Re: Enfuse and Lightroom
Matthew Hunt wrote: "There's also "File > Scripts > Load Files into Stack" within Photoshop." This is how I (actually Susan while I watched) did it. She as Photoshop on her Mac. I however don't have it on my Windows machine. I'll have to go through 2 learning curves simultaneously to focus stack in Photoshop. Please just kill me now. On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Matthew Hunt wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Mark C wrote: > >> You probably already know this - but use Photoshop tools in Bridge to load >> files into PS Layers for stacking. (I did not know that at first and the >> process of manually loading files as layers was very time consuming.) > > There's also "File > Scripts > Load Files into Stack" within Photoshop. > > -- > 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: Enfuse and Lightroom
this is how I (Susan) did it. I would have preferred to do this in Lightroom because I don't have Photoshop. My SO does have it but it's on a Mac and I'm using Windows. I'll have to use her machine and go through two learning curves simultaneously to focus stack with Photoshop. Please just kill me now. On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Matthew Hunt wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Mark C wrote: > >> You probably already know this - but use Photoshop tools in Bridge to load >> files into PS Layers for stacking. (I did not know that at first and the >> process of manually loading files as layers was very time consuming.) > > There's also "File > Scripts > Load Files into Stack" within Photoshop. > > -- > 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: Enfuse and Lightroom
thanks for the reply Jostein. I tried using the Photoshop CC focus stack and it worked somewhat better but still not good enough to show anyone. I shot two sets of images of separate flowers with 4 images in each set. On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: > Hi Tom, > Both Zerene Stacker and Helicon Focus have trial versions. There is some > functionality built into Photoshop too, starting (I think) with version CS. > Have a go at the first two an see if you're more comfortable with the > workflow in those. It's probably a good idea to view the tutorials too... > > I tried Enfuse a while back, and had the same experience as you. > > Jostein > > Den 15. juni 2015 15.27.25 CEST, skrev Tom Reese : >>I installed Enfuse and tried a macro focus stack but the result is >>awful. Now I'm not sure if I should pay something or give up on it. Is >>Enfuse better suited to larger scenes like landscapes? >> >>What is the customary donation for this type of thing? >> >>is there a better way to focus stack macros in Lightroom? >> >>thanks > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > -- > 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.
Enfuse and Lightroom
I installed Enfuse and tried a macro focus stack but the result is awful. Now I'm not sure if I should pay something or give up on it. Is Enfuse better suited to larger scenes like landscapes? What is the customary donation for this type of thing? is there a better way to focus stack macros in Lightroom? thanks -- 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 - '...trees for the forest'
very well executed Ken. I like it a lot. Terrific use of lines. The color of the one brown line on the very left side of the frame is possibly a bit too saturated for the rest of the elements in the image. Or maybe you wanted it that way. Great work. On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Brian Walters wrote: > Quoting Ken Waller : > >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=18037232 >> >> K3, 300mm f4.5 FA, 3 sec @ f29, 100 ISO >> >> You toughts appreciated. >> > > > I agree with Ann & Mark C (and probably with Mark R as well). > > Very attractive abstract. > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney Australia > http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ > > > > > -- > 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: PESO - 'Working the bug (s) out'
that's a quadrawingus flyaboutia On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Ken Waller wrote: > Captured this unnamed dragonfly last June in the Upper Peninsula of > Michigan. > Any idea as to it scientific name is appreciated - for now I'm calling it > Fred. > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17997519 > > K3, FA*300mm f4.5, 1/500 f9.0, 800 ISO. > Really liking the close focusing ability of this lens. > > Wondering if the background is too busy. > > Your thoughts appreciated. > > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > -- > 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: NOT a prank
Registration is still open at 10:53 PM EST on 01 Apr 15. Su Wilson and I are registered. On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Stanley Halpin wrote: > Thanks for the reminder. I just signed up. > > stan > > On Apr 1, 2015, at 9:48 AM, John wrote: > >> I'm signed up for Grandfather Mountain again. This year I remembered to set >> an alarm ... actually set three of them & one actually worked. Also, this >> year's registration went through without a hitch. >> >> AND, I've submitted my panorama to the April PUG. >> >> -- >> 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. -- 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: kaleidoscope reaches prototype stage
hi Larry, interesting project. You might want to put some kind of compressible material between the wood and the mirrors. With your current design, the mirrors could break if the wood shrinks during a period of low humidity. You could eliminate the problem if you rotate the wood so the grain runs vertically instead of horizontally. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > My kaleidoscope has gone from "proof of concept" to "prototype". Projects > like this are very good in exposing the shortcomings in both my table saw and > my carpentry skills. > > Fortunately, North glass accidentally cut an extra mirror, because I broke > one of them this morning. Also my attempt at a tripod mount was a resounding > failure. > > Plan B will be to drill and tap an aluminum plate and screw it to the bottom > of one of the boards. > > Set of photos showing construction here: > https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157651606646662/ > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc > > > -- > 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: PESO's from March
I agree with Paul. That fog picture is really good. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Paul wrote: > I'd vote for the third one down of the trees in the fog. For me it's the > most moody, with the tree silhouettes receding into the fog. > > -p > > On 3/24/2015 9:56 PM, Mark C wrote: >> >> A few recent PESO's - >> >> Muddy March Leaves: >> >> http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/muddy-march-leaves >> >> (K-3, D-FA 17-70) >> >> Swirling Leaves: >> >> http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/swirling-leaves >> >> (Mz-S, FA 28-105 power-zoom, Pro-Max 100 rated at 50) >> >> Trees on a Foggy Morning: >> >> http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/trees-on-a-foggy-morning >> >> (K-3, D-FA 17-70) >> >> Comments welcome - March is usually my least productive month for >> outdoor photography. >> >> Mark >> >> >> --- >> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus >> protection is active. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> > > -- > Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old. > > -- > 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: PESO: Feeling Lucky?
swim with the crocs? that's a sneaky way to get them fed. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, David Mann wrote: > A sign I liked at Crocosaurus Cove in Darwin... > > http://gallery.multi.net.nz/photo/893/#peso > > Cheers, > Dave > > > -- > 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: PESO: How To Feed A Crocodile
you got enough of the people in the frame to show the relative size of the beast and a sense of the menace it presents. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:20 PM, David Mann wrote: > It's surprising how little a large croc needs to eat... but it's not > surprising how much care they need to take to feed it! > > I didn't quite get the framing right but there's enough to see what's going > on :) > > http://gallery.multi.net.nz/photo/894/#peso > > Cheers, > Dave > > > -- > 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: PESO garden picture
thanks for the replies folks On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote: > Tom Reese wrote: > >> A scan of a slide I shot with my MZ-S after I got home from the Tony >> Sweet class at Grandfather Mountain. Shot by double exposing the frame >> with one shot slightly out of focus. >> >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17993552 > > A good result. > > 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. -- 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.
PESO garden picture
A scan of a slide I shot with my MZ-S after I got home from the Tony Sweet class at Grandfather Mountain. Shot by double exposing the frame with one shot slightly out of focus. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17993552 -- 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: Interesting Business Model
smells like fraud to me. My guess is that they're looking for people to send them an email. They'll reply and offer a lower price if the sale is conducted privately then never ship the item. I doubt that the supposed seller even has the stuff. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:42 PM, steve harley wrote: > On 2015-03-21 16:48 , Brian Walters wrote: >> >> I keep coming across this EBay seller who lists lots of new items, but at >> prices that seem to border on the absurd. They get good feedback but who >> would buy a K-7 with kit lens (for example) for $A2095.69? Or a Q with two >> lenses for $A1117.91? Or a K-5II with 18-135 DA for $A2,847.53? > > > i wonder if they have actually sold any camera equipment? they list 2+ > million books & magazines, but under 20k camera equipment items; my guess is > they just throw a lot of stuff in the air to see what sticks; a lot of their > negative feedback is "canceled order because not in stock" > > -- > 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: Days of Yore.
yeah I miss my old Mustang. That was real easy to work on. I guess I'm pining for the Ford. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:17 PM, John wrote: > I pine for the days when you didn't have to remove half the engine bay > just to change a headlamp. > > -- > 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: So obvious... how did we not think of this?
no wonder my cuneiform always looks like crap. I've been trying to do it in the dark. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Darren Addy wrote: > >>Your smart phone or tablet is a portable light table for viewing >>negatives and slides. > > Also makes a great light source when pressing cuneiform into clay > tablets indoors! > > -- > Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia > www.robertstech.com > > > > > > -- > 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: Grandfather Mountain 2015
I think Susan and I will be going but probably not camping. She's not thrilled with the idea of sleeping on the ground. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: > John, > > I complained about their posting a 12:00 time, was that AM or PM? > They needed to go 12:01 AM to be clearer, but you're right. > The servers never worked at those times. Hope this is better. > > I registered for last year, but bailed out at the last minute. > No refund, so I imagine there wasn't much of a waiting list. > Is the program anything special this year? > Who is planning on attending? > > Regards, Bob S. > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 7:19 PM, John wrote: >> I don't know if last year sold out or not, but best bet is to figure on >> a couple of hours. Last year I registered at about 2 minutes after it >> finally opened up & my number was up around 100 (out of I think 164 spaces). >> >> If I don't get a confirmed space, I get 'em to put me on the waiting >> list. The two times I've had to do that, I eventually got in. >> >> I think it used to be done by telephone at midnight until the last >> several years when they switched to on-line registration. They tried to >> get that live at midnight, but for some reason the servers just wouldn't >> cooperate. You couldn't get registered until somebody came to work in >> the morning to straighten on-line registration problems out. >> >> I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who suggested that if their >> internet support staff wouldn't come in special to fix registration >> problems at midnight they should just delay the start of registration >> until the staff got to work in the morning. >> >> Looks like that's what they're doing this year. >> >> >> >> >> On 3/22/2015 5:35 PM, Tom Reese wrote: >>> >>> thanks for the heads up. This event used to sell out in a couple >>> hours. My perception is that it now takes a few days. Is that correct? >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:16 PM, John wrote: >>>> >>>> I got an email from Grandfather Mountain about the Nature Photography >>>> Weekend. >>>> >>>> Most of you who plan to attend probably know this already, but I thought >>>> I'd pass it along just in case anyone is thinking about attending for >>>> the first time or the first time in a long time. >>>> >>>> The 2015 Nature Photography Registration will open at 8:00 AM Eastern >>>> Daylight Time on Wednesday April 1 instead of Midnight as it has been in >>>> the past. >>>> >>>> They're also going to allow participants to enter GFM at 10:00am on >>>> Friday, May 29, instead of mid-afternoon, to give participants more time >>>> to shoot during the day. >>>> >>>> I got their email on March 14, so that will give you some idea how far >>>> behind I am on stuff. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Science - Questions we may never find answers for. >>>> Religion - Answers we must never question. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. -- 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: Shrimp & Grits
grits are okay if served infrequently in small quantities On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Alan C wrote: > An interesting discussion. I had never heard the term "grits" before. Here, > mieliepap is the staple diet of the masses and a popular side dish with > tomato relish at a braaivleis (barbeque to you Westerners!). Commercial > maize meal is finely ground but the rural variety is hand ground & quite > coarse by comparison - truly gritty! Oh, & our maize is the white variety > although some yellow is imported, especially in drought years like 2015. > > Alan C > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > > > -- > 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: What does everyone now use?
I already told the story that I now have a Canon digital slr. My other photography items: an infrared wildlife camera that I sometimes set up in the backyard. I've captured foxes, raccoons, opossums and deer with it. No coyotes yet though I have heard them howl in the woods behind the house. a helmet cam video camera that I sometimes use when I'm riding. the videos are fun to watch for maybe a minute then they get boring. a digital tape video camera that I mostly use for filming my grandchildren. Occasionally for filming my golf swing and bowling form. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Jan van Wijk wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 11:26:20 -0400 P.J. Alling wrote: >> >>Currently? > > I use the K3, usually with the DA 18-135. > For light travel the original Q, with the new wide-angle zoom or the standard > prime. > > Started long ago with a Pentx MX (1977), and have used at least 5 different > film cameras, > like ME, LX, PZ1, MZ3 and even a 67II. > > Started digital with the *istd, then a K10, K7, K5, and now the K3 ... > > Collected something like 35 lenses over time, some manual focus some FA, > quite a few DA ones, and also have the three FA limited lenses. > > So it is unlikely I will 'jump ship' anytime soon :) > > Regards, JvW > > -- > Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com > Flickr : jvw_pentax > > > -- > 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: GESO Highlander with an itch
as a person of (partial) Welsh heritage I have mutton to say except "sheep lie". On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote: > On 22 Mar 2015, at 20:31, Toine wrote: >> >> Hi Mike >> >> I'm already at home ;) This brand of cattle is called "Scottish >> Highlanders" translated from dutch "Schotse Hooglanders". They are >> walking freely in peatlands (with a fence) to do the work sheeps did >> in the past. > > Give pleasure to lonely Welshmen? > > B > >> http://www.repiuk.nl/content/itching1/ http://www.repiuk.nl/content/itching2/ >>> >>> > > -- > 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: Where is everyone?
it's interesting how these internet forums and anonymity bring out the worst in those with personality disorders. These people seem normal (based on the fact that they're apparently still running around loose) but they turn into raving lunatics when they get behind a keyboard. On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Brian Walters wrote: > Quoting Bob Sullivan : > >> I stumbled into the pdml, probably thru the Pentax website. >> There was some overlap with 'the who' (who I never understood) and >> many flame wars, >> which I participated in and even prolonged in many cases. Bill Robb >> became a special >> friend as he refused to suffer fools in silence, or intolerant remarks. > > > > I think I arrived a bit too late to have experienced the who and the other > fruitcakes. One I do remember was Antonio who was probably the last true > troll on the list. I recall some memorable exchanges between him and Bill > Robb. > > > -- > Cheers > > Brian > > ++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney Australia > http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ > > > > -- > 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: PESO - Spring Jack-O-Lantern
not a Pulitzer prize winner but interesting On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Rick Womer wrote: > Tom, > > Here it is, Past-It Pumpkin Panorama: > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17991298 > > Still not "ooh-aah" material. > > Rick > > On Mar 22, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Tom Reese wrote: > >> I dunno Rick. Crop that distracting stuff off the top and the OOF >> leaves off the bottom and you have an interesting contrast of life and >> death with the emerging flowers and the pumpkin. >> >> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Rick Womer wrote: >>> If you leave your Jack-o-lantern out all winter, here is how it looks on >>> St. Patrick's Day: >>> >>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17987090&size=lg >>> >>> (K-5, DA 50-200) >>> >>> Note: for scientific interest only; not intended to be Art. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Rick >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. > > http://photo.net/photos/RickW > > > > -- > 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: Grandfather Mountain 2015
thanks for the heads up. This event used to sell out in a couple hours. My perception is that it now takes a few days. Is that correct? On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:16 PM, John wrote: > I got an email from Grandfather Mountain about the Nature Photography > Weekend. > > Most of you who plan to attend probably know this already, but I thought > I'd pass it along just in case anyone is thinking about attending for > the first time or the first time in a long time. > > The 2015 Nature Photography Registration will open at 8:00 AM Eastern > Daylight Time on Wednesday April 1 instead of Midnight as it has been in > the past. > > They're also going to allow participants to enter GFM at 10:00am on > Friday, May 29, instead of mid-afternoon, to give participants more time > to shoot during the day. > > I got their email on March 14, so that will give you some idea how far > behind I am on stuff. > > -- > 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: PESO - Spring Jack-O-Lantern
I dunno Rick. Crop that distracting stuff off the top and the OOF leaves off the bottom and you have an interesting contrast of life and death with the emerging flowers and the pumpkin. On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Rick Womer wrote: > If you leave your Jack-o-lantern out all winter, here is how it looks on St. > Patrick's Day: > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17987090&size=lg > > (K-5, DA 50-200) > > Note: for scientific interest only; not intended to be Art. > > Cheers, > > Rick > > > > -- > 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: Geso: my trip to England 1982
I think it comes from the period right after Kodak invented color in the mid 1950's. We here in the US had it long before the rest of the world and at least 10 years before it reached Europe. I can vaguely remember waking up one morning and finding that the trees had turned from gray to green. We all walked around with our mouths hanging open for a few weeks. On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote: > Steve Cottrell wrote: > >> Okay, it's obviously a perception you and/or others have. I'm genuinely >> just curious as to where/how you (possibly) acquired it? > > A perception that many have, and if you drive regularly up the M6, it's easy > to see why even today. Much of the TV broadcast around the world shows this > country in a different age, where there was coalmining, factories and acres > of back to back housing. All grey. > > Today - and in fairness you can point at much of the developed world and > point this out - there are acres of residential/industrial/retail/economic > identikit sprawl, which frankly make the country look as if it has had > successful charisma by-pass surgery. > > 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. -- 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: Mauna Kea from Maui
awesome shot. I was going to ask if it was a stitched panorama or cropped but I see you already answered that it's cropped. terrific image On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > A telephoto view of Mauna Kea, on the Big Island of Hawaii, taken from > the summit of Haleakalaa, on Maui: > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17990465&size=lg > K-6 II S, 75-300 Zoom > > 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: Peso - for Tom Reese
wow quite a transformation makes me wonder if the old boat in the first pic is still afloat thanks for taking the time to hunt that one down On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > For Tom - who wanted to see what's there now - > This is pretty close to the vantage point > of "Old Salt" > > http://annsan.smugmug.com/On-the-Road-or-On-Foot/2015-and-all-that/i-ps85mK5/A > > ann > > -- > 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: Save the date! I got me a show, after 7 year hiatus APRIL 4
excellent work Ann. Congratulations on your exhibit. On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > Especially to the attention, Rick and Dan - who a close enough to get > there.. > > I announced this on facebook earlier today > > "Save the date! Saturday, April 4th - Opening of my new photo exhibit > "Around Here" with the "here" essentially being The Lower East Side. Both > black and white and color photos from 1970's to now. Where? It is at THE > COMFORT at 399 Grand St (In L.E.S. of course), Ira Freehof's sister > restaurant to his midtown Comfort Diner. Bring your glasses and your > appetite - the restaurant will be open for business that day. Hope you can > get there for the opening, but if not, it will be running through May 17th. > " > > Among the photos you will find many you have seen before - including > "Old Salt". I was asked by Ira to show 16 images. The last show I did for > him was "Yesterdays Cafes" at a different venue. The photos from that are a > gallery on my web page. > > As all but a few of you are likely to be able to get to my opening, > These are the photos that will be in the show. They are 11 x 17 > prints in 16 x 20 mats and frames. > > http://annsan.smugmug.com/On-the-Road-or-On-Foot/Grand-Pix-my-choices/ > > The "around here" title came from Ira asking me if I had any photos > from around here - when we were talking in his restaurant which is > in what we call LES - the lower east side) > > It would be super cool to see any of you there -- and if there are > any of you I haven't yet met in person in the area or visiting here > and you come to the opening day, make sure you introduce yourself > to me... > > I went through a couple of days of saying "what am I doing?" so much > work - but I couldn't refuse Mr. Comfort Diner. This will make my > 5th exhibit at one of his restaurants. > > ann > annsan.smugmug.com > > -- > 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: Who killed infinity focus?
interesting reading. I've been wanting to try some of those astrophotography shots if I ever find a dark enough place on a clear night. That focus issue has me a little stumped. I found this particularly interesting: "...as Canon points out, many of today's wide-angle zooms are simply inverted telephoto designs and they can be affected by temperature changes". I'm not sure exactly what he means by that but I don't really need to know. On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:26 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: > Reading it right now, interesting and I'm still not sure how much is > marketing bullshit. > > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/who-killed-infinity-focus?BI=4906 > > -- > 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: Peso - Old Salt
yeah this thread has gone to hull On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Rick Womer wrote: > Please! No moor puns! > http://photo.net/photos/RickW > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: >> >> >> On 3/20/2015 15:11, John wrote: >>> >>> Shouldn't that have been "if my piers find it interesting"? >> >> May have to dock you for that groaner >> >> ann >> >>> >>> On 3/18/2015 3:47 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: There is a reason I'm being coy, Ken.. but really, all I needed to know is if my peers find it interesting in itself... and a number of you have said it is so... I'm good. Thanks ann On 3/18/2015 15:39, Ken Waller wrote: > > Without knowing what you're trying to to with the image its hard for me > to make a suggestion. > > As posted, its interesting to me. > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > - Original Message - From: "Ann Sanfedele" > Subject: Peso - Old Salt > > >> Digging into old film stuff for a project - needed more photos of >> the area back in the day. This was at the South Street Seaport as >> it was in February, 1977. Pentax KX , Tri-x neg scanned with the >> Epson v500 >> >> >> http://annsan.smugmug.com/On-the-Road-or-On-Foot/New-York-City-back-in-the-day/i-cdH3zt9/L >> >> >> >> >> Wondering if this is interesting in itself or if you need the >> contrast of what that exact spot looks like to day to make it so. >> >> ann > > > >>> >> >> -- >> 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: Peso - Old Salt
Ann, I like the shot just fine as is but would still like to see what it looks like today On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > > On 3/20/2015 15:11, John wrote: >> >> Shouldn't that have been "if my piers find it interesting"? > > May have to dock you for that groaner > > ann > >> >> On 3/18/2015 3:47 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: >>> >>> There is a reason I'm being coy, Ken.. >>> but really, all I needed to know is if my peers find it interesting in >>> itself... and a number of you have said it is so... I'm good. >>> >>> Thanks >>> ann >>> >>> On 3/18/2015 15:39, Ken Waller wrote: Without knowing what you're trying to to with the image its hard for me to make a suggestion. As posted, its interesting to me. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Ann Sanfedele" Subject: Peso - Old Salt > Digging into old film stuff for a project - needed more photos of > the area back in the day. This was at the South Street Seaport as > it was in February, 1977. Pentax KX , Tri-x neg scanned with the > Epson v500 > > > http://annsan.smugmug.com/On-the-Road-or-On-Foot/New-York-City-back-in-the-day/i-cdH3zt9/L > > > > > Wondering if this is interesting in itself or if you need the > contrast of what that exact spot looks like to day to make it so. > > ann >>> >> > > -- > 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: We interrupt these reminiscences for a PESO -- On the March
I thought this was a photo of the PDML Canadian contingent while they were still in hibernation? Well spotted Rick. A nice bit of whimsy. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Alan C wrote: > I always wondered what happened to the Triffids. > > Alan C > > -Original Message- From: Rick Womer > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 8:02 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: We interrupt these reminiscences for a PESO -- On the March > > Invading alien platoon or just shrubs wrapped against the winter? > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17987093&size=lg > > (K-5, DA 40/2.8 ltd) > > Once you comment on the photo (constructively, appreciatively, or > dismissively) please resume the discussion already in progress. > > Cheers, > > Rick > > > > -- > 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. > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > > > -- > 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.
interesting article describing how autofocus works
probably nothing new to some of you but I learned quite a bit from this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/how-focus-works?BI=4906 -- 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: Where is everyone?
to reduce the slide: remember that rudeness turns people off (not aimed at anyone at all - a general observation from many forums over many years) try to help when people ask for it people participate because the list is informative, entertaining and it provides social interaction - any others? no one likes to be ignored - everyone needs to be acknowledged once in a while to increase the profile: put it out there on the social media sites. Not changing the format of the list but adding a pdml information page with the stuff necessary to make sure it pops in searches. Add keywords like "photography" "Pentax" and various related subjects. if this post makes it through then I'll try to add more thoughts as they occur to me. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Ken Waller wrote: >> I posted this looking for ideas to reverse the slide rather than to >> provide reasons or excuses for it. Who has such an idea? > > > If we require all members to post 3 times a a day we could get to the 2010 > monthly total ! ;+)! > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > - Original Message - From: "Rick Womer" > Subject: Re: Where is everyone? > > >> I found the list on the Pentax web site when Pentax owned it. Then in >> 1994 we went on sabbatical, and I could only get it through expensive >> trans-Atlantic dial-up, so I unsubscribed. I looked for it a few times >> after we got back, but couldn't find it. Then about 11 years ago I ran >> into Mark! and Lisa at some airport where Lisa and I had been >> attending the same meeting, and he gave me the new details. >> >> I posted this looking for ideas to reverse the slide rather than to >> provide reasons or excuses for it. Who has such an idea? >> >> Rick >> http://photo.net/photos/RickW >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Paul Stenquist >> wrote: >>> >>> Only us oldsters know what Shel-like means.:-) >>> >>> Paul via phone >>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:51 AM, David J Brooks wrote: I'm still here although my participation has fallen, mostly due to lack of photo drives to generate anything thing to show. I like hanging out here, mainly because no one ridicules me for post process. I was hanging out at PF for a while in 2007-2008, but one of their main contributors beat me up pretty bad for saying things like i usually do some post processing. If i was a 'real' photographer i would get it right in the camera. Some came to my defense but not a lot. Seems trivial but the comments from him were almost Shel like, so i pretty much gave that place up. Dave > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Jack Davis > wrote: > The general relationship with the digital age has become more routine. > Interest peaks have flattened. > > Jack > > - Original Message - > From: "Brian Walters" > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:34:07 PM > Subject: Re: Where is everyone? > > I think there are several reasons for the fall off in postings. The > web-based DP Review & Pentax Forums are easy to find for people > looking for info on their new cameras and for help with problems. > Also PDML has morphed into (mainly) a photo sharing list - nothing > wrong with that but there seems to be few gear-related postings except > when a new model is rumoured or released. Perhaps we're all so > familiar with our cameras that we don't need any assistance. > > I'm not sure how to increase participation. I tried a number of > Pentax-related searches on Google - PDML, if it came up at all, was > well down the list. > > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney Australia > http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ > > > > Quoting Rick Womer : > >> Lately I've noticed that the volume of PDML posts is way down. So, >> being off this week and having some spare time, I did some research in >> the archives. >> >> In January 2015, there were 1234 posts from 52 members. >> In January 2014, there were 2587 posts from 74 members. >> In January 2013, there were 2667 posts from 70 members. >> In January 2012, there were 3418 posts from 88 members. >> In January 2011, there were 5091 posts from 109 members. >> In January 2010, there were 4764 posts from 110 members. >> >> So, in five years, active members are down by half, and the number of >> posts is down by 3/4. >> >> There is more competition than there used to be (especially, recently, >> from Facebook), but IMHO the PDML remains the best (of many) photo >> discussion venues I've used over the decades. It would be good to turn >> around this decline. >> >> How do we draw in new members? How do we keep both new and existing >> members? > > > > --
Re: Where is everyone?
I don't remember how I found PDML It was a long time ago. It must have been from a web search. I unsubscribed quite a while ago when I quit taking pictures. Slide processing got too expensive and I kept waiting for Pentax to offer a full frame digital camera but they never did. I finally packed up all my Pentax gear and took it to a KEH buying event where I sold it all. Not too long ago, I bought a full frame Canon digital camera and I started shooting again. Susan and I are thinking about going back to GFM this year. I still despise the digital process. My workflow is to shoot in RAW, crop when needed and convert to jpg. That's it. No levels, no sharpening, no anything. It's very good to know that the PDML is still going. I'll contribute when I can but there's not much I can offer. Tom Reese sorry if this is a duplicate post the first one doesn't seem to have reached the PDML post office. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > > Mark Roberts wrote: >> >> Serious question: How did you find out at the PDML? >> (Everyone please feel free to pipe up here.) >> >> I probably found out about the PDML from the Pentax official web site, >> way back when the PDML was actually run by Pentax. But I'm wondering >> how *anyone* would even learn of the PDML's existence these days. >> > > I found a local photographer meetup group and instigated a lunch time get > together at a restaurant which it turns out was easy bicycling distance from > both where I worked and where John Francis lives. I had just recently > gotten fed up with some nonsense on the dp review pentax forum and it was a > pleasant breath of fresh air to find a group of photographers who generally > knew their aperture from a hole in the ground. > > I also got some of the most constructive feedback on photos that I posted, > and generally learned a lot reading feedback on other photos. Lately it > seems as if the feedback being given is much gentler and a bit less > informative. > > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) > > > -- > 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: FS: Friday/Saturday (not all Pentax)
And one more I forgot: Garmin GPSMAP 60CSx Receiver - NIB - $200 http://boise.craigslist.org/spo/4576711227.html -- 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: FS: Friday/Saturday (not all Pentax)
One other item. I excluded earlier because I thought I may have a local buyer, but no additional contact as of yet. A Sony NEX-5 with 2 lenses. Asking $350. http://boise.craigslist.org/pho/4574042602.html The 3 legacy lenses and the DVD recorder are sold. Thanks. Tom -- 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.
FS: Friday/Saturday (not all Pentax)
Hi folks, Tried to send this yesterday, but wasn't in plain text mode. I'm trying to 'unburden' myself of some gear. Hopefully before Monday. :) Here it is for your perusal. I have it on the local craiglist. If you're interested, price + whatever shipping is. Please only PayPal. Please reply directly to caka...@gmail.com Thanks for looking. Tom http://boise.craigslist.org/sys/4576058268.html http://boise.craigslist.org/pho/4575670434.html http://boise.craigslist.org/pho/4575626519.html http://boise.craigslist.org/clt/4575286033.html http://boise.craigslist.org/ele/4575269558.html http://boise.craigslist.org/pho/4575202239.html http://boise.craigslist.org/pho/4572642846.html http://boise.craigslist.org/pho/4575435405.html The above is a really nice, probably unobtainable brand new (I'm surprised I found it 18 months ago) camera bag for APS-C DSLR's. I'm disappointed nothing like this exists for larger cameras now. It was what I used for film SLR's and APS-C cameras for close to two decades. Unbeatable functionality. http://boise.craigslist.org/pho/4574428678.html -- 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: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
Bob W Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:35:45 -0800 This is a straw man argument, because nobody claims that the whole journalistic process is objective. It has never claimed to be objective. What honourable journalists (and there are plenty of them) strive for is to be an honest witness. B - It may be a straw man in the context of this list. But would the 'media' have us believe they're objective? Of course they would. Are people at AP sitting back and thinking or saying 'see we're objective because of this'? Of course they are. I shouldn't have painted with a such a wide brush. You're totally correct. I'll be back after I go fire myself. Tom -- 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: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
From: Bill I think the point is, we need to do the best we can. Without wanting to inject politics into the discussion, why do we call Palestinian bombers terrorists rather than freedom fighters? It's a pretty easy answer, it's because we aren't on their side. If we were, our language would be very different. We call landmines that the other guys use IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) because it denigrates their efforts. At the same time, their efforts cost a lot in terms of lives and equipment, so I don't know just how "improvised" these explosive devises are. You are right, language has the power to sway opinion, which is why one must be careful when deciphering what one reads. OTOH, images have even more power to sway, and we don't have the option of looking at a picture and know immediately what politics, if any, is behind the picture. We can look at words and say, yeah, he's a left wing nutbar, based on what was written, and discard it or believe it based on whether or not it fits our own outlook. It's harder with a picture, especially one that comes from what is supposed to be a journalistic source that is supposed to have integrity and believability. However, let me ask you something: How long would a newspaper editor in the USAor Canada (and probably more so Canada given our PM's speech to the Knesset last week) keep his job if he started referring to Palestinians as "Freedom Fighters" rather than the more accepted term "terrorist" and Israel as a Zionist Apartheid State? Depending on your POV, either language is the "truth". bill - I don't disagree with that Bill. I especially agree that "Images have even more power to sway" and it's "harder with a picture" to tell what is believable. The only thing I'd say (and have said) is that to believe that an unaltered image is any more truthful or objective than an unaltered image, in the context of reporting, and stopping there, thinking the rules of integrity are satisfied or broken based on that criteria alone, is IMO, incorrect. Tom C. -- 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: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
>From: Mark Roberts > >>>That's where this discussion is going astray: No one expects a >>>photograph to represent the unaltered truth, but they do expect it to >>>represent an unaltered *photograph*. >>Well I don't have that expectation. I expect that the image accurately >>conveys the message, not whether it has been altered in some minor >>fashion or not. That's me though. :) > Yes. That's you. This isn't about you. Or me. It's about the public's > expectations, editors' expectations (and demands) and the Associated > Press's expectations and the requirements stipulated in their > contracts. I think the only expectation the public at large has is that the news be accurate. I don't believe that the public explicitly (or implicitly) has the expectation that each and every photo be unaltered, especially where it doesn't matter. The public apparently likes Instagram. In your response, you've clipped where I wrote: "I do understand the principle, no alterations = no questions as to legitimacy for any given image, and of course as you pointed out later. he did not fulfill his contract. So I have no argument there.". This is an example that works to illustrate a point, one we're both probably trying to make Mark, just from slightly different views. By your omission, people could think that I wasn't agreeing with you on those points, when in reality I was. My point is that the objectivity of the whole journalistic process is questionable, not just the visual component. And while an agreed upon rule was violated, which was wrong for the photographer to do, it's hypocritical to take the photographer to task, and then pretend to have journalistic integrity. If one can't accept a photograph that was altered in a very trivial way irrelevant to the story, because it lacks integrity somehow, then they better damn well go back and make sure the FOV, shooting angle, DOF (don't want to blur out pertinent background details) and everything else tells the whole story. Then make sure the written word tells the whole truth fairly without omissions. Referencing the Bible, Jesus accused the Pharisees of 'straining out the gnat from their drink, while gulping down the camel'... 'Cleaning the outside of the cup while the inside is dirty'. - Matthew 23:24 That's what this looks like to me. Focusing on a nit while ignoring the whole bigger picture of whether 1) other unaltered photos present a biased or cropped view of reality and 2) whether the reporting behind the scene does the same. I don't want to belabor it anymore, I understand the principle that journalistically an unaltered photo may meet a higher standard (not that it necessarily conveys a point more accurately or honestly). I found these comments on dpreview of interest (and of course this is a subject open to huge debate): "One tends to think of journalistic photographic manipulation as being something only present in the digital age. Its not true...for example...one of the famous images of students killed in a protest at Ohio State University in the late 60's had an inconvenient pole in the background behind a devastated student, which was removed in editing and that has become a famous and accepted image in the history of journalism. In Nachtwey's movie War Photographer, Nachtwey gives instructions to his printer to dodge, burn and highlight areas of an image to focus attention or create effect. That's also manipulation. I think it's really a no-no to alter the content of an image so as to lie - as in adding extra victims or body parts - but this edit has not taken away from the image or created a visual lie, the debate is precious and silly and should be dictated by common sense. The whole underlying intent was to clean up an otherwise good news image." - Peter Bendheim "This is a funny topic I always enjoy when it 'crops' up. The assumption that what a photographer does with a camera is objective and absolute and deserving of instant trust, while what he/she does with a cloning/healing tool in Photoshop is immediately dishonest is so laughably last century. Cropping also removes elements from an image, choosing your moment so your photo tells a particular angle of the story is part of shooting, but that's all ok by these foolish rules. It's splitting hairs and it's arrogance of the highest order." - Peter Stuckings. I agree he broke his contract. I agree he altered an image. Under the terms of the contract was that wrong? Yes it was. In the big scheme of things though... ? Tom C. -- 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: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
John wrote: > Photojournalism is not about THE TRUTH, it's about accurately > representing what is in front of the camera. The viewer can find their > own truth. In that case I find the underlying principles to be deeply flawed. An unaltered photograph can do just as much misleading as an altered one can. Tom C. -- 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: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
(I hate when I forget to edit the subject. Sorry for the double post) From: Mark Roberts Bruce wrote: >I couldn't have said it better myself Tom. The entire concept of photography >is to create an image from the mind/concept/perspective of the photographer. >To think that any photograph represents the unaltered truth is ridiculous. That's where this discussion is going astray: No one expects a photograph to represent the unaltered truth, but they do expect it to represent an unaltered *photograph*. - Well I don't have that expectation. I expect that the image accurately conveys the message, not whether it has been altered in some minor fashion or not. That's me though. :) I do understand the principle, no alterations = no questions as to legitimacy for any given image, and of course as you pointed out later. he did not fulfill his contract. So I have no argument there. Some of us are viewing it through a different lens so to speak. First there's the different 'standards or expectations' of PJ compared to other photography. Then there's the whole idea of whether the news being reported to us is objective to begin with, which I'll contend it's not. Slanting stories, ignoring potential sources, and using sound bites, alters what is reported, not to mention the innate bias any human possesses. The mere act of editing the written word potentially discards valuable information. At that point to call in to question the integrity of a photograph that had a minor element removed is duplicitous. Holding photography to a different standard than the non-visual aspects of the story is duplicitous as well. Tom C. -- 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: PDML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 164
From: Mark Roberts Bruce wrote: >I couldn't have said it better myself Tom. The entire concept of photography >is to create an image from the mind/concept/perspective of the photographer. >To think that any photograph represents the unaltered truth is ridiculous. That's where this discussion is going astray: No one expects a photograph to represent the unaltered truth, but they do expect it to represent an unaltered *photograph*. - Well I don't have that expectation. I expect that the image accurately conveys the message, not whether it has been altered in some minor fashion or not. That's me though. :) I do understand the principle, no alterations = no questions as to legitimacy for any given image, and of course as you pointed out later. he did not fulfill his contract. So I have no argument there. Some of us are viewing it through a different lens so to speak. First there's the different 'standards or expectations' of PJ compared to other photography. Then there's the whole idea of whether the news being reported to us is objective to begin with, which I'll contend it's not. Slanting stories, ignoring potential sources, and using sound bites, alters what is reported, not to mention the innate bias any human possesses. The mere act of editing the written word potentially discards valuable information. At that point to call in to question the integrity of a photograph that had a minor element removed is duplicitous. Holding photography to a different standard than the non-visual aspects of the story is duplicitous as well. Tom C. -- 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: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
On 23/01/2014 9:49 PM, Tom C wrote: The problem I see is that there's a basic assumption that the photons entering the lens and recorded on the media somehow represent THE TRUTH. I believe that assumption is flawed. --- That's because your basic assumption is a flawed premise. The picture doesn't represent the truth, it represents a reflection of the truth. The Old Ones know the truth, but they have long since gone beyond the Rim. bill I understand your point, an image is a reflection/rendering of a narrow reality at that point in space-time in the direction the camera was pointing. :) For "photo-journalism" to say an image is untruthful or has no integrity because an object is removed, is fallacious at best and hypocritical at worst, because a like image taken from a slightly different vantage point would also eliminate that object and still be considered truthful. If the object removed was done so with the intent of altering the message, that's different. Subtraction is the basic process of composition. Other alterations or additions have more to do with changing the integrity of the image. I have a real problem with additions or moving of objects in an image. Alterations to achieve a desired effect, be it exposure, contrast, saturation, are in many respects the bread and butter of non-documentary photography. Tom C. -- 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: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
Bill wrote: At the same time, there is that which we are willing to accept as a truthful representation, even though it cannot be unaltered and still be something we can hold in our hands and say "this really sucks" What you guys are saying is that if you have an insurance claim, you might as well Photoshop in some more damage since the evidence picture isn't the truth anyway. Have a spat with your boyfriend? Just Photoshop in a black eye and make it look like he split your lip and knocked out a couple of teeth. Get that f#cker sent to jail for bringing home Pepperoni and mushroom rather than ham and pineapple. He won't make that mistake twice. It doesn't matter, since whatever you use as evidence is a lie anyway. Now you know that's not what I'm saying. In that image of interest, if a bloody body was photo-shopped out or in, that would be crossing the line, especially if it was supposed to DOCUMENT the scene at that place at that point in time. If the image is not meant to document something, but instead be illustrative, then removing or cropping a distracting item does not alter the message any more than panning the camera alters the message. In the case of the image in question, the superfluous video camera was never part of the intended message to begin with. Tom C. -- 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: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
John wrote: > If you draw the line at "nothing added, nothing removed" no one can > argue about how much has been changed in the story the image tells. > There's really nowhere else you can draw that line without it being > challenged. I totally understand what you and others are saying, and I do get the point 100%. The problem I see is that there's a basic assumption that the photons entering the lens and recorded on the media somehow represent THE TRUTH. I believe that assumption is flawed. First, those photons pass through the lens and are bent in order to be recorded on the media or detected by the sensor. As Bill noted, that can drastically change the look of an image. So what focal length represents truth (not to mention DOF)? Exposure? Then those recordings pass through digital circuitry and are changed. Then they are manipulated internally by software to render a 2-dimensional *version* of what was there in 3 dimensions. Enough said. The other issue is that were I to pan the camera in any direction by any amount, I'd end up with a different image. The mere act of pressing the shutter release includes photons entering the lens and making it through the aperture and discards those not lucky enough to do so. So right there we could consider that elements of truth were included while others were discarded, all because of where the photographer was pointing the camera, be it somewhat arbitrarily or deliberately. Did the captured image represent what was really there or did the photographer deliberately include some elements while deliberately excluding others? Is that what it looked like to the naked human eye or was perspective and focus point changed? Was the intent nefarious in making those choices or benevolent? I contend photography of any kind is ALL ABOUT deciding what IS captured and what is NOT. That is the essence of photography and composition. To state that any captured image unequivocally represents THE TRUTH is simply incorrect. To say that changing image content at capture time or afterwards changes the TRUTHFULNESS of the image is false. Tom C. -- 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: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
Two other thoughts came to mind. 1. I think the guy was kind of a dumbass for going to a supervisor and saying he cloned it out. It's sort of like leaving work 15 minutes early one day and then telling your boss 'I left early yesterday'. In the big scheme of things it doesn't matter. 2. Maybe this is a publicity stunt on the part of the photographer. I wonder how many job offers he's been receiving since that. Tom C. -- 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: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
> From: Bill > > A couple of things: > 1) It's a matter of principal. It's a news photo, and thusly should be > as unmanipulated as possible. > 2) Where is the slippery slope? When does it become not OK to make > manipulations? Are we OK with not knowing if an image we are being > presented with is a representation of the real thing or not? Was that the case here? What was the subject of the photo? The soldier or the video camera? If I pick up a candy bar wrapper that's littering the foreground in a landscape shot is that wrong? No. If I clone it out afterwards when I notice it. Is that wrong? No. This wasn't a case of a photographer manipulating a photo with intent to mislead the viewer. It was case of cloning out an unimportant element. What viewer looked at it and thought, 'Wow there's supposed to be a video camera down in the corner'? > > We aren't talking about a family portrait where we expect Aunt Maude to > look 10 years younger, and any manipulation that alters our perception > of the image is wrong, plain and simple. This includes extreme contrast > manipulation, extreme dodging and burning, removing or adding subject > matter, in fact anything that is done with the intention of obscuring > what was actually in front of the camera. > For myself, even using really long or really short focal lengths to > alter the image from a normal perspective can be an excessive manipulation. > > bill Come now, come now. You make me spit my wine out! Mr. Lens Inventory. Tom C. -- 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: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
From: Igor Roshchin > I am not seeing what was the problem in what he did. > The modification he did did not change the purpose of the photo or > whatever the photo presents. > It brings back the question of what is and what is not "manipulation" of > the photo. As "burning and dodging" is also image manipulation and > modification. > While I understand that one can defined the modification of an image > when the actual pixels are replaced/moved. > But what if he just darkened some portion of the photo with an object in > it so that the object is deep in a shadow, and hence cannot be seen on the > photo? That's not moving of the pixels, but just changing the levels > on a part of the photograph. > I understand the problem when a person is removed from a group photo, > but that's totally different. > I think in this particular case, they are making a mountain out of a > molehill. > Thu Jan 23 13:11:02 EST 2014 > Mark Roberts wrote: > http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-23/pulitzer-photographer-narciso-conteras-fired-syria-ap/5215200 I agree. If the content removed from an image did not add to the meaningful information conveyed, then removing it did not subtract from the meaningful information either and it's still journalistically 'truthful'. It's ridiculous to moralize on something so trivial when news and journalistic organizations routinely use file photos to illustrate a story. Often those photos are far removed from the time and place the story is about and can be very misleading, yet that's OK and removing a distracting element is not? Seems like a double standard to me. If the image was a little wider and the video camera could have been cropped instead of cloned...that's as much a manipulation, as is cropping in the viewfinder. I agree with Misere, if words can be edited and changed, to craft the story, then the same standard should apply to images. Misleading with an image is obviously wrong. Photos are not truth and never were. Tom C. -- 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: Always wondered why they supplied a viewfinder cover...
> From: Bill > > On 12/11/2013 6:10 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> >> Did Nikon shooters get their panties in a bunch when Nikon was bought >> by Mitsubishi in the 1970's? >> >> > No. When I pointed out on another forum that Nikon was just a Mitsubishi > brand name, I was given a really long lecture about Mitsubishi's > "Keiretsu", and how Nikon isn't "owned" by anyone other than Nikon. I > suspect it was a Nikon fan boy, or it may have just been a pompous piece > of shit. They are hard to tell one from the other. > The link that Darren gave was interesting up to the point where the guy > crossed out Pentax and Hoya and at that point I wrote him off as another > sniveling internet fuckhead with the brains of a small rutabaga. Pity, > he may have had something smart to say and spoiled it by coming across > like a retarded root vegetable. > > bill Unfortunately I think you're wrong on that Bill. I did the research, and if I can believe what I read, Nikon is not just another Mitsubishi brand name, as Pentax is for Ricoh. Nikon is part of the Mitsubishi Group "Keiretsu" and member companies own shares of each others stock and therefore have a mutual interest in one another's well-being. Nikon is an independent corporation in that it's shares continue to be publicly traded and it reports independent financial results separate from all other members of the group. If it were struggling member companies of the group could decide what to do. It has it's own executives and board of directors. History we all know: That 's far different from Asahi Optical (Pentax) ceasing to exist as a corporation in 2008. When Hoya wanted to unload the Pentax camera business in 2011, it created the subsidiary Pentax Imaging Corporation. Ricoh bought all shares of that temporary entity and the combined companies were called Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company. In 2013 it simply became Ricoh Imaging with Pentax as a brand. Hoya also continues to use the Pentax name for the parts of the business it did not sell to Ricoh, mainly the medical division. Does that mean anything? It depends what one wishes to extrapolate. What it says to me (and I believe you) is that Asahi Optical had a long history of making bad decisions. That made it it vulnerable and at risk. It led to it finally be acquired and becoming non-existent as a corporate business entity. That of course is different than saying you can't purchase a new Pentax camera. Tom C. -- 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: Nikon Df
> From: Darren Addy > > I'm sure you saw the accidentally leaked price on Amazon for the DF > ($2746). I saw the D800 on Overstock.com the other day for $2200. > Are you sure about that? I can't find a single Nikon camera of any kind (DSLR, MILC, P&S) on overstock.com at the moment. There's overstockdigital.com and they claim to have the D800 for $2109 but they appear to be one of the very disreputable resellers, the kind that operate out of graffiti covered garages. B&H and Amazon have the D800 for $2,796.95. Always hard to believe when a site claims to have a price hundreds of dollars lower than the #1 specialty retailer, and #1 online retailer. At the US price the Df would be easy to justify for someone that wanted a D4, didn't care about video, and wasn't concerned about the D4's 11 fps. I suspect some people who were planning on a D4 will get the Df instead. It would be easy to do at less than 1/2 the price. On the other hand it's 83% of the price of a D800E, so giving up 20MP at that price is a bit hard to swallow. Tom C. -- 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: White-Faced Heron
> From: Matthew Hunt > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Eric Weir wrote: > >> How stupid do you think I am? > > Well, you shoot Pentax, so I have a guess as to Tom's opinion. Matthew, That implication would be wrong as my catalog of images that I consider to be good contains about 99% images shot with Pentax gear over the last 24 years and 1% shot with Nikon and Sony so far. And guys, when in life AREN'T we all told or reminded of things we already know? Home, work, this list... It may be human nature to sometimes feel insulted and think 'I know that already'. I can see I possibly approached the subject starting off on the wrong foot. My intent was not to insult. I'm sorry if anyone felt that way. Tom C. -- 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: White-Faced Heron
> From: Rob Studdert Hi Rob, Mark, Paul, et al, Stan nicely elaborated on what I was trying to say last night. There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking tons of shots to capture the exact moment(s). With a dynamic moving subject that's clearly desirable, if not a necessity. I hope that was clear to all by my responses on the subject, and that I was addressing the subject of getting good shots in a more generic sense. As Stan summed up, quality vs. quantity. And of course quantity if the subject dictates. Tom C. > > I shoot a lot of shows along side other photographers, sometimes I > shoot more than them, sometimes less but generally the feedback I get > from artists is complementary with relation to my ability to capture > their most meaningful facial expressions. My images are sometimes > technically better than others but all the technical stuff aside the > absolute differentiator is timing, and sometimes you just need to > shoot the hell out of a subject in order to capture the perfect > expression. That said I rarely set my drive mode to continuous but the > shutter still seems to become pretty rapid fire when the action > demands. > > On 31 October 2013 10:50, Mark Roberts wrote: >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>>On Oct 30, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: >>>> >>>> BTW: In the case of fashion photographers the answer to why they take >>>> so many shots is often "because that's what the editors demand". Some >>>> will totally decompensate if they don't have thousands of images, with >>>> the slightest variation between any two, to choose from. If you're a >>>> working pro you have to deliver what the client wants (unless you're >>>> one of a handful of elites who can dictate to editors what you're >>>> going to give them). >>> >>>To that add that trying to get a model to strike that perfect pose with the >>>perfect expression is extremely difficult. So you have them try different >>>things and you keep snapping away. You simply can't get it in a reasonable >>>number of shots with most models. >> >> Yep. At the college where I teach we have a bi-annual student-produced >> fashion magazine. On Tuesday at our Graphic Design club meeting were >> going through possible cover photos. Probably a thousand of them. The >> difference a small change in pose can make is astonishing. >> >> >> -- >> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia >> www.robertstech.com * -- 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: You Know What Darren?
Darren you're a blowhard. Tom C. -- 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: White-Faced Heron
Darren wrote: > It is unfortunate that this thread has devolved into the crapfest that > one can now (apparently) expect whenever Tom decides to post something > to this list. ad hominem Tom C. -- 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: White-Faced Heron
> Yeah, you definitely are. > You don’t need to size up the situation? You don’t need to look through the > viewfinder? You don’t need to think about what you want to accomplish? You > don’t need to check your settings? You don’t need to think about what settings > are called for in the situation given what you want to accomplish? You don’t > need to check the results you’re getting and adjust? > How stupid do you think I am? Well Eric there's plenty of people who proscribe exactly to the rationale you just outlined. In answer to you're question, I believe you're the most qualified to answer. That's the smartest answer I can give. Tom C. -- 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: White-Faced Heron
> From: Bob Sullivan > > Tom, > In the film days, each shot was $.25 and only pros took lots of shots. > Now the cost per shot is almost zero, and the tyros 'spray and pray'. > I enjoy taking more shots now, trying to work things out and saving > money on film. > I hope it's improving my photography. > A new K-3 costs less than 150 rolls of Kodachrome (...if only we could > process it). > Regards, Bob S. > > From: Paul Stenquist > > I agree to a certain extent. In some situations, preparing and shooting at > the right moment is most critical and taking numerous shots can be a > detriment to getting the one you want. In other situations, multiple > exposures can be helpful. For example, when shooting the great blue heron a > couple of weeks ago I knew that he was likely to take off, so I had > preselected the central focus point and made sure I had plenty of shutter > speed, then I just waited. When he did take off, I got one shot as he lifted > off the water and waited to take a second until he was directly adjacent to > me. If I had kept firing after liftoff, I probably wouldn't have gotten a > good in-flight shot. On the other hand, when shooting cars for publication, > I'll record numerous exposures of the same shot, sometimes turning the > polarizer a bit or reframing slightly. Too many choices are just enough. But > I rarely bracket, since a good average exposure provides plenty of working > room when the RAW is converted. > > Paul Bob, As a general statement, I don't believe in the spray and pray approach. It leaves too many things to chance. Yes, if you have a moving model, race car, airplane, children, wildlife, etc., being in continuous shooting mode may increase your chances of getting an image that excels above others. That's what it's for. I was responding to the notion that the *secret* to getting good shots is taking a lot of shots, which was the statement made. If that's true then photography is like the lottery. I see many examples of that approach, and the chances of getting a good shot are about the same. As I said, shooting in continuous mode may be required at times due to the subject matter, but then if one gets an exceptional image the difference between that one image and the two or three surrounding it that are unexceptional is likely just the random timing of the shutter syncing up with the subject at just the right moment. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. In my opinion taking a lot of shots does not improve one's photography any more than throwing a 1000 darts at a dartboard blind folded improves one's game. Will one get more bulls eye's the more darts one throws? No doubt. But possibly the ratio of bulls eye's to misses actually decreases with that approach. I'm probably stating the obvious, but getting good shots is usually a matter of having a good eye for composition, paying attention to technical details, shooting in the right light, using the right tool for the job, knowing one's gear. All those will contribute more to getting a good image than simply taking a lot of shots. I'm not stating something you don't already know. I realize that. :) Paul, Agreed. Even in landscape photography, which seldom requires shooting in continuous mode, I can get in a rush because of the excitement of the moment while at the same time believing I'm paying attention to details when I'm not. My brain can essentially turn off and it's Ooh! Ah! Ooh! moments. Then I look at what I captured. Very very often, I can see that I wasn't really thinking. When I slow down and carefully take the time to compose, frame, consider exposure, use a tripod if needed... those are most often the times I get excellent results. Then I was a real contributor to the image, as opposed to simply the person pressing the shutter release. Tom C. -- 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.
Getting 'Good' Shots... was Re: Re: White-Faced Heron
> From: "Alan C" > > Why do fashion photographers take so many shots then? > > Alan Why don't you ask them or read up on the subject? See if they agree with such a simplistic approach to creating good imagery. Tom C. > > -----Original Message- > From: Tom C > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:39 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: PESO: White-Faced Heron > >> From: Eric Weir >> >> My understanding is that the secret to getting good shots is taking a lot >> of them. > > Really? Is that the way you think most people get 'good shots'? > > To get good shots, one must take shots, but the secret isn't taking a > lot of them. > > Tom C. -- 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: White-Faced Heron
> From: Eric Weir > > My understanding is that the secret to getting good shots is taking a lot of > them. Really? Is that the way you think most people get 'good shots'? To get good shots, one must take shots, but the secret isn't taking a lot of them. Tom C. -- 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: Which camera brand would you choose, if you started from scratch?
> From: "Jens" > > Hello list > > When I wanted somthing better than my first slr - the Yashica TL Electro-X, I > went to a shop the buy an Olympus OM-1. But the guy in the shop convinced my > to buy a Pentax MX (which I did), since I remembered, that I had earlier used > a Pentax lens for my Yashica. The results from this lens (a 35mm for > Spotmatic) came out so nice, that the guy in the shop really had no > difficulties in convincing me to buy the MX (still got one). > This happened in 1981. I have been using Pentax cameras ever since. > > But if this happended today, I don't know what would happen. > The guy in the shop would probably tell me to get a Canon, Nikon or Sony, > like almost everybody else... > > How would you convince a beginner to get a Pentax? > > What would you buy, if you were a beginner? > > Regards > Jens Why would you start with a bias? Spock ears on... Define beginner. Tom C. -- 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 full frame Sony A7 & A7R were officially announced last night
> From: Darren Addy > > The new Sony cameras give you nothing other than the big sensor. You > give up the shake reduction. One guy on dpreview put it this way: > > + Fullframe Sensor: K-5=no A7=yes > - Autofocus: K-5=yes A7=no > - Lens Correction: K-5=yes A7=no > - Viewfinder: K-5=OVF A7=EVF > ? GPS: K-5=optional A7=? > - Image Stabilization: K-5=yes A7=no > > Other than getting a full frame sensor, everything else is a big downgrade. > OK Darren. You've been perturbed when I've made negative remarks about Pentax as a brand or corporation, and have said that if only I'd used a K-5 I wouldn't feel that way about Pentax. I've explained that it would not have made a difference, as I was talking about the corporation and the Pentax 'ecosystem' not a specific product. Never did I denigrate the K-5 itself and neither have I the K-3, as I haven't used them Let's look at what you just wrote through the lens of intellectual honesty. > The new Sony cameras give you nothing other than the big sensor. You > give up the shake reduction. That's an interesting statement to make on many levels. The photography world is ablaze right now about these two cameras because of the expected image quality potential. They are loaded with features, and the FF sensors in such diminutive bodies is indeed the preeminent attraction. Your statement is such an obviously blanket statement it can't be taken seriously, The A7's like many other Sony's, Nikons, and Canon's do not have in body shake reduction. But implying the camera system is not capable of image stabilization is leaving an important point out. The virtues of both body-based and lens-based approaches to stabilization have been debated for years. Quite frankly, while I appreciate image stabilization, and would prefer body-based stabilization because of universality, it's not everything. Low light, it's helpful. Long telephotos or zooms, it's helpful. In many situations it does not make a difference and is still not as fool-proof as a tripod and mirror lockup (no mirrors of course on the A7's). > + Fullframe Sensor: K-5=no A7=yes Correct > - Autofocus: K-5=yes A7=no What? Both the A7 and A7R are autofocus bodies. The A7 has a hybrid phase/contrast detect AF whereas the A7R is contrast detect AF. To say the A7's don't have AF is, at face value, an incorrect statement. - Lens Correction: K-5=yes A7=no I'm not sure where this comes from and I searched for verification but couldn't find anything other than that Sony offers an app for lens corrections. However the NEX-6 and NEX-7 have built-in lens correction for native E-mount lenses. It would seem to me that Sony could or would continue this for native E-mount lenses. And of course ACR allows lens profile based corrections as well as manual adjustment. I'll admit I don't know the facts on A7 in-camera lens correction. > - Viewfinder: K-5=OVF A7=EVF There's been much debate on OVF vs EVF as you know. Many have no problem with EVF's and there's circumstances where they're preferable. It's a matter of preference or even just getting used to what the camera comes with. Basically if you can look in a viewfinder and clearly see the scene you wish to capture, it's doing the job intended. This can't be empirically categorized as a + or -. > ? GPS: K-5=optional A7=? Rather meaningless as it's an accessory. Who know's what accessories will be available in the future for the A7's? I'd say that for the vast majority of users, including myself a GPS on a camera is way way down on the list of must-haves. > - Image Stabilization: K-5=yes A7=no Addressed above. The A7's do not have in body stabilization, but to leave it at that without making the additional statement that lens-based stabilization is available with certain lenses, doesn't tell the whole story. > Other than getting a full frame sensor, everything else is a big downgrade. I'm not sure if that's your statement or of the fellow your quoting, but it's again a blanket statement - Made about specific products by someone (who I would guess) has not so much as seen them in person, much less picked one up and used it for any amount of time, has not experienced how the product handles, or examined the output image quality produced, since they won't be released to the public until December. Tom C. -- 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 full frame Sony A7 & A7R were officially announced last night
> From: Boris Liberman > > Indeed. It took me several days to get used to the button instead of > keyhole for ignition in our rented car in Europe. It took me then few > ugly attempts to press a button that wasn't there when we got home. > That happens to me every time. Last week I had a pushbutton ignition rental car. This week not. For the first several days I threw the key fob in the center console and went to push the button. > In general, I think that to say that such and such camera has bad > ergonomics either should assume that it is perspective of just one > person, the one who writes, or it is intellectually dishonest. > I agree. What kind of ergonomics did the entire range of Pentax and other manufacturers DSLR's in the 60's - 80's have? Somehow we figured out how to make our hands and fingers operate them. Amazing! >> It would be very difficult for Pentax to sell a FF camera for less >> than the A, considering economies of scale. Just putting a FF sensor >> in a K-3 and adding the additional cost would bring it close, not to >> mention additional likely changes to shutter, stabilization, and more. > > Well, I have to disagree with you here, Tom. Pentax is not forced to > make their first FF camera be the cheapest out there. Pentax has some > strong selling points such as serious weather resistance or shake > reduction (and now this variable anti aliasing technology too) that may > allow it to position themselves somewhere in the middle of the pack. > I think you misunderstood me here Boris. I wasn't saying they have to make it the least expensive out there. I was saying it would be difficult for them to BE the least expensive out there, given the quantity they would likely produce. >> Claiming the K-3 is a better camera without evidence, and denying the >> advantages of FF as if they are irrelevant simply because one does not >> have them or may not be able to afford them at the moment goes to my >> first point . > > To make it even more general - neither camera has seen the light of day. > We had some previews from DPReview and the likes and that's it. We > honestly don't know anything about real use of these cameras, so how > could we honestly produce blanket statements such as K-3 is better than > A7 or A7 is better than K-3? > > Boris I couldn't agree more. Tom C. -- 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 full frame Sony A7 & A7R were officially announced > last night
> From: Boris Liberman > I've played a bit with Nex-6. No immediate > ergonomic problems that I can report. The difference between K-3 and A7 > at release time is $400. I'm not going to buy either of these, but K-3's > price may be just a tad too high for some new prospective buyers who > would look at A7 and think: > > 1. Sony - familiar brand. > 2. FF - I will look cool > 3. Small and light - great - I wont' have to haul lots of gear > > And thus they will prefer Sony. > > Naturally, you're entitled to your reasoning and I present mine only as > an alternative. > > Boris Hi Boris, I can understand your reasoning and generally agree. I got my son a NEX-6 to replace a broken Panasonic P&S, and he's not particularly into photography.Drawing and graphics is more his cup of tea. However he took it and his iphone 5 to Seattle recently. His report back. 'Wow! I put my iPhone away and used the Sony.' He was really impressed... something that's hard to do with my 22 year old. :) Sony is on a roll. They've taken a number of missteps IMO, but the NEX line is a success and the A7's appear to be ground breaking. In the end it's about IQ and usability. Affordability as well. BTW have you got a chance to listen to Paul McCartney's new album entitled "New"? It was released in US on 10-15. As usual, I love most tracks. Tom C. -- 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 full frame Sony A7 & A7R were officially announced last night
From: Zos Xavius > > I'm kind of underwhelmed with the A7 to be honest. First of all, I > hate sony as a company and would only buy a camera from them if they > were the last company on earth. Zos, that statement basically casts a pale over the rest that you write. It's also characteristic of comments often seen here and on many other lists regardless of brand. That is the apparent lack of, or temporary lack of intellectual honesty. The definition is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty > Secondly, its downright ugly, not that > I would care in the end, but dammit I want to look *good* with my > camera on my shoulder. We all like our gear to look good. I frankly like the lines of the A7's. To be honest I'd have preferred a NEX style without the prism-like hump, but I wasn't the designer. Actually it shares basic lines with every DSLR ever made. > Thirdly its is a Nex which means nex-style > ergonomics and awful, unbalanced handling. It's not a NEX, it's a Sony E-mount camera with the (a)lpha designation. I have two NEX's. They are not unbalanced nor do they have bad ergonomics IMO. Have you used a NEX for any period of time to back up the statement? Even the accidental video button press is grossly exaggerated. It's my opinion, others will disagree, that we adjust to ergonomics over time and it's what you've come use to. I still feel strange turning the lens in the opposite direction Pentax to mount/dismount with Nikon. It's not the Nikon at fault, it's my mental conditioning after using Pentax for 22 years. Eventually it'll become second nature with Nikons. > Maybe after I read some > reviews and see some good samples I might change my mind, but its way > out of the ballpark price wise for me anyways. I'd much rather wait > for a proper Pentax FF DSLR to be honest, which I likely won't be able > to afford either. Damn. IMO the K-3 is a better camera. FF isn't > everything. > It would be very difficult for Pentax to sell a FF camera for less than the A, considering economies of scale. Just putting a FF sensor in a K-3 and adding the additional cost would bring it close, not to mention additional likely changes to shutter, stabilization, and more. Claiming the K-3 is a better camera without evidence, and denying the advantages of FF as if they are irrelevant simply because one does not have them or may not be able to afford them at the moment goes to my first point . Tom C. -- 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 musings
> On 10/8/2013 2:07 PM, Darren Addy wrote: >> Thom Hogan muses on the K-3 and calls it what Nikon should be offering >> as a replacement to the D300. >> http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/meanwhile-meet-the-pentax.html >> >> In it, he makes a cogent defense of the APS-C for serious >> photographers: "So let me put it as plainly as I can: people want a >> top DX (or as in the case of the Pentax K-3, APS) system for a reason: >> everything scales. Size, weight, and price. Sure, the D800 is a great >> camera. Now stick the f/2.8 or f/4 zooms on it and add up the size, >> weight, and price. You've left a lot of folk out of the market for a >> top-end, serious camera. I know a lot of college sports shooters and >> other pros who are using DX for those reasons: size, weight, and >> price. They can't afford a full out FX system, nor do they want to >> travel with one given the airline carry-on hassle we get these days." > > Darren, I opine, based on my most recent experience of travel with my > wife and our two girls that any DSLR camera (even the cheaper plasticky > kind of lowly Canon models) is severe overkill for airlline carry-on > unless you travel in style in business or first class. > > > Boris I travel by air weekly and carry the D800E, 70-200/2.8, 150/2.8 macro, 50/1.4 plus filters, accessories, batteries on planes (in a Lowepro backpack) several times a month. I haven't weighed it. I'm guessing 25 lbs or more. It goes in the overhead or at my feet depending on the size of the plane and my luggage is checked. I'm frequently in 1st class, but not all the time. That does make it a little easier. It really all depends what one intends and how much effort one is willing to expend to be prepared for their intentions. Yes it does take extra effort to carry a heavier kit. If I don't plan on using the D800E, I take the NEX-7 kit which is 1/8 the weight and 1/5 the size. So basically I agree. Just thinking that back 10+ years ago, these options didn't exist. Tom C. -- 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: I seem to have stepped into an alternate universe...
>> >> I'm not here to argue the merits of a K-5 vs. D7000 Larry. Why would I? > > But then you do:-) That's BS Paul and you know it. :) Tom C. -- 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: I seem to have stepped into an alternate universe...
Larry wrote: > For whatever it's worth, the one time that I had a chance to compare > a K-5 side by side with a D7000 in a low light situation (in the -2EV to 2EV > range), the K-5 vastly outperformed the D7000 in every regard. I'm not here to argue the merits of a K-5 vs. D7000 Larry. Why would I? But was it a scientific comparison or was it swapping cameras and handling it for a few minutes? Too many variables involved to make meaningful judgement calls (including lens) especially if it was just one time. -- 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: I seem to have stepped into an alternate universe...
gt; makes you happy to urinate in the Cheerios of those who still like > Pentax products. What does that do for you? More than anybody on this > list, I'm sure that I've gained the most from your leaving Pentax for > Nikon/Sony. I've gained your Bigma, your DA 16-45mm, and a BG-4 grip. > I'm much obliged. You're welcome. That was Cheerios? I thought it was your beer. :) You seem to take my statements as a personal insult and they're not intended that way. I think it's great that Pentax has the K-3. There's nothing wrong with liking Pentax products. After 13 years in film and then 10 in digital I got tired of waiting for them to catch up in the APS-C arena. As for the K-5, as I've explained before, it was too late. If it had been the K-7 I might have felt differently, but as it was, I was tired of waiting, and I'd still be waiting for FF. Tom C. -- 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: I seem to have stepped into an alternate universe...
> Darren Addy wrote: > > What are bashing? You haven't touched it yet. You. :) Certainly not the K-3. I was reacting to the word "leapfrogs" in Bill's post. > Not sure what you are referring to when you say "beat the same old > drum", and maybe you haven't been following the earlier threads on the > K-3 specs - but this camera is upgraded in wy more ways than just > a higher resolution sensor. To me the biggest thing that unlocks most > of its capabilities is the "PRIME III" image processor (Fujitsu > Milbeaut version 7). Others are intrigued by the innovative, > selectable AA. Others are happy that Pentax finally appears to be > catching up in the AF arena. ALL of these upgrades in one camera? When the topic has come up regarding the lack of a higher resolution sensor you tend to downplay the desirability of one when Pentax doesn't have one and make statements like 'it's not the only thing that's important', which is true. Then when I mention just the 24MP sensor, without mentioning other specifications, you infer my 'thinking has not advanced' regarding the importance of MP, as if it was retarded. That's what I mean. Yes I understood all that. I heard that AF was upgraded on the K-7, the K-5, and the K-5II as well. I'm not saying it's not on the K-3. It is on paper. We'll know when someone is able to objectively test it. > This is certainly true, but it is like judging a computer based only > on the speed of the processor and not looking at the other components > like bus speed, etc. etc. Cameras and computers are similar in that, > just because a new processor comes out (or a new sensor) there may not > be hardware and software that can take advantage of all of its > capabilities for a year or two. That is why the age of the processor > (even if it is 1-1/2 year old technology) doesn't matter. The PRIME > III can handle the data that sensor puts out. The Nikon D7100 is an > example of a camera with the same sensor, but crippled by using the > previous generation of image processor in concert with it. (Nikon - > and other manufacturers that use the Milbeaut v7 - will catch up, and > probably very soon, but there is a reason why Nikon guru Thom Hogan > was moaning about how the K-3 meets the needs of a certain demographic > of "serious photographer" that Nikon seems to be neglecting). It's your assumption that it's the only thing I judge it on. The sensor MP was the only thing I mentioned because it's an easy number to reference and defines the camera in many ways. Manufacturers and writers don't say the "The K-3 is a PRIME III camera", or "the K-3 is a Milbeaut X camera", or 'the K-3 is an 8.3 FPS camera'. They say "the K-3 is a 24MP camera" because the sensor is the preeminent component. I wasn't planning on reiterating the entire list of specifications. I read Thom Hogan also. As you say he's a Nikon afficiando. Much of what he writes though is criticisms of Nikon in the hopes that it will possibly influence their decision making. I suspect the use of image processor is largely a case of 'what' was available 'when'. > Where did you get the impression that I don't think it is "among the > most important" components? Really now Darren. :) [Rereads the message that I was replying to.] Yep. The higher resolution sensor was the ONLY thing you mentioned. Not that being presumptuous and mistaken is entirely foreign to me, however. :) See above. Tom C. -- 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: I seem to have stepped into an alternate universe...
Darren Addy wrote: > Wow. I thought that most of us had advanced beyond thinking that megapixels > was the only metric to use when comparing DSLR capabilities. Dear Darren, 1. What are you comparing? You haven't touched it yet. 2. You beat the same old drum even when Pentax now has a higher resolution body. 3. MP is one of the few attributes that can be stated unequivocally as a number and is a known metric. 4. If you don't believe imaging sensor resolution is not among the most important metrics in determining the technical 'quality' of a recorded image (along with the resolving power of the lens at X aperture, and yes noise characteristics, etc.), then you're missing something. Your use of the word 'only' was presumptuous and mistaken. Tom C. -- 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: I seem to have stepped into an alternate universe...
> From: Bill > Pentax has been on it's way out since I was selling cameras 30 years > ago. They went from being an industry leader to a wannabe in one > generation of cameras. > All of a sudden, they have something to market that, in many ways, > leapfrogs the competition rather than being two steps behind with their > best. > There is no sarcasm in looking at what they have come up with here and > saying they have more on the ball now than they have had for nearly > three decades. > It seems to have worked out for Pentax, finally. > > bill I agree with much of what you say, but leapfrogs??? It's still a 24MP camera that's a year and a half to two years late. It's amazing that 3 months ago the K-5/K-5II fulfilled everyone's needs and 'why would one want more resolution?', and now it's goo-goo ga-ga over the K-3. Tom C. -- 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 K-3 Image
> Yes, of course, Darren. But you see, all we know at this time for sure > is the label on the processor. It could be that they just > optimized/improved the same old Prime II to be able to work with more > pixels, more AF points, more FPS, higher video rate. > > As it is, we have to wait, and it seems it is not that much time to wait > anyway. My thoughts as well Boris. At this point in time all we know is that the difference between Prime II and Prime III is I. Tom C. -- 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: You didn't hear it from me...
> From: steve harley > > on 2013-09-22 22:23 Tom C wrote >> Here's where I coming from on this. To say one's images wouldn't or >> couldn't benefit from increased resolution is like saying they >> couldn't benefit by using a finer grained film (in the day) or a >> higher quality lens. > > to me the point is not that there's no increase in resolution, the point is > not > to interpret the resolution numbers recklessly I don't believe I was. I was pointing out that in film days one did whatever they could to eke out the highest quality image they could from the system. I routinely purchased $8/roll Velvia and Provia instead of department store consumer series film. There was far less testing and data available regarding benefits of resolution increase/grain decrease back then compared to now. Kodak threw a monkey-wrench in the mix by not publishing their film specifications using the same measurement techniques and scale as the other film producers. The only way to really achieve a big jump in resolution and dynamic range was to move to a larger size media. Many here have upgraded from 6MP (*ist series) to 10MP (K10D) to 14MP (K20D) to 14MP (K-7) to 16MP (K-5) to 16MP (K-5II). There were valid reasons to upgrade, besides the modest resolution increases, in most, if not all those cases. I had an *istD, K20D, and K-7. Since then I have a 20MP 1" sensor compact, a 24MP APS-C MILC, and a 36MP DSLR. If anything the resolution increase I've experienced by looking at other brands is significantly higher than if I had iterated through the Pentax offerings. I guess I don't know what you mean by reckless. Tom C. -- 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: You didn't hear it from me...
> From: Bruce Walker > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: You didn't hear it from me... > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Paul, don't you ever print? > > I can often easily see the difference between my K100D 6MP shots and > my K20D 15MP shots when printed at 10x15 inches, the smallest I ever > go. Especially in auto detail type subjects where the stairsteps on > diagonals are visible without a magnifying glass. > > The difference is barely apparent at web sizes (under 1kx1k), but > readily apparent when retouching in Photoshop. The more detail you > have to start with the easier and less obtrusive retouching will be. > > I am looking forward to a significant increase in useable resolution. > My DA* glass is ready for it. I hope they deliver. > Here's where I coming from on this. To say one's images wouldn't or couldn't benefit from increased resolution is like saying they couldn't benefit by using a finer grained film (in the day) or a higher quality lens. Maybe some figure they never print above size D x D, or display an image larger than P x P. That's fine maybe they don't *need* it. Image capture is the start of the process. To belittle the idea that increased resolution is not a desirable thing is akin to saying you're quite willing to throwaway image information that was there for the taking. The principle is start out with the best achievable first gen image and the end result will be better as well. There's tradeoffs of course in price, weight, flexibility, and each person is different. I have a lot of 6MP captures I like too, but if I wanted to display or print large I'd be far happier to have captured them at 20, 24, or 36MP. Tom C. -- 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: You didn't hear it from me...
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > IMO, we passed the point a long, long time ago (around 5-10 Mpixel > resolution) where, assuming a quality sensor, it was anything like a limiting > factor in the quality of a > photograph. > > I am still perfectly happy and confident shooting with my lovely old 2003 > Olympus E-1. 5 glorious Mpixels. Yeah, my other cameras are now all 8 to 18 > Mpixel, but the E-1 still > produces beautiful photographs competitive with the best of them. > > G What is the "quality of a photograph"? "Competitive with the best of them", in what way? Preface: I know I'm not telling you things you don't already know. Millions of people loved the quality of their Brownie Hawkeyes and Instamatics, or Polaroids for that matter. I agree that a 'pleasing' image is possible with any camera. However, at face value this argument implies there was no benefit to medium format film over 24 x 36, or 4 x 5 over that, or 8 x 10 over that - and that there's no benefit to increased digital resolution. I see things the other way around. Given a competent photographer behind the viewfinder, a system with increased resolution serves to capture more detail and a physically larger sensor likely reduces noise and increases dynamic range. The higher resolution capture provides more data to the system. The more data, the more accurate and detailed the image can/will be. Compare images from a 6MP *istD and a higher resolution K whatever. There's a difference. Compare to a 36MP D800E. There's a difference. If one only views at web size it may not be quite as apparent, the same way in which a 24 x 36 and medium format image might not look too strikingly different printed at 4" x 6". Start viewing at closer to 100% capture resolution, however and the difference quickly shows up. I'd argue that it can be detectable even at small sizes, though not as readily apparent. The benefits of higher resolution are obvious to many. If one doesn't need it or want it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Can one capture pleasing images with just about any digital camera at any resolution? Yes. No argument whatsoever. That is not the same question as: Will one's images likely benefit from increased resolution? The answer to that is also yes. Tom C. -- 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: best pro lab for printing
Darren wrote: > > What you need to know begins and ends with MPIX. > http://www.mpix.com > > The are the digital arm of Miller's Professional Imaging, who was (and > continues to be) a superb film lab serving professionals. > I'll second that. I've had very good results with them. The one time I had a QC issue was with a 20 x 30 mounted and framed print. The print was lifting from the backing and appeared rippled. They asked for a picture so they could see the problem. Next day I had a brand new one at my door, free, no shipping, and was told no need to return the defective one. That was a fairly high priced item especially with next day Fedex. I received a 25% off discount code just today. SALE2013 Tom C. -- 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 - PK to Fuji X adaptor
While I agree with Bill, that all things equal, it's preferable to have a new first party lens to retain all the benefits of a modern camera body, I don't share his cynical view of lens adapters and use of third party lenses. :) I've PK to e-mount and NikonF to e-mount adapters for the NEX-7 and 5. In fact just within the hour I purchased a Super Takumar 300/4 for use with it and now will need an M42 to e-mount adapter. :))) It'll be very specialized use, always tripod mounted and generally pointing up. I've read there may be a red fringe issue that can be corrected in post, and sample images I've seen are quite good. There's a whole sub-culture of NEX, 4/3, and Fuji users that are producing wonderful images with legacy lenses. Not everyone eschews them. How was your trip to BC, Bill? Tom C -- 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: Which second party camera system do you like? Mini-survey
From: Mark Roberts > Mike Johnston just reported on rumors that next month will see the > announcement of an interchangeable-lens sibling to the full-frame Sony > RX-1. > Food for thought. And not long to wait to see if it's true. My opinion only... As nice as that sounds, it creates a situation of a very small body with some large heavy lenses. Many people whined and balked about the idea of the NEX body/lens matchup, even when the lenses were commensurately smaller/lighter and were specifically designed for the NEX cameras. I'm not quite sure where Sony is going with the idea, other than to prove they can. One of the desirable attributes of the mirrorless ILC's so far, has been the ability to carry a compact and light kit. A FF ILC, sort of negates that in some ways. I would hope, if it exists, that it would have an integrated EVF, not an attachment as the RX-1 has. Tom C. -- 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: Which second party camera system do you like? Mini-survey
Bruce wrote: > You guys are making me think I should go down to the store and take a look at > these new EVF's. Another question I have is in regards to sports shooting - > any lag as you pan the camera following the action? I don't shoot sports but I wouldn't think so. I pan with the NEX-7 just as one would do with an OVF to compose, and I see exactly what the camera sees. Possibly one would want to turn auto review off at those times so the EVF doesn't review the image, but a half-press of the shutter release clears the preview and goes back to EVF live view. I suspect in Continuous Shooting mode, where the shutter is depressed constantly, that it it automatically turns off image review and one simply sees the normal EVF view, unhindered. Tom C. -- 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: Which second party camera system do you like? Mini-survey
On Sep 11, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: > I used a Nikon Coolpix 5700 with an EVF, for evidence photography, years ago > and in my opinion it was a great camera for static image capture but wasn't > one to use for any sort of dynamic capture - there was a noticeable time > delay between pushing the shutter release and the actual image capture - > giving you the image that occurred after the one you wanted. Does this delay > still exist in modern EVFs? With NEX-6/7 there is no noticeable shutter lag and captured image display in the EVF is instantaneous. NEX-6/7 use the same EVF from what I read. My son has the 6 and I have 7. He took the NEX-6 to Bumbershoot in Seattle recently. Lots of indoor concert shots with stage lighting. He quickly ditched his iPhone 5 in favor of the NEX-6. :) For those of us with older eyes, the modern EVF's almost feel like a new pair of glasses. Tom C. -- 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: Which second party camera system do you like? Mini-survey
Well not really looking through... looking at. Tom C. On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Tom C wrote: >> Years ago somebody bought a digital P&S with a digital viewfinder. >> I was instantly turned off by the lines on the screen. >> Tell me it's better now??? >> Regards, Bob S. > > Hi Bob, > > You answered part of it yourself. :) This is today, that was years > ago. No lines. > > I was mildly blown away by the IQ of the NEX-7 EVF. > > Some will whine about noise in low light, but then they should also > whine that they can't see a heck of a lot through an optical VF when > light levels are low. If anything, at very low light levels an EVF at > least gives you a representation of what's being imaged, where with > optical, one is almost blind. > > Take a look through a NEX-6 or 7 EVF. It's a 2.3 million pixel image. > That's more than twice the pixel count of the LCD monitor. > > Tom C. -- 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: Which second party camera system do you like? Mini-survey
> Years ago somebody bought a digital P&S with a digital viewfinder. > I was instantly turned off by the lines on the screen. > Tell me it's better now??? > Regards, Bob S. Hi Bob, You answered part of it yourself. :) This is today, that was years ago. No lines. I was mildly blown away by the IQ of the NEX-7 EVF. Some will whine about noise in low light, but then they should also whine that they can't see a heck of a lot through an optical VF when light levels are low. If anything, at very low light levels an EVF at least gives you a representation of what's being imaged, where with optical, one is almost blind. Take a look through a NEX-6 or 7 EVF. It's a 2.3 million pixel image. That's more than twice the pixel count of the LCD monitor. Tom C. -- 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: Which second party camera system do you like? Mini-survey
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Darren Addy wrote: >> ... I'm not a big fan of composing on the LCD and have yet to >> actually try an electronic viewfinder. > Well, silly Darren, one composes with an LCD or electronic viewfinder exactly the same way one does with an optical viewfinder. :))) I agree. I prefer a viewfinder. I think the EVF in the NEX-6/7 are great. In normal and bright light they almost provide a better view than an optical viewfinder. In low light they tend to get a little noisy, but I figure that's akin to not being able to see as much in an optical viewfinder as light levels drop. One of the benefits is that after image acquisition, it is instantly displayed in the EVF, meaning I needn't look away to preview the image on the LCD. If I need to adjust composition or retake for any other reason, the cycle is much quicker than with a normal optical viewfinder. As Boris suggests, you may be pleasantly surprised. Tom C. -- 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: Kodak film?
>> I guess since they had a huge chance of disruptive innovation with the >> advent of digital imaging and blew it, they're going to try again. > > I would argue that they indeed achieved disruptive innovation when they > started the world of digital imaging. And it was so successful it disrupted > them too. > > G I'd agree with that argument. Nothing like being a victim of one's success. Tom C. -- 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: Kodak film?
>> >> Your point is... ? What's the basic difference in meaning between >> disrupt, disrupting, and disruptive? They all mean the same thing to >> me, except for how they fit into a sentence grammatically. > > They may all mean the same thing to you, but they don't to the rest of the > world. > > B >From wikipedia: "A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology. The term is used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically first by designing for a different set of consumers in a new market and later by lowering prices in the existing market. In contrast to disruptive innovation, a sustaining innovation does not create new markets or value networks but rather only evolves existing ones with better value, allowing the firms within to compete against each other's sustaining improvements. Sustaining innovations may be either "discontinuous"[1] (i.e. "transformational" or "revolutionary") or "continuous" (i.e. "evolutionary"). The term "disruptive technology" has been widely used as a synonym of "disruptive innovation..." That's basically what I believed they were conveying, but I'd argue it's not the first thought that comes to mind. I guess since they had a huge chance of disruptive innovation with the advent of digital imaging and blew it, they're going to try again. Tom C. -- 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: Kodak film?
> On 5 Sep 2013, at 18:22, Bob W wrote: > >> On 5 Sep 2013, at 16:17, Tom C wrote: >> >>>> I don't know... If you go to kodak.com and click into the site you will >>>> see that two of their three main goals are "disrupting product goods >>>> packaging" and "disrupting functional printing" WTF? I guess the >>>> word "disrupting" means something different now than it did when I got >>>> sent to the principals office for doing it. >>>> >>>> Mark >>> >>> That's pretty hilarious. I can see them wanting to disrupt, like >>> shaking things up in the market, but that's still an odd choice of >>> words. As you allude to, it has negative connotations as opposed to >>> positive. >> >> Someone has mistranslated something. They probably mean disruptive. >> >> B > > In fact, i just looked and it (now) says disruptive. > > B Your point is... ? What's the basic difference in meaning between disrupt, disrupting, and disruptive? They all mean the same thing to me, except for how they fit into a sentence grammatically. Tom C. -- 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: Kodak film?
> I don't know... If you go to kodak.com and click into the site you will > see that two of their three main goals are "disrupting product goods > packaging" and "disrupting functional printing" WTF? I guess the > word "disrupting" means something different now than it did when I got > sent to the principals office for doing it. > > Mark That's pretty hilarious. I can see them wanting to disrupt, like shaking things up in the market, but that's still an odd choice of words. As you allude to, it has negative connotations as opposed to positive. Tom C. -- 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: Updated roadmap!
>>> From: Bill >>> Still no fast standard lens (which is why I bought the little Fuji >>> camera), no primes other than the macro between 77 and 200mm. Meanwhile, >>> 4 more zooms in focal ranges they already have (really, how many ~16 - ~ >>> 70mm zooms do we need?) >>> To say I am underwhelmed is an understatement. More and more, it looks >>> like I will be pursuing rounding out my lenses for the Fuji and not >>> putting my money into Pentax for the foreseeable future. >>> >>> bill >> Meanwhile in E-mount for the NEX-7, I have new choices of: >> >> Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS Zoom Lens >> Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 >> Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 >> and several others. >> >> In this case the 16-70 is a welcome addition, especially if quality is >> as good as anticipated. I find the 12/2.8 interesting. I have a 50/1.8 >> but the 32/1.8 is likewise of interest due to the 1.5X crop. >> >> These aren't cheap lenses, but a sign the E-mount is being taken seriously >> >> Tom C. >> > It's about time Sony took something seriously. > > bill What do you mean? The NEX-7 is one serious camera. Dpreviews conclusion was in 2011: "It's no stretch to say that, at its best, the NEX-7 offers the finest still image quality of any APS-C camera, bar none". Sony's been delivering, albeit more slowly than some would like, lenses for the system, and 4 of them are Zeiss. Sigma makes two that are excellent for the money, according to reports. For all intents and purposes, it's a mirrorless APS-C DSLR replacement. Tom C. -- 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: Updated roadmap!
> From: Bill > Still no fast standard lens (which is why I bought the little Fuji > camera), no primes other than the macro between 77 and 200mm. Meanwhile, > 4 more zooms in focal ranges they already have (really, how many ~16 - ~ > 70mm zooms do we need?) > To say I am underwhelmed is an understatement. More and more, it looks > like I will be pursuing rounding out my lenses for the Fuji and not > putting my money into Pentax for the foreseeable future. > > bill Meanwhile in E-mount for the NEX-7, I have new choices of: Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS Zoom Lens Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 and several others. In this case the 16-70 is a welcome addition, especially if quality is as good as anticipated. I find the 12/2.8 interesting. I have a 50/1.8 but the 32/1.8 is likewise of interest due to the 1.5X crop. These aren't cheap lenses, but a sign the E-mount is being taken seriously Tom C. -- 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: Giving up on Pentax (probably)
Paul Stenquist wrote: >I don't spend enough time here to be as well informed as you.. Too many other >things to occupy my time. But I find it hard to >resist responding to our resident Nikon shooter, who chimes in every time the >importance of 24 x 36 is taken less than seriously. Hi Paul, I hope you view my chiming in as nothing more than the light-hearted jousts they were intended as. For me to say or imply that one cannot obtain excellent images with Pentax APS-C bodies would be akin to slitting my own throat, as I've been shooting exclusively Pentax for the past 22 years, until last year. I'm currently using three cameras. A D800E, a Sony NEX-7 (APS-C) and a Sony RX-100 compact with 1" sensor. I alternate between the three based on circumstances or what I feel like carrying at the time. I was kind of just pointing out that no one 'needs' something until it all of the sudden becomes available. You responded honestly that you would likely purchase a 24 x 36 Pentax body. You excel at, among other things, automotive photography and have had success. That says more about your skill as a photographer, post-processor, and knowledge of your client, than it does about the tools you used to capture the image, n'est ce pas? Without meaning to beat a dead horse for the umpty-umpth time, the reason Pentax needs to have a FF DSLR (and hopefully lenses to match) is because otherwise they'll continue to lose relevance compared to Nikon and Canon. I don't know the exact timing without researching it, but C, and more recently N, have had quasi-affordable (meaning potentially affordable by me) FF digital bodies out now for something close to 5 years, The vast majority of the DSLR market may not know or care about the difference in sensor sizes other than what's stated on the outside of the box. There's a huge segment of the market that will buy their first DSLR/kit lens and never buy another, It seems to be human nature to want or to purchase the best we can afford at a given point in time. For Pentax not to have a FF system, cedes all of that market to Canon and Nikon. That is where they stand at this very moment. Those that can afford to purchase products that are up-market (for lack of a better term), are not putting their money in the Ricoh/Pentax till. That, in the simplest of terms, is not benefiting Pentax. The lack of a 24 x 36 body will turn anyone away from Pentax that wants a visible upgrade path. I'm not dismissing APS-C. I'm saying Pentax needs a 24 x 36 body if they hope to maintain any relevancy in the marketplace, which after all is the raison d'etre (money making). Tom C. -- 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: Giving up on Pentax (probably)
Paul Stenquist wrote: > I'm always mystified in regard to the urgency of FF. My camera works great. > If I were a landscape photographer shooting wall-size murals I might think > otherwise, but I don't plan on > going there. Paul, this my cheeky, yet respectful response, and I know I don't need to explain the benefits of a FF sensor to you. If/when Pentax releases a FF body, and you purchase it, I'll pose the same question back to you. :) Tom C. -- 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: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
> From: Darren Addy > > Yeah, well, that may be your rationale but it also comes with a heft > price tag that has to be factored in for anybody wishing to make a > similar evaluation involving chucking their PK & m42 glass. > > What I particularly like about this particular bit of kit (the > original 8 element Super Takumar) is that you can get the superior > optical performance for a relative pittance (particularly since the > interwebs are full of misinformation on this particular lens). You > could even use it on your D800E, if you didn't mind losing infinity or > introducing an adapter with an additional optical element. At least > Canon owners don't have THAT problem. (Tee-Hee!) It's not a "problem" since I'll never be using that lens on the D800E. There are plenty of 50's for it, including the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW which is one of the best modern 50's out there. -- 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: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
>8. Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4 > (Darren Addy) > > From: Darren Addy > > I suppose your comment, John is that all of this is "much ado about > nothing". Perhaps you are also of the mindset that all wines taste the > same. > > Great photographs are not totally dependent upon great equipment, but > that doesn't mean that there aren't differences in that equipment and > that some people will be able to notice that difference (and want to > have the better tool in their toolbelt). Certainly those who wish to > remain ignorant are free do do so. Those who can't discern the > difference would be silly to care. It is also a waste of time to try > to educate anyone who doesn't want to be educated. But I suggest that > you don't have to have the greatest pair of eyes in the world to > discern the difference and to decide for yourself which was the > superior optical design (the 8 element or the cheaper to build 7 > element): > Yawn... scratch... scratch... scratch. You've awakened a slumbering bear Darren. Funny, because you summed up quite nicely my rationale for changing brands. :) John probably drinks jug wines (some of which are actually OK). :) Tom C. -- 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: Any new flagship camera rumors?
> From: Bill > > On 19/07/2013 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote: >> I also agree that the legacy lens advantage is pretty much non-existent. > > It's interesting that you should say that, and kind of ironic in a way. > The reason why legacy lenses are not an advantage is because they are > less convenient to use (manual focus, green button kludge, etc), and yet > people happily go out and buy adapters to put legacy lenses onto their > cameras from other brands. Look at the number of adapters you can get to > put legacy glass onto 4/3 cameras. I suspect that every brand ever made > can now be mounted to a 4/3 camera via an adapter. > I bought an adapter to allow mounting K-mount glass onto my Q, and, > being the not so bright person that I am, did exactly the same thing > when I bought my Fuji. > And you know what? It's a pain in the ass. Sure, the thing mounts, and > you can take a picture with it if you want to go to the effort, but why > bother? > I could almost see it if you had a bunch of Canon FD lenses around, as > it would be a way to put them to use again, since Canon decided their > user base was a liability in the mid 1980s and abandoned them, but > really, if you have an ability to mount the lens to a camera that it is > compatible with, just mount it to that camera. Putting an A series lens > onto my K5 means I lose a bit of functionality, mounting it onto my Fuji > or my Q takes me from functionality loss to wanting to slash my wrists > to make the misery go away. Even using an older non A series lens on the > K5 is easier than on the Fuji or Q. > > I would say that as long as there is a market for adapters to mix and > match brands of lenses onto other makers' cameras, the advantage of > legacy lenses exists to a reasonable extent, though it won't be apparent > to a new user who just bought his first DSLR and kit lens. > > bill Irony is one of the few things I'm good at Bill. My statement was made largely from the narrow perspective that Pentax legacy lens support on new Pentax bodies is not an advantage for Pentax in that basically all DSLR mfrs. can justifiably claim the same. I almost never used my MF Pentax lenses on my AF bodies. The same can be true of the Sony NEX-7 (except I use the FA 100/2.8 macro on it occasionally as I don't want to spend the money for a macro lens, and the Sony e-mount offering is ridiculously short... 30mm).. I suppose that's largely because of the convenience of AF, and the other reasons you mention. That said, I bought a Nikon 50mm AIS something or other, that will will work on both the D800E and the NEX-7 via adapter. If one shoots MF, the 'focus feel' of an MF lens is generally better and the aperture ring is nice. I suppose the "advantage" of using legacy glass is debatable but it's largely a matter of: 1. If you already have the lens 2. If you can acquire a lens far cheaper than otherwise 3. One can mix/match mfrs. As you allude to, the above are advantages only if one feels they don't outweigh the inherent disadvantages or possibly if one largely shoots in manual focus mode. Tom C. -- 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: Any new flagship camera rumors?
>>> Notice the trend of so many to say what they have is 'good enough'? >>> Pentax loses. Notice the trend of so many to wait a year or more until >>> there's massive price cuts on the newest model Pentax camera? Pentax >>> loses. Notice the trend of so many to purchase used gear as opposed to >>> new? Pentax loses. Then there's those that put there money elsewhere >>> because they're not getting what they want from Pentax. Pentax loses. >>> There's nothing wrong with any of those actions and all are >>> justifiable. Still - Pentax loses. >>> > IMO - every other camera manufacturer has to deal with those exact same > issues, and to be honest I don't think that they are limiting factors. I > just checked on ebay - there are over twice as many used Nikon and Canon > lenses there then Pentax. I didn't check bodies but I assume there are a > lot more used DSLR's of those brands simply because there has been a > more active upgrade path. The more people upgrade the more used bodies > there are for the bargain hunters. And Pentax (sadly) does not have to > deal with the "problem" of Sigma, Tamron, and TOkina making lenses that > compete with them - though I wish Sigma would kick out a few of their > macro lenses in the K Mount. > > A robust used market is the sign of a healthy brand, IMO. But a brand > that tries to live off its used market is in trouble. Back in the 90's > the buzzword with Pentax was that there was this huge vast reserve of > used lenses and since there was great backwards compatibility with > Pentax you could tap into those old lenses. It was a bargain hunter's > brand. It was a great argument at the time given that Canon and Nikon > had respectively scrapped or significantly modified their lens mount a > few years earlier. And even though I supect that at this very moment > some dim-witted blogger cum photo gear reviewer is repeating that line > about Pentax, Pentax's legacy glass advantage has largely faded. Canon > and Nikon have a couple decades of used gear compatible with their > systems now, and their used market is better than Pentax's, and if you > are a bargain hunter you would be better off trolling in their waters > and not Pentax's. > > I don't know how the Pentax brand will be resurrected but I keep hoping > that Ricoh has a plan... > > Mark I meant to respond earlier Mark. I agree that every camera mfr. has to cope with somewhat the same issues, in regard to a certain percentage of potential customers waiting for price drops... or potential customers buying used instead of new. Without checking my figures, I'm sure I'm not wrong in stating that N/C have 70% of the DSLR market. Pentax has at best 5%, and I suspect less. Unfortunately it's a tough uphill climb... and even I, when purchasing the PZ-1p, looked at upgrade paths. I went with Pentax because I simply was too cheap to spend an additional $800 for a Nikon 8008s with an add-on flash. I thought I'd use my manual focus lenses on it. That was next to never. I thought I'd follow an upgrade path to a 6x7. I did, at the same time as I bought the *ist D. That was foolish... :) I also agree that the legacy lens advantage is pretty much non-existent. Tom C -- 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: [meta] Reply-to list (was Re: FS: Low-mileage K-7 body, > WR kit zoom, Tamron 24-135 lens)
> From: Bill > So go fuck yourself. No one here needs you. > > bill Hey, it's like I asked him before... if he was stupid or just pretending to be. Setting up a list with the default not being 'reply to list' is self-defeating. You'll notice how he often appears to deliberately misunderstand things and then pontificates. Tom C. -- 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: [meta] Reply-to list (was Re: FS: Low-mileage K-7 body, > > WR kit zoom, Tamron 24-135 lens)
> > How long has it been since I called you a fcuking idiot? > > bill Thank you. Who's the idiot that can't spell fcuking correctly? Tom C. -- 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: [meta] Reply-to list (was Re: FS: Low-mileage K-7 body, > WR kit zoom, Tamron 24-135 lens)
> I've found that the combitation of having met a number of the members of > this list combined with the fact that anything I send will be read by > them tends to keep some of my less savoury posting habits in check. > > bill You have savoury posting habits also then, I take it? :) Tom C. -- 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: Any new flagship camera rumors?
> From: Larry Colen > > I don't think the problem is quite as bad you you think. Yes, people > who know that Pentax exists, or even still exists, and who pay attention, > recognize it as a bargain brand. However, I think that half of the 87 > people that even know that Pentax cameras are still being made are on > this list. > > If and when Ricoh puts some effort into actually making the Pentax > brand known, it will pretty much be the first time most people under > 40 are even aware of the brand. > > Also, I don't think that being known for giving good value for the > money is that bad in this position. It's kind of tough if everyone > knows about you, and all of your customers are tightwads, but having > a reputation for good value among people looking to buy their first > DSLR is generally a good thing. You aren't going to get a lot of > people with thousands of dollars invested in a system switching > brands. Most new customers will come from people getting their > first DSLR, or who only have an entry level DSLR and a kit lens. > And those people will see Pentax in Costco, Sam's, Best Buy, or Wal-Mart, and hit themselves in the middle of of the forehead with the heel of their hand and say "I think I'll go with Pentax?" Tom C. -- 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.
