Re: Careening Wildly OT: was [Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX]

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo]

David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Ahh, the good old days.

Check out ; look for "Every OS Sucks".  :-)

-tih
-- 
Don't ascribe to stupidity what can be adequately explained by ignorance.

Re: Careening Wildly OT: was [Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX]

[David Mann]

On Apr 14, 2005, at 4:03 AM, Tom C wrote:
Yeah.  The good old days.  Unit record machines, punch cards, key 
punches, paper tape, 8" floppies, disc packs, 64K memory. When being a 
computer guy was more like science fiction than it is today. Ahh, 
the cold dry air of a raised floor computer room, the smell, the hum, 
the opening and closing of printer hoods, the flashing lights and 
spinning mag tapes.
I remember when a computer would boot in three seconds.  And if your 
game was taking ages to load you could just change the channel :)

Ahh, the good old days.  I don't miss BASIC though.
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/

Retro'puting (Was: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX)

[Doug Franklin]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:33:10 -0400, Peter J. Alling wrote:

> My IBM-360/370 assembly language class "project" was to build a SNOBOL 
> compiler.  (It's not like I chose to do that, it was required of 
> everyone...)

Wasn't SPITBOL the one that was implemented as a bunch of assembler
macros?

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: Careening Wildly OT: was [Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX]

[Tom C]

Yeah.  The good old days.  Unit record machines, punch cards, key punches, 
paper tape, 8" floppies, disc packs, 64K memory. When being a computer guy 
was more like science fiction than it is today. Ahh, the cold dry air of 
a raised floor computer room, the smell, the hum, the opening and closing of 
printer hoods, the flashing lights and spinning mag tapes.

Tom C.

From: "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re:  Careening Wildly OT: was [Re: A pic from second roll of film 
in MX]
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:47:02 -0400 (EDT)

Jumping in mid-thread ... 'cause I can't resist
retrocomputing as a topic.
Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had a professor who had his entire programming output on Hollerith
> cards.  His reasoning was that they were more stable than magnetic
> tape.  I wonder if he kept a reader...
Well that's one thing about punch cards -- you can read them
manually if you don't have a reader.  (My dad taught me to
read the punches when I was ... oh dear, I can't remember how
old I was but I was about half as tall as I am now -- I wasn't
tall enough to be allowed beyond the shallow end of the
swimming pool.  Admittedly I had to look up some of the
punctuation that I didn't run into often enough to memorize.)
In high school, I hand-punched cards (handheld card-holder
with grooves that lined up with the rows of the card, and
die-cut cards with easy-punch-out bits -- punched out a hole
at a time with the tip of a ball-point pen), but fortunately
not very often.  They were for a programmable calculator.
(A desktop beast with nixie tubes.  And for youngsters reading
this, nixie tubes are indeed cute, but not quite as cute as
the name 'nixie tubes' is.  I miss nixie tubes.)
Paper tape, which _I_ have some program listings on, is even
more straightforward to read (though the card/line-oriented
format may make up for that when it comes to total ease-of-use).
OTOH, I've got a lot more code on a) open-reel 8-track,
b) open-reel 9-track, c) QIC-20 -- from at least three
different operating systems, d) QIC-40 -- from at least
two operating systems, e) Phillips cassette -- three or
four different encodings, f) a wee type of cassette that
I don't know the name of -- two or three data formats,
g) 5.25" diskettes -- SSSD, SSDD, DSSD, DSDD, DSQD (bet
most of you haven't seen _that_ one!), DSHD, h) 3.5"
diskettes -- DSDD and DSHD, both CLV and CAV but I _think_
they're all soft-sector (I do have a hard-sector diskette
someplace for show-and-tell but I think it's blank), and
i) Zip disks.  I don't think I have any old Iomega Bournoulli
disks or 8" floppies (the reason 5.25" and smaller is called
a diskETTE), but I might have something on a DEC removable
hard disk pack.
Some of those I can still read easily ... for now.  Some
I can read after doing some repairs on old machines in the
basement.  Some I _might_ be able to read after some
research and installing components I've got in boxes or
asking around for hardware to borrow.  And some I'm
extremely unlikely to be able to find anyone able to read
them.  *sigh*  (Anyone have access to an HP3000 and feel
like doing me a favour?)  The rotating media are in so
many different formats it's not funny:  Unix and Xenix
mountable filesystems, tar, MS-DOS filesystem, MS-DOS
backup format, Lisa/Mac, TRSDOS, TI-99/4a, CoCo, Atari 800,
Apple II, Vic-20, Commodore 64, Amiga, Wang, CP/M, and
I've probably forgotten a few.
Except for a few where I never had my own machine of the
right type, it's my own damned fault for not copying them
to more modern formats when doing so would've been easy.
But it still serves as a non-hypothetical example of the
advantages of low-tech, human-readable media.  (Alas,
modern _size_ requirements for storage often make human-readable
formats impractical for many types of data.  Images, however...)
Ironically, the oldest format, and the one I can read
without a machine, is one that I still have a working
reader for and machines that can deal with the format
of:  paper tape.  (But this does remind me:  I need to
put a new ribbon in the TeleType -- it's printing kind
of faintly lately.)
(Amusingly -- at least it amuses _me_ -- I'm pretty
sure little ol' so-very-much-not-a-EE me could put
together an RS-232 paper tape reader from scratch.
At least a battery-powered one (I've got a poor track
record with power supplies, letting the smoke out
of voltage regulators -- see "not-a-EE" description
immediately above).)
Oh, and _just_in_case_ ... I've got a scrounged 8" floppy
drive in the basement (loose, just a bare drive) that
I'm pretty sure the floppy controller in a TRS-80 Model III
can be made to talk to.  'Cause, y'know, I've been
caught withou

Re: Careening Wildly OT: was [Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX]

[D. Glenn Arthur Jr.]

Jumping in mid-thread ... 'cause I can't resist
retrocomputing as a topic.

Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had a professor who had his entire programming output on Hollerith 
> cards.  His reasoning was that they were more stable than magnetic 
> tape.  I wonder if he kept a reader...

Well that's one thing about punch cards -- you can read them
manually if you don't have a reader.  (My dad taught me to 
read the punches when I was ... oh dear, I can't remember how
old I was but I was about half as tall as I am now -- I wasn't
tall enough to be allowed beyond the shallow end of the 
swimming pool.  Admittedly I had to look up some of the 
punctuation that I didn't run into often enough to memorize.)

In high school, I hand-punched cards (handheld card-holder
with grooves that lined up with the rows of the card, and
die-cut cards with easy-punch-out bits -- punched out a hole
at a time with the tip of a ball-point pen), but fortunately
not very often.  They were for a programmable calculator.
(A desktop beast with nixie tubes.  And for youngsters reading
this, nixie tubes are indeed cute, but not quite as cute as
the name 'nixie tubes' is.  I miss nixie tubes.)

Paper tape, which _I_ have some program listings on, is even
more straightforward to read (though the card/line-oriented
format may make up for that when it comes to total ease-of-use).

OTOH, I've got a lot more code on a) open-reel 8-track,
b) open-reel 9-track, c) QIC-20 -- from at least three 
different operating systems, d) QIC-40 -- from at least 
two operating systems, e) Phillips cassette -- three or
four different encodings, f) a wee type of cassette that 
I don't know the name of -- two or three data formats, 
g) 5.25" diskettes -- SSSD, SSDD, DSSD, DSDD, DSQD (bet 
most of you haven't seen _that_ one!), DSHD, h) 3.5" 
diskettes -- DSDD and DSHD, both CLV and CAV but I _think_ 
they're all soft-sector (I do have a hard-sector diskette 
someplace for show-and-tell but I think it's blank), and 
i) Zip disks.  I don't think I have any old Iomega Bournoulli 
disks or 8" floppies (the reason 5.25" and smaller is called 
a diskETTE), but I might have something on a DEC removable 
hard disk pack.

Some of those I can still read easily ... for now.  Some
I can read after doing some repairs on old machines in the
basement.  Some I _might_ be able to read after some 
research and installing components I've got in boxes or
asking around for hardware to borrow.  And some I'm 
extremely unlikely to be able to find anyone able to read
them.  *sigh*  (Anyone have access to an HP3000 and feel
like doing me a favour?)  The rotating media are in so 
many different formats it's not funny:  Unix and Xenix 
mountable filesystems, tar, MS-DOS filesystem, MS-DOS
backup format, Lisa/Mac, TRSDOS, TI-99/4a, CoCo, Atari 800,
Apple II, Vic-20, Commodore 64, Amiga, Wang, CP/M, and
I've probably forgotten a few.

Except for a few where I never had my own machine of the 
right type, it's my own damned fault for not copying them 
to more modern formats when doing so would've been easy.
But it still serves as a non-hypothetical example of the
advantages of low-tech, human-readable media.  (Alas, 
modern _size_ requirements for storage often make human-readable
formats impractical for many types of data.  Images, however...)


Ironically, the oldest format, and the one I can read 
without a machine, is one that I still have a working
reader for and machines that can deal with the format
of:  paper tape.  (But this does remind me:  I need to 
put a new ribbon in the TeleType -- it's printing kind 
of faintly lately.)

(Amusingly -- at least it amuses _me_ -- I'm pretty 
sure little ol' so-very-much-not-a-EE me could put
together an RS-232 paper tape reader from scratch.
At least a battery-powered one (I've got a poor track
record with power supplies, letting the smoke out
of voltage regulators -- see "not-a-EE" description
immediately above).)

Oh, and _just_in_case_ ... I've got a scrounged 8" floppy 
drive in the basement (loose, just a bare drive) that
I'm pretty sure the floppy controller in a TRS-80 Model III
can be made to talk to.  'Cause, y'know, I've been 
caught without an 8" drive in the past, when I worked for
the US Army, and it was a major headache.  Irate colonel 
who couldn't understand why I couldn't fold it up and put 
it in a 5.25" drive (I am most certainly _NOT_ making this 
up or just repeating an old joke -- he actually got on my 
case about it ... come to think of it, most of my headaches
there came from colonels); getting a friend in a different 
agency (DoL) to read it for me; spending a day getting the
data back to my office via UUCP.  So when somebody trashed
a computer that had an 8" drive in it, I yanked the drive
Just In Case.

Just like when somebody set fire to the grocery store I
was in and I'd left my camera at home, I decided to always
keep a camera with me, just in case.  (Tonight it was the
K2 with a 50/1.4 and the K1000

Careening Wildly OT: was [Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX]

[Peter J. Alling]

I had a professor who had his entire programming output on Hollerith 
cards.  His reasoning was that they were more stable than magnetic 
tape.  I wonder if he kept a reader...

Herb Chong wrote:
i have some of my programming assignments from that time. threw out 
the card decks after a few years, but some listings still.

Herb
- Original Message - From: "Peter J. Alling" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX


Hell, I don't remember, it's been 23 years...



--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Herb Chong]

i have some of my programming assignments from that time. threw out the card 
decks after a few years, but some listings still.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX


Hell, I don't remember, it's been 23 years...

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Peter J. Alling]

Hell, I don't remember, it's been 23 years...
Herb Chong wrote:
did you use tab or space as concatenate operator?
Herb...
- Original Message - From: "Peter J. Alling" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX


My IBM-360/370 assembly language class "project" was to build a 
SNOBOL compiler.  (It's not like I chose to do that, it was required 
of everyone...)



--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Herb Chong]

did you use tab or space as concatenate operator?
Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX


My IBM-360/370 assembly language class "project" was to build a SNOBOL 
compiler.  (It's not like I chose to do that, it was required of 
everyone...)

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Shel Belinkoff]

Why don't you guys change the subject.  I keep reading this junk thinking
there's some vestige of the original thread, which was of value to the list
and of interest to me.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 4/12/2005 5:35:37 PM
> Subject: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
>
> My IBM-360/370 assembly language class "project" was to build a SNOBOL 
> compiler.  (It's not like I chose to do that, it was required of 
> everyone...)
>
> Doug Franklin wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:24:32 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Well none of the above makes any sense to me except that I *know*
> >>SNO-BOL is a toilet cleaner.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >It's also an early 1960's programming language that focuses on
> >processing strings and doing pattern matching.  An early name for it
> >was SEXI (String EXtraction Interpreter).  One implementation was
> >called SPITBOL.
> >
> >TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
>
>
> -- 
> I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
> During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
> and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during
peacetime.
>   --P.J. O'Rourke
>

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Peter J. Alling]

My IBM-360/370 assembly language class "project" was to build a SNOBOL 
compiler.  (It's not like I chose to do that, it was required of 
everyone...)

Doug Franklin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:24:32 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 

Well none of the above makes any sense to me except that I *know*
SNO-BOL is a toilet cleaner.
   

It's also an early 1960's programming language that focuses on
processing strings and doing pattern matching.  An early name for it
was SEXI (String EXtraction Interpreter).  One implementation was
called SPITBOL.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Doug Franklin]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:41:07 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> You might like (and probably already know about) this:
> http://www.westnet.com/mirrors/99bottles/beer.html

I like that site.  I'd forgotten about it and hadn't looked in for
several years.

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Doug Franklin]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:24:32 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Well none of the above makes any sense to me except that I *know*
> SNO-BOL is a toilet cleaner.

It's also an early 1960's programming language that focuses on
processing strings and doing pattern matching.  An early name for it
was SEXI (String EXtraction Interpreter).  One implementation was
called SPITBOL.

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Peter J. Alling]

Peter Williams wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're being immortalized in code! It's sort of the 21st century
version of being immortalized in song. :-)
   

I'm a williams and I'm OK,
I photograph all day and I sleep all night,
 

How could anyone write doggerel worse than the original...
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 11, 2005, at 9:38 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Layers also increase the size of a file and the save time, especially 
when
using TIFF files.  Using a PSD file with layers usually results in 
smaller
file sizes on disk compared to TIFF and, for many people, open and save
faster in many instances.  Of course, this is on a PC, although I don't
imagine a Mac would be much, if any, different.  Depending on the 
number
and type of layers, I see anywhere from a 15% to a 50% reduction in 
file
size with PSD compared to TIFF, mostly in the 25% or so range.
Yes ... No different on Mac OS X. Size matters. ;-)
I use .PSD file format exclusively for this reason.
Godfrey

Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[m.9.wilson]

> 
> From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/04/12 Tue PM 12:57:02 GMT
> To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net" 
> Subject: Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
> 
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:33:27 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > > > > [International Obfuscated C Code Contest]
> > > > 
> > > > No thanks.  I'm a pretty Basic sort of chap.  C you later.
> > > 
> > > Algol away then.  I don't have a SNOBOL's chance in heck of convincing
> > > you.
> > 
> > That's because it's all COBOLers to me 8-)
> 
> Go Forth then, young man, and spread your perls of wisdom, but beware
> of the python with the ruby eyes.

OK, I give up 8-)

You might like (and probably already know about) this:
http://www.westnet.com/mirrors/99bottles/beer.html

mike 

-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
 

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[pnstenquist]

I definitely agree. I frequently select an area or paint a mask when I want to 
deal with the tonality of a section. I was thinking more of the shot from the 
bridge that prompted this discussion. The shadow problems in that pic are an 
easy fix in S/H without masks or selections.


> Hi Paul,
> 
> There are times when I just want to adjust a small section of a photo.  For
> example, I've a pic of a man looking at a map, and the map is but a very
> small part of the total frame. However, it's tonality and brightness is the
> same as some other parts of the image, which I didn't want to adjust.  By
> carefully selecting only the map, I was able to use S/H in that very
> specific area of the pic.  S/H worked a lot better than Curves or Levels in
> this instance.  Maybe you're better at using the feature than I (not
> unlikely), but for things of this nature using a selection has been very
> helpful. I'll certainly agree that it's not always necessary to use a mask
> or selection.
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Paul Stenquist 
> >
> > It's not always necessary to use a mask with Shadow/Highlight, because 
> > the tonal width can be adjusted to dial in the shadow areas you want to 
> > affect.
> 
> > On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > >> You can use a selection and mask in Shadows/Highlights as well
> > >
> > > In my rush to fit in a quick pic between work stuff I just didn't 
> > > think of using
> > > a mask, then when I got home I was rushed again and just did the
> > > Shadow/Highlight thing to the whole pic, again not even think of using 
> > > a mask.
> 
> 

Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[ernreed2]

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> 
> > 
> > From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 2005/04/12 Tue PM 12:21:12 GMT
> > To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net" 
> > Subject: Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
> > 
> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 8:34:58 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> > > > IOCCC anyone?
> > > > [International Obfuscated C Code Contest]
> > > 
> > > No thanks.  I'm a pretty Basic sort of chap.  C you later.
> > 
> > Algol away then.  I don't have a SNOBOL's chance in heck of convincing
> > you.
> 
> That's because it's all COBOLers to me 8-)


Well none of the above makes any sense to me except that I *know* SNO-BOL is 
a toilet cleaner.

ERNR
housewife
switched to another brand of cleaner though

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[ernreed2]

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > I like to be able to go all the way back to the original RAW-converted 
> > image at any time in my adjustment workflow to see exactly what the 
> > rendering adjustments have done. Easy with adjustment layers, a pain 
> > when you are modifying the original data.
> > 
> 
> There is another feature that I have left largely unexplored.
> I rarely use adjustment layers, typically when I do it is while following
> a
> tutorial and they are specified.

Adjustment layers are also useful when you might want to fine-tune the 
intensity of the effect (just vary the transparency of the layer) -- that's 
my main use for them.

ERNR

Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Doug Franklin]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:33:27 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > > > [International Obfuscated C Code Contest]
> > > 
> > > No thanks.  I'm a pretty Basic sort of chap.  C you later.
> > 
> > Algol away then.  I don't have a SNOBOL's chance in heck of convincing
> > you.
> 
> That's because it's all COBOLers to me 8-)

Go Forth then, young man, and spread your perls of wisdom, but beware
of the python with the ruby eyes.

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[m.9.wilson]

> 
> From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/04/12 Tue PM 12:21:12 GMT
> To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net" 
> Subject: Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
> 
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 8:34:58 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > > IOCCC anyone?
> > > [International Obfuscated C Code Contest]
> > 
> > No thanks.  I'm a pretty Basic sort of chap.  C you later.
> 
> Algol away then.  I don't have a SNOBOL's chance in heck of convincing
> you.

That's because it's all COBOLers to me 8-)

-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
virus-checked using mcAfee(R) Software
visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
 

RE: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Peter Williams]

> -Original Message-
> From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> You're being immortalized in code! It's sort of the 21st century
> version of being immortalized in song. :-)
> 

I'm a williams and I'm OK,
I photograph all day and I sleep all night,

-- 
Peter Williams 

Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Doug Franklin]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 8:34:58 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > IOCCC anyone?
> > [International Obfuscated C Code Contest]
> 
> No thanks.  I'm a pretty Basic sort of chap.  C you later.

Algol away then.  I don't have a SNOBOL's chance in heck of convincing
you.

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Doug Franklin]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:21:38 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I did and it was :-)

You're being immortalized in code! It's sort of the 21st century
version of being immortalized in song. :-)

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Paul,

There are times when I just want to adjust a small section of a photo.  For
example, I've a pic of a man looking at a map, and the map is but a very
small part of the total frame. However, it's tonality and brightness is the
same as some other parts of the image, which I didn't want to adjust.  By
carefully selecting only the map, I was able to use S/H in that very
specific area of the pic.  S/H worked a lot better than Curves or Levels in
this instance.  Maybe you're better at using the feature than I (not
unlikely), but for things of this nature using a selection has been very
helpful. I'll certainly agree that it's not always necessary to use a mask
or selection.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist 
>
> It's not always necessary to use a mask with Shadow/Highlight, because 
> the tonal width can be adjusted to dial in the shadow areas you want to 
> affect.

> On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> You can use a selection and mask in Shadows/Highlights as well
> >
> > In my rush to fit in a quick pic between work stuff I just didn't 
> > think of using
> > a mask, then when I got home I was rushed again and just did the
> > Shadow/Highlight thing to the whole pic, again not even think of using 
> > a mask.

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Paul Stenquist]

If I'm happy with a final rendering, I don't always save the layers. 
For some very special images I will do that. But by and large, I just 
save the result. Of course I save all the RAW files, so I always have 
the option of starting over.
Paul
On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:38 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

I use it on a duplicate layer.  There was a discussion with some of the
developers concerning why the tool couldn't be used on an adjustment 
layer
- a bunch of technical reasons that, frankly, were beyond my grasp or 
need
to know.

Layers also increase the size of a file and the save time, especially 
when
using TIFF files.  Using a PSD file with layers usually results in 
smaller
file sizes on disk compared to TIFF and, for many people, open and save
faster in many instances.  Of course, this is on a PC, although I don't
imagine a Mac would be much, if any, different.  Depending on the 
number
and type of layers, I see anywhere from a 15% to a 50% reduction in 
file
size with PSD compared to TIFF, mostly in the 25% or so range.

Shel

[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi

Hmm. Well, you can use selections and masks, but you can use them on
anything. I just read the documentation on it and also looked at a
couple of website tutorials. It looks like it has some ability to
automate what I do with adjustment layers, curves and masks, but why
they didn't put it in an adjustment layer I don't know. Adjustment
layers allow you to make corrections without touching the original
data. The only way I'd use this tool is the same way I use sharpening
and noise reduction tools ... make a layer copy of the original image
first, then operate on that layer copy. It increases the size of the
files and the save time.
I like to be able to go all the way back to the original RAW-converted
image at any time in my adjustment workflow to see exactly what the
rendering adjustments have done. Easy with adjustment layers, a pain
when you are modifying the original data.
I'll play with it a little more. Sometimes I wonder about all these
more automated image-processing tools... I like knowing exactly what a
given tool is doing.
Godfrey
On Apr 11, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Godfrey,
You can use a selection and mask in Shadows/Highlights as well, and, 
at
least for me, the results can sometimes be superior to levels and
curves -
far superior.  IAC, it's another tool that can help you achieve good
results - you really should give it a try.

Shel

[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi

I'll have to learn more about it. I don't know how you can target 
more
narrowly than adjusting Levels and Curves in adjustment layers with 
a
mask to control what is affected. It may be easier to use
Shadow/Highlight controls, but more precise/narrower? I'll have to 
be
convinced. ;-)

Godfrey

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Paul Stenquist]

It's not always necessary to use a mask with Shadow/Highlight, because 
the tonal width can be adjusted to dial in the shadow areas you want to 
affect.
Paul
On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
You can use a selection and mask in Shadows/Highlights as well
In my rush to fit in a quick pic between work stuff I just didn't 
think of using
a mask, then when I got home I was rushed again and just did the
Shadow/Highlight thing to the whole pic, again not even think of using 
a mask.



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[m.9.wilson]

> 
> From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/04/12 Tue AM 05:52:10 GMT
> To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net" 
> Subject: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
> 
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:39:40 -0400, Peter J. Alling wrote:
> 
> > If you think this is amusing wait till you see Doug's...
> 
> IOCCC anyone?
> 
> [International Obfuscated C Code Contest]

No thanks.  I'm a pretty Basic sort of chap.  C you later.

-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
 

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

Quoting "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> If you think this is amusing wait till you see Doug's...
> 

I did and it was :-)





This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Doug Franklin]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:39:40 -0400, Peter J. Alling wrote:

> If you think this is amusing wait till you see Doug's...

IOCCC anyone?

[International Obfuscated C Code Contest]


TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Peter J. Alling]

If you think this is amusing wait till you see Doug's...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 

Ok in C.
int main()
{
   int i;
   for ( i = 0; i < 100; i++ )
   printf( "He is not William.\n" );
   return 0;
}
   

Very amusing :-)

This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

Quoting "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Ok in C.
> 
> int main()
> {
> int i;
> for ( i = 0; i < 100; i++ )
> printf( "He is not William.\n" );
> return 0;
> }
> 

Very amusing :-)



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Doug Franklin]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:01:00 -0400, Peter J. Alling wrote:

> int main()
> {
> int i;
> for ( i = 0; i < 100; i++ )
> printf( "He is not William.\n" );
> return 0;
> }

void HeIsNotWilliam(int n)
{
   if ( --n ) HeIsNotWilliam(n);
   printf( "He is not William.\n" );
}
int main()
{
   HeIsNotWilliam(100);
}

In C that wants to be something LISP-like. :-)

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[John Francis]

Shel Belinkoff mused:
> 
> Layers also increase the size of a file and the save time, especially when
> using TIFF files.  Using a PSD file with layers usually results in smaller
> file sizes on disk compared to TIFF and, for many people, open and save
> faster in many instances.

If you want to save the layer structure you really should just use a PSD.
Saving as a TIFF file doesn't gain you anything (and may well lose some
of the layer relationships), loses you the editing history, etc., etc.
Furthermore it may well confuse some programs which think they know how
to deal with a TIFF, but aren't pepared to handle multiple layers.

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Peter J. Alling]

Ok in C.
int main()
{
   int i;
   for ( i = 0; i < 100; i++ )
   printf( "He is not William.\n" );
   return 0;
}
Done.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 

Thanks, William. I'll look for it.
   

I'm not William ;-)
I'm Peter Williams.
Write out 100 times:
He is not William.

This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Shel Belinkoff]

Adjustment layers are the great power of PS and similar programs.  Very
much worth the time to learn how to use them, even in the most basic form.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> There is another feature that I have left largely unexplored.
> I rarely use adjustment layers, typically when I do it is while following
a
> tutorial and they are specified.
>
> So much to learn...

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Shel Belinkoff]

I use it on a duplicate layer.  There was a discussion with some of the
developers concerning why the tool couldn't be used on an adjustment layer
- a bunch of technical reasons that, frankly, were beyond my grasp or need
to know.

Layers also increase the size of a file and the save time, especially when
using TIFF files.  Using a PSD file with layers usually results in smaller
file sizes on disk compared to TIFF and, for many people, open and save
faster in many instances.  Of course, this is on a PC, although I don't
imagine a Mac would be much, if any, different.  Depending on the number
and type of layers, I see anywhere from a 15% to a 50% reduction in file
size with PSD compared to TIFF, mostly in the 25% or so range.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi 

> Hmm. Well, you can use selections and masks, but you can use them on 
> anything. I just read the documentation on it and also looked at a 
> couple of website tutorials. It looks like it has some ability to 
> automate what I do with adjustment layers, curves and masks, but why 
> they didn't put it in an adjustment layer I don't know. Adjustment 
> layers allow you to make corrections without touching the original 
> data. The only way I'd use this tool is the same way I use sharpening 
> and noise reduction tools ... make a layer copy of the original image 
> first, then operate on that layer copy. It increases the size of the 
> files and the save time.
>
> I like to be able to go all the way back to the original RAW-converted 
> image at any time in my adjustment workflow to see exactly what the 
> rendering adjustments have done. Easy with adjustment layers, a pain 
> when you are modifying the original data.
>
> I'll play with it a little more. Sometimes I wonder about all these 
> more automated image-processing tools... I like knowing exactly what a 
> given tool is doing.
>
> Godfrey
>
>
> On Apr 11, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > Godfrey,
> >
> > You can use a selection and mask in Shadows/Highlights as well, and, at
> > least for me, the results can sometimes be superior to levels and 
> > curves -
> > far superior.  IAC, it's another tool that can help you achieve good
> > results - you really should give it a try.
> >
> > Shel
> >
> >
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
> >
> >> I'll have to learn more about it. I don't know how you can target more
> >> narrowly than adjusting Levels and Curves in adjustment layers with a
> >> mask to control what is affected. It may be easier to use
> >> Shadow/Highlight controls, but more precise/narrower? I'll have to be
> >> convinced. ;-)
> >>
> >> Godfrey
> >
> >

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I like to be able to go all the way back to the original RAW-converted 
> image at any time in my adjustment workflow to see exactly what the 
> rendering adjustments have done. Easy with adjustment layers, a pain 
> when you are modifying the original data.
> 

There is another feature that I have left largely unexplored.
I rarely use adjustment layers, typically when I do it is while following a
tutorial and they are specified.

So much to learn...



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> You can use a selection and mask in Shadows/Highlights as well

In my rush to fit in a quick pic between work stuff I just didn't think of using
a mask, then when I got home I was rushed again and just did the
Shadow/Highlight thing to the whole pic, again not even think of using a mask.




This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Hmm. Well, you can use selections and masks, but you can use them on 
anything. I just read the documentation on it and also looked at a 
couple of website tutorials. It looks like it has some ability to 
automate what I do with adjustment layers, curves and masks, but why 
they didn't put it in an adjustment layer I don't know. Adjustment 
layers allow you to make corrections without touching the original 
data. The only way I'd use this tool is the same way I use sharpening 
and noise reduction tools ... make a layer copy of the original image 
first, then operate on that layer copy. It increases the size of the 
files and the save time.

I like to be able to go all the way back to the original RAW-converted 
image at any time in my adjustment workflow to see exactly what the 
rendering adjustments have done. Easy with adjustment layers, a pain 
when you are modifying the original data.

I'll play with it a little more. Sometimes I wonder about all these 
more automated image-processing tools... I like knowing exactly what a 
given tool is doing.

Godfrey
On Apr 11, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Godfrey,
You can use a selection and mask in Shadows/Highlights as well, and, at
least for me, the results can sometimes be superior to levels and 
curves -
far superior.  IAC, it's another tool that can help you achieve good
results - you really should give it a try.

Shel

[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi

I'll have to learn more about it. I don't know how you can target more
narrowly than adjusting Levels and Curves in adjustment layers with a
mask to control what is affected. It may be easier to use
Shadow/Highlight controls, but more precise/narrower? I'll have to be
convinced. ;-)
Godfrey

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Shel Belinkoff]

Godfrey,

You can use a selection and mask in Shadows/Highlights as well, and, at
least for me, the results can sometimes be superior to levels and curves -
far superior.  IAC, it's another tool that can help you achieve good
results - you really should give it a try.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi

> I'll have to learn more about it. I don't know how you can target more 
> narrowly than adjusting Levels and Curves in adjustment layers with a 
> mask to control what is affected. It may be easier to use 
> Shadow/Highlight controls, but more precise/narrower? I'll have to be 
> convinced. ;-)
>
> Godfrey

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 11, 2005, at 7:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never used the Shadow/Highlight adjustments ... I always use
Levels and Curves in Adjustment Layers, with masking to apply the
adjustment selectively.
I think if you play with Shadow/Highlights for a while, you'll find 
it's a very valuable tool. It allows you to achieve more narrowly 
targeted control of highlight and shadow areas than does either curves 
or levels. It also has the ability to restore midtone contrast after 
bringing up the shadow areas. According to documents I've read, it's 
actions can't be fully duplicated with other PSCS controls.
I'll have to learn more about it. I don't know how you can target more 
narrowly than adjusting Levels and Curves in adjustment layers with a 
mask to control what is affected. It may be easier to use 
Shadow/Highlight controls, but more precise/narrower? I'll have to be 
convinced. ;-)

Godfrey

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[pnstenquist]

I think if you play with Shadow/Highlights for a while, you'll find it's a very 
valuable tool. It allows you to achieve more narrowly targeted control of 
highlight and shadow areas than does either curves or levels. It also has the 
ability to restore midtone contrast after bringing up the shadow areas. 
According to documents I've read, it's actions can't be fully duplicated with 
other PSCS controls.


> 
> On Apr 11, 2005, at 4:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >> I took a copy of your original JPEG and made a very slight edit 
> >> opening
> >> up the shadow areas only with a Curves Adjustment Layer and a mask.
> >> I'll send that to you for your evaluation.
> >>
> >
> > And a pretty good job it was too, especially considering you worked 
> > from the web
> > version of the pic. I'm not too clever with curves, I need to spend 
> > more time
> > playing and reading tutorials with the Curves and also with the (new 
> > to me)
> > Shadow/Highlight adjustments.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I've never used the Shadow/Highlight adjustments ... I always use 
> Levels and Curves in Adjustment Layers, with masking to apply the 
> adjustment selectively.
> 
> > I don't mind if you put up your version of the pic for 24 hours or so 
> > to show
> > others what you managed to get out of it.
> 
> Sure ... Just remind me to delete it soon as I tend to forget...
> 
> http://homepage.mac.com/godders/yarra-pw/
> 
> Godfrey
> 

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 11, 2005, at 4:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I took a copy of your original JPEG and made a very slight edit 
opening
up the shadow areas only with a Curves Adjustment Layer and a mask.
I'll send that to you for your evaluation.

And a pretty good job it was too, especially considering you worked 
from the web
version of the pic. I'm not too clever with curves, I need to spend 
more time
playing and reading tutorials with the Curves and also with the (new 
to me)
Shadow/Highlight adjustments.
Thanks.
I've never used the Shadow/Highlight adjustments ... I always use 
Levels and Curves in Adjustment Layers, with masking to apply the 
adjustment selectively.

I don't mind if you put up your version of the pic for 24 hours or so 
to show
others what you managed to get out of it.
Sure ... Just remind me to delete it soon as I tend to forget...
   http://homepage.mac.com/godders/yarra-pw/
Godfrey

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

Quoting Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> Mind if we call you "Bruce" to keep it clear?
> 

Thanks Rob, but no thanks. ;-)




This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

Quoting Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> 100 times: he is not William.  Okay?
> (I'll not soon forget after that)
> 
When I post through the ISP's webmail interface you just get the williamsp
version of my email address, when I post from home using a mail programme you
get the Peter Wiliams prefix as well (not to mention a sig with my name). So I
don't entirely blame you :-)



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Mark Roberts]

Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>100 times: he is not William.  Okay?

Mind if we call you "Bruce" to keep it clear?

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I took a copy of your original JPEG and made a very slight edit opening 
> up the shadow areas only with a Curves Adjustment Layer and a mask. 
> I'll send that to you for your evaluation.
> 

And a pretty good job it was too, especially considering you worked from the web
version of the pic. I'm not too clever with curves, I need to spend more time
playing and reading tutorials with the Curves and also with the (new to me)
Shadow/Highlight adjustments.
I don't mind if you put up your version of the pic for 24 hours or so to show
others what you managed to get out of it.



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Jack Davis]

100 times: he is not William.  Okay?
(I'll not soon forget after that)

Sorry,

Jack
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > Thanks, William. I'll look for it.
> > 
> 
> I'm not William ;-)
> I'm Peter Williams.
> 
> Write out 100 times:
> He is not William.
> 
> 
>

> This email was sent from Netspace Webmail:
> http://www.netspace.net.au
> 
> 



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

Quoting Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Thanks, William. I'll look for it.
> 

I'm not William ;-)
I'm Peter Williams.

Write out 100 times:
He is not William.



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

Quoting Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I prefer this version. Very nice shot. Don't forget that when  using 
> the shadow/highlight tool in advanced mode you can pump up mid-range 
> contrast without affecting the highlights or shadows.
> 

Thanks Paul,
I don't know much about the Shadow/Highlight adjustment, I've only recently
started using PS CS, I had PS 7 for a long time and used an action that did
similar things to Shadow/Highlight, but with different controls. I need mor
practice with CS.



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Peter,
You're original image seemed excellent and dramatic, although a bit 
dark/muddy in the trees and in the shadow of the channel along the 
right hand side. The re-do goes bright and jangly everywhere, loses 
contrast and looks to be very oversharpened by comparison.

Both are being viewed on my calibrated monitor.
I took a copy of your original JPEG and made a very slight edit opening 
up the shadow areas only with a Curves Adjustment Layer and a mask. 
I'll send that to you for your evaluation.

Godfrey
On Apr 11, 2005, at 4:54 AM, Peter Williams wrote:
I'm home now and can see this on my CRT monitor, now it
is really dark looking compared to how I saw it on an LCD
at work. I made a new version using the shadow/highlight
adjustment in PS CS, it has lost contrast and is not as nice
in some areas, but there is detail and tone in the trees.
Revised version: http://tinyurl.com/3taz3
--
Peter Williams
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just a bit less contrast perhaps or at least opening up
the shadow areas a bit might be nice.
Original> http://tinyurl.com/63zco

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Peter,
You're original image seemed excellent and dramatic, although a bit 
dark/muddy in the trees and in the shadow of the channel along the 
right hand side. The re-do goes bright and jangly everywhere, loses 
contrast and looks to be very oversharpened by comparison.

Both are being viewed on my calibrated monitor.
I took a copy of your original JPEG and made a very slight edit opening 
up the shadow areas only with a Curves Adjustment Layer and a mask. 
I'll send that to you for your evaluation.

Godfrey
On Apr 11, 2005, at 4:54 AM, Peter Williams wrote:
I'm home now and can see this on my CRT monitor, now it
is really dark looking compared to how I saw it on an LCD
at work. I made a new version using the shadow/highlight
adjustment in PS CS, it has lost contrast and is not as nice
in some areas, but there is detail and tone in the trees.
Revised version: http://tinyurl.com/3taz3
--
Peter Williams
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just a bit less contrast perhaps or at least opening up
the shadow areas a bit might be nice.
Original> http://tinyurl.com/63zco

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Bruce Dayton]

For me, this is a big improvement.  The losses are much less than the
gains in my eye.  Nice shot even better.  Well done!

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Monday, April 11, 2005, 4:54:50 AM, you wrote:

PW> Bruce,

PW> I'm home now and can see this on my CRT monitor, now it
PW> is really dark looking compared to how I saw it on an LCD
PW> at work. I made a new version using the shadow/highlight
PW> adjustment in PS CS, it has lost contrast and is not as nice
PW> in some areas, but there is detail and tone in the trees.

PW> Revised version: http://tinyurl.com/3taz3

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Jack Davis]

Thanks, William. I'll look for it.
Tonality of re-worked image, also, very nice with
improved sky.

Jack
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > Striking contrasts with a clean fresh look about
> it.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with "XP2 Super". I'd like to try
> a
> > roll. Can you provide further identification of
> the
> > film in case it's available in this hemisphere.
> >
> 
> Thanks Jack :-)
> 
> Ilford make XP2 Super. It's their chromogenic B&W
> ISO 400 emulsion.
> I'm using it because it can be processed and scanned
> for me by most
> minilabs and it doesn't have the oarange mask like
> the Kodak
> chromogenic B&W films so if I want to print it on
> normal B&W paper
> I won't have extra difficulties.
> 
> This lot of scans weren't as good as the last, but
> it does seem to have
> smooth grain and decent tonality.
> 
> Hopefully I'll get some film processing gear back in
> my posession and
> I'll be able to do my own developing and scanning
> and use normal B&W
> film again.
> 
> XP2 Super seems to be the pick of the chromogenic
> films, many people
> comment favourably on it. The negs look good, clean
> and with a good
> tonal range.
> 
> 
> 
>

> This email was sent from Netspace Webmail:
> http://www.netspace.net.au
> 
> 



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Paul Stenquist]

I prefer this version. Very nice shot. Don't forget that when  using 
the shadow/highlight tool in advanced mode you can pump up mid-range 
contrast without affecting the highlights or shadows.
Paul
On Apr 11, 2005, at 7:54 AM, Peter Williams wrote:

Bruce,
I'm home now and can see this on my CRT monitor, now it
is really dark looking compared to how I saw it on an LCD
at work. I made a new version using the shadow/highlight
adjustment in PS CS, it has lost contrast and is not as nice
in some areas, but there is detail and tone in the trees.
Revised version: http://tinyurl.com/3taz3
--
Peter Williams
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just a bit less contrast perhaps or at least opening up
the shadow areas a bit might be nice.
Original> http://tinyurl.com/63zco

RE: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Peter Williams]

Bruce,

I'm home now and can see this on my CRT monitor, now it
is really dark looking compared to how I saw it on an LCD
at work. I made a new version using the shadow/highlight
adjustment in PS CS, it has lost contrast and is not as nice
in some areas, but there is detail and tone in the trees.

Revised version: http://tinyurl.com/3taz3

-- 
Peter Williams 

> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Just a bit less contrast perhaps or at least opening up
> the shadow areas a bit might be nice.
> 
> Original> http://tinyurl.com/63zco
> 

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

Quoting Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Rather nice shot.  The composition is great and the boat with wake
> really adds.  Just a bit less contrast perhaps or at least opening up
> the shadow areas a bit might be nice.
> 

Thanks Bruce, the right-side trees and the shadow on the water is a real problem
with the scan. I think the negs are a lot better than the scans. I really can't
get it much better than it is unfortunately.



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Bruce Dayton]

Rather nice shot.  The composition is great and the boat with wake
really adds.  Just a bit less contrast perhaps or at least opening up
the shadow areas a bit might be nice.

Well done.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Sunday, April 10, 2005, 7:33:46 PM, you wrote:

wnna> I put a roll of XP2 Super in the MX intending to test the Sigma 18-35 mm 
lens,
wnna> but in the ened I couldn't test it, so I shot the roll as I walked back 
to my
wnna> car that evening using the M50/1.7.
wnna> Here is my favourite pic from the 24 exp roll. Looking West from Princes 
Bridge
wnna> along Melbourne's Yarra River

wnna> http://tinyurl.com/63zco






wnna> 
wnna> This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

Quoting Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Lovely pictures. Isn't 50/1.7 a grand lens?
> Do show us some more of these peaceful Melbourne views!
> 

Thanks Boris :-)
The lens seems excellent, I'm very pleased with the whole outfit.
Most of my pics are taken with a non Pentax digital camera so I
don't show them here.



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

Quoting Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Striking contrasts with a clean fresh look about it.
>
> I'm not familiar with "XP2 Super". I'd like to try a
> roll. Can you provide further identification of the
> film in case it's available in this hemisphere.
>

Thanks Jack :-)

Ilford make XP2 Super. It's their chromogenic B&W ISO 400 emulsion.
I'm using it because it can be processed and scanned for me by most
minilabs and it doesn't have the oarange mask like the Kodak
chromogenic B&W films so if I want to print it on normal B&W paper
I won't have extra difficulties.

This lot of scans weren't as good as the last, but it does seem to have
smooth grain and decent tonality.

Hopefully I'll get some film processing gear back in my posession and
I'll be able to do my own developing and scanning and use normal B&W
film again.

XP2 Super seems to be the pick of the chromogenic films, many people
comment favourably on it. The negs look good, clean and with a good
tonal range.




This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!
I put a roll of XP2 Super in the MX intending to test the Sigma 18-35 mm lens,
but in the ened I couldn't test it, so I shot the roll as I walked back to my
car that evening using the M50/1.7.
Here is my favourite pic from the 24 exp roll. Looking West from Princes Bridge
along Melbourne's Yarra River
http://tinyurl.com/63zco
I envy you. I remember myself standing in about the same location back 
in 2000... Now, to return it would take me at least 20+ hours in the 
plane... :)

Lovely pictures. Isn't 50/1.7 a grand lens?
Do show us some more of these peaceful Melbourne views!
Boris

Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX

[Jack Davis]

Striking contrasts with a clean fresh look about it.
Obviously, the mix of possible factors contributing to
the 'look' might even include the film itself. 
I'm not familiar with "XP2 Super". I'd like to try a
roll. Can you provide further identification of the
film in case it's available in this hemisphere.

Thanks,

Jack


--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I put a roll of XP2 Super in the MX intending to
> test the Sigma 18-35 mm lens,
> but in the ened I couldn't test it, so I shot the
> roll as I walked back to my
> car that evening using the M50/1.7.
> Here is my favourite pic from the 24 exp roll.
> Looking West from Princes Bridge
> along Melbourne's Yarra River
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/63zco
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

> This email was sent from Netspace Webmail:
> http://www.netspace.net.au
> 
> 



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

A pic from second roll of film in MX

[williamsp]

I put a roll of XP2 Super in the MX intending to test the Sigma 18-35 mm lens,
but in the ened I couldn't test it, so I shot the roll as I walked back to my
car that evening using the M50/1.7.
Here is my favourite pic from the 24 exp roll. Looking West from Princes Bridge
along Melbourne's Yarra River

http://tinyurl.com/63zco







This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au