Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
On 16/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Cotty posted (among many, many other things) 10. I'm not a brainy guy. I don't have a degree. I have 4 'O' Levels: Maths, English, Drama, Photography. So I can add up, write it down, pretend, and take a snap. That's it. At least YOU passed O-Level Maths. ERNR (who didn't) Grade B :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Some obvious points: 1) Many on this list are techie types, at least in term os enjoying technology for its own sake. For these, the *istD is a wonderful thing in itself, and we are experiencing new toy syndrome. 2) For anyone that has some understanding of chemical based photography, it is tempting to try to get some understanding of the digital process. Also, most of the really technical threads seem to involve folks that are IT professionals, or at least understanding software at the coding level. (which no longer includes me, although I wrote far more Fortran code that I want to think about). 3) Digital opens up a whole world of post processing not previously available to most, especially with regard to color. Therefore, tech talk about Photoshop is always welcome, useful, and an integral part of 21st century photography. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
You're right. After I take 36 (well, actually, about 38, 'cause I can stretch film and get those extra couple of frames out of every roll) shots, I rewind the film into the cannister, and take it to my lab. I then say to the owner, Hey, Rob, develop this with contacts, and I'll be back in a couple of days to look at them, and decide which ones I want you to print up. I guess my point is, for some, taking the photograph is quite close to the end of the process. For others, it's only the beginning. Lots and lots of Great Photographers have had little to do with the development/printing process, other than to give the film to the lab, and have their personal lab guy develop, then do up prints of the keepers. regards, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's not the point, really. The capture of the image doesn't end when you trip the shutter; that's almost only the start of the process. So, given the latent image on the film (or in the memory), how can one best complete the visualisation? snip _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 16/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Here's a few tips: 1. I modified the lens cuz I wanted to be able to post to the PUG without shooting on film, and seeing as I digitally defected a year ago, it seemed a reasonable way... 2. I like posting to the PUG cuz this list is a nice place to hang out (and surprise surprise, I still have Pentax gear)... 3. I have absolutely no mechanical or electronics training - I bumble about doing the things I do because there's a need. I can't afford expensive lenses, so modifying one was cheaper! A case of 'needs must'. 4. There is no number 4. 5. Actually I detest all this modifying - if I won the lottery you wouldn't see another modification from me again! 6. But having done something, might as well make it available for somebody else if it helps them - it's good karma. 7. Like the mods, I *had* to learn Photoshop because I looked at my first inkjet prints and nearly cried. A lottery win would see a full-time PS operator doing all my dirty work! 8. We have 4 working Macs in our house, and aside from one, they were all either used or repaired cheap. This way I can have 4 computers for the price of one big new one. I can't solder them when they go wrong, but I can swap out the parts - they're only Meccano (Erector) Sets, after all. Needs must. 9. (See number 4). 10. I'm not a brainy guy. I don't have a degree. I have 4 'O' Levels: Maths, English, Drama, Photography. So I can add up, write it down, pretend, and take a snap. That's it. 11. Patience with your fellow man/woman is a virtue, and breeds respect. 12. A little humour goes a long way. 13. Er, that's it. You left out No pooftas -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Motorcycles (was Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston)
Butch Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe Jay Leno (Tonight Show host) has a motorcycle built around a helicopter turbine engine. They run about $250,000 http://motorcyclecity.com/turbine.htm You can't top the Australians when it comes to building amazing custom motorcycles. There is one 2000cc v-twin made by lopping the front two cylinders off a Rolls-Royce Merlin aircraft engine! And another made by taking the cylinders and heads from two Yamaha FZR400s and grafting them onto a custom crank and crankcase to make an 800cc V-8. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston (in a nutshell)
(Shel wrote You can't convert me to your point of view, really. We pretty much agree ... we just take a different approach to the final image. You're a more technical guy, it helps you to know why certain things are. I'm less technical, and just accept what is and work with it as best I can.) Years ago I made the decision that I did not have enough time in my life to become a master printer. So I focused on trying to be the best photographer I could and, as a result, shot slides primarily rather than prints. I put what little spare time I had developing my eye as a photographer rather than my technical knowledge. More recently as computers made printing and manipulating an image much easier, I developed some skills in that area that allow me to print images, manipulate images and even create images on the computer. I think those of us who focus too much on technical aspects of photography lose out on the real creative process of taking great images. More recently, I have to admit that I have been caught in that trap and have let my photographic skills slide a little while being caught up in too much technical stuff. Even trying to figure out newer autofocus cameras leave me a little confused. It's why I always go back to my LX. To conclude, I'm trying not to say that one approach is better than another, but I have to admit that, given the limited amount of time most of us have to dedicate to all things photographic, I think most of us would benefit from keeping it simple. Just my 2cents Vic
RE: I feel like Mike Johnston
On 15 Nov 2003 at 12:19, Bucky wrote: I think that an interest in mechanical cameras, akin to those orchestras that only play with period instruments, is something many photographers share to varying degrees, though I also think that, contrary to your assertion, most people, at least on the PDML, could pick up an old manual camera and be shooting well with it in no time flat, once they see where the controls are. Great rant, thanks. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Cotty posted (among many, many other things) 10. I'm not a brainy guy. I don't have a degree. I have 4 'O' Levels: Maths, English, Drama, Photography. So I can add up, write it down, pretend, and take a snap. That's it. At least YOU passed O-Level Maths. ERNR (who didn't)
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
You know, they should put png in there to, smaller than tiff, no loss as with jpeg. --- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just curious -- are PEF and TIFF file formats open source? TIFF is a published, documented format, and there is an open source library that supports the standard version. The same is true of JPEG. EXIF is an extension to TIFF (or to JPEG), and is a way to include all sorts of additional data which (amongst other things) documents all the settings on the camera, etc. a PEF file really is just a TIFF file, including EXIF data, low-resolution JPEG thumbnails, etc. But the image data is the raw sensor data, not anything you could view directly. __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
On 14 Nov 2003 at 17:17, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Nope, you're mistaken, Rob. While it's not a simple matter, and it's probably not something you'd want to do very often, the M3 (at least) will make a double exposure. Haven't tried the later versions - 4, 6, 7 I know that the film release can be activated mid roll however I've heard anecdotes of the potential for damage so I won't be trying it on my M4 or M6. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
You know, they should put png in there to, smaller than tiff, no loss as with jpeg. I don't believe PNG has any way to store EXIF data. It's a handy format for many things (I use it myself), but it isn't really suitable for the purpose of storing images from a digital camera with a lot of extra data.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
I don't know about Exif data but icc profiles can be embedded in them now, the format is open and is being improved. Maybe in time. --- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, they should put png in there to, smaller than tiff, no loss as with jpeg. I don't believe PNG has any way to store EXIF data. It's a handy format for many things (I use it myself), but it isn't really suitable for the purpose of storing images from a digital camera with a lot of extra data. __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Bucky wrote: Utter nonsense. People have yammered on ad nauseam about developers in this forum too. Bits, bytes, and the software that manipulates 'em is a big part of a new, and equally legitimate, form of photography. Pentax is now a manufacturer of digital photographic equipment, which makes the entire science fair game on this list. Excellent points. If none of these things were operator-adjustable, all the talk about them would be academic. Learning for learning's sake. But, since the camera operator CAN change most of them, and is expected to, conversation about all these things becomes a legitimate pasttime... keith whaley I do agree with Shel on one point though - discussion of intricacies of digital world takes us somewhat away from Pentax and from Photography. Indeed, comparing various OSes, software packages, file formats, and so on, has rather little to do with PP above...
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Hi, Keith Whaley wrote: No disrespect, Mike, but there ain't NOTHIN' like a Saturn V! Even standing a few miles away, the blatting noise and overpressure from that HUGE solid lighting off, was among the most impressive, scariest thing I'd ever witnessed! g None taken. Environmentalist that I am, I still can't help but be awed by rockets, jets, gargantuan marine engines, steam stuff, etc. Though, compared to hurricanes, volcanos and suchlike... mike
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
You guys seen this: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 5:29 AM Subject: Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston Hi, Keith Whaley wrote: No disrespect, Mike, but there ain't NOTHIN' like a Saturn V! Even standing a few miles away, the blatting noise and overpressure from that HUGE solid lighting off, was among the most impressive, scariest thing I'd ever witnessed! g None taken. Environmentalist that I am, I still can't help but be awed by rockets, jets, gargantuan marine engines, steam stuff, etc. Though, compared to hurricanes, volcanos and suchlike... mike
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Hi, Steve Larson wrote: You guys seen this: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Interesting stuff. My first lodgings in higher education was at Doxford House, family home (mansion) of the Doxford family, whose company developed marine diesels of this size. The caretaker of the accommodation used to work at the company as a service engineer and told us of climbing into cylinders to inspect wear rates and using a kind of entrenching tool to decoke whilst he was in there. The mansion was pretty much what you would expect of a family that was in one of the most lucrative businesses in the world at the time. Sadly defunct by the time I got there. mike
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Hi, Keith, Saturns were liquid fuel, no? I know the Shuttle boosters (at least the two on the side of the main booster) are solid, but I'm sure that Saturns were all liquid. I've always wanted to see a rocket launch. I think I told the list this once, but when I was a kid in Montreal, we lived a couple of blocks from the Canadair (now Bombardier Aerospace) factory, who at the time made the Canadian version of the Lockheed Starfighter (our version was the CF 104). Every so often one of those would rocket over our house, afterburners ablaze, making a huge (and to our 8 year old ears, cool) amount of noise. Canadair also had the maintenance contract for Voodoos, so we'd see those, too, along with an experimental VTOL, and Canadair's famous WaterBomber. I also remember back in '66, while on vacation, we were passing by the Air Force Base in Plattsburg, NY, and they were in the midst of a B 52 scramble. We were at the end of the runway, watching those behemoths (and don't forget, this was pre-jumbo jet days) rolling down the runway and taking off about every 30 seconds, belching black smoke. Most impressive. Of course, as a pinko pacifist and an environmentalist, I'm officially aghast, and quite against the noise pollution, air pollution and the military uses of these aircraft. But, I have to admit, they're way cool to watch and hear. vbg cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:25:34 -0800 mike wilson wrote: Hi, Cotty wrote: On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Will we get to sample some of this chili of yours at GFM? Chili and beer and camping! Hoo Haa! Makes me think of the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles... That bloody camper will be floating of into the treetops like something out of ET When you've poured some Hobgoblin down their necks, it will be more like a Saturn V! mike No disrespect, Mike, but there ain't NOTHIN' like a Saturn V! Even standing a few miles away, the blatting noise and overpressure from that HUGE solid lighting off, was among the most impressive, scariest thing I'd ever witnessed! g keith _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/featurespgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
The Rolls-Royce Deltic used to have the most hp/lb, complicated design. Wonder if they still make those? Steve Larson wrote: You guys seen this: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 5:29 AM Subject: Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston Hi, Keith Whaley wrote: No disrespect, Mike, but there ain't NOTHIN' like a Saturn V! Even standing a few miles away, the blatting noise and overpressure from that HUGE solid lighting off, was among the most impressive, scariest thing I'd ever witnessed! g None taken. Environmentalist that I am, I still can't help but be awed by rockets, jets, gargantuan marine engines, steam stuff, etc. Though, compared to hurricanes, volcanos and suchlike... mike -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Matt Bevers wrote: On Nov 14, 2003, at 7:47 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Now, on a completely different note: Does anyone have a great recipe for beef stew? I've been craving comfort food lately ... wonder why? Olive oil 1 1/4 pounds stew beef, cut into 1-inch pieces 6 large garlic cloves, minced 8 cups beef stock or canned beef broth 2 tablespoons tomato paste 1 tablespoon sugar 1 tablespoon dried thyme 1 tablespoon Worcestershire sauce 2 bay leaves 2 tablespoons (1/4 stick) butter (or more olive oil for those with a cholesterol problem) 3 pounds russet potatoes, peeled, cut into 1/2-inch pieces (about 7 cups) 1 large onion, chopped 2 cups 1/2-inch pieces peeled carrots Heat the olive oil in a large dutch oven. Add the beef, brown on all sides. Add garlic and saute briefly. Add beef stock, tomato paste, sugar, thyme, Worcestershire and bay leaves. Bring to a boil, then reduce heat to medium low and simmer covered for an hour. In another large pot (and it will need to be large) - melt the butter. Add potatoes, onion and carrots. Saute until everything looks about right (say 20 minutes or so). I like the carrots gold but not completely caramelized. Add the veggies to the beef in the other pot and simmer 40 minutes or so until everything is nice and tender. Happy to help. -Matt Now we have to have a cook off _ I sent him a recipe too :) annsan
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
On 15/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Steve Larson wrote: You guys seen this: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Bloody Nora, I wouldn't like to hand-crank that on a cold winter morning! Incredible. For anyone who's ever built an engine, this page is unbelievable. http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ Thanks for that Steve. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Hi, graywolf wrote: The Rolls-Royce Deltic used to have the most hp/lb, complicated design. Wonder if they still make those? They certainly don't use them on the trains anymore. A well-loved design by many. Quite a few preserved locomotives floating around the country. mike
RE: I feel like Mike Johnston
of valid rasons to enjoy photography - the act of going out for a day and shooting a bunch of images that please you is a supremely satisfying act. Some do it for pretentious reasons - an ex-girlfriend of mine was given an old AE-1 and wanted be to take her to get some film and then go take pictures of some homeless people. Others do it for sheer creative outlet. Others still do it as a living, which may involve elements of pretention and enjoyment, or not. If you enjoy the snick of a mechanical shutter, great. I think that an interest in mechanical cameras, akin to those orchestras that only play with period instruments, is something many photographers share to varying degrees, though I also think that, contrary to your assertion, most people, at least on the PDML, could pick up an old manual camera and be shooting well with it in no time flat, once they see where the controls are. Happy shooting. I'm going out with the *istD, my lenses, and my dog to shoot away the afternoon. I hope you can do the same, albeit no doubt with a different body, and perhaps without a dog. Life surely can be grand. -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14-Nov-03 04:47 To: PDML Subject: I feel like Mike Johnston Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday morning.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Shel, I've been thinking about this rant of yours, and why it doesn't ring true to me. I think I have finally hit upon it. I think you've totally missed it, actually. Presuming to speak for Shel (I'm sure he'll correct me when I get it wrong): I wouldn't put Shel in the image is everything camp - far from it. It's important to end up with a good image, of course, but part of the process is the pleasure you get from using the tools to produce that image. If a tool doesn't feel good in the hand, then you're not likely to produce your best work when using that tool. Not because the tool isn't capable of it, but because the tool-wielder isn't motivated. Shel understands the nuts-and-bolts of how to wring the last possible iota out of the 'traditional' (or is that 'legacy'?) photographic process, probably better than almost everybody on this list. It's interesting to him, and so he excels at it. He's not interested in the digital manipulations, and so he hasn't invested the effort to understand the details of the process. And even if he did understand the technical complexities it wouldn't have the same emotional connection for him to the image-production process. If I were to read any subtext into Shel's rant (other than the sheer pleasure of playing Devil's advocate and deliberately overstating a case) it would be the angst of someone seeing his favourite pastime sidelined by the inexorable march of progress. Discussing digital technology is embracing a new medium that has a lot of potential, something which I find extremely moving and exciting. The principal elements of getting the data onto the medium haven't changed (much), but what you do with the data HAS changed. John Francis appears to be considering creating a RAW to JPG converter (JF, if you were to come up with such a product, I for one would buy it). This is the rough equivalent of formulating your own developer. Have you ever done that? Talk about control over the nuts and bolts of the process! I was an early adopter of digital technology for precisely this reason. I've done my own darkroom work, but found it unexciting. The digital stuff, though, I understand extremely well, and feel confident of my ability to vary the tools to see the effects. This is an area where I feel I can more than hold my own. That's nice - here, at any rate, is an area where I can do something better than Shel :-)
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Gosh, John Francis! All those words quoted and then bothing to say? I've never seen you speechless before! Yeah, yeah, yeah. One too many carriage returns when recovering from an editing goof, and the empty message gets sent anyway. It's all this digital messaging that's to blame. If we'd stuck with the old pen-and-ink methods this would never have happened.
RE: I feel like Mike Johnston
On 15/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I've been thinking about this rant of yours [rebuttal snipped] I think he's calling you out. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Not exactly, John, but pretty close. Truth is, it ain't digital that I ranted against, it was just what seemed to me the excessive amount of minutia that was being discussed that didn't seem to add anything to the making of photographs. I feel exactly the same way when people talk about film in such detail - the shape of the silver particles, heels and toes, d-Max, and all that. Sure, I know that that knowledge can help some people make better photographs, technically ... but so what. What good is a technically perfect photograph that tells no story, that shares no interest, that fails to incite or provoke, that gives no rise to thoughts and ideas, or that doesn't share happiness, joy, pleasure, or any of the many emotions and hundred of experiences we share. And John, I do have in interest in digital photography ... have been impressed by the quality that can be gotten from some Epson printers (2200 and 9600 are the ones I've used). My interest is strong enough that I work with a printer in Berkeley who has shown me a few things to improve the quality of my digital output and helps me extract the best possible prints made by my little Sony or scanned slides or negatives. Sure, I can marvel about the quality of Salgado's work (and was told on this list that such quality could not be achieved using 35mm film - by those who never saw the photographs LOL), but it all means squat without the story the photographs tell, without the effect they had on making changes in the world. And yet, some of the greatest stories told in photos, some of the greatest and most renowned and most important photographs, are technical disasters. I've met some wonderful photographers. Sometimes when talking about what goes into the making of a photo it becomes clear that they don't know about many of the minute details that make up the film they use, or how a developer (or a pixel) works. But they do know what exposure to use in a certain situation, and they do know that if they use such and such a film, or this camera or that lens, they like the results. They do know how to shoot to a climax. Talk to these guys and women about social issues, the best way to interpret light, good shooting scenarios, and even the choice of film (and to a lesser extent, the gear) they use, and you'll have a good conversation. But ask about heels and toes and interpolation and r-g-b and EXIFs and such, and more than likely their eyes will glaze over LOL. The truth is that on this list, and other lists, there are a great number of people for whom all this technical stuff is important. It's their job, it's part of their life, it's something that gets their blood flowing. But as for me, and for quite a few others out there, all those details get in the way of making a photograph. I guess it's a left brain right brain kind of thing. I forget what side of the brain I use when looking through the viewfinder - but then, I don't care about that either. I just want to see what's on the paper, whether inkjet or fiber-based silver. And if it ain't right, I don't need to know all the minutia about what went into the software, or the optical formula of a given enlarging lens, or any of that. I just need to know if more/less exposure would be better (oversimplification, I know, but it really ain't much more complicated than that). And, just to make it clear for those who do think I'm an equipment snob, here's what I wrote to Bucky in a private email: I shan't defend my POV, other than to say I'm about as far from an equipment snob as you can imagine. I own, and use, autofocus cameras. I own, and use, digital cameras (and have done so for years ... longer, I might guess, than many people on this list and perhaps you yourself). I've been scanning film for several years now ... so don't give me this snob bullshit, OK. And, as I mentioned to John, publicly, I LIKE the istD, but I'm glad it's not a Leica. And I love my Leicas, but I'm happy that they're not an SLR. And I love my MX, but sometimes it sucks compared to the MZ-5n. You get the picture ... So, agree or disagree with my rant, believe I'm a snob or an asshole or incompetent or narrow minded or whatever. It makes little difference to me. It is nice, however, that some discussion was generated, and that some beef stew recipes were posted. John scribed: Shel understands the nuts-and-bolts of how to wring the last possible iota out of the 'traditional' (or is that 'legacy'?) photographic process, probably better than almost everybody on this list. It's interesting to him, and so he excels at it. He's not interested in the digital manipulations, and so he hasn't invested the effort to understand the details of the process. And even if he did understand the technical complexities it wouldn't have the same emotional connection for him to the image-production process. If I were to read any subtext into
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
I don't know about Exif data but icc profiles can be embedded in them now, the format is open and is being improved. Maybe in time. Not really. The PNG format is in the last stages of being accepted as an international standard, and is therefore not being changed. Addition of EXIF data would come, if at all, in a future version. There is some level of extensibility built into PNG; it's possible to register new chunk types, and textually-encoded data can already be associated with an image. But even if these mechanisms prove sufficient (which is possible), until an encoding of EXIF data is commonly accepted you can't really say EXIF is supported by PNG.
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
On 15/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: You guys seen this: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ Yikes! Plane bearings, no less! This can't compete in terms of displacement, but as for cylinder count, how does 48 sound... in a motorcycle? http://www.bigbikeriders.com/48cyl.htm OUTRAGEOUS. I've seen a bike with a 357 Chevy engine before, but that takes the biscuit. unless you know differently. Answers on a keyboard please. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Hi, Cotty wrote: On 15/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: You guys seen this: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ Yikes! Plane bearings, no less! This can't compete in terms of displacement, but as for cylinder count, how does 48 sound... in a motorcycle? http://www.bigbikeriders.com/48cyl.htm OUTRAGEOUS. I've seen a bike with a 357 Chevy engine before, but that takes the biscuit. unless you know differently. Answers on a keyboard please. Must run for all of about five minutes before the back, ooh, 30 cylinders sieze. Carburation will be an absolute swine, too. Can't get the movie to run. 8-( There's a trike running around Sunderland with a Rover V8 engine; but better than that, I've seen a Mini (not a MINI[BMW])with one in. Not much room for anything else. mike
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Hi, Saturday, November 15, 2003, 10:24:40 PM, you wrote: It's all this digital messaging that's to blame. If we'd stuck with the old pen-and-ink methods this would never have happened. yes - we could have Abyssinian runners carrying our messages around the world in cleft sticks! That would be most agreeable. -- Cheers, Boot
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
I know that that knowledge can help some people make better photographs, technically ... but so what. What good is a technically perfect photograph that tells no story, that shares no interest, that fails to incite or provoke, that gives no rise to thoughts and ideas, or that doesn't share happiness, joy, pleasure, or any of the many emotions and hundred of experiences we share. That's not the point, really. The capture of the image doesn't end when you trip the shutter; that's almost only the start of the process. So, given the latent image on the film (or in the memory), how can one best complete the visualisation? Better photographers than I have invested a great deal of effort to get the best transfer from emusion to paper; I'm just doing the same in the digital world. If all that mattered was the non-technical stuff nobody would bother to choose lenses because of their sharpness, or warmth, or field of view, let alone more controversial factors such as bokeh. And John, I do have in interest in digital photography ... have been impressed by the quality that can be gotten from some Epson printers (2200 and 9600 are the ones I've used). My interest is strong enough that I work with a printer in Berkeley who has shown me a few things to improve the quality of my digital output and helps me extract the best possible prints made by my little Sony or scanned slides or negatives. But from my standpoint that's merely a superficial understanding. You look at a JPEG from the *ist-D, and fault it for excessive mosaic artifacts in my beard, say. For you that's practically the end of the matter. For me that's just the beginning of an investigation as to where those artifacts were introduced. If the tools at hand don't help me enough, I'll create my own tools. And if I find that I can lay the blame for these artifacts firmly at the feet of one particular step in the process, I'll see if I can create my own replacement for that step. Conversion from a RAW image buffer to a JPEG (or even TIFF) is not a deterministic operation; there are many decision points along the way. But in order to make the best choice at any particular decision point it *is* necessary to understand just what a Bayer matrix is, what a cosine transform does, and which artifacts can be introduced (or removed) by which numerical operations. And to locate and respect the choices the photographer made before he took that final step I do need to know just where the camera stores that information in the file. The truth is that on this list, and other lists, there are a great number of people for whom all this technical stuff is important. It's their job, it's part of their life, it's something that gets their blood flowing. But as for me, and for quite a few others out there, all those details get in the way of making a photograph. I guess it's a left brain right brain kind of thing. I forget what side of the brain I use when looking through the viewfinder - but then, I don't care about that either. I just want to see what's on the paper, whether inkjet or fiber-based silver. And if it ain't right, I don't need to know all the minutia about what went into the software, or the optical formula of a given enlarging lens, or any of that. I just need to know if more/less exposure would be better (oversimplification, I know, but it really ain't much more complicated than that). A gross oversimplification, if you ask me. Should you use a different grade of paper? Given the effect you were looking for, did you make the right choice of developer? (That's one nice thing about digital; if you make the wrong choice it's not an irrevocable step; you can just go back and start over). How about the enlarger? there are different types, which produce different image artifacts. And that's not even beginning to talk about colour correction filters, etc. Not that I'm trying to convert you - I'm just attempting to explain my view. I want to do the best job I can in getting that image from the buffer to paper. If I'm not prepared to do the best that I can there, I'm devaluing the effort I put into making the exposure in the first place.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
I'm gonna reply interspersed: That's not the point, really. The capture of the image doesn't end when you trip the shutter; that's almost only the start of the process. So, given the latent image on the film (or in the memory), how can one best complete the visualisation? Better photographers than I have invested a great deal of effort to get the best transfer from emusion to paper; I'm just doing the same in the digital world. If all that mattered was the non-technical stuff nobody would bother to choose lenses because of their sharpness, or warmth, or field of view, let alone more controversial factors such as bokeh. You've touched on my point ... I choose lenses for the results they produce ... sharpness or lack thereof, field of view, color rendition, bokeh, and other characteristics. However, it makes no difference to me WHY a lens behaves as it does because I'm not going to redesign it. What I am going to do is attach it to a camera, adjust the aperture, focus, and press the shutter release. The lens was chosen for its characteristics, and for the its contribution to the story I want to tell in the final print. Some time ago I was criticised for having several 85mm lenses, and commenting that I'd like a 77mm Ltd. It was said by someone on this list that I was, and I'm paraphrasing here, that I was a lens snob LOL, in part because there was really no need for so many lenses of the same focal length. Yet each has its characteristics, and each is better suited for a certain result than another. Actually, the capture of the image begins long before the shutter is released. Assuming we have a subject, the capture begins with (in no particular order) the choice of film, the choice of lens, aperture, shutter speed, the choice of camera (rangefinder, SLR, med format, large format, digital), and sometimes waiting for the right light - maybe even returning another day to make the photograph - amongst other things. Other choices that might be made before the exposure are choice of printing paper, whether for inkjet prints or legacy photographs, choices of enlarger or printer (shall a cold light head or a condenser head be used), a six or seven colored ink system, and so on and on and on. Perhaps those with the fix it in Photoshop mentality might disagree, but hey, if y'gotta fix it, then maybe something was wrong to begin with. By that comment I don't mean creative interpretation, but fixing a poorly exposed, focused, or framed image, or one in which the lighting was poor ... Sure, all photos receive some manipulation to get the final print. That's a given, regardless of whether one is exposing pixels or film. So, for me, all those things are VERY important are all or some are big considerations. Yet, for me, I don't have to know that the bokeh I like is a result of a certain lens aberration, or the sharpness of a lens comes at the expense of some other aberration, etc. All that matters is the result, which is obtained through experience and trying different techniques and equipment. But from my standpoint that's merely a superficial understanding. You look at a JPEG from the *ist-D, and fault it for excessive mosaic artifacts in my beard, say. For you that's practically the end of the matter. For me that's just the beginning of an investigation as to where those artifacts were introduced. If the tools at hand don't help me enough, I'll create my own tools. And if I find that I can lay the blame for these artifacts firmly at the feet of one particular step in the process, I'll see if I can create my own replacement for that step. Conversion from a RAW image buffer to a JPEG (or even TIFF) is not a deterministic operation; there are many decision points along the way. But in order to make the best choice at any particular decision point it *is* necessary to understand just what a Bayer matrix is, what a cosine transform does, and which artifacts can be introduced (or removed) by which numerical operations. And to locate and respect the choices the photographer made before he took that final step I do need to know just where the camera stores that information in the file. Now, for a guy like you (and I mean that in a complimentary sense) knowing all the technical stuff, especially in digital photography, is probably useful. You can, perhaps and for example, read the code in the Pentax software and change it to suit your purposes. Not only can't I do that, I'm not sure I'd want to. I'll agree that my understanding of a lot of things digital (and even in film) photography is superficial, but that doesn't prevent me from making a good print. Perhaps I've learned to work around my ignorance, or perhaps I realize that I don't need to know what you feel you need to know to get a good result. Does it matter that I don't know what you know? Does it matter that you don't know what I know? Not a whit, John, since we approach photography a little
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
It is amazing with plane bearings! WRT that scooter, your thighs look to get pre-heated, then melt! Very nice piece of machinery though. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 1:36 PM Subject: Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston Steve Larson wrote: You guys seen this: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ Yikes! Plane bearings, no less! This can't compete in terms of displacement, but as for cylinder count, how does 48 sound... in a motorcycle? http://www.bigbikeriders.com/48cyl.htm Listmeister Brewer sent me this link a couple of weeks ago and I'm still in shock. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: I feel like Mike Johnston
Happy Birthday! But after all I was just being honest. I have often called my wife over to the monitor to show her your latest effort. -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Irlanda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15-Nov-03 12:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I feel like Mike Johnston Bucky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look at some of Gianfranco Irlanda's wonderful work on the PUG Thanks for those words, Bucky. The best present for my birthday I did receive this year (well, my birthday was yesterday, but who cares? :-). I really appreciated your post. Ciao, Gianfranco = To read is to travel without all the hassles of luggage. ---Emilio Salgari (1863-1911) __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Excellent points. If none of these things were operator-adjustable, all the talk about them would be academic. Learning for learning's sake. Not that there's anything wrong with that. If you look at Boz's K-mount pages you'll find them full of facts that were put together, mostly by PDML members, but which are mostly learning for learnings sake. Which of us, after all, is going to even modify the contacts on the back of a lens, let alone try anything more radical? (OK, Cotty - you can put your hand down. Anybody *else*?)
Motorcycles (was Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston)
I believe Jay Leno (Tonight Show host) has a motorcycle built around a helicopter turbine engine. They run about $250,000 http://motorcyclecity.com/turbine.htm
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Perhaps those with the fix it in Photoshop mentality might disagree, but hey, if y'gotta fix it, then maybe something was wrong to begin with. Maybe. But I'm not so much arguing for fixing it as I am arguing against breaking it. Maybe what was wrong was the software that was being used. Now, for a guy like you (and I mean that in a complimentary sense) knowing all the technical stuff, especially in digital photography, is probably useful. You can, perhaps and for example, read the code in the Pentax software and change it to suit your purposes. Not only can't I do that, I'm not sure I'd want to. Fairly close. I can't read the Pentax code, but I can see what it does, and deduce a pretty good idea of how it goes about it. And if it does something I don't like, there's a good chance I'll be able to craft an alternative more to my liking. That's something I can do. I don't have the experience to know how different types of enlarger affect a print, or an encyclopaedic knowledge of the look-and-feel of different brands of paper. But digital image processing plays to my strengths.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Shelk - it's good to have you back, and I totally agree with you! Last amble (too slow to call it a walk!) I took with a camera, I had a Spotmatic loaded with mono on my shoulder, 50mm lens fitted, 2xTc in my pocket - so refreshing! And I _think_ (won't know until I dev the film myself) I got some nice moody around-town shots. aaah, takes me right back - but then at the next function where I'm doing the shots of speeches and presentations, I'll be back with the MZ-S, 330AFTZ, honking zoom lens, and laser printing of the results! I guess that's horses for courses? John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:47 PM Subject: I feel like Mike Johnston Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday morning. I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that I've come to know photography over these past four decades or so. Bits, bytes, EXIF's, and all sorts of jargon that is arcane and which I cannot see, except in a rather tangential way, as having much to do with traditional photography. By that I mean making photographs, not digi v film. Now, don't get me wrong - I use a digital camera, and am very much interested in how I can use pixels to make my photographs, yet I believe there's far too much talk about the intricacies and subtleties of how a RAW becomes a TIFF, for example, and far too little discussion - or action - about the art and skill of making a photograph. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about all the crap that goes on inside a digital camera, or what and where the headers are in some TIFF or JPEG file, the ebb and flow of electrons, the size of the sensor, who Bayer is and why he interpolated red green and blue pixels. Show me the picture, the final image, if you will. Show me the interplay of light and shadow, the smile caught in a sly glance, or a story written in light, whether with a silver or an electronic brush. That is what photography is. That is the tradition. I've been having a lot of fun with my digital camera, and it's been exciting to learn Photoshop, but hanging out here for the past couple of weeks has made me nauseous from all the digital hyperbole. I got so tired of hearing about the technical strengths and failings of software, the dissection of file formats, complaints about sensor size (It's that age old question: Does size matter? Or is what you do with your tool more important?), analyzing and supposing why one size shall prevail over another ... so, since I'm off my antidepressants for a while I had to find something to elevate my mood. I grabbed my old Leica M3 - no batteries, no light meter, no auto anything except for the nerves, dendrites, and synapses that connect my eye, brain, and shutter release finger - stuck on a 90mm lens, and went out an made some photographs in the old fashioned way. What a lovely experience ... I could focus wherever I pleased (even where there was nothing to focus upon!), not where some sensor told me to; I decided if the focus was correct or not, not some sensor that glows in the viewfinder; I could over or under expose without changing modes; I could even make a double exposure without too much trouble, although the Leica is not the best camera for that. A good, ol' Spottie or MX, or some such similar relic makes doing that a (literal) snap. I guess with a digital camera one would make a double exposure using post processing techniques LOL I'm hesitant to suggest that everyone go out and use an old camera. There are many people here, and elsewhere, who are wedded to the new technologies, and far too many who wouldn't even know how to use a camera such as a Leica or a Pentax H3v. Mind you, that's not a slur ... I have trouble with many of the newer cameras. It's just what one has become accustomed to. Just the idea that I have to turn it on and get into a shooting mode gives me apoplectic fits. Oh, I know that it won't take long to figure out how to get one of these high-tech image processors up and running, and that with most it's just a quick read of the manual to learn how to make the camera do what I want it to do, which is generally nothing but take the picture at the aperture and shutter speed that I choose. And I know that all you dudes who grew up on video games and have great eye-hand coordination can probably switch modes before I could even figure out what mode I should be in. Maybe I should just find a nice sunny spot in the park, sit on a bench, and feed the squirrels. So, for those of you who haven't tried it yet, grab an old camera, grab some film, and go out and make pictures in the fashion of a by gone era. And for those of you who
I feel like Mike Johnston
Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday morning. I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that I've come to know photography over these past four decades or so. Bits, bytes, EXIF's, and all sorts of jargon that is arcane and which I cannot see, except in a rather tangential way, as having much to do with traditional photography. By that I mean making photographs, not digi v film. Now, don't get me wrong - I use a digital camera, and am very much interested in how I can use pixels to make my photographs, yet I believe there's far too much talk about the intricacies and subtleties of how a RAW becomes a TIFF, for example, and far too little discussion - or action - about the art and skill of making a photograph. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about all the crap that goes on inside a digital camera, or what and where the headers are in some TIFF or JPEG file, the ebb and flow of electrons, the size of the sensor, who Bayer is and why he interpolated red green and blue pixels. Show me the picture, the final image, if you will. Show me the interplay of light and shadow, the smile caught in a sly glance, or a story written in light, whether with a silver or an electronic brush. That is what photography is. That is the tradition. I've been having a lot of fun with my digital camera, and it's been exciting to learn Photoshop, but hanging out here for the past couple of weeks has made me nauseous from all the digital hyperbole. I got so tired of hearing about the technical strengths and failings of software, the dissection of file formats, complaints about sensor size (It's that age old question: Does size matter? Or is what you do with your tool more important?), analyzing and supposing why one size shall prevail over another ... so, since I'm off my antidepressants for a while I had to find something to elevate my mood. I grabbed my old Leica M3 - no batteries, no light meter, no auto anything except for the nerves, dendrites, and synapses that connect my eye, brain, and shutter release finger - stuck on a 90mm lens, and went out an made some photographs in the old fashioned way. What a lovely experience ... I could focus wherever I pleased (even where there was nothing to focus upon!), not where some sensor told me to; I decided if the focus was correct or not, not some sensor that glows in the viewfinder; I could over or under expose without changing modes; I could even make a double exposure without too much trouble, although the Leica is not the best camera for that. A good, ol' Spottie or MX, or some such similar relic makes doing that a (literal) snap. I guess with a digital camera one would make a double exposure using post processing techniques LOL I'm hesitant to suggest that everyone go out and use an old camera. There are many people here, and elsewhere, who are wedded to the new technologies, and far too many who wouldn't even know how to use a camera such as a Leica or a Pentax H3v. Mind you, that's not a slur ... I have trouble with many of the newer cameras. It's just what one has become accustomed to. Just the idea that I have to turn it on and get into a shooting mode gives me apoplectic fits. Oh, I know that it won't take long to figure out how to get one of these high-tech image processors up and running, and that with most it's just a quick read of the manual to learn how to make the camera do what I want it to do, which is generally nothing but take the picture at the aperture and shutter speed that I choose. And I know that all you dudes who grew up on video games and have great eye-hand coordination can probably switch modes before I could even figure out what mode I should be in. Maybe I should just find a nice sunny spot in the park, sit on a bench, and feed the squirrels. So, for those of you who haven't tried it yet, grab an old camera, grab some film, and go out and make pictures in the fashion of a by gone era. And for those of you who have an old Spottie around, or an MX, or some such silly paperweight, it may be time to take it for a walk around the neighborhood before all the gears and levers fuse together from lack of use. You'll have a wonderful story to tell your grandchildren ... Billie Jean, come sit with grandpa in the garden and I'll tell you about film. And if you're good, I'll tell you that story you like so much about developers. Now, on a completely different note: Does anyone have a great recipe for beef stew? I've been craving comfort food lately ... wonder why? shel
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
You've been gone way too long! If you'd have been here, you'd know that it was arbitrarily decided that photographs cannot be made with digital cameras. I won't say who made that decision. They know who they are. VBG Len --- * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: I feel like Mike Johnston Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:47:08 -0800 I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that I've come to know photography over these past four decades or so. Bits, bytes, EXIF's, and all sorts of jargon that is arcane and which I cannot see, except in a rather tangential way, as having much to do with traditional photography. By that I mean making photographs, not digi v film. Now, don't get me wrong - I use a digital camera, and am very much interested in how I can use pixels to make my photographs, yet I believe there's far too much talk about the intricacies and subtleties of how a RAW becomes a TIFF, for example, and far too little discussion - or action - about the art and skill of making a photograph. _ Send a QuickGreet with MSN Messenger http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_games
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Now, on a completely different note: Does anyone have a great recipe for beef stew? I've been craving comfort food lately ... wonder why? shel Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Ice cream. Anytime there is a new technology, there is a learning overhead. And there also is bound to be some fascination with the intricacies of the new technology, as well. I find it interesting, myself, that quite a few people who didn't know much of anything about digital technology just about six months ago, now know quite a few of the ins and outs of DSLRs. I learn a lot by reading their posts. Some may go over my head right now, but a lot of it's sinking in. I am absorbing some things. And I, personally, am proud of the people who have learned so much so quickly. They are benefiting me. And all the question asking, some of it mine (I have asked one or two questions), means we are all learning together. People on this list, as always, are helpful and share information. We are students and teachers together. Even flip-flopping roles. To me, that is the strength of the PDML. I also think an artist or a craftsperson of any stripe learns their tools. Learns from the ground up. The craft of photography may remain the same, but the tools may change. Wanting to know one's tools is just the sign of a craftsperson, in my opinion. Does my mind fog over? Yes, I get overwhelmed by all the new information. Do I care about all the picky little details? No, not all the time. Am I still interested? Yes, some of the things on this list have explained to me some of the drawbacks of digital. And some of the benefits as well. Has this list always concentrated on tools a lot? Yes, but photography gets discussed as well. Maybe all the tool discussion is partially a guy thing, don't know, I also, as I said, see craftspeople learning their tools (see above). I hope no one shuts up. Ever. I, personally, think it's always rather easy to bump this list into talking about photography -- as a broad category, as an art form, as a skill. Happens all the time. Just share some photos. Marnie aka Doe
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
On 14 Nov 2003 at 4:47, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that I've come to know photography over these past four decades or so. Hi Shel, Well things change. Changes have occurred and we are leaning the good and bad of the new technology much the same as some of us experimented with developer/film combinations back in the old days of silver halide imaging :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday morning. Snip. I AGREE!!! Can't help with a beef stew recipe, but can provide one for chili. Bill
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
You are correct. We no longer make photographs. We make inkjet prints. Bill You've been gone way too long! If you'd have been here, you'd know that it was arbitrarily decided that photographs cannot be made with digital cameras. I won't say who made that decision. They know who they are. VBG Len --- * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: I feel like Mike Johnston Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:47:08 -0800 I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that I've come to know photography over these past four decades or so. Bits, bytes, EXIF's, and all sorts of jargon that is arcane and which I cannot see, except in a rather tangential way, as having much to do with traditional photography. By that I mean making photographs, not digi v film. Now, don't get me wrong - I use a digital camera, and am very much interested in how I can use pixels to make my photographs, yet I believe there's far too much talk about the intricacies and subtleties of how a RAW becomes a TIFF, for example, and far too little discussion - or action - about the art and skill of making a photograph. _ Send a QuickGreet with MSN Messenger http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_games
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
At 07:47 AM 11/14/03, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday Snip Okay, everyone, listen up. Shel only wants us to talk about what Shel is interested in. Before you send a post to the list, please send it to Shel first and see if he thinks it's appropriate. Shel, being the only real photographer on the list, will determine if your post meets his standards and will let you know if you can send it to the rest of the subscribers. Thanks, Doug I know Mike Johnston and you, sir, are no Mike Johnston Brewer p.s. For the humor-impaired on the PDML, this is a joke.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different looking RAW file than a Nikon or a Pentax. RAW, in your own words, bypasses most of the processing on the camera. Most means not all. If you've not already tried it, grab a few different cameras that use RAW, take the same shot under the same conditions (don't forget to use your tripod g) and then compare the images. According to you, they should be the same. Do the experiment, and let us know what results you've come up with. In fact, post 'em so we can make up our own minds. shel alex wetmore wrote: Unless you use RAW. RAW bypasses most of the processing on the camera and allows you to do the processing on your PC.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Hey Doug, You circumvented the approval process. You do not set a good example for the other list members. You will be visited by the Standards and Practices Police later in the day. Are you still living in your van? Still parked near the school yard? Are there really humor impaired people on the PDML? Better break out the smiley collection LOL shel who knows Mike johnston and will be the first to admit i ain't him belinkoff Okay, everyone, listen up. Shel only wants us to talk about what Shel is interested in. Before you send a post to the list, please send it to Shel first and see if he thinks it's appropriate. Shel, being the only real photographer on the list, will determine if your post meets his standards and will let you know if you can send it to the rest of the subscribers. Thanks, Doug I know Mike Johnston and you, sir, are no Mike Johnston Brewer p.s. For the humor-impaired on the PDML, this is a joke.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Shel Belinkoff wrote: alex wetmore wrote: Unless you use RAW. RAW bypasses most of the processing on the camera and allows you to do the processing on your PC. RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different looking RAW file than a Nikon or a Pentax. RAW, in your own words, bypasses most of the processing on the camera. Most means not all. If you've not already tried it, grab a few different cameras that use RAW, take the same shot under the same conditions (don't forget to use your tripod g) and then compare the images. According to you, they should be the same. Do the experiment, and let us know what results you've come up with. In fact, post 'em so we can make up our own minds. I did not say that they would be the same. The CCDs in the cameras are different and obviously there is some processing done in just acquiring the image from the CCD. This doesn't mean that RAW gives one many more processing alternatives than using the JPEG. This is not much different then being able to get many different results from Tri-X depending on which developer one used and if they pushed or pulled the processing of the film or not. alex
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:10:53 -0800 Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different looking RAW file than a Nikon or a Pentax. RAW, in your own words, bypasses most of the processing on the camera. Most means not all. If you've not already tried it, grab a few different cameras that use RAW, take the same shot under the same conditions (don't forget to use your tripod g) and then compare the images. According to you, they should be the same. Do the experiment, and let us know what results you've come up with. In fact, post 'em so we can make up our own minds. shel I must say that his is one pretty nasty request bg. I wonder how many members of __Pentax__ DML actually do own DSLRs (and comparable lenses) made by Nikon and Canon and Pentax and perhaps Olympus to be able to perform such a test... bg I do agree with Shel on one point though - discussion of intricacies of digital world takes us somewhat away from Pentax and from Photography. Indeed, comparing various OSes, software packages, file formats, and so on, has rather little to do with PP above... I haven't meet Mike Johnston, and I have no idea how he feels (at the moment). I am pretty sure only of one thing - he feels morning and I feel evening. VBG May the (light) force be with you... Boris
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: You are correct. We no longer make photographs. We make inkjet prints. Bill Oh boy. Uncle Bill, I can see we're going to have a *very* long night sat outside PDML Central next June :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
And that, indeed, was my rant and the whole point of my post. I do agree with Shel on one point though - discussion of intricacies of digital world takes us somewhat away from Pentax and from Photography. Indeed, comparing various OSes, software packages, file formats, and so on, has rather little to do with PP above...
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Well, I don't own ANY of those cameras, but it's not been hard to grab one of each to see how they perform. True, I live in an area where such cameras abound - in fact, many can be found just lying about on the ground, or growing in the shrubbery ... Boris Liberman wrote: I must say that his is one pretty nasty request bg. I wonder how many members of __Pentax__ DML actually do own DSLRs (and comparable lenses) made by Nikon and Canon and Pentax and perhaps Olympus to be able to perform such a test... bg
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different looking RAW file than a Nikon or a Pentax. RAW, in your own words, bypasses most of the processing on the camera. Most means not all. No. A *ist-D will produce just about the same RAW image as a Nikon D-100, as far as the actual image pixels are concerned. The differences are mostly in those EXIF bits you're not interested in talking about. A Canon 300D, or a Sony point-and-shoot, or ... will produce different RAW data, because they use different sensors. If you've not already tried it, grab a few different cameras that use RAW, take the same shot under the same conditions (don't forget to use your tripod g) and then compare the images. According to you, they should be the same. Do the experiment, and let us know what results you've come up with. In fact, post 'em so we can make up our own minds. But that's not looking at the same RAW images - it's looking at the images after they've been through whatever piece of software converts from the RAW image to a TIFF or JPEG. And in any case it's no more reasonable to assume that two digital cameras would produce the same RAW images than it is to assume that two 35mm cameras would produce the same images without carefully controlling the other variables (such as film glass). You do lose one element of freedom with digital cameras; the choice of 'film' (primary image capture element) to put in it - sensors aren't interchangeable. But after that, you gain a lot of freedom. There wasn't a lot of choice on how to process C41 (or E6) emulsions; just about everybody used the same mix of chemicals and the same procedure. Black and White, though, was a very different story; there were all sorts of different developers from which you could pick the right one for your purpose to get extended range, or finer detail, or better contrast, ... Digital offers the possibility of just that sort of choice, but with the added advantage (to most) that you can do this sort of thing with colour images. To do that, though, you need to come up with the right developer (software) and the right process. Just living with the in-camera choices, or even the slightly less limited set of choices available in the software supplied with the camera, is like handing your BW film to a high street one-hour lab. You'll get images back, but they may not be anywhere near as good as you could do in your own darkroom. I'm sorry if all this discussion is of no interest to you. There again, I didn't see complaints from you if anybody decided to discuss the benefits of Microdol vs. malt vinegar, which is equally irrelevant to the process of photography. Of course it's overwhelming, at present; the *ist-D has just come out, so a lot of people are dabbling in digital image capture for the first time. But, as Marnie points out, this provides an excellent opportunity for interested novices to learn from people who have a lot of relevant expertise. And we may see some better tools come out of this; I know I'll be cobbling together my own replacement for Photo Laboratory. Perhaps a couple of other list posters will join me in this effort, too; interested parties might like to contact me off-list to discuss the project (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
BRAVO, BRAVO! -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday morning. I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that I've come to know photography over these past four decades or so. Bits, bytes, EXIF's, and all sorts of jargon that is arcane and which I cannot see, except in a rather tangential way, as having much to do with traditional photography. By that I mean making photographs, not digi v film. Now, don't get me wrong - I use a digital camera, and am very much interested in how I can use pixels to make my photographs, yet I believe there's far too much talk about the intricacies and subtleties of how a RAW becomes a TIFF, for example, and far too little discussion - or action - about the art and skill of making a photograph. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about all the crap that goes on inside a digital camera, or what and where the headers are in some TIFF or JPEG file, the ebb and flow of electrons, the size of the sensor, who Bayer is and why he interpolated red green and blue pixels. Show me the picture, the final image, if you will. Show me the interplay of light and shadow, the smile caught in a sly glance, or a story written in light, whether with a silver or an electronic brush. That is what photography is. That is the tradition. I've been having a lot of fun with my digital camera, and it's been exciting to learn Photoshop, but hanging out here for the past couple of weeks has made me nauseous from all the digital hyperbole. I got so tired of hearing about the technical strengths and failings of software, the dissection of file formats, complaints about sensor size (It's that age old question: Does size matter? Or is what you do with your tool more important?), analyzing and supposing why one size shall prevail over another ... so, since I'm off my antidepressants for a while I had to find something to elevate my mood. I grabbed my old Leica M3 - no batteries, no light meter, no auto anything except for the nerves, dendrites, and synapses that connect my eye, brain, and shutter release finger - stuck on a 90mm lens, and went out an made some photographs in the old fashioned way. What a lovely experience ... I could focus wherever I pleased (even where there was nothing to focus upon!), not where some sensor told me to; I decided if the focus was correct or not, not some sensor that glows in the viewfinder; I could over or under expose without changing modes; I could even make a double exposure without too much trouble, although the Leica is not the best camera for that. A good, ol' Spottie or MX, or some such similar relic makes doing that a (literal) snap. I guess with a digital camera one would make a double exposure using post processing techniques LOL I'm hesitant to suggest that everyone go out and use an old camera. There are many people here, and elsewhere, who are wedded to the new technologies, and far too many who wouldn't even know how to use a camera such as a Leica or a Pentax H3v. Mind you, that's not a slur ... I have trouble with many of the newer cameras. It's just what one has become accustomed to. Just the idea that I have to turn it on and get into a shooting mode gives me apoplectic fits. Oh, I know that it won't take long to figure out how to get one of these high-tech image processors up and running, and that with most it's just a quick read of the manual to learn how to make the camera do what I want it to do, which is generally nothing but take the picture at the aperture and shutter speed that I choose. And I know that all you dudes who grew up on video games and have great eye-hand coordination can probably switch modes before I could even figure out what mode I should be in. Maybe I should just find a nice sunny spot in the park, sit on a bench, and feed the squirrels. So, for those of you who haven't tried it yet, grab an old camera, grab some film, and go out and make pictures in the fashion of a by gone era. And for those of you who have an old Spottie around, or an MX, or some such silly paperweight, it may be time to take it for a walk around the neighborhood before all the gears and levers fuse together from lack of use. You'll have a wonderful story to tell your grandchildren ... Billie Jean, come sit with grandpa in the garden and I'll tell you about film. And if you're good, I'll tell you that story you like so much about developers. Now, on a completely different note: Does anyone have a great recipe for beef stew? I've been craving comfort food lately ... wonder why? shel -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Wait a minute. Do we know that Shel is a real photographer? Shel, have you ever used a Speed Graphic? Real photographers use Speed Graphics. I do not want to have to say this again. IS THAT CLEAR? ditto: Doug's PS. -- Doug Brewer wrote: At 07:47 AM 11/14/03, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday Snip Okay, everyone, listen up. Shel only wants us to talk about what Shel is interested in. Before you send a post to the list, please send it to Shel first and see if he thinks it's appropriate. Shel, being the only real photographer on the list, will determine if your post meets his standards and will let you know if you can send it to the rest of the subscribers. Thanks, Doug I know Mike Johnston and you, sir, are no Mike Johnston Brewer p.s. For the humor-impaired on the PDML, this is a joke. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
By the way, Shel, I didn't know you hated cat pictures. :) -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
[Shel enjoys his Leica] What a lovely experience ... I could focus wherever I pleased (even where there was nothing to focus upon!), not where some sensor told me to; Oddly enough, you can do this with a *ist-D, too. I decided if the focus was correct or not, not some sensor that glows in the viewfinder; And this ... I could over or under expose without changing modes; And this ... I could even make a double exposure without too much trouble, although the Leica is not the best camera for that. A good, ol' Spottie or MX, or some such similar relic makes doing that a (literal) snap. I guess with a digital camera one would make a double exposure using post processing techniques LOL Guess what? The *ist-D lets you do this in-camera, too. It's probably at least as easy as doing it on the Leica. I'm hesitant to suggest that everyone go out and use an old camera. There are many people here, and elsewhere, who are wedded to the new technologies, and far too many who wouldn't even know how to use a camera such as a Leica or a Pentax H3v. Mind you, that's not a slur ... I have trouble with many of the newer cameras. It's just what one has become accustomed to. Just the idea that I have to turn it on and get into a shooting mode gives me apoplectic fits. Well, you *do* have to turn the *ist-D on. But unlike most other digital cameras it doesn't have a shooting mode and a playback mode; it's ready to go almost as soon as you turn it on. The thing you'd probably like least about a *ist-D set in all-manual mode (apart from the in-viewfinder displays telling you whether the camera agreed with your choices) is having to set the aperture with a thumbwheel on the body if you wanted the meter coupling to be right.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
BRAVO, BRAVO! [Shel's rant deleted] You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway. I really like the irony here.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I know I'll be cobbling together my own replacement for Photo Laboratory. Perhaps a couple of other list posters will join me in this effort, too; interested parties might like to contact me off-list to discuss the project (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]). Er, sorry, what was the question again? Are you talking about setting up a digital darkroom? Curious, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Shel's back. vbg -frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: I feel like Mike Johnston Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:47:08 -0800 Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday morning. I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that I've come to know photography over these past four decades or so. Bits, bytes, EXIF's, and all sorts of jargon that is arcane and which I cannot see, except in a rather tangential way, as having much to do with traditional photography. By that I mean making photographs, not digi v film. Now, don't get me wrong - I use a digital camera, and am very much interested in how I can use pixels to make my photographs, yet I believe there's far too much talk about the intricacies and subtleties of how a RAW becomes a TIFF, for example, and far too little discussion - or action - about the art and skill of making a photograph. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about all the crap that goes on inside a digital camera, or what and where the headers are in some TIFF or JPEG file, the ebb and flow of electrons, the size of the sensor, who Bayer is and why he interpolated red green and blue pixels. Show me the picture, the final image, if you will. Show me the interplay of light and shadow, the smile caught in a sly glance, or a story written in light, whether with a silver or an electronic brush. That is what photography is. That is the tradition. I've been having a lot of fun with my digital camera, and it's been exciting to learn Photoshop, but hanging out here for the past couple of weeks has made me nauseous from all the digital hyperbole. I got so tired of hearing about the technical strengths and failings of software, the dissection of file formats, complaints about sensor size (It's that age old question: Does size matter? Or is what you do with your tool more important?), analyzing and supposing why one size shall prevail over another ... so, since I'm off my antidepressants for a while I had to find something to elevate my mood. I grabbed my old Leica M3 - no batteries, no light meter, no auto anything except for the nerves, dendrites, and synapses that connect my eye, brain, and shutter release finger - stuck on a 90mm lens, and went out an made some photographs in the old fashioned way. What a lovely experience ... I could focus wherever I pleased (even where there was nothing to focus upon!), not where some sensor told me to; I decided if the focus was correct or not, not some sensor that glows in the viewfinder; I could over or under expose without changing modes; I could even make a double exposure without too much trouble, although the Leica is not the best camera for that. A good, ol' Spottie or MX, or some such similar relic makes doing that a (literal) snap. I guess with a digital camera one would make a double exposure using post processing techniques LOL I'm hesitant to suggest that everyone go out and use an old camera. There are many people here, and elsewhere, who are wedded to the new technologies, and far too many who wouldn't even know how to use a camera such as a Leica or a Pentax H3v. Mind you, that's not a slur ... I have trouble with many of the newer cameras. It's just what one has become accustomed to. Just the idea that I have to turn it on and get into a shooting mode gives me apoplectic fits. Oh, I know that it won't take long to figure out how to get one of these high-tech image processors up and running, and that with most it's just a quick read of the manual to learn how to make the camera do what I want it to do, which is generally nothing but take the picture at the aperture and shutter speed that I choose. And I know that all you dudes who grew up on video games and have great eye-hand coordination can probably switch modes before I could even figure out what mode I should be in. Maybe I should just find a nice sunny spot in the park, sit on a bench, and feed the squirrels. So, for those of you who haven't tried it yet, grab an old camera, grab some film, and go out and make pictures in the fashion of a by gone era. And for those of you who have an old Spottie around, or an MX, or some such silly paperweight, it may be time to take it for a walk around the neighborhood before all the gears and levers fuse together from lack of use. You'll have a wonderful story to tell your grandchildren ... Billie Jean, come sit with grandpa in the garden and I'll tell you about film. And if you're good, I'll tell you that story you like so much about developers. Now, on a completely different note: Does anyone have a great recipe for beef stew? I've been craving comfort
Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Bill, Will we get to sample some of this chili of yours at GFM? Chili and beer and camping! Hoo Haa! Makes me think of the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles... vbg cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Can't help with a beef stew recipe, but can provide one for chili. Bill _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photospgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Oh yes, it's getting to be a tradition. Made with Campbell's tomato soup, hamburger, kidney beans, onion and chili powder. Bill - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:10 PM Subject: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston Bill, Will we get to sample some of this chili of yours at GFM? Chili and beer and camping! Hoo Haa! Makes me think of the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles... vbg cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Can't help with a beef stew recipe, but can provide one for chili. Bill _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photospgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
I've used the precursor to the Speed Graphic ... the Slow Graphic LOL graywolf wrote: Wait a minute. Do we know that Shel is a real photographer? Shel, have you ever used a Speed Graphic? Real photographers use Speed Graphics. I do not want to have to say this again. IS THAT CLEAR?
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Hey John ... I enjoyed using your *ist D ... remember, I told you how much I liked some of the features. I like that it's not a Leica, just like I'm glad the Leica is not a digital Pentax or Canon, or some such. I like my Sony, but I won't give up the MX. shel John Francis wrote: [Shel enjoys his Leica] What a lovely experience ...
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Hey, it ain't the camera I was kvetching about ... Annsan (who deletes anything that says *istD)
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I know I'll be cobbling together my own replacement for Photo Laboratory. Perhaps a couple of other list posters will join me in this effort, too; interested parties might like to contact me off-list to discuss the project (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]). Er, sorry, what was the question again? Are you talking about setting up a digital darkroom? Not full-blown; it's hard to replace Photoshop, or whatever your favourite tool happens to be. I really am just talking about a couple of items; one command-line utility, and one program that does pretty much what Photo Laboratory does, but with a larger window (and, hopefully, a better RAW-to-RGB conversion routine).
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Brewer wrote: In many ways, the bits and bytes talk is analogous to the talk of dark room techniques and equipment. It's about the getting and extracting latent image. Not really, Doug ... Oh yes it is. You have a better chance of making the most of what you've captured - whether it's on film or digital - if you have a thorough understanding of what's going on inside. That inside covers film emulsions, development chemicals, CCD chips and computer file formats. No, you don't *have* to know about this stuff to create good images, but it never hurts to have extra arrows in your quiver, so to speak. Galen Rowell was diligent in this regard and it paid off many times. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
i have. i don't miss the old days one bit. i get more and better pictures faster with my *istD than i can get with any of my film bodies. the only reason i haven't sold my film bodies is because i still have a pile of film in the fridge and that for times when i am shooting what i think will be suitable for sale as large prints, the *istD is only good enough for 12x18 with some resampling and sharpening unless sharpness isn't important. Herb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 7:47 AM Subject: I feel like Mike Johnston So, for those of you who haven't tried it yet, grab an old camera, grab some film, and go out and make pictures in the fashion of a by gone era. And for those of you who have an old Spottie around, or an MX, or some such silly paperweight, it may be time to take it for a walk around the neighborhood before all the gears and levers fuse together from lack of use. You'll have a wonderful story to tell your grandchildren ... Billie Jean, come sit with grandpa in the garden and I'll tell you about film. And if you're good, I'll tell you that story you like so much about developers.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
you can't change how silver reacts to light either. Herb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:10 AM Subject: Re: I feel like Mike Johnston RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different looking RAW file than a Nikon or a Pentax. RAW, in your own words, bypasses most of the processing on the camera. Most means not all.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Nope, you're mistaken, Rob. While it's not a simple matter, and it's probably not something you'd want to do very often, the M3 (at least) will make a double exposure. Haven't tried the later versions - 4, 6, 7 cheers, shel Rob Studdert wrote: I could even make a double exposure without too much trouble, although the Leica is not the best camera for that. LOL. Leica M cameras haven't been able to do this since their introduction.
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Bill Owens wrote: With you and Jostein in there, maybe I should delete the beans? Bill Naw, just put some real peppers in there! keith - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 5:46 PM Subject: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Will we get to sample some of this chili of yours at GFM? Chili and beer and camping! Hoo Haa! Makes me think of the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles... That bloody camper will be floating of into the treetops like something out of ET Cheers, Cotty
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
mike wilson wrote: Hi, Cotty wrote: On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Will we get to sample some of this chili of yours at GFM? Chili and beer and camping! Hoo Haa! Makes me think of the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles... That bloody camper will be floating of into the treetops like something out of ET When you've poured some Hobgoblin down their necks, it will be more like a Saturn V! mike No disrespect, Mike, but there ain't NOTHIN' like a Saturn V! Even standing a few miles away, the blatting noise and overpressure from that HUGE solid lighting off, was among the most impressive, scariest thing I'd ever witnessed! g keith
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Shel Belinkoff wrote: My point is that I don't give a damn about what goes on in the camera if I can't change it, and it's not important to me if I can change it. I don't give a hoot where file markers are located. I don't care what Bayer interpolates. Give me the image I want to work with, that's all I care about. I don't care what the camera does to get me the image. If I don't like the results, I'll use a different camera. And at a few thousand bucks a pop for a DSLR, you're going to spend a lot of time and money doing this. chris
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: I feel like Mike Johnston I've used the precursor to the Speed Graphic ... the Slow Graphic LOL I have used a Crown Graphic, which is appropriate, since we still believe in royalty here. William Robb
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Chris ... I don't spend any money doing this. Camera shops around here are more than happy to let good customers take a camera for a test drive, sometimes over night. Sometimes a friend or an acquaintance has one that s/he'll let you try. And yes, I'm aware that not everyone has the opportunity to borrow gear ... and it's not always easy for me to do so, either. It's sometimes a long drive between camera shops. As for time, well, it's probably a good idea to spend some time using camera gear before making a purchase. Many photogs will test numerous samples of a lens before deciding on the one(s) they want in their kit. If you don't want to spend the time making sure you're satisfied with an item (regardless of what it is) then you've no right to complain when it doesn't perform to your standards. Chris Brogden wrote: I don't care what the camera does to get me the image. If I don't like the results, I'll use a different camera. And at a few thousand bucks a pop for a DSLR, you're going to spend a lot of time and money doing this.
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Bill Owens wrote: With you and Jostein in there, maybe I should delete the beans? Bill Naw, just put some real peppers in there! Funny story: I vacation with a group of friends every year and we take turns with the cooking. Bob R. was doing the cooking that night and was making chili. The person shopping picked up habaneras peppers instead of jalapenos. Thinking he had jalapenos, Bob made what would have been a 2-3 alarm chili. Needless to say it was off the chart. I, who likes hot food, could barely eat it, most others took 1 bite and went screaming off into the sunset. Bob R has been forbidden from ever making chili again. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Exactly. And the main thrust of the current discussion centers around getting the best possible image, which apparently Pentax's photo lab does not deliver. Dario's comparison with the 300D proves that. The Genzo Raw convertor's images look much sharper. I can't seem to find it anywhere tho. rg Bucky wrote: Utter nonsense. People have yammered on ad nauseam about developers in this forum too. Bits, bytes, and the software that manipulates 'em is a big part of a new, and equally legitimate, form of photography. Pentax is now a manufacturer of digital photographic equipment, which makes the entire science fair game on this list. I do agree with Shel on one point though - discussion of intricacies of digital world takes us somewhat away from Pentax and from Photography. Indeed, comparing various OSes, software packages, file formats, and so on, has rather little to do with PP above...
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
John, how about a converter to 48bit Tiff? There is not much to do (compared to a full blown app) except fix dcraw to do the white balance using all 12 bits and spreading it out over 16 bits (maybe continue to ignore the 4 lsbs). That way it can be brought into Adobe and processed with all its nice gadgets. Plus I hear that the new PS 8 can do everything in 16 bits now if you want. PS 7 was limited to a few operations. That's the first thing I'll do - a PEF-to-TIFF converter (24 48 bit) that preserves all the EXIF information, but which uses the RAW-to-RGB converter from dcraw. It looks as though dcraw does white balance, by the way - it just always uses auto-white-balance, ignoring the camera settings. I'm not sure what the right values would be for the non-auto settings, but I'll do some experimentation with the camera once I've got the framework ready. dcraw will write Photoshop-format files, by the way.
RE: I feel like Mike Johnston
I will send you a copy of the software if you like. -Original Message- From: Robert Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14-Nov-03 21:22 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I feel like Mike Johnston Exactly. And the main thrust of the current discussion centers around getting the best possible image, which apparently Pentax's photo lab does not deliver. Dario's comparison with the 300D proves that. The Genzo Raw convertor's images look much sharper. I can't seem to find it anywhere tho. rg Bucky wrote: Utter nonsense. People have yammered on ad nauseam about developers in this forum too. Bits, bytes, and the software that manipulates 'em is a big part of a new, and equally legitimate, form of photography. Pentax is now a manufacturer of digital photographic equipment, which makes the entire science fair game on this list. I do agree with Shel on one point though - discussion of intricacies of digital world takes us somewhat away from Pentax and from Photography. Indeed, comparing various OSes, software packages, file formats, and so on, has rather little to do with PP above...
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
John Francis wrote: That's the first thing I'll do - a PEF-to-TIFF converter (24 48 bit) that preserves all the EXIF information, but which uses the RAW-to-RGB converter from dcraw. It looks as though dcraw does white balance, by the way - it just always uses auto-white-balance, ignoring the camera settings. I'm not sure what the right values would be for the non-auto settings, but I'll do some experimentation with the camera once I've got the framework ready. dcraw will write Photoshop-format files, by the way. Just curious -- are PEF and TIFF file formats open source? Marnie aka Doe the clueless
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Just curious -- are PEF and TIFF file formats open source? TIFF is a published, documented format, and there is an open source library that supports the standard version. The same is true of JPEG. EXIF is an extension to TIFF (or to JPEG), and is a way to include all sorts of additional data which (amongst other things) documents all the settings on the camera, etc. a PEF file really is just a TIFF file, including EXIF data, low-resolution JPEG thumbnails, etc. But the image data is the raw sensor data, not anything you could view directly.
