thought I'd run across Nigel Molesworth here. Larf! *UncaMikey On May 17, 2006, at 5:43 PM, Bob W wrote: As any fule kno. Bob http://www.stcustards.free-online.co.uk/
RE: PAD - renewed
I said it before and I'll say it again, this is some of the most consistently good photography I've seen. Wonderful stuff, just the sort of photography I enjoy. Now, alkos keeps changing the web design, so every so often I have to figure out how to view the images... LOL. But it's worth it! *UncaMikey --- alkos passed along: http://pad.go.pl/
RE: Windows
I like these, little slices of life, well done. My favorite is the one a-kilter of the elderly woman reading a paper on the stoop. Extra points for the Samuel Johnson -- he has so many of those zingers that I can't remember them, so each time I hear one it sounds brand new. Different premises larf larf larf. *UncaMikey - Bob W wrote: http://www.web-options.com/Windows/
RE: PESO - Rumpled Jeans
Hi Shel -- I really like this one. The textures and contrasts, highlights and shadows are very nice. More proof that we are surrounded by interesting photographs, if only we can see 'em! *Unca Mikey - Shel wrote: http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/rumpledjeansbw.html
RE: OT - Dumb PayPal Question
Not a direct answer to your question, but I would never use my bank account to pay for anything via PayPal. I always use a credit card, since it is much safer -- PayPal makes you go through a couple of extra silly steps (Are you *sure* you want to use a credit card?) but it's pretty easy. And when I receive money, I move it from PayPal to my bank account immediately. I never let money sit in the PayPal account. *UncaMikey
Re: List Question
I am pretty sure the list software uses msg ID or some other part of the header for threading. Here's another odd thing. I *only* read PDML via the archive on the Web. I respond by creating a completely new msg in Eudora and put RE in the subject line along with the topic I am responding to. And in the archive, my reply is embedded, even though I have not replied to any PDML message at all. *UncaMikey
Rebate received
Back in February, I bought a DA 40mm f2.8 Limited. I mailed in the rebate coupon on February 27, and got my $50 rebate today, April 25, eight weeks and a day later. A couple years ago, I got a Pentax rebate on a pair of binoculars after a similar wait. So, my experience so far has been that Pentax rebates are slow but dependable. Obviously, YMMV. *UncaMikey
Re: going to Athens Crete; any PDMLers?
Was it, um, noisy? Were you able to sleep? And since this is a photography list, the obvious question is, did you take any pictures? *UncaMikey On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Bob W wrote: I spent the night in a brothel there once, accidentally (and virtuously).
PESOs: Shoes and a Portrait
Hi all. Last night I decided to send a couple of snaps along to you folks and was putting together an email just now. Then I noticed that Shel posted a PESO with the same title. Cosmic. I've been playing with C-41 BW films lately. I've pretty much settled on Kodak BW400CN as being the best of the bunch, and here's two samples. Both were taken with my *ist 35mm and FA 50mm f1.7. http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncamikey/128639892/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncamikey/128636987 I think the larger sizes looks better -- the link to the larger image is right beneath the Flickr picture. Suggestions and comments are very welcome. I haven't posted many pictures at PDML, but have gotten very helpful responses when I do. Thanks! *UncaMikey http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncamikey
Re: PAW - The Smile
Frank, I think you nailed that one perfectly. Just right! TEETH! *UncaMikey On Apr 22, 2006, at 5:36 PM, frank theriault wrote: Haven't posted a PAW in a couple of weeks (missed last weekend because I was away for Easter weekend), so here's the first of a couple: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4367720size=lg
RE: PESO: Two Walkaround PIcs
On behalf of overweight middle-aged white guys with poor posture everywhere, I ask, How Dare You?! *UncaMikey Smoke Break: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4367972
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
First, I like the photo, it's quite appealing, esp in the larger image. I am impressed one can read the NO DOGS sign. Second, this is one of the most entertaining discussions of a photo I've read on PDML in a long time. Discussions of a half degree this way or that way made me larf -- when I decided a few years ago to start playing with photography again, the biggest problem I had was getting the darn snaps straight! And to this day I get so tickled when a shot is lined up just the way I want it. *UncaMikey On Apr 21, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: From last Sunday morning's visit to the Santa Cruz wharf: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm
Re: PESO - Cathy at the AW
http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/cathy_aw.html Nice picture, Shel! I like her expression and it's a nice touch that you included the menu with the prices. I agree with Bruce that the napkin thingy is a bit bothersome. If you like that kind of music (and if you ever get broadband), go to Live365.com and look for Regan's Record Rack or any of several other Internet stations that play that music. September 1969: Some day I'll get around to buying a scanner. I have a bunch of Ektachrome I shot with a Spotmatic, in Vietnam. I've glanced at some of them recently, a couple were better than I remembered, and the Ektachrome has held up very well. *UncaMikey
Re: PESO - Cathy at the AW (No Napkin Holder)
I agree, much, much better. Lovely photo. Kinda scary that you can so easily alter an image, eh? Many times I've carried around a memory of an image for years, only to go back and see the actual print/slide and find out that my memory was wrong. No longer a problem! LOL. *UncaMikey http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncamikey/ -- Original message -- From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I took the napkin holder out. Instead of cloning and cutting and pasting, I used the patch tool. Pretty quick and painless - almost too easy ;-)) So, whattaya think? It looks better to my eye. Shel
RE: PESO:Havana Club car
Greetings Markus, I like this! The distortion caused by the wide angle lens, making the front of the car disproportionately large, works well. The car is about to leap out of frame to the left. Next time, get the lovely lady to sit behind the wheel and roll down the window and wave as she drives off. *UncaMikey Hi car lovers From the last discussion here about old timer Volvo's I got the impression that we have quite a few car lovers and gourmet here on the list. So I present for a short time only (because of my used Photo.net budget of 15 images) the Havana club car I saw in the old city part of Zurich last week. Stupid me was too shy that day to ask the lovely lady on the passenger seat in the car for a photo and a smile :-( http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4335561size=lg with the Pentax SFXn and Pentax A 24mm on Fuji Superia ISO 400 film. greetings Markus
Opinions about ZX-7 MZ-7
Hi folks, I'm still looking around the internets for an appropriate backup for my *ist 35mm, which sets aperture only on the body (no non-A lenses). When I asked about this recently, someone said, read the manual -- excellent advice! I was browsing through the manuals on the Pentax site and checked out the ZX-7. Apparently, on this body you *can* set the lens aperture ring to A (or use a lens without an aperture ring) and then set the aperture on the body with the select switch around the shutter release. Any comments from owners about the ZX-7? What do you like, not like, etc.? I notice KEH has 'em for under $100. Many thanks once again for all your help on my questions. *UncaMikey
Re: Opinions about ZX-7 MZ-7
My only issue with the *ist is that they recently discontinued it. I've had zero problems with it, very reliable, just curious about another body, separation anxiety, y'know? GGG Your suggestion is good, but... The few newer bodies appear pretty flimsy (plastic mounts, limited features, etc). I almost always shoot Av, and my favorite lens is the DA 40mm (no aperture ring), which drastically limits my choices. As near as I can tell from pictures and the manual, the ZX-7 is the only Pentax SLR that allows Av mode using either the aperture ring on the lens or a selector on the body. And it goes for about half the price of the *ist. I was just curious if anyone had any strong opinions, pro or con, about that particular model, since I haven't read much about it. *UncaMikey -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Backups should be reliable. If you have any issues about the *ist then you should have the same or more questions about the ZX/MZ series. I'd suggest something newer OR something mechanical.
Setting aperture -- film SLRs
A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the other way? Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc), how do you change the aperture when the lens is set on A or the lens does not have an aperture ring? Is there a way to directly change the aperture on the body? I assume you can affect aperture indirectly by changing shutter speed, but can you operate in Av mode? Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX? Thanks. *UncaMikey
RE: Setting aperture -- film SLRs
I did? I was afraid I suspected the answer, but wasn't sure. All I know about Pentax bodies between the Spotmatic and the *ist I've read on the internets, and we all know how reliable they can be. Thanks David and Jon for the info. That makes the design of the *ist 35mm even more curious -- once one becomes used to that mode of operation and those lenses, the migration path is not to other film SLRs, but to a digital SLR! Fiendishly clever! G All the other bodies with the crippled KAF look pretty low-end, plastic mounts, limited features, etc. *UncaMikey ---Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you've answered your own question Tom C
RE: Archive Link
Here's the link I use to get to the archives; it's the only way I read the list. The most recent threads are at top, and you can select non-threaded date order if you prefer. http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss%40pdml.net/ *UncaMikey
Status of *ist 35mm?
Has anyone read or heard anything about the status or future of the Pentax *ist 35mm SLR? It's still shown on the Pentax USA site, but is no longer in the catalog for BH or Adorama. Amazon shows it as not in stock and some other sites show the model as discontinued. Is there any official word? I emailed Pentax, but no answer yet. I know the *ist is not highly regarded in PDML-land, but I love my *ist -- if they really are discontinued, I may have to buy one on closeout somewhere or on ebay, just to have a backup. *UncaMikey
RE: Status of *ist 35mm?
Good advice all, thanks. I've started scoping out some possibilities to get a backup *ist. I had already planned on getting a FA 20-35mm fairly soon, so it looks like a MasterCardĀ kind of month! *UncaMikey
Re: Status of *ist 35mm?
The only thing I've heard against the *ist is the crippled mount -- and since I don't have any of the older lenses, it's not a big deal to me. I thought about the MZ-S, but it doesn't work that well with lenses without an aperture ring, and it's much bigger/heavier than I would like. I had a Spotmatic for 30+ years, but after about two years of using the *ist, I must have a thumbwheel! LOL. I could never go back to the old way of changing aperture and shutter speed, I am now addicted to having aperture and exposure compensation and DOF and AE lock all there at my thumb and forefinger. I've tried manual focusing, but the camera is so much faster and more accurate, I gave up and just select the focus point instead. Good luck with the primes, Scott -- I have the DA 40mm and the FA 50mm f1.7, and they work great with this body, very handy. *UncaMikey --- Scott Loveless wrote: For a while now I've been considering buying an MZ-S or PZ-1 to complement the *ist.
FA J 18-35 vs FA 20-35 on 35mm
I use the FA J 18-35 on my *ist 35mm SLR and like it a lot. I think it performs surprisingly well, but it does have significant vignetting at the largest apertures, distortion at the shortest focal lengths, and that slow f5.6 at 35mm. I know that Godfrey and others have praised the FA 20-35, which I am sure is a much better lens. My question is, how much better is it on 35mm? Is there noticeable vignetting at larger apertures? Is the image close to rectilinear? Test images at Dario's site and a few other places helped me pick the FA J initially. Are there any test shots around showing results from the FA 20-35 on 35mm? Is anyone using this on a 35mm body -- what do you think of it? Most of what I've found via Google is from using the lens on a digital SLR. Thanks in advance for comments and opinions. *UncaMikey
RE: F 35-135 NOT good in the aquarium
CW bummed. Needs a new walk-around zoom. When I first read your subject line, I thought maybe you had dropped the lens in the tank. Or something. Based on the rave reports here, I bought the FA 28-105 f3.2-45 for my walkaround zoom, and like it a lot. Very sharp, and a glance at Bojidar's site shows that it focuses 10 inches closer than the F 35-135. *UncaMikey
Re: PESO - Minimalism
Wonderful photograph! I wouldn't crop a pixel anywhere, I think it's perfect just as it is. And I agree, this is art, and very well done at that. *UncaMikey On 4/1/06, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=12858 What do you say? Boris
OT: Another Book (Paris)
And speaking of Paris... Last summer I got to see a great exhibition at the Art Institute of Chicago, Paris: Photographs from a Time that Was and just yesterday got the book based on the exhibition. The intro, by David Travis, talks about philosophers and Einstein's theory of relativity and the nature of time and Proust and the origins of snapshooting and all sorts of fun stuff familiar to readers of recent threads (flame wars?) on PDML. The BW photographs go from the mid-19th century through about 1950, from people like Lartigue, Kretesz, Brassai, Doisneau, and HCB. Wonderful stuff, and very thought provoking. The book is _Paris: Photographs from a Time that Was_, published by Art Institute of Chicago and Yale University Press, 2005, and is readily available at a discount from Amazon. *UncaMikey http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncamikey/
LensWork -- Wow
On Wednesday morning, a little after 9 am CST, I ordered those three books from LensWork. I came home from my lunchtime walkies today to find that the books waiting in my mailbox, here in Texas, delivered USPS Priority Mail. I'm impressed! *UncaMikey http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncamikey/
Lenswork books etc
Based on recent discussions here, I just ordered three books at Lenswork. If anyone else is interested, you may want to visit Lenswork and get in your order -- they have a special now, $30 for _On Being a Photographer_, _Single Exposures_, and _Letting Go of the Camera_. The savings over regular price more than pays for USPS Priority Mail Shipping. And just one comment from a daily lurker but rare poster: I've really enjoyed the recent discussions (even flame wars!) about bailing out and workflow and dynamics. Bob W even made me proud to consider myself a 'snapshooter'! (I am one of those who is bored with all the stuff between the excitement of pushing the shutter button and looking at the print.) You all make me think, thanks! I'll add one book recommendation, for those interested in art in general, in aesthetics: anything by E. H. Gombrich, one of the greatest art historians ever. (_Art and Illusion_ is a classic.) *UncaMikey http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncamikey/
RE: Fw: FotoExpress - One man's mobile photo studio
Hey, I recognize exactly where that is -- in front of the Trevi Fountain in Rome. I was there a few months ago, and while I didn't see this enterprising fellow, I saw quite a few guys with Fuji Instax cameras. (I got an Instax on ebay a year or two ago, it's great fun if you can find the film cheap.) That area is jammed with people almost all hours of the night and day. *UncaMikey [Original Message] From: William Robb A modern take on an old concept. http://www.pbase.com/scooter41/image/57749415
Manufacturers on ebay was Re: Logic of Pentax
About ebay: Olympus USA is definitely selling overstocks and refurbishes -- I've bought from them, and it can be a great deal. (I got a small Domke lead bag, for carrying about 9 rolls of film through airport Xray machines, for $2.99.) Their ID is olympusauctions: http://stores.ebay.com/Olympus-Auctions *UncaMikey
Manufacturers on ebay was Re: Logic of Pentax
Oops, I just checked, the lead bag is only $1.99, and no shipping! LOL http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7593902013 Like I said, they have some cool stuff, much of it usable with all cameras. *UncaMikey
Re: PESO: Roedeer track
Wow, that's a gorgeous photo -- very painterly. *UncaMikey -- Original message -- From: Jostein It's been a long while since last last time I shared a picture with anyone. Here's one: http://www.oksne.net/paw/raadyrspor.html All comments appreciated. Thanks for looking.
Re: DA lenses on FF
DA 40 - I have heard yes. I bought a DA 40mm to use on 35mm -- works fine, it's a great lens. * UncaMikey
Re: More pics of the new stuff
That 21mm looks lovely. I will be eagerly awaiting the report of someone with more courage and financial resources than I have, to test that lens on a film body. If it works as 'poorly' as the DA 40mm on full frame 35mm, there may be more enablement in my future. *UncaMikey
RE: Enabled: world's smallest 35mm SLR
I borrowed the world's smallest tagline from Pentax marketing, LOL, but I should have added auto-focus. I think Minolta made the same claim for their Maxxum 5. The big puzzle, to me, is why does Pentax say the DA 40mm does not work on 35mm? Mounted on a 35mm body, the small size and nice focal length makes a wonderful carry around combo. I don't know if the lens will improve my snaps, but when opportunity and inspiration strike I will be more likely to have my camera with me. *UncaMikey
Enabled: world's smallest 35mm SLR
I thought I would come out of lurk mode long enough to show off my new toy, what I believe to be the world's smallest full-frame 35mm SLR. http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncamikey/101750740/ I have had the *ist about two years now, and love it. After I saw the reports from Mark Lindamood and others that the DA 40mm will work on 35mm (despite what Pentax says), I knew I had to get one eventually. It arrived from Adorama on Friday. My Flickr photostream shows how this body/lens can fit into my pocket, and a couple of test shots that clearly show no vignetting. 40mm is a lovely focal length -- I can understand why it was so popular on some rangefinders. *UncaMikey
RE: Dickey Chapelle Article (redux)
Hi Shel -- I saw your original posting and downloaded the article, but haven't read it yet. I hate reading long PDFs on the screen, and won't have access to a printer until next week. But the subject sounds interesting to me -- thanks for passing it along. *UncaMikey (I was in Vietnam when I first had the time and opportunity to get a good camera, on RR in Hong Kong: a black Spotmatic.)
Re: PAW: Redcoats!
I love it! There's something hilariously pathetic (pathetically hilarious?) about old f*rts reliving moments of imagined military glory. The guy second from left, staring at you, looks like Robert Benigni -- I expect him to break out in zaniness at any moment. *UncaMikey
Re: PAD - photo a day
From: alkos I'd like to present you my site - http://pad.go.pl Alkos-- Man, you are *good* -- what a great eye you have. Thanks very much for sharing. *UncaMikey
Re: Amature
Sonny, lovely stuff! You've made some wonderful images there. About the lens, I know everyone raves about the 50/1.4 primes (with reason), but I got the FA 50mm/1.7 for two reasons: it weighs two ounces less than the 1.4 (minimizing weight is important to me), and I only paid about $90 for a near mint lens on ebay, about 9 months ago. Keep posting pictures, thanks! *UncaMikey
OT: Interesting auction...
I feel confident that no PDMLer will feel cheated if I post this auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7572507947 So, if any of you folks are in the market for a color film camera, here's your chance. Let us know how many rolls of film come with the camera, too. *UncaMikey
Re: PESO-s: misc from the summer
Lovely stuff, Luben. I peeked at some of these earlier, when you posted them to photo.net. You have a distinctive vision, very compelling -- I really enjoy looking at your images and pondering them at length. No criticisms or comments from me, other than I hope you keep shooting and sharing the results! *UncaMikey
Re: GESO: stuff from my bus/train trip
On 10/2/05, Ann Sanfedele wrote: I keep adding to this http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=518950 Oh my, I really enjoy your pictures, Ann -- every one of these is worth a careful look. Lines! You have such a great eye for lines! Lovely photographs, thanks very much for sharing them. *UncaMikey
RE: PESO: Carved in sand + Giuseppe
Dario, these are excellent. I would have liked a bit better angle of light (and less shadow) on Carved in sand but they are both wonderful as they are, captured at just the right moment. Well done! http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc13e.htm http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc12e.htm Quite a nice series there -- thanks for sharing. *UncaMikey who can't wait to get back to Italy
Re:The Nature of Film's Final Throes
While I don't doubt that the film market is contracting significantly, I wonder if it will quickly go away. Here's some anecdotal evidence, for what it's worth. I shoot film, so I have spent time finding the best/cheapest places to get my film processed and printed: Sam's Club, several grocery chains, Wolf/Ritz Camera, and a couple of pro labs. In every case, the labs are busy busy busy. I know some chunk of their business is printing digital images, but the processing machines always seem to be going full blast, the racks of envelopes containing completed rolls are filled, and they don't seem to be lacking for business. There's always a line of people dropping off 35mm canisters. At one nearby supermarket that does a decent job, a customer can get double 4 X 6 glossy prints, with a CD of digitzed images, for 7.99. If they don't get it done in an hour, it's free. So, in practical terms for snappers who want family photos, film is still pretty cheap and easy, and the CD makes the images as easy to share as digital. At this same store, they regularly put film on sale, and I've been able to pick up multipacks of Fuji color print film 200 and 400 for as little as 75 cents a roll. I've noticed, too, that at family gatherings, there is more interest in passing around prints than there is in looking at images on a monitor. Film might disappear from these retail outlets in the blink of an eye. But maybe not. In the meantime, many people still find film very cheap and fun to use. *UncaMikey
RE: PAW thumbnail page
Godfrey, on the link you posted, I am not sure the little blocks at the bottom are very helpful. Perhaps it's because you are still working on this, but I am confused that the images linked from the little blocks are not the same as the thumbnail page -- should they be the same? I would consider eliminating the little blocks and just linking to your thumbnails page. The thumbnail page that you specifically asked about is helpful and easy on the eye, and it loaded quickly even on my dialup connection: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/thumbs/index.html More importantly, thanks for posting this -- I saw and really enjoyed several here that I had not seen before. You're on my list of photographers whose work makes me think when I'm out snapping. *UncaMikey
Re: PAW thumbnail page
Hh. Godfrey, when I load http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/, I don't get much detail in the small gray blocks. In fact, no detail, just small gray blocks, LOL. Nothing in the blocks allows me to differentiate one image from another. After I have viewed an image, the border is red, which confuses your statement that the red block is always the latest week posted. (No, my browser's normal color for viewed links is not red.) Now that I have viewed many images, there are many blocks that have red borders. This is probably getting too detailed and arcane for most PDML readers, but: older images have a solid gray block. If I have viewed the image, it has a red border; if not, it has a black border. The block (and border) for the current week (33) is solid red. The blocks for weeks not yet done are a lighter gray, with a visible grid in the small block; all these future blocks have a red border. I was able to match up the images, however, so yes, now I can see they are the same set of images. No problem there. I'm using Firefox on an iMac G5, OS 10.4.1, if that makes any difference. I can do a screen shot and send it to you if it would help. Is anyone still awake? Larf! *UncaMikey
GESO: Chicago (update): Looking
Thanks to all who commented on the earlier posting. Godfrey, you suggested I should get in closer -- point well taken, and something I need to work on. I have to be careful though, because if I have the FA J 18-35 mounted when a shot presents itself, I'd have to get in so close I might get arrested! LOL. Anyway, here's another snap from the same trip. The woman in the picture is my wife, so I was able to direct her a bit to have more time to set up a shot. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3650102 Comments and suggestions always welcome -- thanks for looking! *UncaMikey
Re: Is it a grip or a strap? (and a Q for Cotty)
I appreciate the comments and suggestions. Thanks to Godfrey and Cotty for responding with pictures: Godfrey's grip looks like the thing, and I really like Cotty's setup -- what kind of padded strap is that? It looks very comfortable -- might be something to replace the one that came with my Lowepro bag. And using a carabiner sounds like a good idea, too. And thanks to Godfrey for a clever workaround for PDML's lack of a nomail option -- works great! *UncaMikey
Re: Is it a grip or a strap? (and a Q for Cotty)
On 18/8/05, Cotty, combobulated, leashed: Isn't that like buying a car and then not driving it? Ha! Well, no, I just prefer to read the PDML posts via the mail-archive website. So far as I can see, the only downside is that my responses (like this one) won't get placed in the thread properly, but what the hey. Thanks for the tip about the Marmot strap. I absolutely prohibit myself from buying any more lenses or bodies, so my gear lust must be satisfied with straps, grips, geegaws, gimracks, and do-dads. *UncaMikey
GESO: Chicago
My first GESO, from our recent trip to Chicago. All shots taken with my Pentax *ist 35mm, Fuji Superia (200 or 400), and either the FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL IF or the FA J 18-35. Film processed and scanned at a local minilab. Comments and suggestions always welcome -- I had a lot of fun snapping away on this trip, and think I am learning, both about the equipment and about seeing things differently. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=520547 TIA! *UncaMikey
Chicago Art Inst: Paris Photos
Hi all. My wife and I just went for a long weekend stay in Chicago, my first visit there. One day we spent enjoyably at the Art Institute of Chicago, where one of the exhibits is entitled Paris: Photographs from a Time That Was. It's worth a visit to see some really fine street photography, if you are interested in that sort of thing and are in the area. I thought I saw some of Frank's stuff, but it turned out to be only HCB. More info here: http://www.artic.edu/aic/exhibitions/Paris.html Enjoy! *UncaMikey
Grip for *ist film body?
One thing I noticed on my trip to Chicago is that I should seriously consider some sort of grip for my Pentax *ist film body -- I got tired of it hanging around my neck, so wrapped the strap around my wrist to make an impromptu grip. I remember reading on the list here a while back that some of you use a side grip. Any recommendations for brand or type, or any comments or suggestions? Has anyone used a grip on the *ist film body (it's very small, even with the battery pack)? Thanks for your help! *UncaMikey
Is it a grip or a strap?
Maybe I didn't use the right term? LOL. I am not sure if it's called a grip or a strap, but I am thinking of some sort of thingy that attaches to the right side of the camera body, between the strap eyelet on top and probably the tripod mount on the bottom. That way you can insert your hand in the grip/strap and basically attach the camera to your hand, without having to hold it tightly. I am browsing around in BH and Adorama and see some possibilities, but would prefer to hear of any personal experience with these things. I hope this makes a bit more sense, and thanks again for your help. *UncaMikey
delurking
Hi all, from someone who rarely posts but regularly lurks. I always enjoy reading the discussions and looking at the photos, but you folks have been so good lately that I just had to subscribe briefly and jump in. Jerome's NYC photos were really good -- as others mentioned, the taxi shot was great. NYC has to be one of the most photographed places anywhere, and your shots still made it interesting and fresh. It was obvious you two had a good time. I really like Jay's portrait of his grandson, perfect capture. Dag's Norwegian lake, I had the same feeling as someone else mentioned, oh dear, another pretty lake photo, then the little boy just completely transformed it into something special. I always like Frank's stuff. And Godfrey's. Last, but far from least, I immensely enjoyed the ongoing discussion about street photography and long/short lenses. Sonny, you do great work -- I really like your approach, and your way of expressing yourself, both pictorially and verbally. And I like Shel's explanation of how he engages his subjects. I really want to practice that, get up the courage to jump in with my 50mm. And a bunch of other stuff, too. Keep it up, my compliments to you all! relurking, *UncaMikey
Exposure Understood -- and praise for *ist
Hi all-- I unsubbed and went back to lurk mode -- too much email, LOL! I think I learn more by reading via Mail Archive anyway, and it's easy enough to pop up occasionally with a post like this. About Understanding Exposure -- I'm glad my innocent question sparked a lively discussion! I have very much enjoyed reading the thread, and the responses from all sides have been very helpful. I am still tracking down books and websites, but what I've read so far is great. I even have a clearer idea of what it was I was looking for! My knowledge of exposure from my early days was intuitive and unreliable. Now that I have switched to an automated camera, I was looking for both a broad, general explanation of exposure and specific practical information applicable to my camera. The ol' Spotmatic did not have EV compensation. :-) Sorry Shel, I am *not* going to chuck my automated plastic device and once again lug around a clump of metal. Give me a 2005 Toyota Camry over a '52 Buick Roadmaster any day. Larf! The information you've provided has helped me learn more about my camera, a film *ist. I know it's not that popular here, and many of the criticisms are valid. But the more I use the camera and understand its features, the more I like it. The controls are so well laid out, I can easily switch mode and aperture/speed and metering and EV compensation and focus points without ever taking my eye from the finder. I really like the LCD on the rear rather than the top plate. The metering and focusing are excellent and fast. It's as easy to use as a PS when set to auto everything, which makes it nice when someone else takes a snap. It's so small and light that I carry it much more, which means I take more pictures. And it works perfectly with the few lenses I use -- with a FA 50mm f/1.7 it's barely more than a pound and fits in a largish pocket. I am not trying to convince anyone here, but in case there are lurkers out there in Internet land who are curious about this camera, I highly recommend it. And that's the end of my discussion on gear. :-) And despite the title, no, I do not claim that I fully understand exposure now, but I do know more than I did before, and that's what counts. Thanks again for all the comments and suggestions. I'll still be reading via the archive. *UncaMikey.
Re: PESO: Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em
Bruce Dayton wrote: Would love to see a good scan :). Me too! But a good scan requires a good scanner! Which in our case, we have not got! Larf. and Rick Womer wrote: The center of the floor is blown out, and might benefit from some PS attention Rick, the center is not blown out in the print, so I will blame Club o' Sam for that part. I will admit, too, that I do not own PS, and I think I would give up photography if I had to start using it. I use film because I want to get away from the steenking 'puter; I spend too much time with keyboard and mouse as it is. I am sure you are right that I could improve things, if I could overcome my aversion. and Jack Davis wrote: ...I might like it even better if they had been centered and all crescents had been arranged wherein they began and ended diametrical to the frame. Jack, I normally do such a bad job of making things level and symmetrical that I try to make a virtue of a failing -- your comment is almost exactly what my wife said when she looked at this one. Symmetry and levelness are things I definitely need to work on. Thanks for the comments! *UncaMikey who wants to know when PDML will get a nomail option...
Rule of thirds? Was Re: PESO: Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em
frank theriault wrote: All in all, it's a winner! Thanks very much, F/frank! Some months back, when I started seriously looking for photo info on the 'Net, I ran across PDML and saw the photo Rule of Thirds -- two tough guys standing against a wall. Wasn't that your photo, Frank? Whether it was yours or someone else's, I want to say, thanks, it really got me thinking. And it still does. Great shot. *UncaMikey
