Re: FA*24/2.0

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 19, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Any comments on this lens?


With regard to the D/DS bodies, there has been a lot of polarized  
discussion of it. Some love it, others hate it. I've seen both good  
and bad results from it.


It is large and heavy. I saw a lot of chromatic aberration in some  
sample exposures I was sent by my friend in England. Paul Stenquist's  
comparison pictures between it and the A24/2.8 demonstrated the  
A24/2.8 to be a much better performer at nearly all apertures.


I don't know the K24/2.8. If it is the same optically as the A24/2.8,  
I'd stick with that or go for the FA20-35/4 AL if you want autofocus  
and this focal length. I have one of the A24s as well, prefer that  
over the FA*24/2.


Godfrey

Re: PESO - Mirror Image

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 19, 2005, at 10:11 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:


Pentax *istD, K 200/2.5, handheld
ISO 200, 1/500 sec @ f/4
Converted from Raw using Capture One LE

http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2167.htm



Lovely, like it. :-)

Godfrey

Re: Help me pick a Pentax Zoom Lens (please)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I have this one:

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/long/F100-300f4.5-5.6.html

The picture posted at
   http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/21s.htm
(Large version at
  http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/21O4-half.jpg )
was made with this lens on a tripod along with a Pentax-A 2x-S  
teleconverter fitted.


Godfrey

On Aug 19, 2005, at 1:25 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:


Glen wrote:



Hi,



[ ... ]

You mean this one:

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/long/FA100-300f4.7-5.8.html
?

Someone said elsewhere on this thread that the FA100-300 sucks, but  
I suspect the were referring to this:


http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/long/FA100-300f4.5-5.6.html

In any case, I have the first one of those, and rather like it.  
Only tried it with film, though. I posted links to scans of a few  
shots elsewhere on this threads, but I'm not sure if they can tell  
you much...



- Toralf

Re: Help me pick a Pentax Zoom Lens (please)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 19, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:


Judging from the picture:

The 28-105 at a DS looks like a really strange combo.
While extending the lens, the camera body seems to shrink.
Why? Does the lens absorb parts of the body or what? Very peculiar,  
indeed.


LOL!!!

Tim, I just had to back away a little more to fit it in the frame  
with the lens extended... ;-)


Godfrey

Re: FA*24/2.0

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 19, 2005, at 6:19 PM, keithw wrote:



John Munro wrote:


Godfrey, that's interesting what you have to say about the FA24.  
How did you tell it has "a lot of chromatic aberration"?




Three different people have sent me a bunch of RAW files from the FA

[The attachment star.gif has been manually removed]

24mm f/2AL [IF] that exhibited quite a lot of CA. You see it as color  
fringes around elements in a scene, particularly at the edges.


Paul Stenquist sent me several images comparing the A24/2.8 and the  
FA*24/2. The A24 was much better wide open, and at most other apertures.


I don't expect a zoom to perform as well as a prime. That said, in  
comparison with my A24/2.8, the FA20-35 produces results that are  
almost indistinguishable.


Now, I have mentioned this before: I'm still perplexed by this FA*24  
lens. Several people have told me that they just can't abide with it,  
and several others purport that it is a fabulous lens. I can only say  
that I've avoided it because of the extreme range of opinions I've  
discovered about it. I'm satisfied with both the A24/2.8 and the  
FA20-35 ... both return very good, very sharp, very low CA results.  
At least mine do.


I shoot exclusively with the digital bodies, and the images I've seen  
from the FA*24 were all taken with the *ist D/DS bodies. I have no  
idea how this lens performs on film; it's not relevant to my uses for  
it.




Was/is yours an FA*24, or just an FA24?
Godfrey prefers an FA over an FA*, for some reason...
Do you?



I don't have an FA24 or an FA*24. There seems to be some discrepancy  
in the way this lens is listed in various place. I have the Pentax-A  
24mm f/2.8.


That's really all I have to say about it.

Godfrey

Re: Konolta 35 1.4

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 20, 2005, at 11:35 AM, Glen wrote:

Nice looking 35mm 1.4 for Konica-Minolta. It's a 'D' lens but can  
still
be used on film cameras. Which got me thinking, can a (say) DA  
50-200 be

used on a Pentax film camera?



No, it would have horrible falloff when used with a film camera,  
because it's image circle is only big enough for the smaller  
digital sensor.


Not necessarily. For instance, the DA40/2.8 has been shown to fully  
cover the 24x36mm format with exceptional quality, and even the  
DA16-45 and DA18-55 can be used with good results on 24x36mm as long  
as you stay over 22-24mm focal length. They vignette at shorter focal  
lengths. I suspect the DA50-200 would do better than you think.


More significant is that the DA series lenses have no aperture ring  
so can only be used effectively on cameras that support controlling  
the aperture from the body.


I tested the DA14 on the MX body. It vignettes quite a bit but still  
achieves a useful 24x24mm format on the 35mm frame, but can only be  
used at f/22 due to the lack of aperture control.


Godfrey

Re: FA*24/2.0

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 20, 2005, at 9:28 AM, John Munro wrote:

... The size and weight issue doesn't affect me as it does Godfrey  
- I suspect I'm older (and maybe stronger) than Godfrey, for I come  
from an era when it was sacreligious to use (or mention)  
"miniature", "lightweight" 35mm cameras among professional  
photographers. ...


LOL ... I don't know, John. I'm just shy of 51 years old and bench  
press 250lbs easily. ;-)


I hate carrying excessively large and heavy gear. Has nothing to do  
with strength or age.


Godfrey

Re: FA*24/2.0

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 20, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Cameron Hood wrote:


... Get a 24, and make up your own mind.  ...


That's exactly what two friends of mine in the UK did. John (DS body)  
bought one, used it for a month, and sold it: didn't like the CA, the  
weight or the bulk. Richard (D body) bought one and finds it his  
standard lens, the one he uses most of the time.


I find I tend to like what John likes more than what Richard likes.  
Both take good photographs and have credible opinions about things  
that we have both owned or used.


Godfrey

PAW: People & Portraits 2005 #32 - GDG

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

He was bubbling over with enthusiasm, talking about these two guys  
with Harley-Davidsons who had just left the cafe, and thoroughly  
enjoyed the dash and style of them:


  http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/32.htm

Comments, critique, flames always appreciated.

enjoy
Godfrey

Re: Silver lenses on black bodies

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 21, 2005, at 7:53 AM, David Savage wrote:


Looks no more odd to me than having black lenses on chrome bodies.
When you look through the viewfinder you can't tell what colour the  
lens is. ;-)


Yes.

Godfrey

Re: Silver lenses on black bodies

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 20, 2005, at 10:47 PM, Andre Langevin wrote:

I find the combo black MZ-S or IST D body with silver Limited  
lenses great.


Same here:
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/DS-28-105comp.jpg

Godfrey

Re: Another shot with the 600

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 21, 2005, at 8:45 AM, William Robb wrote:


http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/peso/jazzland.html

Probably not a compelling as the winged rats, unless you like  
Canadian Jazz.


Gawds, the air makes it looks as though you used the Liquify tools in  
Photoshop! :-)


Yes, it's certainly as challenging to shoot with ultra-telephoto as  
it is with ultra-wide. I liked the photo of birds on the wing.


Godfrey

Re: Pentax warehouse sale, R.I.P. (lengthish)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 21, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Bob Shell wrote:

A fun on-line place to check periodically for photo stuff is Anchor  
Supplies Limited in England.  Several years ago they had a lot of  
Rollei T cameras that were British military surplus and were just  
like brand new.  I bought one with case and instruction book for  
about $ 250.  They're here:


http://www.anchorsupplies.com/



Love that on the top page of the Land Rover negotiating a ditch. :-)  
Not sure my Freelander would do quite as well in that kinda  
circumstance.


Godfrey

Re: Another Ques re: istDs

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Read through the thread and it seemed all the respondees were D body  
users. I use only the DS body.


On Aug 21, 2005, at 8:43 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

If the camera is set a certain way - such as to shoot in manual  
mode or

aperture priority, or has the meter set to a certain mode, or white
balance, sharpening, contrast, etc., does turning the camera off  
cause the
camera to reset to defaults when turned on again, or does the  
camera retain

the selected settings?


The DS retains all user settings through on/off power cycles and  
battery changes. It has no backup button battery: it uses a small  
condensor to provide the same functionality, which never needs to be  
changed. It will retain all user settings if the batteries are  
removed for charging and the camera's power switch is OFF for at  
least 48 hours.


There is no facility that I'm aware of to save user settings and  
reload them from a file stored on a computer or storage card.


The DS does work with the Pentax Remote Assistant software, although  
it is not a supported configuration. Nearly all functions work as  
they do on the D model. You can download the Remote Assistant  
software from Pentax, it is not supplied with the camera. The camera  
is supplied with Pentax Photo Laboratory and Pentax Photo Browser  
software, as well as USB drivers for Windows 98SE (all later Windows  
versions have the necessary drivers installed by default, as does Mac  
OS 9.1 and Mac OS X). None of the supplied software packages are  
essential to the operation of the camera.


The accessory list for the DS is described in the DS' instruction  
manual. It includes:


AC Adapter D-AC10
Cable Switch CS-205
Remote Control F
Auto Flash AF360FGZ
Off-camera Shoe Clip CL-10  (for the above flash unit)
Hot Shoe Adapter FG
Extension Cord F5P
Off-camera Shoe Adapter F
Magnifier FB
Ref-converter A
Diopter correction lens adapter M
Interchangeable Focusing Screen
  LF-60 : AF Framed Matte (standard)  (std replacement)
  LL-60 : AF Divided Matte
  LI-60  : AF Scaled Matte
Camera Case O-CC28
Eyecup FL  (std replacement)
Strap O-ST10 (std replacement)

Godfrey

Re: FA*24/2.0

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 20, 2005, at 11:17 PM, John Munro wrote:

WoW!!!  That's really, really impressive, Godfrey!!!  250 lbs. of  
anything, especially a pressed bench (whatever that is), is  
something I'm sure I could never pull off, oops, I mean press on/ 
off (?).  Whenever I'm in San Francisco and need to go to the  
rougher parts of town that has benches I'll definitely remember to  
ask you to escort me.


I'll be glad to provide the service. Ya never know when those benches  
will try to smack you in the knee.


Godfrey

Re: Another Ques re: istDs

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 21, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


> This battery concept, and turning a camera on/off will
certainly take some getting used to.  There have been so many times  
when
I've forgotten to turn the 5n off, or forgot to turn it on before  
trying to

use it and being unable to take a shot 


The DS' auto-power-off function is adjustable using the "Set-up"  
menu. It can be set to 1, 3, 5, 10, 30 minutes, or never (off). I  
almost always leave the camera in my bag with the main power switch  
on and auto-power-off set to 10 minutes. As you pick the camera up to  
take a shot, you get into the habit of touching the shutter release,  
which switches it back on and activates the metering system.


The metering system has its own timer as well. It is adjustable  
separately from the auto-power-off function: in the "Custom Settings"  
menu, you use the Meter Operating Time function to set it to 10, 3,  
or 30 seconds (10 seconds is the default). This setting will adjust  
how long the metering system display stays active after the shutter  
release is pressed half-way and let go, without releasing the  
shutter. Once the shutter is released, the meter display will always  
turn off in about 3 seconds. (The meter display will also stay active  
for as long as you hold the shutter release pressed half-way.) I  
always leave my cameras set to 30 seconds for this function.


The DS power up and meter activate when you touch the shutter release  
is very quick, such that whenever I grab the camera and touch the  
release it is ready to use by the time I've gotten it to my eye.


Godfrey

PAW: People & Portraits #33 - GDG

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

This one brings me up to date. :-)

  http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/33.htm

Comments, critique, flames always appreciated.

enjoy,
Godfrey

Re: Another Ques re: istDs

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 21, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Tomasz Machnik wrote:

The DS retains all user settings through on/off power cycles and   
battery changes.


I am not sure if exposure correction setting is a "user setting",  
but it is one that gets lost on battery change.
Can be quite painful when shooting in hurry when lighting requires  
some EV correction. Two times I needed to change batteries in  
middle of "action", and two times I forgot to dial the correction  
back.


Interesting, I'd not noticed that before. Thanks for pointing it out.

I have gotten quite used to glancing at the status display in the VF  
and on the upper LCD to check EV compensation is on or off. It's  
preserved through a power cycle, resets to 0 when you change  
batteries. I've never needed to change batteries in the middle of  
action, however, and I always return the camera to EV comp 0 when I'm  
done with a few moments shooting anyway.


Godfrey

Re: PAW PESO - Waiting for Ketchup

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Great face in the first!
The camera looks like my old M3.

Godfrey

On Aug 20, 2005, at 10:05 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

I was doing some file maintenance this evening when I rediscovered  
these

pics.  I don't believe they've been posted here before.

Comments welcome ...

http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/waiting.html


Shel

Re: Mo' Bits, Mo' Better? (was Re: Another Ques re: istDs)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Warning: There'll be computer speak in this reply. ;-)

On Aug 21, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


The D and the Ds have 12-bit sensors and, through the magic of some
algorithms or whatnot, by the time the images are converted to a  
RAW file,

they are considered 16-bit files.  Some cameras have 14-bit sensors.


A 12-bit sensor reports the intensity of light falling on it as a  
number which is bounded by the range from zero to 2^12, or 4096. That  
means it quantizes the light into 4096 discrete steps. A 14-bit  
sensor would quantize intensities similarly but into 16,384 steps.  
The conclusion is that a greater bit depth nets you greater potential  
accuracy to the tonal resolution.


The data capture by the sensor (they're not images yet) is stored to  
a RAW format file "mostly" untouched. The Pentax D/DS bodies do  
virtually nothing to the sensor's data other than wrap it into a tag- 
structured file format (TIFF), write the camera's metadata to the  
file (time, date, camera type, resolution, parameters for in-camera  
JPEG rendering, blah blah blah), and also add the thumbnail and  
preview JPEG renderings to the file. The D files are larger than the  
DS files because the D files have absolutely nothing done to the  
sensor data, where I think the DS strips the extra zeros from every  
photosite's output (those four extra zeros are the result of storing  
2 bytes data instead of 1.5 bytes of data for every photosite). John  
Francis will likely point out what it actually does if I've gotten  
that incorrect, but the essence is that very very little has been  
done with the data from sensor to RAW format file in the Pentax  
bodies: it has not been "converted", just written out along with  
ancillary data. (Canon and Nikon DSLR bodies evidently do more  
processing on the RAW data, including (I've heard) some sharpening  
and compression (lossless).)


It's only when RAW conversion is performed and the data is written  
out to an RGB rendered file format (TIFF or .PSD) that the data has  
been transformed to a "16bit" representation. This conversion is  
somewhat more complicated to describe, but essentially the sensor is  
just a photon counter with a linear gamma ... your eye sees light  
which has been gamma converted, expanded and compressed adaptively  
based on illumination level and intent ... so the RAW conversion  
process is designed to transform the sensor data in a similar way. It  
also uses the Bayer matrix of RGB values that the data was collected  
with to interpolate an approximate color value, in RGB primary  
colors, for each picture element (pixel). Each color is considered a  
'channel', thus we have the notion of "16 bits per channel" value for  
every pixel. So each pixel is actually represented as three 16bit  
numbers or 48 bits of data.


Depending upon the RAW converter and editing software, the 16bits per  
channel representation for 12 or 14 bit sensor data renders the 4096  
or 16384 steps from 12- and 14-bit sensors into the larger, 16bit  
quantization space, numbers from 0 to 65536 (or 0 to 32768, if the  
particular converter is designed to use only the positive signed  
numbers ... ). The larger data space contains all possible values of  
the two smaller data spaces and interpolation accuracy, even with  
using just the positive signed values, is very very close to perfect.


What kind of improvement might one see when using a camera with a  
14-bit sensor
compared to one with a 12-bit sensor, all else being equal.  I have  
heard
that dynamic range is improved, i.e., more shadow detail is  
available and
highlights don't fry as easily with more bits in the sensor. Of  
course, all
else isn't usually equal, so what other factors play significant  
role in

determining image quality, apart from lenses.


Total dynamic range is dependent upon the analog capability of the  
sensor to record light from minimum activation to total saturation as  
well as the ability of the digital system to represent those  
intensity values accurately. 14bits might not buy any more dynamic  
range, but it should allow more accurate modeling of tonal values.


Of course, the practical reason that 14bit sensors might provide more  
dynamic range is that all 14bit sensors to date are much more  
expensive than 12bit sensors and only available on much more  
expensive digital capture devices (like multi thousand dollar  
scanning backs, etc) that include substantially better supporting  
circuitry, better noise isolation, more accurate reportage of actual  
intensity values, etc.


The ultimate question here, from  practical point of view, is "how  
many bits of quantization are enough?" The more the merrier, assuming  
you can afford it. 14- and 16-bit sensor systems are wonderful, but  
for most pictorial photographic work you'd be hard pressed to see  
much benefit from the larger data space



It's also been stated that some cameras use a "lossy" system when
converting 

Re: accidentally enabled with a 77mm Ltd

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Now that's an expensive case... ;-)

lol ... Hope you enjoy the 77Ltd. Silver or black finish wouldn't  
matter to me at all.
I just don't want to spend the money right now, and don't use that  
focal length range enough.


Godfrey


On Aug 21, 2005, at 1:45 PM, Amita Guha wrote:

I went to B&H today looking for a case for the Optio WP. None of  
the 3rd
party cases fit properly - the WP is too long - so I went to the  
SLR counter
to ask about a custom Pentax case. While I was there, I asked about  
the

black 77mm Ltd., which the website said was still out of stock. I then
decided, knowing Pentax' supply issues, that it was better to have  
a silver

77mm than none at all. So I walked out with one.

I'll buy the black one if they ever get it in stock again, but I'm not
holding my breath. Sorry, Herb.

Amita

PAW thumbnail page

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I've added a thumbnail gallery page link to my PAW 2005 front page.  
Makes it easy to find a particular image, if you're so inclined:


  http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/

The link is at the lower portion of the page. Let me know what you  
think, or whether some other design would be more helpful.


Godfrey

Re: Help me pick a Pentax Zoom Lens (please)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I'd go for the DA50-200 if you're using the digital bodies. It's  
light, small, has just a little more range, and is very reasonably  
priced.


Godfrey

Re: PAW thumbnail page

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Thanks for the comment (and the compliment!), UncaMikey.

The little block selector is supposed to show the progress of the  
Picture A Week through the year, and provide a quick way to get to  
the latest one or pick one at random. The reason I did the thumbnail  
page is that I often want to get to a particular image, for one  
reason or another, and the block selector isn't good at that ... I  
end up going back and forth through the series a lot.


The thumbnails page images point to exactly the same pages for each  
image as the block display does. The only difference is that the  
thumbnails are constrained to be a center-square crop of the image in  
order to keep the page regular in appearance. If they're not working  
that way, then there's something wrong, but they seem to be working  
in my testing of the pages.


Godfrey

On Aug 21, 2005, at 5:40 PM, Unca Mikey wrote:

Godfrey, on the link you posted, I am not sure the little blocks at  
the bottom are very helpful.  Perhaps it's because you are still  
working on this, but I am confused that the images linked from the  
little blocks are not the same as the thumbnail page -- should they  
be the same?  I would consider eliminating the little blocks and  
just linking to your thumbnails page.  The thumbnail page that you  
specifically asked about is helpful and easy on the eye, and it  
loaded quickly even on my dialup connection:


http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/thumbs/index.html

More importantly, thanks for posting this -- I saw and really  
enjoyed several here that I had not seen before.  You're on my list  
of photographers whose work makes me think when I'm out snapping.


*>UncaMikey

Re: PAW thumbnail page

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Thanks Shel.

Godfrey

On Aug 21, 2005, at 7:51 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


The thumbnail page appears as you've described it on my system.

Shel




[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi





The thumbnails page images point to exactly the same pages for each
image as the block display does. The only difference is that the
thumbnails are constrained to be a center-square crop of the image in
order to keep the page regular in appearance. If they're not working
that way, then there's something wrong, but they seem to be working
in my testing of the pages.

Re: PAW thumbnail page

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 21, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Unca Mikey wrote:

Hh.  Godfrey, when I load http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/ 
photo/PAW5/, I don't get much detail in the small gray blocks.  In  
fact, no detail, just small gray blocks, LOL.  Nothing in the  
blocks allows me to differentiate one image from another.  After I  
have viewed an image, the border is red, which confuses your  
statement that  the "red block is always the latest week  
posted."  (No, my browser's normal color for viewed links is not  
red.)  Now that I have viewed many images, there are many blocks  
that have red borders.


This is probably getting too detailed and arcane for most PDML  
readers, but:  older images have a solid gray block.  If I have  
viewed the image, it has a red border; if not, it has a black  
border. The block (and border) for the current week (33) is solid  
red.  The blocks for weeks not yet done are a lighter gray, with a  
visible grid in the small block; all these future blocks have a red  
border.




They're supposed to be small, gray blocks without a border. Un- 
available links should be a light gray stipple pattern with black  
border, the "current" block should be red. I normally use the Safari  
browser, which renders them as the HTML is coded. You can tell that  
the link they each point to has changed by running the mouse over  
each one and looking at the link status line at the bottom of the  
window (if you have that viewable) ... the URL will change as you go  
one to the next with the mouse. Subtle, perhaps too subtle.  ;-)


FireFox puts the "link activation" border around them, even though I  
believe I have code in there to display no border. I consider this a  
FireFox bug. I wonder if there's some non-destructive way to stop it  
from doing that. They display as intended in both Safari and MS  
Internet Explorer.


I was able to match up the images, however, so yes, now I can see  
they are the same set of images.  No problem there.


I'm using Firefox on an iMac G5, OS 10.4.1, if that makes any  
difference.  I can do a screen shot and send it to you if it would  
help.


I'm on Mac OS X v10.4.2 with FireFox, Safari, and Internet Explorer  
installed. (I think I have Opera on here too...) I can see what  
you're saying, but FireFox is not displaying the pages the way  
they're supposed to display, given the HTML. Internet Explorer and  
Safari both do a better job and display them as intended. I'll see if  
there's any way to correct the display in FireFox that doesn't ruin  
it in the other two.


Thanks for the comments!

Godfrey

Re: PESO: Artificial Beach

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Interesting shot. It seems a touch oversharpened at full resolution.  
Lots of detail, though, and many interesting details.


Godfrey

On Aug 21, 2005, at 11:01 PM, Jens Bladt wrote:


http://gallery13117.fotopic.net/p19136589.html
This is "Amager Strandpark" in Copenhagen, Øresund. In the  
background you

can see Øresundsbroen - the bridge between Denmark and Sweden.
The beach is artificially made and was opened to the public recently.
Five shot panorama, handheld, Pentax *ist D, SMC-F 4/24-50mm @ 50mm.
PhotoaVista 3.5.
Regards
Jens Bladt

Re: New Digital SLR Products From Pentax

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I find the announcement exciting, even though I did just buy my  
planned second body (another DS). The addition of C-AF in all  
exposure modes and larger LCD are not enough to give me pause as I  
only paid $579 for the DS body, where  it will likely be some time  
before the DS2 is available at that kind of price. The small number  
of improvements to me indicates that the DS is quite good for the  
slot it fills and the competition it's up against.


To me it sounds like they've done a good detail update on their  
middle range body, now have a solid entry-level body in the DL model,  
and I expect the top of the line body will be updated soon.


Godfrey

BTW:
I picked up the Digital Photographer issue yesterday in which they  
compare the Nikon D70s, Canon 350D, Olympus E-300, and Pentax *ist  
DS. Aside from one error on the Pentax I noticed (they said it didn't  
do second curtain sync, which it does with a dedicated external  
flash), they presented their test data well. I think they then drew  
the wrong conclusions: the DS is the only one in the group that has a  
pentaprism viewfinder, and to my reading the DS has the best noise  
performance of all of them. They remarked on how nice the DS was in  
the hand too.

Re: PEOW - Pacific NW Saltwater Flyfishing

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Here is a shot I took at Brown's Point near Tacoma Washington (USA)  
after a morning flyfishing excursion.

http://i.pbase.com/v3/87/63987/1/48035114.JonatBrownsPoint.jpg


Nice picture! Great eating! ;-)

Can I ask a question of the knowledgeable folk: on my monitor the  
happy fisherman looks like Jay stuck him on another exposure using  
some software or other. He obviously did not do that, but can I  
ask if that's a characteristic of my monitor, or of the lens, or  
of the FL, or of the in-camera software, or of post-processing, or  
of life with digital, or of life in general...


I think it is the "3D quality" of the lens/focal length.   
Personally I like the way the fisherman "pops" out of the frame.


Feh. This rendering is a touch oversharpened. You can see the haloes  
following all the edges.


Godfrey

Re: New Digital SLR Products From Pentax

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:28 AM, John Graves wrote:
Does this all mean that there will be no more firmware updates/ 
improvements for the DS.I just received my DS in time for the  
annoucement.   Urrrhhh.


Never never buy a camera and assume that anything further will appear  
as "update/improvement". Buy a camera on the merits that it possesses  
when you buy it. I never bought a film camera that was "improved"  
after the fact of purchase by the manufacturer, not without me  
spending money to buy an improvement ... Why should this be any  
different with a digital camera?


The DS, with firmware rev 1.00, was perfectly satisfactory to my  
needs. Firmware v1.02, the current version, is a gift and adds  
improvements to functionality, few of which make any difference to my  
photography (they improved green channel noise for very long  
exposures such as in astrophotography, they updated the card file  
system to allow for greater than 1Gbyte storage media, and I suspect  
they made a minor tweak to the in-camera JPEG rendering algorithm).


BTW, to check your firmware version, press and hold the Menu button  
while you turn the main power switch on. If you just bought the  
camera and haven't uploaded the latest firmware, it's likely at  
v1.00. My second body, received last week or so, was at v1.00. You  
can download and install v1.02 from the Pentax USA website.


Godfrey

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 22, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Cotty wrote:

Children(addressing all of you). This is not a Pentax or photo  
related

subject, can you please stop behaving like .



Aw c'mon, this is brewing nicely. Don't be such a killjoy. Just  
needs a
few more days and a couple more ingredients and it'll be ready to  
blossom.


...like a good festering boil, eh?

Godfrey

thumbnail galleries ...

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I liked the thumbnail gallery for PAW 2005 I put up yesterday and the  
people that commented to me about it were positive about it too. So I  
decided to do them for the previous four years of PAW galleries as  
well. I've got 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 now in place. 2001 will take  
a little longer because that was before I standardized on JPEG/HTML  
naming convention, but I'm going to try to get that one done this  
evening too.


The thumbnail galleries are accessible by links from the bottom of  
the PAW gallery frontispiece page for each year:


http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW2/
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW3/
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW4/
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/

I find they make exploring my older work more enjoyable. Whether this  
matters to anyone else, I cannot say. ;-)


best
Godfrey

Re: New Digital SLR Products From Pentax

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 22, 2005, at 11:36 AM, John Graves wrote:

I knowI knowI am a ham and have a radio that is mostly  
software.  The company that did it has provided  updates in the  
past (added a new frequency set ) as the last update.


Rest easy, then, as the DS -> DS2 is NOT a major change. Just feature  
tuning and a minor upgrade. The DS is too solid and useful a camera  
to require major changes.


(The DS and DS2 again reminds me of the Nikon FM-FM2-FM2n ... Nikon  
made three or four silent revisions of that camera over its years of  
production that improved it slightly, but it never changed in  
essence: the FM remained as useful 19 years after I bought it as the  
FM2n last revision would have been. The Pentax MX I picked up a few  
months ago (and have yet to take a picture with...) is virtually the  
identical camera in spirit.)


My luck always seems to be to buy just before something major  
happens.  I bought my PZ-20 just after it was discontunued.


I've made a habit of buying equipment that was nicely matured in the  
marketplace for a while before I purchased. Because of that, I've  
saved money and experienced excellent reliability, and all the bugs  
had already become known so I bought them with conscious intent to  
work around those bugs. Can't say that I feel the worse for this. ;-)


Godfrey

Re: Problems With *istDS USB Transfers

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

The greatest likelihood, if you're using NiMH batteries, is that they  
are unable to sustain the power demanded by the transfer  
consistently. NiMH batteries seem to be best at modest duration  
bursts on power delivery. Pentax recommends using the external power  
supply when connected to a computer for file transfer.


This is conjecture ... if the problem is happening when you're  
connected and using known good CRV3 or AA Lithiums, then I don't know  
what the problem might be. I use a card reader, and have always done  
so. I use a Belkin 8-in-1 USB 2.0 reader. For $25, I find it very  
convenient and reliable; I don't like to have to keep plugging and  
unplugging my camera from the computer.


Godfrey


On Aug 22, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Glen wrote:

Has anyone else experienced any problems with transferring the  
contents of the *istDS camera to their PC, via the USB cable?


I keep losing my connection for some reason. I will be partially  
finished with transferring all the images from my 1GB SD card to  
the PC, when the transfer simply hangs. I can look at the list of  
drives in Windows Explorer, and the "removable drive" which  
represented the *istDS no longer appears in the list at this point.  
I find that I have to turn the camera's power off and back on to  
restore the connection. At that point, I have to start copying  
files again, picking up where the previous attempt had failed. This  
happens most of the time to me, and it's getting annoying. I just  
wondered if it ever happened to anyone else on the list?


I should mention that this not only happens if I try to drag and  
drop the files using the Pentax Photo Browser, but also when I use  
Windows Explorer to drag and drop the files.


Maybe I should just get a dedicated card reader and not use the USB  
cable for transfers?


By the way, I tried the "Remote Assistant" software which was  
written for the *istD, and it does indeed work on my DS model. So  
far, there have never been any connection problems when using the  
Remote Assistant software, but I have to admit that I haven't been  
using this particular software for very long.


I also managed to update the firmware in my *istDS via the USB  
cable without any problems. It's only the picture uploads I'm  
having problems with.



take care,
Glen

Re: Help me pick a Pentax Zoom Lens (please)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 22, 2005, at 5:43 AM, Dave Kennedy wrote:


That's part of my problem. Since getting the digital body, I've been
shooting almost exclusively digital, but I'm not certain I want to
hang up the film bodies yet.


Can't help you there. I do still have a few film cameras and even  
acquired that nice MX body a while back. Haven't used a roll of film  
in three years now, though. They're as good as in the box for me.



So am I hearing that the performance of the DA50-200 would be
comparable to the F70-210? (for Digital).


That's my understanding.


I guess a more generic question is :
Is the DA50-200 designed to complement the 16-45 or the 18-55?
Price-wise it looks like the 18-55, but I'm wondering in terms of
performance.


I don't quite understand the question. If the lens performs well ...  
what others who have it have reported, it does...  what difference  
does its price relationship with the 16-45 or 18-55 make? It's a fair  
price for a modest speed lens of this focal length range.


Godfrey

Re: New Digital SLR Products From Pentax

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 23, 2005, at 7:11 AM, John Graves wrote:

BTW, to check your firmware version, press and hold the Menu  
button  while you turn the main power switch on. If you just  
bought the  camera and haven't uploaded the latest firmware, it's  
likely at  v1.00. My second body, received last week or so, was  
at v1.00. You  can download and install v1.02 from the Pentax USA  
website.


My body was at v1.0.  I installed v1.02 last night.  That would  
imply that they have a large supply of DS's sitting somewhere,  
manufactured prior to the release of v1.01.
So now the adventure begins.  All my lenses seem to work on the DS,  
including my Tamron 35-105 adaptall, and my SM 85/1.9.  Life is good.


Excellent! Bring on the pictures. :-)

I suspect that they manufacture a four to eight month supply of  
cameras at a time on the production line, and that is then metered  
out to users through the distribution chain. That would mean that  
most of the DS bodies currently in user hands or warehouses were  
produced by February or so, and the firmware updates were produced  
after that.


Godfrey

Re: What Would Make a DSLR "Obsolete"?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

This requires a definition of obsolete. The one I use is:
"A product is considered obsolete when it is no longer produced, that  
is, when it is replaced by something else by the original  
manufacturer or by another manufacturer."


By that definition, my Nikon FM was obsolete as soon as the FM2 model  
appeared. I bought the FM body, used, after the FM2 appeared on the  
market and used it for another 19 years. Someone else bought it after  
me and, presumably, is continuing to use it.


Obsolete does not imply not used or not usable.

Usability is gated by battery availability (not a problem), storage  
(not a problem) and software compatibility (not a problem). Also by  
reliability and durability ... so far (8000+ exposures on the DS  
body) I have seen little evidence of poor reliability or durability.


Most people these days seem to think of obsolete as meaning they must  
have the latest model or what they are using is unusable. The ramp up  
to current DSLR technology has been steep, but my feeling is that the  
industry passed a plateau point with the introduction of the Canon  
10D three years ago. I consider nearly any DSLR of that generation  
and beyond to be just as future usable as any 35mm SLR I've ever  
owned. No longer state of the art in speed, possibly no longer the  
best in noise, etc, but still perfectly usable for a long time  
despite being obsolete.


Regards:

Battery - AA and CRV3 will be with us forever, practically speaking.

Storage - There are already MILLIONS of flash storage cards in the  
world, each of which can be used for thousands of write/erase cycles.  
Just one represents at the very least 100,000 potential exposures in  
its lifetime. It will be a very very long time before there are no  
flash storage cards left to use.


Software - The software in use today for the handling of the storage  
medium is all standards based ... USB protocol connectivity, FAT16  
and FAT32 file system. That's not going to go away any time soon ...  
I can still read and write DOS floppies from 1982 (although I haven't  
in some years now) ... and new emergent file system standards  
generally speaking include compatibility to read older standards.  
Image formats like JPEG will be around practically speaking forever.  
Decoding and converting the Pentax RAW file format is something now  
encapsulated in open source C language code (dcraw by Dave Coffin) so  
even if current software products were to disappear entirely, someone  
could recompile a RAW converter utility on whatever operating system  
was then in place.


Nothing to worry about, in my opinion. This technology is here to  
stay, and I warrant will be feasible to use for the remainder of my  
lifetime. Advantageous, probably not: advances in camera technology  
and my desire to obtain better quality/perform will likely have me  
buying something new again at some point. But I do suspect that  
today's digital SLR bodies will be just as useful into the future as  
film SLR bodies will. When film manufacturers give up their last gasp  
and close down production due to lack of profits, and the last roll  
of film is consumed, that's it as there is no reusability in film  
storage media.


Godfrey


On Aug 23, 2005, at 3:47 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

As the time approaches for my purchasing a DSLR, the comments about  
these
cameras becoming obsolete keep running through my mind.  As a user  
of older
film bodies, which don't become obsolete and which continue to make  
good
pictures and use a wide variety of lenses, it's hard to consider  
that in

six months or a year a new DSLR will have become "history."

It seems that, unless there's a camera malfunction, these new
techno-marvels should continue to make decent pics for years to  
come, yet I
keep hearing about how models just a few years old (or less) are  
dated and
need to be upgraded.  Am I missing something?  Is it just the  
techno-buffs
who are saying this - those who must have the latest and greatest,  
or are

there hidden issues, like software compatibility, lack of peripheral
equipment (such as a memory card type being discontinued), and  
things of

that sort?  Maybe I've answered my own question.

What's the reality of getting 10 years of use from now current  
Pentax DSLR?


Shel

Re: Large Print Quality From 6mp Cameras (was: )

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Shel,

With all due respect, I have no reference to know what your quality  
standards are. If you'd like to send me an example print, 11x17 to  
16x20 inch in size, which demonstrates them, and a description of  
what your criteria of judging its quality is, I would be delighted to  
attempt to create a print that matches or exceeds those standards.


I would, of course, return your print unharmed and would pay for the  
return shipping. :-)


Godfrey


On Aug 23, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

When I see such a print that meets my standards using the technique  
you've
described, I'll believe it.  I've not seen anything approaching a  
16x20 or
larger made from a 6mp Pentax camera that qualifies as "stunning"  
by my

standards. I know that there are plug-ins and software that supposedly
provides great results.  I've yet to see the results obtained using  
such
software, therefore I am skeptical. However, based on the comments  
people

on the list make about the quality of the images posted here (mine
included, BTW), I think I may be a bit more critical than most,  
even with

my own photos and images.

Since grain, as I understand grain to be, doesn't exist in digital  
photos,

I don't quite understand the reference.

Shel




[Original Message]
From: Cameron Hood





In RAW format, I have made stunning quality 24"x36" prints, with no
grain or artifacts. Even the on-board Photoshop logarithm, you can
increase the file size quite substantially, although there are after
market plug-ins that do a better job. With the right plug-in, you can
rez up significantly further.

Re: "Sunning" at 24x36 inches?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

"Stunning" is not a particularly precise measure of quality.
Perhaps all of you can become a little more specific?

Godfrey

Re: GESO (my first) - KC Ethnic Festival

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I like "dancers" out of this set. great shot!

Godfrey

On Aug 22, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:


http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/GESO-Aug05/

Re: What Would Make a DSLR "Obsolete"?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 23, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:

b.  The sensor sizes and resolutions WILL change.  Who here built  
20 meg

JPG files 10 years ago?


Wouldn't dream of it then, won't dream of it now.


I have quite a few very large, very low-loss JPEGs that date back to  
about then. About 12M or so. (Of course, I always archive the  
original data too.)


Godfrey

Re: What Would Make a DSLR "Obsolete"?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 23, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Cotty wrote:


I have a 2nd S9000 that I picked up a while back. It's my intention to
set it up with a full set of mono inks just for black and white.  


The gauntlet was thrown down and I don't shy from a challenge.

Just need some more space to set it all up and you can expect another
batch of prints.


Remember: once past a selection of good inks and proper image  
processing, the paper itself becomes the key. Good, fine art quality  
papers make the difference.


I use MIS UT2 ink and QuadtoneRIP to drive an ancient Epson 1270.  
Printed on Somerset Velvet, the results are very satisfying.


Godfrey

Re: Why full frame?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:28 AM, Bob Shell wrote:

The demand is mostly from pro and advanced amateur photographers  
who concentrate on the wide angle end of photography.  I'm one of  
them.  I want my 24mm lens to be a 24mm, not a 36mm.  I want my  
full-frame fisheye to be a full-frame fisheye.  I don't need giant  
file size for my work, but I do want full-frame coverage.  I've  
shot with the Canon and Kodak full-frame cameras and loved it.  So  
the EOS 5D has great appeal for me.


I use the Pentax DA14 for ultrawide and I'm quite happy with it,  
don't really need wider. It provides a bit wider field of view than a  
24mm lens on 24x36mm format, closer to 21mm.


I've had 15mm rectilinear lenses for 24x36mm, but the field of view  
is wider than I preferred.


Godfrey

Re: Why full frame?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:58 AM, E.R.N. Reed wrote:

People who want to use their fast normal lenses the same way on  
digital as they do on film, for example.


We do. A 35/2 is a wonderful, fast normal. Nice thing about the  
16x24mm format is that a 50/1.4 is an even more wonderful fast  
portrait tele, and it is only $210... compare that to an FA*85/1.4.


Godfrey

Re: "Sunning" at 24x36 inches?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I'd be most interested to see Cameron's image *and* hear Shel's  
opinion. Like others, I want first hand experience of the original to  
base an opinion on.


I'm quite happy with the print quality I'm getting right now, and I'm  
fairly critical on prints. I normally print to 11x17 or 13x19 sizes.


Godfrey

On Aug 23, 2005, at 3:06 PM, Jack Davis wrote:


Shel,
I'll be very anxious to read your "evaluation" of
Cameron's image. IOW, defining your personal way of
"seeing" this particular set of optically reproduced
imagery, cross interpolated by your individual color
cones.
I certainly don't believe you will be patronizing and
anything short of that must be considered honesty.
Can't imagine assuming such a level of responsibility
for myself.

Re: Are Pentax compact digitals really that bad?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

The S5z seems almost identical to the S5i other than having a larger  
LCD and lacking the optical finder, based on the DPReview side-by- 
side comparison. It's slightly thicker too.


Godfrey

Re: "Stunning" at 24x36 inches?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Sounds like a plan! :-)
A day trip to SF for street shooting too in the bargain.

Godfrey

On Aug 23, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

I'll let you know when the print arrives.  Perhaps we can meet in  
SF and

you can see it, and we'll take it from there.



[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi

I'd be most interested to see Cameron's image *and* hear Shel's
opinion. Like others, I want first hand experience of the original to
base an opinion on.

Re: istDS Flash Question

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Yes. Just set the flash to Manual using the Fn button menu. That's  
how mine's set. The flash will only be enabled when you press the  
button to open it manually. I've never had it set to anything  
else... ;-)


When the shutter speed drops below a threshold (still don't know  
whether it's focal length sensitive or not...), the camera will light  
the flash warning at the bottom of the viewfinder as a suggestion.  
It's barely visible, certainly not annoying, and serves as a helpful  
reminder if you're not paying attention to explicit shutter speed to  
hold the camera steadily.


With the DS, if you mount a manual focus lens and have the focus mode  
set to AF, the shutter will not release unless the focus confirmation  
system thinks it's in focus and lights the green confirmation  
indicator at the bottom of the viewfinder. Easy to ignore it and  
defeat the problem: just flip the switch to MF and ignore the  
indicator light. I often turn off the focus point indicator too when  
using a manual focus lens as it will always indicate focus on the  
center point, that's in the Custom Settings menu, "Superimpose AF  
area"...


The DS has a number of things when set to its "idiot mode" defaults  
to help a novice from not making exposures accidentally that will be  
crappy. Luckily, each and every one of them can be turned off easily,  
and they stay that way.


Godfrey
"Have I said how much I like this camera today?" :-)

BTW:
The FA35/2 is a super match to the DS ... Speed, size and weight are  
perfect for a normal lens. The AF is very quick and sure, and its  
imaging qualities are superb. On manual focus, it has a light,  
smooth, sure feel, and is contrasty enough to snap in and out of  
focus beautifully. I'm very glad I bought this lens, it is a perfect  
complement to the FA20-35 and F50/1.7.


(I'm sure the FA28/2.8 is too, for a wide-normal focal length. I'm  
tempted to just order one of those as well. Sigh ... lens acquisition  
greed strikes again.)




On Aug 23, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Yikes!  Belinkoff is asking a question about flash?!?  What's the  
world

coming to?

Well, actually I'm asking a question about not using flash.  Can  
flash use
be turned off absolutely with the istDS?  My concern is that there  
may be
some circumstances where the camera will decide flash is  
appropriate and

that the flash will go off automatically, or, barring that, the camera
won't fire at all.  IOW, if I'm using the camera in one mode or  
another,
and decide to not use flash, will the camera will allow me to  
underexpose
to whatever degree i want without annoying me with the flash  
popping up or
sending me a distracting message or, worst of all, refusing to fire  
because

the chosen exposure is outside some parameter or other.

The main reason I ask is that I saw someone using another brand of  
DSLR and
the camera refused to fire at all because of some parameter being  
wrong
(and I think it was because the camera decided the exposure needed  
flash).
I want to always be able to make an exposure regardless of how  
wrong it may
be, and to make that exposure without any interference from the  
camera.

Re: Feedback on FA 28-70 F4.0 AL

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

The scuttlebutt hearsay on this lens is that they are prone to  
element separation due to some quality control issues in assembly.  
That said, if you got a good one, the other scuttlebutt I've heard is  
that a good one is superb. For a one-stop light loss compared to the  
f/2.8 model, I'd much rather have the light weight and compact size  
of the f/4 model, presuming that a good one was actually what the  
scuttelbutt hearsay claims. (I don't own one, but one of my local  
Pentaxian user friends does and he loves it... obviously, he got a  
good one. ;-)


That said, the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF seems to be just as good a  
performer in the 28-70 focal length range (at least), is a little  
faster when wide, nets a little more reach at full tele, and costs  
only $210 new. It's also small and light. So if the one you bought  
does turn out to be damaged somehow, there are other good,  
inexpensive options.


Godfrey


On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:24 PM, John Taylor wrote:

Does anyone have experience, opinions and/or samples for the FA  
28-70/f4 AL? I just picked up a used copy for $75 and will not have  
a chance to test it out until I get back home from travel for work.
The lens appears to be in great shape, but the focus ring seems  
pretty loose at least off the camera. Is this normal? I'll be using  
this on my *istDS since I can't yet afford the F2.8 model.


Thanks,
Jay T

Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:17 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

I'd like a 26 x 34 sensor myself: It's just about the same image  
circle

as a 24 x 36 but in the 3:4 ratio I prefer (one of the things I like
about the 645 format).


I'm with you, Mark, on the 3:4 proportion format. Less paper wastage  
for 11x14 and 8x10 standard sizes, less pixel wastage when cropping  
to square or 2:3, and a nicer feel on wide angle work in my opinion.  
I tend to compose more square than 2:3 most of the time, I guess my  
Rolleiflex TLR roots show through. ;-)


Godfrey

Re: New Digital SLR Products From Pentax

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

So far, my local retailers are quite happy with the sales of the DS  
model. They haven't gotten the DL model yet, but the DS2 will be a  
welcome sight in their shop.


Godfrey

On Aug 23, 2005, at 7:13 PM, Herb Chong wrote:

three almost indistinguishable DSLRs in production at the same time  
doesn't make retailers happy. this strategy has been tried before.

Re: slide slam ... Report

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 18, 2005, at 10:18 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:


The San Francisco organization photoAlliance is hosting their third
annual "Slide Slam!" this Friday evening. I've never been to one
before, thought it might be a giggle.. Details are on this page:

  http://www.photoalliance.org/

I'm busily pulling 10 photographs to submit on CD...



Godfrey, I'm interested in hearing how this slide slam thing goes.  
Could

you report back afterwards? I'd seriously like to consider organizing
something like this in Pittsburgh so I'd be curious about how the
logistics and organization are set up.


Okay, sorry not to get to this sooner but it's been busy around here.

The PhotoAlliance Slide Slam was a fun event. At 6pm or so they  
started registration. $20 per person paid for a BBQ dinner and use of  
the facilities at San Francisco Academy of Art. In registration, each  
participant delivered their photos to the folks at the table ... 10  
slides or 10 JPEG images on a CD.


For the slides, they were loaded into carousel trays with a title  
slide with the photographers name and a blackout closing slide. For  
the JPEGs, they were loaded into a PowerBook running iPhoto, again a  
title slide and a blank slide were added to the 10 photos.


No theme was suggested, no sizing information for the digital images  
was provided. People brought a wide variety of work in both slides  
and digital images. I put together 10 half-rez (1500 pixels down the  
long axis) JPEGs at about Photoshop's #8 quality setting. I drew my  
set of 10 from the PAW 2005 People & Portraits gallery work in  
progress, so all of mine were B&W renderings.


All that took a bit of time for the crew to set up, while dinner was  
going on and general socializing went on. It was fun: met a few  
interesting folks, and two of my friends showed up as well. At 8:45,  
the group was moved to the auditorium where a digital projector and a  
slide projection system were setup. Unfortunately, the high quality  
digital projector was out for some reason so they had to make do with  
a small portable unit.


The presentation was very very informal: basically, photographers  
were invited to speak if they chose to when their slide photo set was  
presented, and questions comments were welcomed. Each photo was shown  
for 10 seconds in sequence, and 7 judges were taking notes and  
informally keeping track of what they felt were outstanding photos.  
40 participants' sets of 10 photos were in the agenda, about an hour  
and a half viewing time given a few stops here and there.


The work presented was all over the map in content. Only a few  
photographers were prepared to speak to their work (I spoke fairly  
briefly as to what the project was about, etc). There were a few  
places where some music or speaking were sorely needed to help the  
display along...


The digital photos displayed reasonably well, considering the lack of  
a color managed projection system. Colors were off, my B&Ws' subtle  
tonalities were somewhat poorly rendered; what seemed to display best  
were color graphically oriented images with strong colors/bold  
compositions. But overall they were good and the display ran without  
a hitch.


The slides ran next. Speaking objectively, the slide projection  
system (which *was* the Art college's high-quality system) was  
nowhere near the quality of the portable digital projector: constant  
problems with focus, with slide handling, etc. Even the color was  
poor by comparison; the difference was quite striking. In my opinion,  
the slides would have been much better rendered if they'd been  
scanned and displayed as digital images.


When the viewing was done, the judges presented three awards (no, I  
didn't get one, but I wasn't expecting to... ;-) and a lot of the  
folks hung around a while discussing the work they'd presented.


It was a fine evening, first time I've participated in one of these,  
and I learned quite a bit about this organization and the other  
participants. My friends who were there with me and I are now quite  
interested to do a couple of these events ourself, locally here.  
We're thinking to put a little more structure into the event:


- Regardless of whether the originals are film or digital capture,  
the photos will be accepted

   for display only in digital form.
- Photographers will be given a time period and required to talk  
through their presentation,

   with manual remote control of the projection equipment.
- Anyone who would like to will be encouraged to have their photos  
available for viewing
   after the primary presentation, either by display on a laptop or  
in prints or whatever.
- All submissions will be required to be in the day before so that we  
can all be ready to go

   without the long setup period.
- The digital projector will be color managed.
- The number of presenters will be limited to keep the total group  
presentation to one hour.
   (It seemed to many I spoke to that pas

Re: Are Pentax compact digitals really that bad?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I've found few sites or magazines that did not exhibit a great amount  
of a priori bias. Whether Canon/Nikon are funding them or otherwise  
have a "nudge-nudge-wink-wink" relationship with them is irrelevant  
to me. The fact is that they sometimes present good data and then  
draw absurd conclusions from it, with even more absurd explanations  
as to why those conclusions were drawn.


So what else is new? Consumer Reports, which does try to present  
objectively, is just a bad at reviewing and making recommendations as  
the biased sites. Them through an utterly utilitarian attitude which  
places the "more for less" aphorism at the top of their value chain.


The only way to really get to know what a particular camera can do is  
to own it, use it, work with it.


Godfrey


On Aug 23, 2005, at 11:48 PM, Peter Smekal wrote:


Very interesting. Are there no really independent review sites?
Peter



Youthinks?  I wish it were common knowledge that sites like  
DPReview are
partly owned (or at least, in some cases, heavily sponsored by)  
Canon.

Alas, more and more people are duped every day by such sites.

John Celio

--

http://www.neovenator.com

AIM: Neopifex

"Hey, I'm an artist.  I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm  
making a

statement."

Re: slide slam ... Report

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Possibly. But if you set up a timer and give everyone an allocated  
slot, it think it can be worked. Worth a try at least! :-)


Godfrey

On Aug 24, 2005, at 3:23 AM, Jim Hemenway wrote:


Thanks for the report, sounded like a good time.

I "predict" that if you really want to keep future events to an  
hour, that you'll drop the manual remote control idea.



> - Photographers will be given a time period and required to talk
> through their presentation,
>with manual remote control of the projection equipment

Re: Pentax in San Francisco

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

It's very hard to know when and where the right used gear will show  
up. In SF, Adolph Gasser is the store that I've most often found good  
used equipment like this. In Palo Alto, there's Keeble & Shuchat with  
a similar selection. Beyond that, it's a hunt and hope kinda thing.


Godfrey

On Aug 24, 2005, at 1:00 AM, Anatoly Andrusevich wrote:


Dear Pentax users,

I live in Russia and will be in San Francisco/Sunnyvale in September.
I'd like to find a M50/1.4 or K50/1.4 lens and (maybe) LX body.
Are there any place to buy?
Please assist.

--
Sincerely,
Anatoly Andrusevich
Moscow, Russia

Re: Film scanner question

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:21 AM, mike wilson wrote:

Anyone used one of these?  Any opinions?
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/shop/detail.asp?ProductID=2101


Reports on the MInolta 5400 have been good, but reports on the 5400  
II have not been. I know at least two people who were disappointed  
enough in the 5400 II model that they returned it and took home the  
corresponding Nikon unit of similar price.


I'm still using the ancient Minolta Scan Dual II and it's still  
serving well.


Godfrey

Re: Could this be my next purchase?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 8:17 AM, Kevin Waterson wrote:


This looks _very_ enticing...
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ 
hasselblad_h2_and_h2d_announced/


I had the pleasure of experimenting with the H1 shortly after it was  
announced, when it was still in prototype/first run release. It's a  
delightful camera, if you can afford the tariff. A bit thicker than  
my blood will allow, unfortunately.


Godfrey

Re: B&W Filter in DS2

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Does anyone have an idea how the B&W filter in the istDS2 might  
work?  The
various Sony cameras I've used allows for B&W, but the results seem  
to be
little more than desaturated RGB - in fact, the files show up as  
RGB type

files when edited in PS, and the B&W results aren't particularly good,
showing a rather poor tonality and range.  Are there different ways of
generating a B&W photo with digi cameras? Might the B&W results in the
istDS2 be RAW files, or something other?  I realize all this may  
require

some speculation ...


The DS body has the same B&W rendering filter as the DS2. It is only  
functional when you store the original capture in JPEG format, it  
can't convert RAW format files to B&W, and it generates a new JPEG  
file with the B&W rendering. It is the equivalent of using the  
Channel Mixer in Photoshop with the settings at R=34%, G=55%, B=13%,  
as demonstrated by the following example photo:


original capture in RGB:
  http://homepage.mac.com/godders/_IGP0267.jpg

composite of original with Channel mixer and in-camera B&W rendering:
  http://homepage.mac.com/godders/DS-BW-rendering-test.jpg

The image and histogram on the right was converted in-camera to B&W  
and is named _IGP0268.JPG. The image and histogram on the left is the  
original color RGB image, _IGP0267.JPG, with a Channel Mixer  
adjustment layer, settings show in the dialog box in the center.


Godfrey

Re: PESO - (OT) Captive

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 6:11 AM, Cotty wrote:


I found this quite poignant.



Poor little squirrel monkey. I hate to see them stuck into little  
cages. Good shot, and very poignant.


We had four of them when I was a child, and had a nice home for them  
in the form of a floor-to-ceiling cage that was 8x6 foot wide by  
deep, with lots of perches and branches to play in. They were happy,  
fun little critters. Two of them became quite tame and friendly in  
the time we housed them.


We had them on loan for a few months from a friend who was in charge  
of quarantining newcomers to one of the local zoos. He'd always call  
my father when he ran out of room, so we had a long series of very  
interesting "pets" like this, including a pair of ocelot cubs and, my  
favorites, a pair of Hyacinth Macaws.


Godfrey

Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 23, 2005, at 11:35 PM, Tom C wrote:

... I have thought since day 1 of DSLR's, that the APS form factor  
was largely a short term tactic to get consumers to buy new lenses  
to go with those fancy new DSLR's. Sell APS DSLR's in the short  
term and 'digital' glass to go with them.  When FF sensors get low  
enough in price, get all those new customers to upgrade to FF and  
sell more FF lenses. ...


That seems too closely related to a conspiracy theory. ;-)

No, the challenge to manufacturers like Nikon and Canon and Pentax,  
et al, is this: they had a large range of existing good lenses  
designed for film's characteristics and a 24x36mm format. Digital  
sensors, aside from being very expensive as the area grows, have  
different characteristics. The ideal lens mount for a digital sensor,  
and the ideal lens design for a digital sensor, takes into account  
that the light path should be more nearly orthogonal to the sensor  
even at the edges of the frame ... this implies a lens design which  
"straightens" the light path, and a larger mount.


The best compromise to allow compatibility with older lenses as well  
as achieve the quality and price points required by the digital  
camera is to reduce the size of the format. Moving to approximately  
half-frame size allowed the vast majority of existing lenses to work  
well, does not increase DoF excessively, and generally allows a  
photographer's kit to remain the same with the addition of one-two  
additional, shorter focal length lenses. A side benefit is that those  
additional lenses (and any others designed exclusively for coverage  
of the half-frame format size) can be smaller, lighter, and less  
expensive for their focal length and speed.


These decisions were made up to 8-9 years ago. Sensor chip technology  
has been very very fast paced in the past decade. Canon, having their  
own chip design/fab system, see a market advantage in being at the  
cutting edge of the technology and produce new designs faster than  
all the other vendors. I don't know whether they foresaw this way  
back in 1985, but the EOS mount is unarguably the most suited lens  
mount for 24x36 format sensors, having the largest diameter and the  
shortest registration of any modern AF SLR, as well as fully  
electronic coupling of all the lens controls to the body. This serves  
the double purpose of fulfilling Canon's take on the backwards  
compatibility game (everything in the EOS system is backwards  
compatible, presuming we discount the small selection of EF-S lenses  
designed specifically for the smaller format sensor cameras) and  
allows them the greatest flexibility in designing larger sensors to  
allow recouping the lens design/manufacturing cost investment.


That said, EOS bodies and lenses are amongst the bulkiest in the  
business. The Rebel film bodies became featherweight by dint of use  
of very lightweight plastic structures, pentamirrors, etc, and  
they've downsized the 20D and 350D/XT bodies nicely, but that does  
not reduce the size of the lenses these bodies must carry, which are  
designed for 24x36mm coverage.


For me, one of my biggest priorities, once past a certain assumed  
level of resolution and noise qualities, is not speed or fancy body  
coverings, bazillions of features ... It's size and weight of the kit  
I need to carry. My working style in the past was nearly always one  
body with two/three lenses in the bag or two bodies each fitted with  
a single lens. I like to walk all day with the kit and photograph the  
subjects I aim for in a fluid fashion, without being too obtrusive or  
constrained by fatigue. Four to six lbs is what I want the entire bag  
of gear to weigh, and I don't want the bag to be overly large or  
obtrusive in appearance.


The Pentax DSLRs, with a half-frame format sensor, net the quality  
and the noise level I need for photographic quality, and the lenses/ 
bodies are compact and light. The very inexpensive yet high quality  
50mm f/1.4 lens is a perfect portrait tele, the excellent and also  
tiny 35/2 is a perfect normal; the excellent 14/2.8 is a superb  
ultrawide at the widest FoV point that I personally find useful and,  
for such a short focal length rectilinear with that speed, it is not  
only small but low priced compared to the 24x36 format coverage 14s  
from Nikon and Canon. I can fit two bodies, each with a lens, or one  
body and three lenses into a 6lb bag.


I'm all for more resolution, lower noise, and even a larger sensor.  
But I want it to fit my overall needs as the current system bits do.  
As I said before, a 3:4 or 4:5 proportion format makes good sense to  
me for my compositional tendencies: it uses more of the lens' image  
circle and implies less wastage of pixels in cropping, and I could  
easily see an 8-10Mpixel sensor at 18x24 or 20x24 (for full  
compatibility with current DA series lenses) being quite attractive.


Godfrey

Re: istDS Flash Question

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote:


For those people who need to quickly/temporarily switch
the focus to manual, check the page 120 of the manual
(page 122 of the PDF file
http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/istDS_repl_061405_web.pdf )
This is a bit obscure capability (if you did not read the manual).


Your link doesn't seem to work for me. I presume you mean setting the  
OK button to mode 3 in the custom function menu: pressing it will  
then suspend AF operation temporarily for manual focusing.


I find pressing the OK button with the camera at my eye much slower,  
clumsier than just flicking the AF-MF switch to MF temporarily, but  
YMMV.


Godfrey

Re: PESO - Westminster Abstract

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:


http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=211483


Very very nice, Boris!

Godfrey

Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 11:27 AM, Tom C wrote:

I understand what you're saying and do not doubt the truth in your  
words.  However, I use the ill-fated MZ-D as an example... Pentax  
obviously had a FF model designed and close to production.   
Understandably, either the sensor was of comparatively poor design,  
or the price point would have been too high, so it was canned.  The  
size of the lens mount does not seem to be the factor with Pentax.


The MZ-D experiment was replicated, whether anyone said anything  
about it publicly or not, by every one of the 35mm SLR manufacturers.  
Contax even shipped a camera based on the Phillips sensor ... and it  
was a disaster. Why? Because whether or not the lens mount is ideally  
suited to the sensor, the compelling desire to use the same lens line  
is worth big bucks.


The opportunity to sell new, smaller format coverage lenses  
exclusively for half-frame sized digital sensor cameras is not a shoe- 
in for profit because, until the release of the Canon 300D, DSLRs  
sold in tiny tiny numbers compared to film SLRs and fixed lens  
digital cameras. Any company producing lenses specific to the reduced  
size format, until this very year, has probably not yet seen a  
substantial profit from their design and manufacturing process  
investment. The 300D, the DS, the D70, and the other follow-on DSLR  
bodies under the US$1000 price point will now change that scenario. I  
think Pentax is actually in a sense at the forefront of this amongst  
the SLR manufacturers, now producing six or seven lenses tailored for  
the 16x24mm sensor format (DA14, 16-45, 18-55, 40, 50-200, upcoming  
12-24) and two more that are well optimized for both film and digital  
use (D-FA 50 and 100). That's a whole heck of a lot of lens  
development for just a couple of years.



Thanks for the Canon info.  Weight or size is not an issue for me.


lol ... I can't believe how many people say that. I watch my friend  
Mark with no less than three Canon bodies and 4-5 Canon 300, 400, and  
up lenses, tripods, etc, go out bird shooting. I see the pain his  
feet cause him and the amount of time he spends at the chiropractor too.


Not for me. I ain't getting any younger and all that stuff I leave to  
those who are willing to endure it. ;-)


Godfrey

Re: Why full frame?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 10:35 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:

Not intending to start a flame war, but for my money Epson is (for  
now at least) the way to go).


I don't disagree with you, particularly for Epson's pigment ink line.

However, I did purchase an HP 7960 as it is the least expensive  
printer (cost me $170) to get decent quality B&W proofs done with.  
Nowhere near the quality of the Epson 1270 + MIS UT2 ink +  
QuadToneRIP setup, but fast and easy. And I can print color up to  
8.5x11 out of it that looks good too.


I want an Epson 2200 or 4000 class printer for larger format color  
work. :-)


Godfrey

Re: PESO - Northumbrian series - 1

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:12 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:


http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=211000


Very nice again! Good use of the Zenitar's field of view and  
rendering. Thanks Boris!


Godfrey

Re: BUYDIG.COM

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 3:21 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

If you've recently purchased gear from BUYDIG.COM, how did the  
transaction

go?  Anyone have any complaints or problems?  Thanks!


I ordered my second DS body from Buydig.com on Aug 3, didn't order  
any expedited shipping service to save money. It was delivered on Aug  
5, three days earlier than I'd expected at best. No problems  
whatever, $579 from them to me.


I see their current price is even lower.

Godfrey

Re: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I'm with you, frank. I tend to shoot pretty normal subjects, just  
look for moments when they often don't look so normal. The most  
exciting photographic endeavors I've been involved in were from the  
time when I was working at NASA/JPL in the 1980s, doing science  
imaging work with a aircraft mounted SAR system ... my first efforts  
in digital photography.



http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3538613&size=lg


That's a fun photograph!

Godfrey

Re: CR-V3 rechargeables

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 4:58 PM, David Oswald wrote:

I'll be leaving on my trip to Hong Kong and the Philippines in  
about three weeks.  I've stocked up on memory cards ( Three 1GB  
cards, one 512mb card ), but I'm dissatisfied with how NiMH  
batteries seem to hold up in my *ist-DS.  I get a day's worth of  
shooting out of them if I don't use the flash.  I guess that's ok;  
I can bring a portable charger with me.  But it would be nice if I  
could just bring some long lasting CR-V3's with me.  I may still  
have to lug a little charger around but at least I can get  
(hopefully) a few days use out of one charge.


I went with AA and CRV3 lithium disposables. No recharging, no  
charger to bother with, light weight, etc. I brought five sets, took  
three thousand pictures, still had 500 or so exposures to go on the  
third set when I got home (about 1100-1300 exposures per set).


Are the rechargeable CR-V3 batteries lithium?  Are they as long  
lasting (or nearly so) as the non-rechargeable type?  I noticed  
that they're specifically not recommended in the manual for the  
*ist-DS.  Has anyone out there tried them, and to what level of  
success?


I don't know, but they're expensive and not recommended. I stay away  
from them.


Now I'll have to figure out which lenses and gear to lug around  
with me too:

SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm f/4 AL: Can't do without it.
SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4: Won't leave home without it.
SMC Pentax-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5: Shouldn't leave home without it.
SMC Pentax-FA 135mm f/2.8:Too nice to leave home.
SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm f/4.5-5.6: Never know when I'll need it.


What you have right there is a good kit, similar to what I carried:
DA14, A24, A50/1.4, FA28-105, FA135, and F100-300

Were I doing the same trip tomorrow, I'd change things just a little  
bit:

DA14, FA20-35, FA28-105, FA35/2, F50/1.7, FA135.

Might not even carry the 28-105. Maybe I'd add the Zenitar 16. I'd  
not carry the F100-300 and the full size tripod as I didn't use them  
enough to matter; I'd carry just a light table top tripod with a  
decent head on it.


Oh yeah: I carried 6x 1Gbyte storage cards and an Epson P2000 storage  
device. Well worth it.


And of course I'll be stuck lugging around the AF330FTZ too, since  
I never bothered to send my *ist-DS in for service to its flash yet  
(It consistantly fires full-throttle, burning out the shots).  I'll  
send it in under warranty when I get back, but so far, I've been  
too busy using the camera to be able to live without it long enough  
to get it serviced.


I don't think I even used the built-in flash once during my entire  
trip. I didn't carry an external flash unit at all.


Simplify, simplify. I found the less I carried, the better my  
pictures were. I never carried more than two/three lenses at a time,  
now I'd carry only two at a time.


Godfrey

Re: istDS Flash Question

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 5:43 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:


http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/istDS_repl_061405_web.pdf



The link seems to work, I just checked it
(You need to have a PDF reader installed).
But anyway, you guessed correctly.


Ah, it does work, it just has some odd notion of wanting me to choose  
Adobe PDF Reader application first. Weird. I have the manual  
downloaded and on my disk already, however (also the ones for the D  
and DL).


I also hadn't paid any attention to that function as I thought that  
AF-MF

switch is already their.
Today, I realized when this can be helful (to me at least).
Sometimes, AF of Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 in low light
with the focal length close to 300, tends to hunt and miss if
the original focus position was faraway from the target.
What works for me is to "preset" it manually to the right range,
so that it AF quickly and more reliably.
In this case the functionality of the "OK" button can help.


Interesting. When the light gets down to the point where the AF hunts  
too much, I just switch to MF and do the focusing myself. Different  
way of working, I guess.


Godfrey

Re: istDS RAW File Size

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


About ten or eleven MB, give or take a little?


Yes, DS .PEF files average about 10.3Mbytes, normally I get 97 or so  
per 1G card.


I download and archive them to my storage drives, then convert them  
to .DNGs using Adobe's DNG Converter v3.1. That nets not only a  
savings in size of nearly 40% (6-7Mbytes apiece) but also produces a  
much better preview JPEG embedded with the file.


Godfrey

Re: Wideangle enablement :)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 25, 2005, at 5:15 AM, Chris Stoddart wrote:

They don't need to have a curve on them to act as a lens.  If a light
ray is hitting them at an angle, it will be deflected by refraction.
http://www.ps.missouri.edu/rickspage/refract/refraction.html
Would make all the difference between a sharp and soft image.


Yes, I do happen know a smidge about refraction(*). But tell me  
about
those filters everyone puts in front of their lenses...  or do they  
not
have the same effect? :-) Is it only at the rear of the lens you  
reckon

it makes a difference?


Yes, they do have an effect ... which is why I never use a filter  
unless it is essential to filtering light. Anything at the rear  
element of a lens, however, makes a bigger impact on the output than  
at the front element. A small crack or bit of dirt on the front of a  
lens is usually almost impossible to distinguish, but at the rear of  
a lens it can make the lens unusable.


Godfrey

Re: CR-V3 rechargeables

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:47 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:

Oh yeah: I carried 6x 1Gbyte storage cards and an Epson P2000  
storage  device. Well worth it.


But why 6 cards if you have storage device handy? Seriously.


I don't normally carry the P2000 around with me all day. I like to do  
all my card to tank backup and verification after the day's shooting  
is done. It's a 1lb device the size of a pocket paperback book ... I  
don't really want to carry the extra weight (and risk of damage)  
around with me all the time.


I store exposures purely in RAW format, so one 1G card equals 97  
photos. When traveling and concentrating on picture taking, I  
averaged about 250 per day, so I need at least three 1G cards for a  
day's shooting. But my old rule of thumb has always been "carry about  
double the storage, film or digital, that you average in a day." Thus  
I carry 6x 1G cards. There were a couple of days where I filled 4 and  
a bit of a 5th.


I guess I would have to buy original Pentax *istD case just so that  
I can shoot without taking the camera out of the case.


A small shoulder bag and a hand strap is what I use. Never-ready  
cases always get in my way.


Godfrey

Re: Pancakes for Breakfast

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

One of my friends in New Orleans bought the DA40 Limited and has  
displayed several photos taken with it. It seems an excellent  
performer, and he likes it a lot (he has every pancake design lens  
that's been on the market, from Pentax and other vendors). 40mm would  
make a short-portrait-tele, but I find the thin form factor to be a  
little cramped for my fingers. I prefer the 35 and 50mm lenses.


Godfrey


On Aug 25, 2005, at 8:10 AM, Juan Buhler wrote:


Hi Shel,

Rolling Red bought this for her istDs. It is nice, metal barrel, feels
small in a good way on the D and Ds.

She is not using it much, she says the focal length is odd. 28 and 50
work for her, with 40 she seemingly cannot take any good pictures.

No pics online to show you, sorry. But if we get together on or after
October maybe I can bring it with me. If she is still not using it by
then maybe she'll sell it, too...

Cheers,

j

On 8/25/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Is anyone using the new 40mm lens?  Comments, pics would be  
appreciated.

Tks!


Shel







--
Juan Buhler
http://www.jbuhler.com
photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com

Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I have the FA135/2.8 IF. It's a fine performer. I don't see any of  
the purple fringing that someone mentioned with the DS.


My other 135 is a Takumar (K-bayonet) 135/2.5, which isn't comparable  
at all unless stopped down to at least f/11.


Godfrey

On Aug 25, 2005, at 12:11 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote:



Thanks to everybody who responded to my question.

I am still open to further comments,
but I particularly interested to hear people's opinion about:

What would be reasonable prices that one can find for any of these  
lenses

used, in good condition?




Also, can anybody comment on
A 135/2.8 lens compared to F and/or FA 135/2.8 ?

Thank you,

Igor

Re: Advice needed - Developing TRIX 400 35mm

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Hi Michael,

I can't help you with TMax developer as the little I used it I found  
I hated the stuff.


However, I regularly exposed Tri-X and TMax 400 at ISO 800 for  
processing in XTOL. I use 1:1 dilution, one shot, and process at 74  
F, taking the time/temperature required from the Kodak data sheet (~  
8 minutes at 75F). I add 10% time with minimal agitation (2 tilts to  
45 degrees of the developing tank in a 5 second period every minute)  
to net a negative with minimal highlight blocking, low grain, good  
acutance, and lots of shadow tonality.


Godfrey


On Aug 25, 2005, at 11:10 AM, Michael Spivak wrote:


Hi

I have a problem that i can't solve myself here... so i was adviced to
ask the list :) (thanks Boris)
I have an exposed TriX 400 film pushed 1 stop (exposed as 800) and i
usually use the TMAX developer for the process... but i've ever pushed
a film... can someone help please and tell me the developing time for
this film poushed 1 stop with that specific developer ?

Thanks a lot in advance
Michael

Re: quantity and quality

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


250 frames in a day seems a lot for casual shooting on a vacation...


I wasn't "casual shooting on a vacation". Part of my trip was a  
holiday with friends; the other part was making photographs to be  
processed and built into several portfolios, hangings and books.


Shel wrote:
Sheesh!  250 exposures a day is a lot.  Over the course of an 8  
hour day,
that's more than one exposure every two minutes, assuming you don't  
break
for lunch, afternoon tea, or go to the bathroom.  And on a busy day  
that

works out to be closer to one per minute, not considering breaks.


Applying statistics to shooting like this isn't really sensible. My  
"days" tended to be 13-16 hours out and about with the camera with me  
at all times. Exposures got made in bursts, perhaps at times several  
dozen in a few minutes with an interesting scene or subject matter,  
and at other times a couple now and then as scenes and subjects  
happened. Several days had virtually no shooting at all too, as I was  
in transit or tired or just not motivated. All told, I averaged 133  
exposures for every day of the trip (21 days total), but my average  
on shooting days was about 250.


...
An exposure every 12 seconds or so doesn't seem like much thought  
went into
composition or framing ... but then, I can see the desire to shoot  
a lot

and shoot fast in some circumstances.


Exactly. I don't walk around like an automaton and press the button  
every 12 seconds. I look at a subject or scene carefully, then shoot  
as many frames as I think I need to get what I want out of it. Some  
scenes only one exposure is made, and that's all the opportunity  
there might be. For other scenes and situations I might make three  
dozen looking for "the one", with different settings.



Speaking only for myself, a slower
approach often seems to work better.  Anyway, there's a difference  
between
a burst of enthusiastic shooting and making a lot of exposures  
consistently
over a protracted period of time.  I don't think I've the stamina  
for it.

But then again, maybe with a digi I will ...


Remember that there's no downside to making more exposures with a  
digital capture camera. Any waste exposures can be deleted and the  
storage card re-used.


It invites a more opportunistic approach than film does ... I've  
sometimes been fascinated with doing a study on something that I KNOW  
has only 1 chance in 500 of making it as a photo, but I can spend a  
hundred exposures on it, trying different angles, different ideas,  
without any need to reload film or worry about another $20 worth of  
film and processing being wasted. When I work with a tripod on static  
subjects, I tend to make a lot of exposures at slightly different  
exposure settings, to determine which nets the best expression in  
tonality and color. When I'm street shooting, I might make fewer  
exposure changes but more total exposures to capture nuances of  
expression and angle of approach.



Shel (visions of gigabytes dancing through my head)


Yes, it involves gigabytes of image data. I returned from my trip  
with 28-29G worth of exposures to work on. I've currently identified  
and sorted out about 8 themes from that work, suitable to develop  
into shows and books, which is what I'm working on now.


When I took the Hasselblad SWC with me on a similar trip in 2002, I  
consumed about 20 rolls of 12 exposure film in a two week period.  
Lots of excellent work came out of it, but the keeper percentage  
(keepers/total exposures) turns out to be pretty similar. With a  
faster camera, then, I am more productive in unit time. ;-)


One of my favorites from that trip was this photo taken at Point of  
Ayre on the Isle of Man:

  http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW2/37.htm

Godfrey

Re: quantity and quality

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I've not yet worn out a shutter mechanism, I had my Nikon FM for  
almost 20 years. I can only hope the same is true for the Pentax DS.


Godfrey

On Aug 25, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:


Godfrey,

There is still one thing that is indeed limitation, even to your style
of shooting. That would be total number of clicks before shutter gives
out...

Otherwise you're quite right... Though my "style" differs from yours.

--
Boris

Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_bi_ge/kodak_consolidation

Re: Qs about metering

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 25, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:

I asked 3 weeks ago about getting white out of spot metering  
something white; I reminder below:


- The rule of thumb says that, in order to get a very snowy  
picture to

 look white, you add +2 to whatever the (say, CW) meter says.
 Will the +2 correction work with a white flower on a macro (ie
 mostly white) shot?



Rules of thumb are approximations. It all depends where you want  
to place Zone IX ... Zone IX being defined as the brightest part  
of the scene that you want to retain detail in.


- How many stops between 18% gray and pure white? Is it 2, as per  
the

 rule of thumb?


18% reflectance gray is Zone V. So if the flower is to be Zone IX,  
it's three stops brighter than Zone V.




And here is the result:

http://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/~kavousan/Orchid.jpg

Z1-P, Tamron 90/2.8 SP, Superia 400, handheld. Spotmetered on the  
petal with EV+2.


Looks great!

Godfrey

Re: PAW thumbnail page

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 25, 2005, at 10:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Thumb nail page looks good. (Some nice photos I hadn't seen.)

But, I too, found the little blocks confusing. At first I thought  
they were

supposed to be thumbnails, then I saw the link to the thumbnail page.

Maybe the blocks could be smaller, then no one would think that  
they are
supposed to be thumbnails (with pictures that didn't load). Or  
maybe dots or bars

rather than blocks.

Whatever.

Nice photos. I wish I could do 1/2 as well.


Heya Marnie,

Thanks for the compliment!

And thanks for looking and commenting.

I'll likely revise the frontispiece page for next year's PAW, based  
on the amount of feedback I've gotten on the status bar. Might  
integrate the thumbnail page into it; I didn't in the past as I felt  
that the frontispiece should load very quickly, and loading up to 50- 
some thumbnails takes time on a slow connection. I have an idea that  
might work better, though, without losing the specific functionality  
and display information that I wanted for it.


I've put thumbnail pages up linked to the frontispiece for all posted  
years of PAW projects now.


http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW1/thumbs/
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW2/thumbs/
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW3/thumbs/
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW4/thumbs/
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/thumbs/

Godfrey

Re: Film scanner question

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

MAC is a brand name for machine hand tools, like crescent wrenches,  
spanners, screwdrivers, etc. ;-)


FYI:
Mac OS X is a UNIX-based operating system, with full-time virtual  
memory. Executables are file-mapped extensions to the physical  
address space. Each process on Mac OS X is given an independent  
address space at runtime, to the limit of the addressable space  
provided by the processor and memory controller. Memory is paged into  
and out of RAM as needed. The more physical RAM is provided, the less  
need for paging and thus the better the performance. When paging is  
necessary, the transfer speed of the hard disk becomes important and  
can contribute to system performance to a great degree.


For serious work on Mac OS X with Photoshop, I recommend 1G RAM as a  
minimum with a fast hard drive, and at least 10-20G bytes of free  
space on the drive. The more RAM, the more free space and the faster  
the drive, the better. For less seriously heavy duty work, a 512-768M  
RAM system and a decent drive will suffice too. I haven't found too  
much performance benefit with 2G RAM over 1G RAM, a faster-bigger  
hard drive generally makes a bigger difference, but it helps if  
you're working with a lot of very large files.


This computer-geeky moment brought to you by

Godfrey


On Aug 25, 2005, at 6:27 PM, Graywolf wrote:

I think you run a MAC. PS uses all the memory on MAC'., With PC's  
it will only use up to 2 gigabytes. PS2 is nice.


graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---


Herb Chong wrote:

i don't have any problem with CS or CS2 and 5G of RAM. the OS uses  
only 4G, but that is a different issue. some plugins have lots of  
problem with too much RAM though.

Herb
- Original Message - From: "David Mann"  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: Film scanner question

I upgraded from 1Gb to 3Gb.  I've found that any more than about  
2Gb  may be pointless anyway.  Photoshop CS and CS2 don't behave  
well when  they're using more than about 1Gb... I tend to leave a  
lot of apps  open in the background which is unlikely to help.

Re: Mini London PDML

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 25, 2005, at 6:38 PM, keithw wrote:


The authors were Anne Taylor and Fern Mosk.
Publishers were Simon & Schuster, N.Y. 1956.
Subtitled: Or the confessions of a sports car addict.
It has a Liberary of Congerss Caatalog numb, but apparently that  
was prior to iSBNs.


The back dust cover displays a photograph of the two authors in a  
1933 RHD MG L3 Magnette, supercharged, 1087 cc.


What a car!

In the story, Prudence, a college girl, literally builds a  
sportscar in her dorm room!
The book is accompanied by lots of well done line drawing sketches  
of various sports cars from "back then."


I mean, really! 1956! Sports car nirvana age...
My first sports car was a Triumph TR-3!

Lots of memories from back then. I was totally immersed in SCCA  
activities, crewing and racing and driving my TR around the  
countryside!


1956 is a little before my time. But I had a '61 Alfa Romeo Guilietta  
1300 and a 1960(?) Triumph TR2a along the way, along with '66 MG B,  
'66 Jaguar E-Type, '71 Alfa Romeo 1750 Spider Veloce, '64 Lamborghini  
350GT, 1969 Datsun 2000, and a few others I've probably forgotten by  
now...


Cars were wonderful playthings back then. Now they're too much of a  
pain in the butt to deal with. I still love my FrankenSpider, however.

  http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/vehicles/fs-3468.htm

Godfrey

Re: B&W On A DSLR

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I think what Herb said will work, but set white-balance manually  
BEFORE you fit the filter. Processing the image could be tricky...  
I've never tried that technique but anything can work.


However, when you are intending to do grayscale work with a digital  
camera, the best option is to capture without a filter and use post- 
process rendering tools to produce a monochrome rendering. You can  
obtain the effect of using any traditional B&W filtration using  
various techniques (like Channel Mixing, LAB separation, Calculation  
Channels, etc etc). Issue 35 of the UK magazine "Digital  
Photographer" (July? August? can't find the month) outlines four-five  
of the 12 different B&W rendering techniques I've seen and tried. All  
work well, in different circumstances.


Godfrey

On Aug 25, 2005, at 6:56 PM, Herb Chong wrote:

you have to manually set white balance to something fixed, like  
daylight or something.


Herb
- Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter"  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:48 PM
Subject: B&W On A DSLR



Let's say you shoot on a Pentax DSLR, with the intention at the  
start of converting the image to grayscale. You shoot with a red  
or yellow or green filter, with the final B&W image in mind. One  
shoots in Raw. After converting to TIFF, then converting to  
grayscale, will the effect of, say, a red filter still be present  
in the image? Or will the white balance just correct for it at the  
time the image is shot?

Re: Film scanner question

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 25, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Graywolf wrote:

Sorry I commented on one of your posts with some simple information  
for those who might not know of it. ...


You did? sorry, I hadn't noticed.

Godfrey

Re: PESO -- Cruising is Serious Business

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 25, 2005, at 8:49 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:


http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_cisb.html

Equipment
Pentax *ist-D
smc Pentax 28-200mm f3.8~5.6AL[IF]


That's rather nice. Reminds me of riding through the South on my bike  
many years ago.


Godfrey

Re: B&W On A DSLR

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 25, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


... The problem with
using post processing techniques is that the results don't follow  
the way
real B&W film behaves, so colors and tonality are conbverted  
arbitrarily,

IOW, how you want them to look not necessarily the way B&W film would
record them.  That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, depending  
on the

result you want.  However, it requires that you become familiar with a
number of techniques so you can decide which will provide the  
results you

desire.

...
Finally, from what I've seen using three different digi cameras,  
even if
you're shooting in B&W mode, the filters don't seem to work quite  
the same

as when shooting film.


I wouldn't say that "colors and tonality are converted  
arbitrarily" ... rather, I spent a great deal of time learning how to  
use Curves, HSV and Channel Mixer layers together, over the past  
several years, so that I can get the spectral response and gamma  
curve that precisely fits what I had in mind when I took the picture.


The issue is that different B&W film and developer combinations have  
different spectral responses, gamma curves, etc. If what you are  
looking to do is emulate a particular B&W film and do it as  
automatically as possible, yes, plug-ins like the ones from  
TheImagingFactory.com and digitalsilver, as well as others, have  
mapped those spectral responses nicely in a black box implementation.  
However, all they're doing, really, is manipulating the balance of  
the channels, much like using the Channel Mixer or one of the several  
ways of using HSV adjustment layers, Calculation layers, etc.


I tend to prefer to work the tonalities myself, rather than trust to  
a plug-in, because I want to be able to achieve a particular set of  
response curves and reproduce it with a wide variety of capture  
settings reliably, and because I want to understand precisely what  
the transformation performed was. I also don't like paying for  
additional software to do the work that I can figure out for myself  
in a short amount of experimentation time.


BTW: Since we're talking B&W here, I posted a half-rez version of one  
of my recent People & Portrait series photos today for folks on my  
other list. It was taken with the FA35/2 AL lens, and gives a better  
feel for what a print from this image might look like compared to  
what the web gallery photo normally shows. If you want to take a look  
at it...


Standard gallery photo:
   http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/32.htm
Half-rez version:
   http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/32-half.jpg
Camera:  Pentax *ist DS + FA35/2 AL
Exposure settings: ISO 200 @ f/2 @ 1/25 sec, Av mode

Godfrey

Re: Patch adding hidden functios to PS EL

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 25, 2005, at 7:40 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:

I stumbled across a patch that is supposed to add some of the hidden
function in Elements.
- Curves
- Channel mixer
- Layer mask
- Selective Colour adjustments
And it’s free! To good to be true?
Does anybody know anything significant about this?
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-elements- 
curves.html



Stuff like this has been around for Photoshop Elements for a while.  
And ... It's good!


I'm not familiar with the specific one you found, but I believe the  
book "The Hidden Power of Photoshop Elements 3" by Richard Lynch  
details a lot of these kinds of capabilities, how to use them, and  
comes with a CD that supplies the components to plug in for either  
Mac OS or Windows. Most folks I know who've bought the book have been  
pretty pleased with it.


Godfrey

Re: B&W On A DSLR

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 25, 2005, at 10:24 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

I don't think we're really disagreeing, just describing the same  
thing a

little differently.


lol ... Perhaps.  :-)

I think in terms of digital process almost exclusively nowadays. The  
expression "colors and tonalities are converted arbitrarily" is  
definitely not describing what I do when I'm rendering B&W  
photographs from my exposures with the DS. I am rendering the colors  
and tonalities very precisely according to what I wanted when I made  
the photo and again when I looked at the preview thumbnail to  
evaluate it. There's not much that's "arbitrary" about it.


However, I'm not trying to emulate any specific film & developer  
combination... :-)


Godfrey

Re: Pancakes for Breakfast

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

My understanding is that the DA40 Ltd covers 24x36mm format very well  
despite it's "DA" designation. However, it does not have an aperture  
ring so it would be unsatisfactory on, say, the MX body since it  
would only operate at f/22 or some such without body control of the  
aperture mechanism.


Godfrey


On Aug 25, 2005, at 10:47 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Cool - I think I might like the focal length.  Been looking for  
something
close to 60mm for 35mm film cameras, so this might do the trick on  
the DS,
although a 43mm may be a bit more practical in that it can be used  
on the
digi and the film bodies, although it gives away the small size.   
Anyway,
I'd like to at least see it.  Let's try to get together when you  
return.

Re: Pancakes for Breakfast

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Huh? Full control of both body and lens will be possible, and you'll  
be able to use all the DS' capabilities. Why would that be  
unsatisfactory??


Godfrey


On Aug 25, 2005, at 11:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Hmmm  that may make it unsatisfactory on the DS as well.


... however, it does not have an aperture
ring so it would be unsatisfactory on, say, the MX body since it
would only operate at f/22 or some such without body control of the
aperture mechanism.

Re: iPod photo storage

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 26, 2005, at 4:21 AM, Derby Chang wrote:

I've managed to acquire a 60GB iPod Photo, and am rediscovering my  
CD collection. Wonderous indeed. Now need to do some enablement.


I know the pod won't display RAW files, but that's ok. I just want  
to dump RAWs. I'm looking at the Belkin media reader. Seems it will  
work nicely at firewire speeds. But it is quite pricey.


And then there are camera USB adapters. The Apple camera adapter  
doesn't list the *istDS as compatible, but since it works as a mass  
storage device, I guess it probably will. And I'd have to carry  
around the camera USB cable.


Does anyone have any advice, or first hand experience?


I'm not sure that the iPod Photos will transfer anything but JPEG  
files from the supported cameras. I'd look out for that. My  
impression was that they do not.


Godfrey

Re: PESO -- Cruising is Serious Business

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 26, 2005, at 5:06 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote:


A nice picture. Despite being a bit unsharp.
But what grab my attention are the threes, I like them, but I don't  
tend to

look at the main subject.
Could be me and my biases, being a "Me don't love wheels" man.
I try to ignore him, because he is disturbing my peace, roaring  
around ;-)


Hmm. In this picture, I don't see the motorcyclist as "roaring  
around". He looks like he's on a pleasant, burbling putt through some  
nice country.


Godfrey

Re: Mini London PDML

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 26, 2005, at 5:12 AM, keithw wrote:

Cars were wonderful playthings back then. Now they're too much of  
a  pain in the butt to deal with. I still love my FrankenSpider,  
however.

  http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/vehicles/fs-3468.htm


Made non-Alfa by what means?


I'm not sure what makes you ask that. It's Alfa Romeo through and  
through. Its name is "FrankenSpider" as I built it out of three cars:  
a rusted-out junkyard hulk, a derelict left to rot in a parking lot,  
and a wreck.


Godfrey

Re: Pancakes for Breakfast

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

DS:

In Manual exposure mode on the, the thumbwheel wheel controls both  
aperture and shutter speed. Turned by itself, set shutter speeds from  
30 seconds to 1/4000 second. Press the "+/- Av" button and the  
thumbwheel sets the aperture.


And...

In Av mode, the thumbwheel controls the aperture. Press the "+/- Av"  
button and the thumbwheel controls the EV compensation. In Tv mode,  
the thumbwheel controls the shutter speed, and EV compensation is  
controlled same as in Av mode.


In either of Av or Tv exposure modes, if you frame what you want to  
meter on and press the AE-Lock button, rolling the thumbwheel changes  
the aperture or shutter speed respectively, and it holds the same  
metered EV value by shifting the shutter speed or aperture to suit as  
well.


In Manual mode, frame what you want to meter on and press AE-Lock:  
the camera will set a shutter speed to match the current aperture  
setting and also display 0.0 EV in the lower right corner of the  
viewfinder display. Changing the aperture or shutter speed will now  
display the change from what you metered within a range of +/-3.0 EV.


Godfrey


On Aug 25, 2005, at 11:40 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


How would one set the aperture when using the lens manually, like in
aperture priority, or when using full manual modes?  Am I missing  
something?



Huh? Full control of both body and lens will be possible, and you'll
be able to use all the DS' capabilities. Why would that be
unsatisfactory??



Hmmm  that may make it unsatisfactory on the DS as well.



... however, it does not have an aperture
ring so it would be unsatisfactory on, say, the MX body since it
would only operate at f/22 or some such without body control of the
aperture mechanism.

Re: iPod photo storage

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I was not referring to the use of the iPod as a FireWire/USB 2.0 hard  
drive, attached to a host computer. I do that with mine all the  
time ... I keep an encrypted copy of my financial database and other  
critical files on an iPod as a backup in case of my systems' hard  
drive failing (as well as in other places, of course).


I was referring to the use of the iPod Photo as a standalone image  
storage device. The latest versions of the iPod Photo can attach  
directly to a camera and initiate the transfer of image files to its  
disk. However, I am not sure that it will transfer anything but JPEG  
files ... that is, it will not transfer .CRW, not .NEF, not .PEF,  
etc, RAW format files in this mode. I'm not sure about that, however,  
so it's something to check with the specs of the iPod Photo software  
before relying upon it.


Godfrey


On Aug 26, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:


I don't see why it wouldn't.

I've never tried RAW file, but I have transfered text files from my  
home computer to the one in the office by loading them onto the  
iPod Photo and then unloading them.  It's really just a little hard  
drive with special software to play music and display photos.


I'm not sure that the iPod Photos will transfer anything but JPEG   
files from the supported cameras. I'd look out for that. My   
impression was that they do not.

Re: Mini London PDML

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 26, 2005, at 9:45 AM, keithw wrote:


  http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/vehicles/fs-3468.htm
I was thinking you might have put a small block Chevy engine in  
there, and a column shift, or something like that!


Heavens, no!!! ;-)


sure is purty!


Thank you! It's got a cheap "20 foot" paint job on it and the  
interior is tatty enough that those nice guys who do auto upholstery  
leave their business card on the windshield all the time, but I love  
it just the way it is. It runs a treat, handles well, and feels like  
a REAL car... :-)


Godfrey

Re: B&W On A DSLR

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Thanks Paul!

I'm setting up to make a print today on Somerset Velvet using the  
Epson 1270/MIS UT2/QuadToneRIP system and expect a really nice result  
out of it. :-)


Godfrey

On Aug 26, 2005, at 3:10 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

Superb example of BW conversion. (I like the shot very much as  
well.) But on my monitor, the highlights and shadows are detailed  
and right at the ends of the spectrum, the midtones are nicely  
separated and beautifully rendered. Excellent. Would love to see it  
printed on Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper in a 2200.



Standard gallery photo:
   http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/32.htm
Half-rez version:
   http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/32-half.jpg
Camera:  Pentax *ist DS + FA35/2 AL
Exposure settings: ISO 200 @ f/2 @ 1/25 sec, Av mode

Re: Pancakes for Breakfast

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Yes.

G

On Aug 26, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Is that the wheel on the back of the camera, below and to the left  
of the

AE-L button?

Shel




[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi

DS:

In Manual exposure mode on the DS, the thumbwheel wheel controls both
aperture and shutter speed. Turned by itself, set shutter speeds from
30 seconds to 1/4000 second. Press the "+/- Av" button and the
thumbwheel sets the aperture.

Re: Photo Presentation on DVD w/Music

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 26, 2005, at 9:55 AM, Jeff Geilenkirchen wrote:
Any Apple users out there have any recommendations for creating  
photo presentations on DVD with music.  the iDVD product which came  
with my Powerbook can't handle what I'm trying to do.


Thoughts?


I haven't done this with the latest versions of iTunes, iPhoto,  
iMovie and iDVD yet (the iLife package), but I've seen some fairly  
complex DVD photo presentation work done with that set of four  
applications. The next step up from there is a big one, to the Final  
Cut Studio application suite.


What are you trying to do that is blocked? I might be able to help.

Godfrey

Re: PESO -- Cruising is Serious Business

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 26, 2005, at 8:59 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:

I was talking about his expression, he looks extraordinarily  
serious for someone on a joy ride.


Interesting perception. It's hard to read the facial expressions of a  
motorcyclist: eyes hidden behind dark glasses, concentrating on the  
road. Riding is a serious business ... A small mistake can mean a lot  
of pain.


Godfrey