from:"graywolf"


Strangely the ratios for most film push is the same as for f/stops. That is the 
square root of 2, or 1.4. So if you photos look good at your normal exposure 
and development they should be Ok if you increase you development time by 1.4. 
For example, if you are now developing at 400ASA for 10 minutes, increase it to 
14 minutes for 800ASA.

Tech stuff: While most folks speak of pushing to increase film speed, you are 
not actually doing that. What underexposure does is reduce contrast AND film 
latitude. By overdevloping you are increasing the contrast, but you have 
already lost the latitude and the shadow detail is gone. If that is acceptable 
in your final image pushing will work for that image.

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


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





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005

Re: Mini London PDML


Was that a J-2 with a blower that you had, Keith ?

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


keithw wrote:

P. J. Alling wrote:


I hope the hen was well cooked...



Ahhh, keeps me in mind of the old Morris Garages autos, it does...

keith


Cotty wrote:


On 24/8/05, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:

 


Cotty, Bob, what was the name of that ale again?




Fuller's London Pride! Just had a pint myself, followed by a Speckled 
Hen.


Cheers,
 Cotty








--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005

Re: Some select shots from the CC at GFMtn.


Hey, buddy, I saw your car at GFM, but no sign of you. I basically only stopped 
by on Friday to see how Don and Bill were doing. Was both broke and worrying 
about upcoming surgery, (now done, but it will be a week or so before I know 
how successful it was), So I did not hang around very long. Sorry I missed you.

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


Cesar wrote:
These are just a few shots to let the PDML and others have a glimpse 
into the weekend at the Camera Clinic on Grandfather Mountain...

http://groups.msn.com/CesarsPhotography/cameraclinic2005.msnw

The shot of Scott that I talked of earlier is at 
http://groups.msn.com/CesarsPhotography/cameraclinic2005.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=994 



There is a shot of him with his MX at 
http://groups.msn.com/CesarsPhotography/cameraclinic2005.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=991 



I still hope to put up a page with more shots, but this was convenient 
for the moment.  I did nothing but resize the images.


Still trying to catch up to the list,

César
Panama City, Florida





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005

Re: Why full frame?

But that is what you are doing isn't it--flame war I mean?

I just mentioned that a decent wide carriage printer can be had for what is an affordable price for many. I said nothing about better, or that you should switch. However I have been doing a bit of research about this, wide carrige photo printers, recently. Just wishful thinking on my part as I can only afford a hundred bucks or so for a new printer (Anybody want to give away a 1280? I could pay the shipping.) Buy reading reviews on printers written by folks after they have owned them for awhile.

I find more problems with Epsons than with most other brands. Which is interesting because most of my printers have been Epsons starting with an MX80, and a Radio Shack computer around 1980. I have owned a few others however. The one that was the most rugged and had best type quality, as well as being the slowest and noisiest was a Xerox Daisy Wheel with a sheet and envelop feeder (University of Michigan surplus). Resumes printed on it got an 83% response (In case someone says the physical quality of your resume doesn't matter).

I have had two Canons an inkjet which clogged the head like crazy and a Laser
printer. That old (10 years now?) LBP-430 is still chugging away as my text
printer. I seem to get about 3000-4000 pages to a toner cartridge. That is
cheap, no ink jet can do that.

The other was a BJP-620. At the time I bought it it was their top of the line
model with the individual ink cartridges. That is pretty common now but back
then it was revolutionary. When I went to replace the ink head I found out it
cost almost as much as a new printer, but since it was user replaceable I
soaked it in a jar of rubbing alcohol for a week, did a couple of cleaning
cycles to get the alcohol out of it and it worked fine. But the photo print
quality wasn't up to any standard I could accept. In fact that was the printer
that prompted my inkjet printer challenge here on the list. Your and everyone
else's samples showed me that inkjets could do good photos.

Currently my photo printer is a 3 year old Epson Stylus Photo 820. Slow,
expensive to run with Epson ink and paper, cheap with off brand stuff from
ebay. Prints better at 360 than at 720 which makes me believe that the 2880x720
spec is just advertising crap. It too has clogging problems for which is is
justly infamous. However I have developed techniques which minimizes that:
Print a nozzle check every week if I am not using it regularly. If it
absolutely needs a head cleaning do one and let it set overnight before doing
another nozzle check. That seems to work as well as doing 10-12 head cleanings
which is what it seems to need if you follow Epson's instructions. Done their
way you use more ink cleaning the nozzles than you do printing. Makes them lots
of money, I guess. BTW, I have fewer clogs with the cheap ink than with the
Epson, although the Epson ink give better color control.

But back to the Designjet printers. They are nothing like HP's desktop printers. For one thing they have separate user replaceable heads, one for each ink so you do not need to buy a $400 head if just the Magenta is clogged. Print quality is more than just acceptable. Print life is almost unbelievable, 200 years under glass and away from UV even with glossy paper (they do specify that and give specs for not under glass, and even for under UV as well, all tests done by that company that everyone says is the best --name escapes me at the moment).

At $1300 you do not get the Adobe RIP software, nor the roll paper feeder both of which I
believe comes with the Epson 4000 ($2000), The new Epson 4800 ($more) has 8 inks, instead of
the 6 of the Designjet-130 and Epson 4000. But how many of use use Postscript to print photos?
So the fact that is an option is really a benefit for many of us. They are all basically
"C" size (18x24) plotter/printers, however the Designjet will take hand or roll fed
paper up to 24".

As I said, I am just wishing, but if I could afford one that is what I would get. My 5mp
digital P&S camera would not do it justice, and I would never print enough photos of
my own to to pay for it. But if I could get one I could probably do some custom printing
for others with it. (Aside to Mark Roberts: it will do 24"x64' (that's 64 feet)
panoramas. You could probably have it print out while you were on a weekend trip to say
GFM.)

Go easy on flaming me now guys, I just got home from the hospital a few hours
ago (sinus surgery, had to stay overnight as I was slow recovering from
anesthesia, and bleeding), and am on painkillers right now.

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

Kenneth Waller wrote:
Yes, I know other printers are available that will print larger. I'm interested in the best quality print I can get, at home f

Re: Advice needed - Developing TRIX 400 35mm


Thanks, Michael, I needed a pat on the back just now.

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


Michael Spivak wrote:

Thanks much people !
i didn't think i will get the aswers so fast
The film is in the scanner already... :) i've used the web site's 
formula to develop it (multiply by 1.4 as GrayWolf noticed)

So it was 8:30 minutes in the developer and the results looks pretty good.



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005

Re: Mini London PDML


Well, I did actually drive a TC once. It was 12-13 years old at the time, I 
only beat it out by 6-7 or so myself. The thing was great fun to drive, and by 
then the perfomance was so low that you could actually drive it full out on the 
highway without getting a ticket. (75hp, 4.50x19 tires, and buckboard 
suspension: info to those who are not old farts)

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


keithw wrote:

Graywolf wrote:


Was that a J-2 with a blower that you had, Keith ?

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com



No, I _wish_ I had that for a memory!
Best I can do is working on early TD's and being around TC's.

Still... fun stuff.



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005

Re: Mini London PDML


Would that be this book? No copies available unfortunately.

Press on regardless;: Or, The confessions of a sports car addict, (Unknown 
Binding) 1956
by Anne Taylor


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


keithw wrote:

Graywolf wrote:

Well, I did actually drive a TC once. It was 12-13 years old at the 
time, I only beat it out by 6-7 or so myself. The thing was great fun 
to drive, and by then the perfomance was so low that you could 
actually drive it full out on the highway without getting a ticket. 
(75hp, 4.50x19 tires, and buckboard suspension: info to those who are 
not old farts)



But, those were cars you drove, not aimed.
When you moved the steering wheel, you were hooked directly to the road, 
and you knew it! Same with every other function. Direct hookup. Exciting 
driving!

You didn't need speed to get a sensation of driving.

Did you ever read the book "Press On, Regardless?"
My copy is so tattered from re-reading, it's falling apart!
But, if you can find a copy, and you like  those old cars, it's an 
absolute blast to read.


Small book, probably 4.5 X 6" and only 1/2" thick or so, but plenty of 
fun reading.


keith


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


keithw wrote:


Graywolf wrote:


Was that a J-2 with a blower that you had, Keith ?

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com





No, I _wish_ I had that for a memory!
Best I can do is working on early TD's and being around TC's.

Still... fun stuff.







--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005

Re: Film scanner question


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.








--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005

Re: Film scanner question


Sorry I commented on one of your posts with some simple information for those 
who might not know of it. That always sets off a diatribe from you. My only 
excuse is that I am brain damaged, and can not seem to learn from experience.

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


Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
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.








--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005

Re: Mini London PDML


Those were the days! Glad to bring up happy memmories for you.

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


keithw wrote:

Graywolf wrote:


Would that be this book? No copies available unfortunately.

Press on regardless;: Or, The confessions of a sports car addict, 
(Unknown Binding) 1956

by Anne Taylor


graywolf



That's the one!
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!


sighhh.

keith





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005

Photoshop CS2 --was Film scanner question

2005-08-26 Thread Graywolf

No I've been trying CS2. There is no way in hell I could afford to by it. 


Funny thing is it runs nicely on my now ancient 900mhz/512mb AMD Homebrew 
computer. I keep seeing people say it is slow on their modern super computers. 
Maybe it is just that I normally only have one or two aps open at a time. I 
have been playing with a 112mb/20mp file and it has been fine. Oh another thing 
I do is once I have finish with a layer I tend to collapse it and so usually 
only have 2 or 3 layers going a once. I guess it is just a legacy of mine from 
older non-multitasking OS, and 48K ram. Although I have been using Linux since 
'92 and XP since last year. I do find Bridge slow to load, but worthwhile. It 
and the raw converter are what I think I like best about CS2.

And before you ask the only way I got the Oly C-5050z was that there was a real deal 
on a used one on ebay last month, and do to the fixed budget account I did not have 
to pay an electric bill last month, so tha money went for the camera. Strange to 
think of the electric bill as a savings account .

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


mike wilson wrote:


If you've been buying PS2, no wonder you can't afford a decent printer.  8-)



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005

Printers (was Why full frame?)

2005-08-26 Thread Graywolf

From what I read in reviews written by long term users the expensive Epsons clog up too, only difference it that it is cheaper to replace the print head than to trash it and buy something else. Also Epson inks never turn out to have the permanence the are claimed to but it takes two three years for that to become apparent. Then there are the infamous red lines that seem to be unique to Epsons (I think the head picks up dust that becomes soaked in ink and drags it across the paper, at least when I cleaned the underside of the nozzles by running them over damp lint free paper towels that cured mine for awhile). The bronzing of the ink. And now the problems with the new semi-pigmented ink (they do not call them that, but that is what they are, a mixure of pigment and dye inks). Yes, you hear about problems with Cannons and HPs but when you read the reviews you get the idea that they are caused by either defective units, or very unknowledgable users.

But like I said in an earlier post I have found work arounds for most of the
problems with my 820. I could not afford to chuck it and by something else, or
I would probably done the same as you guys. I guess that means that for a
knowledgable experienced user Epsons do continue to chug along, even the cheap
ones.

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

Bruce Dayton wrote:

I concur on the 820 - I threw one in the trash too! My HP 7960 is
so much better. My experience with Epson printers is that the
expensive ones are great and the cheap ones are crap. Kind of sounds
like Canon lenses .

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005

Re: Why full frame?

2005-08-26 Thread Graywolf


Those were the days when HP was an engineering company. Now it is a marketing 
company. From the very best stuff at high prices to, fairly good stuff at 
fairly low prices, and buy out all the competitors. The difference between HP 
and others doing the same thing is they seem to be fairly good at it.

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


John Coyle wrote:
Keith's experience is close to my own with an Epson Stylus 800.  Very 
poor ink consumption, and when it got so clogged that I couldn't easily 
clean it I went out and bought an HP 1310 triple-function job for A$129 
which beats the pants off it for colour and detail.  When I first 
started in computing all my gear was HP, including an A4 pen plotter I 
could program, and I sometimes wish I could still get one of those (I 
know, they're probably still used in drafting offices and the like).  HP 
then had the reputation of producing some of the best quality computers 
and peripherals you could buy: my own experience with them was first class.


John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia


- Original Message - From: "keithw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Why full frame?



Graywolf wrote:

[...]


Currently my photo printer is a 3 year old Epson Stylus Photo 820. 
Slow, expensive to run with Epson ink and paper, cheap with off brand 
stuff from ebay. Prints better at 360 than at 720 which makes me 
believe that the 2880x720 spec is just advertising crap. It too has 
clogging problems for which is is justly infamous. However I have 
developed techniques which minimizes that: Print a nozzle check every 
week if I am not using it regularly. If it absolutely needs a head 
cleaning do one and let it set overnight before doing another nozzle 
check. That seems to work as well as doing 10-12 head cleanings which 
is what it seems to need if you follow Epson's instructions. Done 
their way you use more ink cleaning the nozzles than you do printing. 
Makes them lots of money, I guess. BTW, I have fewer clogs with the 
cheap ink than with the Epson, although the Epson ink give better 
color control.



I had an Epson 820 and it was infamous for clogging it's jets!
I finally couldn't clean a couple of orifices no matter what I did, so 
I gave it up to the trash man! Literally! Threw it in the trash 
barrel, con mucho gusto!


I promptly got a Canon bubble jet iP 3000 PIXMA photo printer.
I've never been so happy!
It's what my Epson 820 Photo Printer SHOULD have been!

keith whaley

[...]


graywolf









--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.16/83 - Release Date: 8/26/2005

Re: Color Plus and other Kodak films?

2005-08-28 Thread Graywolf


Highest profit of course. Best photograph is too subjective.

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


Manuel Magalhães wrote:

No it didn't. It just states the awarding prizes.

Manuel 


-Mensagem original-
De: Jack Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Enviada: domingo, 28 de Agosto de 2005 0:14

Para: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Assunto: RE: Color Plus and other Kodak films?

Did the article define what was meant by "best"?
As long as I can find it, I'll use no film with an ISO higher than 100.

Jack

--- Manuel Magalhães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I just finished reading a french magazine (Réponses
photo) wich states the
TIPA (Technical Image Press Association)
2005 Prices. The best films are the Kodak Elite Color negative films 
200 and 400 ISSO.


Manuel
-Mensagem original-
De: Jack Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviada: sábado, 27 de Agosto de 2005 16:32
Para: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Assunto: Re: Color Plus and other Kodak films?

I see what you're referring to. If specs studied, differences between 
Elite and U.C. may be apparent.

Only one I noticed in a brief scan of specs, U.C.
avail. 100 and 400 ISO. Elite; 200 and 400 ISO.

Jack



--- Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Jack Davis wrote:



Toralf,
I've shot several rolls of Ultra Color (available


in


100 and 400 ISO). Snappy, vivid colors, as you


might


expect. Kodak claims UC produces the most vivid


colors


of any print film. As I've mentioned here before,


I set the ISO at


125 to reduce the likelihood of


whites


blowing out. Relatively fine grain.




OK. Thanks.



I'm only familiar with Elite Color and Elite


Extra Color as a


consumer slide films with moderate


grain.






I think perhaps Elite negative film is something


new. But I just


noticed something interesting; if you go to





http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/advFilms.jhtml


with Country set to United States (it may be


changed


via a link in the
upper-left corner of the page), you get a link to information on 
ULTRA COLOR film. With various other country settings, including 
Norway and United Kingdom, you get ELITE Color in the same location. 
Could it be that they are actually the same film?


- Toralf








Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs













__
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail








--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.16/83 - Release Date: 8/26/2005

Re: building a web site

2005-08-29 Thread Graywolf


There are many. Unfortunately it is hard to convience the clients who have been 
sold a bag of BS that annoying you customers is not a good idea.

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


Mark Roberts wrote:

"John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:54:48 +0100, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I really like your site Kevin. It stands out from all the standard php
script solutions, without being "flashy".
(I have a one member club: "Web Designers Against Flash") >


I suspect you're not alone in being anti-Flash!



This makes three of us so far, just on this list...
 
 



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/84 - Release Date: 8/29/2005

Re: Gimp, Anyone?


You find it strange that the optimization techniques for the Windows Version of 
Photoshop only works on Windows?

Maybe it needs to be mentioned here. Photoshop for Windows, and Photoshop for 
Mac X are actually two entirely different programs. Yes they do have a very 
similar interface and many of the techniques used on one work fine on the 
other. But in other ways trying to treat them as the same program will lead to 
utter confusion, especially with regard to how they us the hardware they are 
loaded on.

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


Charles Robinson wrote:

On Aug 30, 2005, at 9:50, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Photoshop is a program that can put great demands on system  
resources, so

it's helpful to have the program and the Windows environment properly
configured.  Here's but one resource that provides info about  setting up
your system for PS:  http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/318243.html



Neat set of tips, thanks for passing that along!

Here is my favorite (rolls eyeballs skyward in despair): "Note:   
Photoshop CS can only operate on computers running Windows 2000 or  
Windows XP."


Oh well.  Time to remove Photoshop from my Powerbook since it clearly  
doesn't run on there!


But seriously, that particular point aside, that is a handy set of  
optimization instructions.  Thank you.


 -Charles

--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 8/30/2005

Re: Gimp, Anyone?


Yep, yep, yep

If anyone else had posted that, I might have figured that I was mistaken. But 
since you went off like clockwork, it just prooves my point. Only 5% difference 
and that only has to do with the hardware, you say

To bad you can't read english!

Why is it when I say something simply you have to prove I am wrong by saying the 
same thing in a long winded manner. I had a Math teacher just like you, "Yes 
you can do it in 3 steps that way, but I want you do it this way (spends 15 minutes 
scribling on the blackboard outlining the problem in 27 steps). The only real 
difference between you and he is I can safely say, I think you are full of shit.

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


Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:


On Aug 30, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Graywolf wrote:

Maybe it needs to be mentioned here. Photoshop for Windows, and  
Photoshop for Mac X are actually two entirely different programs.  Yes 
they do have a very similar interface and many of the  techniques used 
on one work fine on the other. But in other ways  trying to treat them 
as the same program will lead to utter  confusion, especially with 
regard to how they us the hardware they  are loaded on.



Sorry Graywolf, but that's absolutely incorrect. There are detail  
differences in the user interface and the low level interfaces to the  
OS  graphics systems and memory management functions, but the core  and 
Photoshop application binaries are built at Adobe from at least  95% 
identical source files.


I worked with these teams at Adobe quite a bit, personally, when I  was 
involved with Apple's development tools engineering group.


Godfrey





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 8/30/2005

Re: Batteries for istDS?

I would like to add to Cory's comments that my research on chargers shows that many do not fully charge NiMH, many shut off too soon. Some only charge to 85% (specifically the Energizer 15 minute charger) and then go into trickle charge, you have to leave them in trickle for about 24hours to top off the batteries all the way. If you get 300 shots from a set of fully charged batteries, a set charged to 85% only gets you maybe 200 shots (seems a lot less than 85% of 300 doesn't it?) that's because the final voltage is not as high. The charger with my Digital camera only charged to 1.2v, (final voltage should be at least 1.425 checked with a digital multimeter) the guy I bought it from said the batteries don't last long, I imagine they didn't, they do do better with a double charge from that charger (9 hour cutoff).

I still haven't decided whether a pulse charger like the Maha 401, or a
gee-whiz high tech charger like the LaCrosse is a better way to go. Anybody
want to expound the relative performance of the two.

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

Cory Papenfuss wrote:
The *ist DS can use two CRV-3 Lithium disposables, four AA NiMH
rechargeables, four AA Lithium disposables and, in a pinch, four high
energy AA alkalines. CRV-3 and AA Lithium disposables cost about $8
per set in quantity (CRV-3s are a little more expensive, but are more
convenient to load and unload). They have excellent shelf life and
generally run about 1100-1300 exposures per set in average use.

NiMH AA rechargeables are good, if more maintenance work. It's
recommended to buy at least 2300mah capacity and to also invest in a
good quality charger (the Maha MH-C204W from thomasdistributing.com is
considered one of the best). Good quality cells normally run around
$15 per set, the Maha charger above is about $29. Properly maintained,
a full charge on a set of NiMH AAs (2300mah) runs about 500-700
exposures. Since NiMH don't hold a charge sitting on the shelf well,
they should be charged every week or so if you're not shooting enough
to exhaust them sooner than that.

AA Alkalines are an "emergency use" option only. Good ones generally
last 100-200 exposures, they don't have enough current to drive all
the camera's functions however, and their performance is quite variable.

(CRV-3s are also available in Lithium-Ion rechargeable form. These are
not recommended by Pentax, as many of the available batteries are
over-voltage for the DS. Some are available with 3.0V output, but they
are expensive and you're back into maintenance land. I don't use them,
some others I've heard of have used them successfully. )

Given these options, I find there are three good strategies for power:
- If you're shooting relatively few exposures per week, a set of
Lithium disposables in the camera and one backup set in your bag is an
effective setup. It's also good setup for traveling as you don't have
to manage with power adapters, chargers, etc. (On my trip to the UK, I
brought 5 sets of CRV-3 and AA Lithium batteries. I consumed the third
set 3,600 exposures later. No maintenance, light weight, very little
extra space consumed in my luggage, no juggling of adapters and cords,
etc.)

- If you're shooting a regular amount per week (typically 200-400
exposures like I do) and want to minimize costs with light maintenance
overhead, one set of NiMH AAs in the camera and a set of backup CRV-3
Lithiums in the bag is a very cost effective and useful kit. I charge
the NiMH AAs once a week, regardless of whether they are showing low
voltage or not. (I only used the original CRV-3s that came with the DS
when I went to the UK, as I bought the NiMH AAs with the camera and
never ran out of power in the field.)

- If you're shooting a LOT per day, a thousand or more exposures on
frequent shooting days, three-four sets of NiMH AAs and a pair of
chargers saves money in the long run at the expense of maintenance and
management time. I've not felt the need for this amount of
rechargables yet.

Pentax makes an AC adapter for the D/DS. It's a little pricey but
should work well. Others have purchased generic AC adapters with the
right voltage/current/plug polarity instead at 1/5 the price that work
well too. I haven't seen the need for one yet, it's mostly useful if
you're doing astrophotography or tethered shooting.

Godfrey

I would agree with this with one exception. To really get the most
out of your batteries, I've found it necessary to get an over-engineered
charger. I bought the LaCrosse BC-900 because it has four independent
charging/discharging circuits, LCD readouts for each batterys' voltage
and current accumulated, and different "modes" for
charge/discharge/test

Re: Gimp, Anyone?

Hum, how long you been working with computers? Every bit goes through that 5% of code and comes out different. The other 95% is the user interface.

Yep, in Unix (Mac x) and XP that means the API. Modern multiuser/multitasking
OS do not properly allow direct access to the hardware. Nothing I said was
incorrect to anyone who understands this stuff. What we are talking about is
how the hardware reacts to the software. For example PS uses 2 gigabytes max
ram in Windows (even if your system is maxed out with 16 or 32 gigabytes, and
whatever the kernel will allow it in Unix (that can be changed simply in Unix,
but not I think in windows).

And specifically, I do not know exactly how much is common code between the two
platforms. I do not even know what PS is coded in. The programming language can
make more difference than the hardware does. I figured we were using educated
guesses.

I get the feeling I am talking with school kids here (lots of facts, not much
understanding).

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

Adam Maas wrote:
You stated they were 'two entirely different programs'. Godfrey, who is
in a position to know, said that you were incorrect. The only area that
you were correct on was how they handle hardware (Actually how they
handle the different API's, I'd suspect the internal VM code is
essentially similar) and even then you were only peripherally correct.
95% common code in a cross-platform app that's actually directly using
the Win32 and Carbon/Cocoa API's is very good coding and certainly not
'two entirely different programs' (I'd expect to see less code
commonality for many similar apps). Only apps which use a 3rd party API
like GTK+ or wxWindows to allow them easy portability will have more
than 95% code commonality between Windows/Mac OS.

-Adam

Graywolf wrote:

Yep, yep, yep

If anyone else had posted that, I might have figured that I was
mistaken. But since you went off like clockwork, it just prooves my
point. Only 5% difference and that only has to do with the hardware,
you say

To bad you can't read english!

Why is it when I say something simply you have to prove I am wrong by
saying the same thing in a long winded manner. I had a Math teacher
just like you, "Yes you can do it in 3 steps that way, but I want you
do it this way (spends 15 minutes scribling on the blackboard
outlining the problem in 27 steps). The only real difference between
you and he is I can safely say, I think you are full of shit.

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

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

On Aug 30, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Graywolf wrote:

Maybe it needs to be mentioned here. Photoshop for Windows, and
Photoshop for Mac X are actually two entirely different programs.
Yes they do have a very similar interface and many of the
techniques used on one work fine on the other. But in other ways
trying to treat them as the same program will lead to utter
confusion, especially with regard to how they us the hardware they
are loaded on.

Sorry Graywolf, but that's absolutely incorrect. There are detail
differences in the user interface and the low level interfaces to
the OS graphics systems and memory management functions, but the
core and Photoshop application binaries are built at Adobe from at
least 95% identical source files.

I worked with these teams at Adobe quite a bit, personally, when I
was involved with Apple's development tools engineering group.

Godfrey

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 8/30/2005

Re: Gimp, Anyone?

2005-08-31 Thread Graywolf


I do know that neither system understands a word of that source code you are 
talking about. We tend to abstract ourselfselves from the hardware to the point 
we do not understand how it works at all. I was going to say it only 
understands binary code, but that is also an abstract to make it easier for us 
(humans) to understand. The computers only understand a string of high and low 
electrical states. The PC's in intel code, and the Mac in Power PC code. If you 
load either with the others code, most likely you will get nothing, if you are 
lucky, or smoke, if you are not.

In the days when you entered that string of electrical states into a row of 
switches on the front panel it was hard to miss that. In this drag and drop 
programing era it is easy to miss.

As I said what runs on the two computers are entirely different programs.

I would also like to point out that it is not I who starts contradicting you 
with my ignorance, but the other way around, and it happens over and over and 
over. It would be polite to find out if maybe you are misunderstanding someone 
before you call them a stupid fool.

Strangely enough I do not doubt your experience or knowledge. I do find I doubt 
your understanding of what you know. When talking to the machines you have to 
have all your ones and zeros in a row in the proper order. Most humands do not 
need you to do that for them to get the gist of things. I usually think I am 
talking to humands when I write something here on the list. Maybe I am in err?


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


Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
"Every bit goes through that 5% of code and comes out different.  The 
other 95% is the user interface."


Total nonsense.

I know exactly what languages (multiple) and what programming  
environments, tools, compilers, linkers, debuggers etc were used to  
build and develop Photoshop for Mac OS. I helped several of the teams  
at Apple and Apple third party developers that produced these tools  get 
the job done, and helped Adobe's development teams as needed also.



"I do not know"


is the truest thing you have written here. Your understanding is  faulty 
and your condescension denigrating only to yourself.


Godfrey


On Aug 30, 2005, at 10:20 PM, Graywolf wrote:

Hum, how long you been working with computers? Every bit goes  through 
that 5% of code and comes out different. The other 95% is  the user 
interface.
Yep, in Unix (Mac x) and XP that means the API. Modern multiuser/ 
multitasking OS do not properly allow direct access to the  hardware. 
Nothing I said was incorrect to anyone who understands  this stuff. 
What we are talking about is how the hardware reacts to  the software. 
For example PS uses 2 gigabytes max ram in Windows  (even if your 
system is maxed out with 16 or 32 gigabytes, and  whatever the kernel 
will allow it in Unix (that can be changed  simply in Unix, but not I 
think in windows).


And specifically, I do not know exactly how much is common code  
between the two platforms. I do not even know what PS is coded in.  
The programming language can make more difference than the hardware  
does. I figured we were using educated guesses.


I get the feeling I am talking with school kids here (lots of  facts, 
not much understanding).


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


Adam Maas wrote:

You stated they were 'two entirely different programs'. Godfrey,  who 
is in a position to know, said that you were incorrect. The  only 
area that you were correct on was how they handle hardware  (Actually 
how they handle the different API's, I'd suspect the  internal VM 
code is essentially similar) and even then you were  only 
peripherally correct. 95% common code in a cross-platform app  that's 
actually directly using the Win32 and Carbon/Cocoa API's is  very 
good coding and certainly not 'two entirely different  programs' (I'd 
expect to see less code commonality for many  similar apps). Only 
apps which use a 3rd party API like GTK+ or  wxWindows to allow them 
easy portability will have more than 95%  code commonality between 
Windows/Mac OS.

-Adam
Graywolf wrote:


Yep, yep, yep

If anyone else had posted that, I might have figured that I was  
mistaken. But since you went off like clockwork, it just prooves  my 
point. Only 5% difference and that only has to do with the  
hardware, you say


To bad you can't read english!

Why is it when I say something simply you have to prove I am  wrong 
by saying the same thing in a long winded manner. I had a  Math 
teacher just like you, "Yes you can do it in 3 steps that  way, but 
I want you do it this way (spends 15 minutes scribling  on the 
blackboard outlining the problem in 27 steps). The only

Re: FedEx Hoovers!

2005-09-01 Thread Graywolf

My sympathy. 


I have been having a problem with an item I ordered more than a month ago. But 
I have to blame the sellers, I picked them because the said they shipped via 
USPS, then the shipped it via Fed Ex Ground (The absolute worse shipping 
service in the world) the other day after 8 days working its way across the 
country it was marked as returned to shipper. What kind of idiot would try to 
ship something to a PO Box address via Fed Ex Ground? Oh the seller does 
not answer email either.

So, anyway, I figure I understand how you feel. 


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


Shel Belinkoff wrote:

The DS I ordered was scheduled for delivery tomorrow.  I called FedEx
yesterday when I knew the camera was at their distribution center and asked
if it could be delivered today, or if I could pick it up.  I was told it
would be delivered tomorrow and that I couldn't pick it up.  This morning I
double checked the tracking and the info indicated that it was on the
truck.  I again called FedEx and asked if the camera was going to be
delivered today.  I was told that it wasn't, that it was just loaded on the
truck for delivery tomorrow.

I went out to run a few errands and when I returned there was a FedEx door
tag indicating that they attempted to deliver the package.

When I originally learned that the package was going to be delivered
tomorrow, I changed my schedule around, which was inconvenient to me and to
one of my clients.  What has me pissed is that FedEx INSISTED more than
once that the package would be delivered tomorrow.

This is the third or fourth time I've had delivery problems with FedEx. 
What a bunch of sphincters!


Shel 







--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/87 - Release Date: 9/1/2005

Re: Batteries: Trickle charge

2005-09-02 Thread Graywolf


Both definitions are used. Sometimes it is defined as 0.10C, or charging at 10% 
of rating. However, that charge rate will fully charge a battery in 24 hours.

As far as I can make out the smartest modern chargers will charge briefly for a 
short time every couple of hours to keep the batteries topped off in trickle 
mode. Older, dumber, chargers leave a continuous low charge current (too low to 
over heat).

However, cell life is rated in number of charge cycles. As I understand it 
every time a charge current is sent to the cell that is one cycle. That would 
make it appear that the very best way to handle recharging is to fully charge 
the battery and then only recharge when it is down to 1.0V (fully discharged). 
That should give you maximum cell life from the battery. However in real life 
that does not work too well. You have to change batteries at inconvenient 
times, etc. So I would guess using the battery as much as possible without 
having to wait on long recycle times and without getting caught with low 
batteries when you need them is the best way to do that.

Alternatively, for high availability use, fully charge batteries after each 
use, then top them off with a smart charger if they have set more than a week 
or so before the next use. That way the battery uses two charge cycles for each 
use, but I would think they will last longer than leaving them in the charger 
with it charging them for a few minutes every few hours.

Of course most folks just use them, and charge them willy-nilly and they still 
seem to last a couple of years. Sometimes we can worry too much about such 
things.

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


Dario Bonazza wrote:

Discussing batteries and chargers, what does trickle charge mean exactly?

Apparently, some manufacturers (e.g. Quantum) mean a charger function 
for maintaining the batteries charged after the normal charging cycle is 
complete. That means that if you need the batteries you can use them 
after the recharge cycle, while if you have to store the batteries for a 
long time, they are kept at full charge by the charger, which does some 
small charge from time to time, just to compensate for auto-discharge. 
In this case, you get 100% battery power after normal recharge and 
before trickle charge, and then again 100% power at any time after 
trickle charge.

The batteries are supposed to stay in the charger idefinitely.

Other manufacturers call trickle charge the last part of the standard 
recharge cycle, a slower final charge where the batteries are filled up 
as much as possible. In this case, you get say 80-90% battery power 
after quick charge (with no trickle charge), while you only get 100% 
power if you let the charger perform the complete cycle, including the 
quick charge and the trickle charge.
The batteries are supposed to stay in the charger only for their 
recharge cycle (with or without trickle charge depending on the urgence 
of using them).


Please enlighten me. Thanks.

Dario




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005

Re: Defending Pentax

2005-09-02 Thread Graywolf


You the man, Cotty, you the man.



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


Cotty wrote:

I thought some readers might like to see me defending good old SMC - from
another (unmentionable) list :


-

On 2/9/05, James B.Davis, discombobulated, unleashed:



My experience are that Canon makes top notch lenses and I do not see
why people try and find something better that is not really made for
the job. There may be slight differences but the Canon lineup is deep
and I have found even the cheaper lenses go well beyond most
photographers' needs. Sure the Contax name is cool to have on the
front of your camera, much more than Yashica eh...

I'd like to have a Canon wide zoom, say the 17-40L would do for me.

I sold my 20-35 USM and miss it so. Sure it wasn't super wide on my
10d but it was wider than my 28. I do need something wider many times.



My experience is that I use the right tool for the job that suits me.

My lens lineup for a 1DmarkII:

15mm
20mm
65mm macro
85mm
24-70mm
70-200mm
2X extender

Of those lenses, all except two are Canon, and here are the reasons why
they are not.



1.  15mm is a Pentax SMC-K 15mm f/3.5

<http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/ultra-wide/K15f3.5-ii.html>

I use this lens primarily for landscape, and so it would normally be used
on a tripod, along with a remote release, angle finder (C), and in a
methodical and considered way. I can only use it on my Canon in stop-down
mode, but this makes no difference as I only use the viewfinder for
composing. The lens focus is set manually according to depth of field
desired, and aperture obviously will be minimum/optimal for the
situation. Program metering plays no part here. In fact I can use the
lens on aperture priority, as here:

<http://pug.komkon.org/05aug/duki.html>

The reason I have not replaced it with an EF 14mm 2.8 L is primarily one
of cost, but also because the Pentax SMC lens is a first rate performer,
and I enjoy old manual focus lenses. Even if I did buy an EF 14mm, I
wouldn't part with the 15mm.


2.  85mm is a Pentax SMC-A*85mm f/1.4

<http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/short-tele/A85f1.4.html>

I use this lens primarily for minimal depth of field portraiture, and so
it would normally be used handheld, wide open at f/1.4, low ISO, fast
shutter speed. Again, in stop-down metering mode, it's academic as I use
it at maximum aperture, although it will work in aperture priority just
fine. The focus is manual and it's a joy to use:

<http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/portraits/images/pic26.html>

The reason I have not replaced it with an EF 85mm 1.2 L is primarily one
of cost, but also because the Pentax SMC lens is a first rate performer,
and I enjoy old manual focus lenses. I bought an EF 85mm f/1.8 lens and
was disappointed with the results and buidl quality of the lens, and sold
it after a couple of months.

I have the EF 20mm 2.8 and i like it for a quick around town grab lens (I
don't like wide zooms) but it is a poorer performer than the Pentax 15mm.
My most used and favourite lens is the EF 24-70 2.8 and I love using that.

In the end it's all down to individual choice through personal
experience. As my wife says, 'the world would be a boring place if we
were all the same'  ;-)

Regards,



Cheers,
  Cotty

-




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_






--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005

Re: OT: Copyright

2005-09-02 Thread Graywolf


Hey, Juan, I like that idea.

I have been thinking lately about how to deal with copyright in my old age 
. I am no longer a commercial photographer. It pleases me if someone 
wants to hang one of my photos on their wall. But at the same time if there is money 
to be made from the image, I would like to get some of it.

So I have been thinking of setting up a form letter to protect my copyright to 
send to someone who I find is using it unauthorizedly. That letter would would 
give permission to use one copy for personal display, wallpaper, etc. In cases 
like the start of this thread it would require them to post a copyright notice 
with the image and pay a fee of $1.00. All other uses would require them to 
obtain a written license of use, fee negotiable. Otherwise face court action.

Not being a lawyer, but being fairly well read in law (US), this does I think 
protect ones rights to ones images pretty completely and at the same times 
keeps one from having to seek legal redress over and over. The minimal fee 
makes it clear that you allow no one to use your images commercially for free. 
And makes it possible to sue for monetary damages in any such case. Note, the 
fact that they refused to pay the token fee makes them liable for full 
commercial rates.

If one really has no monetary interest in ones images the common license you 
posted a link to makes makes complete sense. All it requires is that they 
attribute the image to the photographer.

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


Juan Buhler wrote:

All my work is under a Creative Commons license:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

So people are in principle free to grab images from my website and use
them, within the constrains of the license.

Haven't seen any of my images used illegally. I think the excess of
watermarks, copyright notices and copy protection measures do more to
alienate regular viewers than it does to protect your rights. But
that's just me.

j

On 9/2/05, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Do any of you guys use some kind of watermarks to protect agains
unauthorized copying of you images on the internet?
Do you use a brand name watermark and at what price?
Does anybodyu use: http://www.digimarc.com ?
Regards
Jens

Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt










--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005

Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment Please

Some years back, some of you may remember, I threw some m50/1.4 against a brick
wall (tested). I used a tape measure and focused via the scale on the lens. I
did that because at f/1.4 the narrow depth of focus exacerbates any errors in
the mirror-groundglass v. lens to film paths. In those tests the ME Super I was
using focused pretty close, but not exactly at about 8 feet (off enough to
affect sharpness at f/1.4 but not at f/2.0 if I remember correctly).

The interesting thing was one lens, the one I was unhappy with, would not get a
sharp slide @ f/1.4 no matter how you focused it. Not exactly true because I
found with some experimenting that it focused at about a 15 degree angle (that
is by turning the tripod mounted camera about 15 degrees to the left the wall
came into focus). However all the lenses focused normally from f/2.0 down. I
still do not understand how that was possible, but kind of suspect it was
caused be an element being slightly cocked in its mount.

Of the other two m50/1.4 one was OK, and one was very sharp (all three were
acceptable from f/2.0 down). So it seems there is quite abit of variation in
M50/1.4 lenses (none of these showed any sign of damage). However, as I have
mentioned before, these lenses are mostly 25+ years old and we have no idea
what they have been through.

I found less sample to sample variation in the m50/1.7 lenses. The one I kept however was super sharp at f/1.7 even at close focus distances.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005

Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz ....


I is a fact of life that one of the ways manufactures save money these days is 
by letting the customer do final testing. Sorry you got caught out by it, Shel.

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


Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Thanks to everyone who offered suggestions and help trying to solve the
problem  with the new DS.  Much appreciated 

Shel





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005

Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)


I have read that "educated mid-western english", and "upper-class british english" (I 
assume not- the TV and movie, "I, say, what?" stuff) are the only unaccented english dialects.

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


Paul Stenquist wrote:
Having spent much time in both California and the upper midwest, I have 
to say that the accents are indistinguishable to me. I think this is due 
in part to the fact that a large number -- perhaps a majority -- of 
southern Californians emigrated from the industrial cities of the midwest.

On Sep 5, 2005, at 12:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


In a message dated 9/4/2005 9:06:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Upper midwest American, the language of Reagan and Cronkite, that's 
the true

pure non-accent.
J.W.L.

Injecting a smiley there, because it's a troll for sure as my Geordie
father-in-law would surely have said.

J
===
No, the true non-accent accent is Californian.

Hollywood and TV.

Nyah, nyah.

Marnie aka Doe   ;-)







--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005

Re: GESO: Opera at the Town Hall Square


I have noticed that too.

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


Jens Bladt wrote:


BTW:
I've noticed about performers, especially the very professional ones. They
can quickly spot a camera in the crowd (thousands of spectators were there)
and will in fact start posing and acting up. They have learned to really
value any publicity :-)
Regards
Jens Bladt



-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 4. september 2005 06:36
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: GESO: Opera at the Town Hall Square


Hi!



Thanks, Boris.
I guess what you mean is, it's a bit unusual to get rather nice concert
shots with such a slow combo?



Indeed.



Well, I really should get the 2.8/200mm or the 2.8/80-200mm. I know. But I
don't have that kind of money available right now.



Once more I agree ;-).



Please look at these shot, made with the same combo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/39921897/in/set-877712/



Cool shots. Can you tell us what was the aperture?

I have another reasonably cheap alternative to 2.8/200 et al. Tamron
90/2.5 Macro (manual focus) goes only to 1:2. There is a special doubler
matched to this lens. With the doubler you get 1:1 macro factor and it
becomes 180/5. I realize it is not 2.8/200 but it is probably 1/5 or
even less of the price. I got mine for about $120.

Boris






--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005

Re: OT: Digital High Key


Hi, Marnie, High-Key, normal, and Low-Key respectively refer to the tonal range 
of the print. High-Key is a print with very little dark area. Normal is, of 
course, a print with a full tonal range. and Low-Key is a print with very 
little light area. Properly done there should be some shadow detail in a 
high-key print (usually the eyes in high-key portraits), and some high-lights 
in a low-key print (again usually the catch-lights in the eyes in the case of 
portraits. So properly the prints really do have a full tonal range but the 
high-lights predominate in a high-key print, and the shadows predominate in a 
low-key print.


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


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/4/2005 2:04:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Does anyone have any experience making High Key photographs using a digital
camera?
Regards
Jens Bladt
=
What does High Key mean?

TIA, Marnie aka Doe  (Never afraid to admit when I don't know/understand 
something.)






--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005

Re: Pentax vs. Nikon


At Ritz you will always be pushed towards Nikon. The company has some kind of 
deal with Nikon and gets more money when they sell Nikons. Both Nikon and Canon 
do have a bigger spiff than Pentax, but I do not know if any of that goes to 
the salesperson at Ritz stores, it does at most independently owned stores, but 
chains are notorious for insisting that all spiffs go to the company as 
discounts.

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


P. J. Alling wrote:
Canon and Nikon are probably giving bigger commissions than Pentax.  If 
the sales clerk is getting
a piece of the action she'll steer you to one of them.  If not her 
manager has told her to steer you to
Canon or Nikon.  Most places where the staff are paid on commission 
won't tell you that's how they

are paid, they usually have a policy against it, (except Radio Shack).

Scott Loveless wrote:


A few days ago I stopped by the local shopping mall (I hate shopping
malls) because I needed to get a Needle Point Precision Lubricator at
Radio Shack.  I wandered into the Ritz Camera store just to see what
they stock these days.  To my surprise they had a DS, a Nikon D50, and
a Canon Rebel XT in their display case.  I asked the lady behind the
counter if I could take a look at the DS and D50.  The exchange went
something like this:

Me:  Can I see the DS and the D50?

Sales Lady:  The what?

Me:  The DS and the D50?

Her:  What's a DS?

Me:  The Pentax SLR you have in your case.

Her:  Oh, OK.

She handed me both cameras.  Both had an 18-55/3.5-5.6 attached.

Sales Girl:  No one's ever asked me for the DS.  Most people want the
XT or the D50.

Me:  Yeah, I don't do Canon.

Her:  I think you'll like the Nikon better.  It has more features and
accessories are easier to find.  Pentax is more of a niche
manufacturer.  You really can't get many accessories for it.

Me:  The viewfinder in the Pentax is bit nicer.  Does the D50 have a
prism or a mirror?

Warm body behind the counter:  All SLRs have mirrors.

Me:  I'm not talking about the mirror that flips up when you press the
shutter release.  What's underneath this big bump on the top of the
camera.

Warm body:  Uhh.  The Nikon has a Nikkor lens.  The Nikkor lens is
better than the Pentax.

Me:  Really?  Why's that?

Her:  Better images.  And it's built better.

Me:  The mount on the Pentax lens is metal.  The Nikon is plastic.

Dip shit:  Have you seen the Rebel XT.  You might like that one better.

At this point I chuckled and walked out.  The conversation was a quite
a bit longer, but I'm sure you get the picture.  I still am not sure
why she was so insistent on steering me away from the Pentax.  All
three kits were roughly the same price.

The lubricator from Radio Shack is really cool, though.  Highly
recommended for those of you who work on your own cameras.

 







--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005

Re: Back from Ukraine

2005-09-07 Thread Graywolf

Over here in a pickup truck towing a travel trailer with a "For Sale" sign on it.

You can buy the trailer for only 2 twice what it cost because of a family emergency and he needs the money to get home. Sometimes you come across those Gypsy fortune tellers who have only been at that location for three generations.

In the old days here in the US the Romany and the Irish Horse Traders used to
get into fights, each claiming they were the real travelers, although the Irish
never admitted to being Gypseys. Come to think of it neither did the Romany...

Now as to the difference between a traveler and a tourist? If you are paying your own
way you are a tourist, if someone else is paying your way and you really would rather
be home you are a traveler . All other definitions are meer pretentions.

Strangely, as a guy who has always wanted to see what was around the next
curve, or over the next hill, one to whom the trip was always more interesting
than the destination, I have never called myself either one.

These days I do not have the energy to walk (really the best way to go), nor
the money to go any other way...

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

Cotty wrote:

On 7/9/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:

dressed as a gypsy

And exactly how does a gypsy dress mate ?? ;-)

Cheers,
Cotty

___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/92 - Release Date: 9/7/2005

Re: Fried Highlights, Decline in Photo Quality (was PESO - The Bridge)

2005-09-08 Thread Graywolf


From slide photography, blown highlights are where the slide was so overexposed 
that there is only clear film base where there was supposed to be detail. 
Extending that to digital is easy. The negative film equivalent is where the 
shadows are clear film base (underexposure) although we have seen so many 
photos over the years where the print is just black where the shadows are 
supposed to be that is is not considered as much a defect as blown highlights 
are.


In your other post of the bride if the dress had been overexposed to the point 
where you could not pull out any detail whatsoever, that would have been blown 
highlights. However, even though you had to photoshop to bring them out they 
were there to bring out so they were not blown.

If one is constantly getting blown highlights it is simple to set the exposure 
compensation to -0.5 stops or so permanently and not worry anymore.

On the Internet, where many monitors are not well calibrated, often what 
appears to be blown highlights on the screen is simply the monitor whitepoint 
(adjusted with the contrast control) set too high. When you adjust your monitor 
with Adobe Gamma for instance they tell you to set contrast at 100%, but better 
seems to be about 95% then you do not get those false blown highlights on the 
screen.

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


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of these days you are going to define it so I understand it? Exactly what 
is a blown highlight?


Marnie aka Doe :-)





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/92 - Release Date: 9/7/2005

Re: OT: Back in the Pentaxian fold

2005-09-08 Thread Graywolf


Well now! Suddenly I am a bit prouder of my C-5050Z. It does make a fine 8x10 
and an acceptable 11x14 (haven't actually made a print that big, but have made 
a couple of crops that would have been that big full frame). Seems amazing from 
a sensor 1/2 the size of a minox negative. However, I still prefer the Crown 
Graphic for fun, and I am keeping the MX's.

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


Shel Belinkoff wrote:

No need to apologize for the Olympus ;-))

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/gal_amajoli.asp



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/93 - Release Date: 9/8/2005

Re: Fried Highlights

Yes, that book (Real World Camera RAW with Photoshop CS2) is on my wish list. Now I will have to move it up a notch in.

I have been using the exposure slider to bring the highlights up to the edge just before
cutoff. I figure that gives me the maximum information to play around with in Photoshop.
Probably there are better techniques. My copy of "Adobe Photoshop CS2 for
Photographers" does have a chapter on using the RAW converter, but it is somewhat
elementary. I shall have to try your technique, Paul.

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

Paul Stenquist wrote:
The idea behind using the RAW converter's brightness slider to bring up
the midrange is that it doesn't affect the highlights. On the other
hand, the exposure slider will bring down the highlights."Brightness"
and "contrast" in the RAW converter are not the same as the tools with
the same name in PhotoShop. PSCS2 apparently offers even more control.
I haven't made the switch yet. There's a book that's specific to RAW
conversion in PSCS that is a tremendous aid. It explains the
relationship between exposure, shadow, brightness, and contrast sliders
quite lucidly, along with many other topics. It's called Real World
Camera RAW with PhotoShop CS. I think there's a new version for CS2 as
well. The CS version is still available at Amazon.:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/032127878X/
qid=1101241239/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2405061-7286468?v=glance&s=books

On Sep 8, 2005, at 11:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 9/8/2005 8:49:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd just like to say how much I appreciate Paul's recounting of his
techniques in Photoshop: the workflow below and his comment about
turning up
the brightness and then adjusting the exposure in another email just
allowed

me to rescue a shot I would otherwise have discarded.

Paul, you da man!

John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
==
Ditto. Well, I haven't rescued a shot, but the idea of turning of the
brightness never occurred to me. Duh. I will have to try it sometime
on a dark shot.

Which leads me to a question, Paul, is there any particular book on
photoshopping (as a verb) that you like/recommend?

I am starting an Elements 3 class. Finally getting down to learning
more of
this stuff. After that I will tackle Photoshop. But probably do that
on my own.

Marnie the born again Pentaxian

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/93 - Release Date: 9/8/2005

Re: OT: Back in the Pentaxian fold


Yeh, well you are better than me.

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


Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Hi,

You should be able to do better than an 8x10.  My 4mp Sony will do
"stunning" 8x10's all day long, and the Oly has a few more pixels PLUS can
soot RAW.  Still, it's amazing what these upper end or prosumer digis can
do if the operator knows a little something about how to get the best out
of them.

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 





[Original Message]
From: Graywolf 




Well now! Suddenly I am a bit prouder of my C-5050Z. It does make a fine


8x10 and an acceptable 11x14 (haven't actually made a print that big, but
have made a couple of crops that would have been that big full frame).
Seems amazing from a sensor 1/2 the size of a minox negative. However, I
still prefer the Crown Graphic for fun, and I am keeping the MX's.



http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/gal_amajoli.asp








--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/93 - Release Date: 9/8/2005

Re: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)


Yeh, real customizers use an airbrush...



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


Jens Bladt wrote:

Gaffering is not customizing -  no functionallity is added or removed. It's
simply disguising the camera.
Like a person wearing sunglasses at a party. I like my Pentax logo's. They
kinda completes the camera, since it was designed to wear one.

Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 4. september 2005 05:00
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)


car owner make their cars as noticeable as possible when they customize.

Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:25 PM
Subject: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)




Oh, c'mon Paul ... people customize their cars and I know you don't find
that pretentious or abhorrent.  In the fifties and sixties mild
customizing
was quite acceptable, and that hasn't changed to this day.  Rodders would
remove extraneous chrome trim, nose and deck their cars, maybe French the
headlights.  Not a whole lot different than a small square of black tape
over a bright red logo.  So what ...








--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/94 - Release Date: 9/9/2005

Re: GESO: The Dream Cruise


Changed your name again have you, Dorian?

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


william sawyer wrote:
Paul,  


I solved the age problem several years ago by having my portrait done, then
putting it in the attic - the idea is that it gets old and I don't. Clever,
huh!

Wait, I forgot - I don't have an attic!!

Uh, oh

Bill Sawyer
Livonia, MI

-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:49 PM

To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: GESO: The Dream Cruise

HAR! You had me going there. Being old, forgetful, and simple minded, I 
didn't get it at first. I was trying to remember if I had bought 
something from you and neglected to pay. Wouldn't have been the first 
time that I zoned out:-).

Paul
On Sep 8, 2005, at 6:13 PM, william sawyer wrote:


'bout time, Paul.  And, as expected, outstanding work - no 
disappointments

here.  I especially like the panning technique - it's very effective.

Um, I hate to bring it up, but your check still isn't here.

Bill Sawyer
Livonia, MI

-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:15 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: GESO: The Dream Cruise

Due to popular demand, I've posted some Dream Cruise pics. Okay, it
wasn't exactly popular demand, but my buddy Bill did request these, so
here they are. Many are just snaps that I shot from my Chevy while
cruising, but most of them are at least a bit entertaining. Some are
from the night before the cruise. A few, which were seen before, are
from a few nights before the cruise. The shots from the morning of the
cruise are under clouds or in the rain. Enough disclaimers.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=526011












--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/94 - Release Date: 9/9/2005

Re: Pentax 645D Competition


How about a 1.7gb (10K x 12K 48bit) digital back?

http://www.betterlight.com/

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


Cotty wrote:

Leaf/Mamiya 22MP DSLR:

<http://www.dpreview.com/news/0509/0509094leaf_mamiya22mp.asp>




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_






--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/94 - Release Date: 9/9/2005

Re: Colour profiles-PS-and home prining

2005-09-11 Thread Graywolf

You are probably going to get a different answer from most of the folks who
reply, but I do not think a hardware calibrator is necessary unless you are
doing pre-press work. If you are doing your own printing then all you really
need is to be able to match your printer output, and general photography wise
all we need is to be pretty close.

With Adobe Gamma I have found recently that I get better results if after going
through all the steps I turn my monitor contrast down a couple of clicks. That
seems to eliminate false blown highlights on the monitor. Then you can run a
print and tweak the monitor so it matchs. That will allow you to work pretty
well with that particular monitor/printer setup.

Of course if you can afford it get the hardware calibration thingy, it will
most likely make life easier (although you need the very expensive
transmission/reflection version if you want to calibrate your printer as well).
If you are only going to use one or two ink/paper combinations, there are some
companies on the Internet that will do a printer profile for $65US or so. They
send you a color patch image that you print out and send back. They then use
one of those very expensive gizmos to make up a custom printer profile for you.

Oh yes, most serious digital cameras do use at least sRGB color space (after all the s stands
for "standard"), even my Epson P&S. It has an embedded daylight color profile
(I guess that I am on my own in anything but daylight). I convert that to Pro-Photo workspace
(apparently it is best to use a wider gamut workspace for editing so you do not lose anything
in translation and Adobe98 is somewhat narrower than the latest and best photo printers) in
the Adobe RAW converter. You might want to check Nikon's website to see if they have more
color profiles for your cameras available for download.

Anyway the method in the first couple of paragraphs pretty much is all I use.

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi gang.

I know quite a few are up on colour profiles on this list so i thought i would
ask here
first.

I'm still haveing problems getting my print to look like the monitor. I have
only used
Adobe Gamma
to adjust my monitor and have not used the Spyder type of devices.

First off, should i be using that type of device if i'm going to do this at
least semi
seriously.

Second, when i shoot my D1 it does not have a real rgb or srgb colour space
persay. I
forget what
it is but PS seems to call it srgb.

My D2H is usually shot in Nikon RGB. When i print with my Canons(S800 or
BJC8200) i have
many
options for colour space. I usually choose working space,but sometimes try the
working
srgb etc.
Do i need to convert the file from say the Nikon RGB to srgb in PS, then select
that
otiopn in the
drop down menu,or am i wasting my time until i trruly profile my monitor.
In PS 6 if i load up a D2H file it asks what colour space to use. In PSEL3 it
does not.

Or are there profiles for these Canons out there that should be loaded and used.

Any help is appreciated. Right now i need to up the curves past what looks good
on my
monitor then
it prints out the way it should look in real life.

Dave(getting back to home printing more)Brooks

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release Date: 9/10/2005

Re: Some Posting Suggestions

2005-09-13 Thread Graywolf


I think that and proper attributation are a matter of common sense. In other 
words putting it into the FAQ won't help much. But if everyone wants it there, 
I will be glad to update it.

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


Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Yes, I saw your comment about that earlier (yesterday?) and forgot to add
that to the list.  Since there are times when the original post neither
makes it to the list nor into the archives, some people may only have a
chance to see the URL in one of the replies to the original message.  Is
this worthy of putting into the Graywolf FAQ?

Shel 




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




Good suggestions, Shel. I'd like to add one more: 


Please don't delete the url that references a PAW or PESO 
when commenting on the pic. Many times I've wanted to go
back for a second look but couldn't find the photo. 




LONG URL's:   Perhaps those posting messages with long URL's can use


Tiny


Url to shorten these addresses  Please:  http://tinyurl.com/

BOTTOM POSTING:  many listers post their replies to the bottom of


original


messages, or at the bottom of a series of replies and threads.  Often


the


post is just a simple "me too" type post, or something simple and


short. 


How about posting such responses ABOVE the messages, and, while you're


at


it, perhaps trimming the messages to reflect just the relevant comments


to


which you're responding.

TRIMMING MESSAGES:  How about taking a moment to delete some earlier
messages in a thread instead of just automatically including huge


amounts


of text that has to be waded through to finally get to the most recent


post.


Thanks ... I'm sure a few people besides myself would appreciate such
kindness and consideration.








--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.24/100 - Release Date: 9/13/2005

Re: Some Posting Suggestions


That is okay as I see your name and scroll down. However, often I browse 
through the list click, read, delete. If someone bottom posts the middle step 
is often skipped if I am in any kind of hurry because I do not scroll unless 
the comment catches my interest. If I can not see it in the window without 
scrolling it can not do that.

Bottom posting is something that is left over from the old dial up and download 
uucp days. Come on guys it is not 1972 anymore.

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


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/13/2005 2:42:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


I think that and proper attributation are a matter of common sense. In other 


words >putting it into the FAQ won't help much. But if everyone wants it 
there, I will be >glad to update it.




graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com


"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---


Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Yes, I saw your comment about that earlier (yesterday?) and forgot to add
that to the list.  Since there are times when the original post neither
makes it to the list nor into the archives, some people may only have a
chance to see the URL in one of the replies to the original message.  Is
this worthy of putting into the Graywolf FAQ?

Shel 



Yes. 

I must say most people are pretty good about quoting the original url. But 
those are people that have been on the list for a while and realize it's a 
problem. It would be good to put it in for newbies. Mention the reason, that 
sometimes people do not see the original post and only see the subsequent replies, 
so they need to see the url in the replies. And that has been a list etiquette 
that has evolved over time to deal with that.


Also, as a reminder too, as sometimes people forget. 


Other than that, sorry, I am an unrepentant bottom poster. :-)

Marnie aka Doe   However, when I am just LOLing or something I snip the 
original post a lot. Yous takes whats yous get. :-)






--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.25/102 - Release Date: 9/14/2005

Re: Some Posting Suggestions


Well, if we were reading one post your idea would make sense. But we are reading a 
lot of posts (sorted by subject and thread in a mail reader). That means that we are 
following the thread and have some idea of what is going on. In other words, have 
already read the other guys post, scrolling through it again is a pain in the arse. 
If it has been awhile, we can scroll down and refresh our memory --but my finger gets 
sore (scrolling mouse)if I have to do it to much .

I see no need for a consensus. People can do as they like, but they should know 
that sometimes their post will not get read if they bottom post.

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


frank theriault wrote:

On 9/14/05, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


That is okay as I see your name and scroll down. However, often I browse 
through the list click, read, delete. If someone bottom posts the middle step 
is often skipped if I am in any kind of hurry because I do not scroll unless 
the comment catches my interest. If I can not see it in the window without 
scrolling it can not do that.

Bottom posting is something that is left over from the old dial up and download 
uucp days. Come on guys it is not 1972 anymore.



Is it worth seeking a consensus here?  I used to top-post.  Then I
heard a few opinions that bottom-posting was preferable, so I
switched.  Now it seems that top posting is preferred.

I don't have particularly strong thoughts on the matter, but
bottom-posting seems somewhat logical to my (likely) skewed way of
thinking, as anyone who reads the post from top to bottom will first
read the post to which I'm replying, thus giving some context to my
response.  As long as I delete previous posts, or if the initial post
is lengthy, snip judiciously, not much scrolling will be required, and
possibly (just possibly) my posts will make more sense.

However, whatever the majority wants, I'll do.  As long as I agree
with them .

cheers,
frank



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.25/102 - Release Date: 9/14/2005

Re: 360 degree software

This thread made me have to try a stitched panarama. Using a cheap ball head I took 3 photos of my living room and used the auto stitching in PS. The conection between one photo and the other two has a noticable jag at the crown molding. Otherwise it looks okay. I imagine that with a bit of pratice one could do a lot better. I guess one of those panarama heads would make things a bit easier, but a standard head and a $2 level would probably do as well.

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

Kevin Waterson wrote:

This one time, at band camp, "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Stitcher Express has a few more useful features but costs
more. i find that the nodal point is negligibly important using these three
programs if you don't have architectural features near to the camera. that
is why i stopped using all of my special panorama heads and just use an
L-bracket on a Really Right Stuff panorama clamp. i still have a Kaidan
Kiwi-L head that is looking for a good home, and a have a Manfrotto 300N
clickstop panorama base that i am not ready to part with yet.

I have been looking at the 300N and it looks good at AUD$350.00 from Kayell.
Although Adorama has them at US$167.00 which is far cheaper. On talking to
the folks at Kayell they recommended the 303 panoramic kit, at AUD$968.00
or US$324.00 from Adorma and b&h.

As I am looking at architectural photo's I was thinking of using a panoramic
head to limit paralax errors when stitching. I guess the extra dollars spent
on a head is soon made up in time stitching.

Also, are there and recommeded lenses folks are use for this type of photography
using Pentax?

Kind regards
Kevin

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.25/102 - Release Date: 9/14/2005

Re: Bill Owens report


Bill, Don, and I are all pretty much the same age. They put my problems into 
perspective (none of them life threatening). The both have my best wishes, and 
prayers for a complete and permanent recovery.

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


Mark Roberts wrote:

Our fellow PDML'er Bill Owens has had two of three scheduled surgeries
and is resting up as best he can. He obviously has one more to go (I
don't know when) but I suspect he'll need to recuperate from what he's
already been through before that happens. Those who were at GFM know he
didn't look well. Here's hoping they can get him on track to recovery.
It's going to be a long haul, from the sounds of it.

Speaking of GFM, our man Don Nelson just had his last chemotherapy
session for his lymphoma!
 
 



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.25/102 - Release Date: 9/14/2005

Re: Some Posting Suggestions


What obsolete primitive mail read are you using?

 


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


Tom Reese wrote:
> 

Not everyone reads them that way. My mail program doesn't thread anything. I
get them sorted by date and I need some context to figure out what's going
on.



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.25/102 - Release Date: 9/14/2005

Re: Some Posting Suggestions

2005-09-16 Thread graywolf

Actually I can kind of agree with you. I was removing some no longer 
used software from my computer and the uninstall program of one of them 
must have removed something essential, as it would not boot anymore. So 
I tried reloading the OS (damned MickeyShit Software), it refused to 
load with the original serial number. So I found a crack program, and 
upgraded the OS for free at the same time. Anyone got an idea about what 
a hassle "activation" is when you are reloading 20 programs or so? 
Anyway I did that using Win98 on another partition. Now I can not  boot 
Win98 (bootmgr claims there is a file missing) even though it booted 
fine before SP2.


I have always figured I could load the OS and software from the CD's and 
have not bothered to back that partition up (I keep data on another 
partition that is backed up now and then). But with the hassle of  
"activation" I guess I will back it up as soon as I get everything set 
back to the way I like it. I am getting to the point where I can not 
remember what I did a year ago anyway.


Anyhoo, I have not used Outlook Express in a couple of years but I seem 
to remember that you can set it to thread messages. I am sure you can 
set it to sort by subject. You have no excuses, sir.


Tom Reese wrote:


Sorry about the double posting. Like I said, I hate these &%$&ing things.

Tom Reese

Re: PAW PESO - Lotus

A bit dark, did it on a Mac? If I increase my screen brightness to about 
1.8 gamma it looks good.


Anybody interested in hearing what Martin Evening, author of Adobe 
Photoshop CS2 for Photographers has to say about 1.8 gamma .


Shel Belinkoff wrote:


On the way to a friend's house early this evening this bright yellow jewel
stopped me in my tracks.

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

Tech Details:  istDS,  A50/2.0 glass @ F4.5,  200 ISO ...

Most interested in comments on how the conversion looks.


Shel

Re: PAW PESO - Lotus

On second thought maybe it looks about like how PS RAW likes to make it, 
I find that if I use "auto" for exposure it makes the image too dark for 
my taste. Maybe a bit of a midtone adjustment? As there is detail in 
both the highlights and shadows. Of course, since you say you monitor is 
not calibrated, you came pretty close going by what my calibrated by 
MK-I eyeball monitor shows. I, BTW, do like the tight crop.


graywolf wrote:

A bit dark, did it on a Mac? If I increase my screen brightness to 
about 1.8 gamma it looks good.


Anybody interested in hearing what Martin Evening, author of Adobe 
Photoshop CS2 for Photographers has to say about 1.8 gamma .


Shel Belinkoff wrote:

On the way to a friend's house early this evening this bright yellow 
jewel

stopped me in my tracks.

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

Tech Details:  istDS,  A50/2.0 glass @ F4.5,  200 ISO ...

Most interested in comments on how the conversion looks.


Shel

Re: SV: For the Collector who needs one of everything.

Anybody else notice that the folks who find this kind of thing funny are 
all bottom feeders, err... I mean bottom posters? They also clip 
attributions .




--graywolf

mike wilson wrote:


Cotty wrote:

IFAIR the endoscope is currently the main source of income for 
Pentax.



If it's not #1, it's certainly "right up there"...



I don't think Pentax appreciates being made the butt of a joke like
that...



Yes.  Enough of the wisecracks.




Sadly, I doubt we've reached the end of them yet.




Time for me to split, then.




Yeah, must dash - I'm still at the orifice.


That's hole-ly inapproriate.

Re: Another France photo


Neat!

I would not have thought you could do a handheld 5 panel panorama  that 
looked so good. Maybe I had better rephrase that, I don't  think I could 
do it.


Mark Roberts wrote:


5-shot stitched pano taken from the top of the tower in the crumbling
ruin of Montrichard Chateau on the river Cher. They let you ascend the
tower only if you agree to do so at your own risk. We all had a go :)
I did this shot hand-held, because I didn't have a tripod with me
(traveling by bicycle, remember) and there wasn't enough room up there
even if I had been able to bring one. As a result, there's quite a bit
of distortion in the final image, though I kind of like the effect
myself. This castle sits high up on a hillside overlooking the river and
climbing the tower gives you quite a view, as you can see:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/montrichard.jpg
Warning: Even at low JPEG quality setting, I could only get this one
down to about 180 meg.

Re: PAW: Chinatown Abstract

2005-09-19 Thread graywolf


May I comment (as if you could stop me)?

Man is a tribal, village creature. The psychs say that although we live 
in cities with millions of people in them, we still limit ourselves to 
about 200 whom we interact with seriously. You seem to have noticed 
that, and your photo shows your reaction. It is good art. I know you 
feel pretentious about calling your photography art, but art in not 
pretentious. (However ART is. Folks who say they are ARTISTS are those 
we have to watch out for.) Most of the photos you show do convey 
something to the viewer beyond the obvious (unlike most of my stuff 
which are simply pictures of people or things). To me that IS art.


--graywolf (who really has to get his sig file reconnected, but at least 
the computer is working again).


-


frank theriault wrote:


On 9/19/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 


What I was asking about, and commenting upon, is that I find it strange
that ~you~ wouldn't know why you liked your own work.

Every time you edit your photos you're critiquing your work.  When you
shoot a roll of 36 and decide to print but one or two, you've made an
editorial decision, decided which is acceptable and which is not.  I would
think that if you understood why you liked a photo, what made it work for
you, it might be helpful.

I'm just trying to have a conversation with you frank, open a little
dialogue.  Sounds like I've offended or annoyed you in some way.

Shel
   



Well, to be quite honest with you, Shel, I did bristle a bit last
night when I read your initial comment, and I admit that I was being
petulant and maybe even a bit childish in my responses - for which I
apologize.

What bothered me wasn't the "wasted frame" thing, although I disagree,
and I suppose I'd have simply preferred that you said you didn't like
the photo - with or without reasons.  What bothered me was (what I
perceived as) your sarcasm as follows:  "Print it big, mount it
nicely, display it with good lighting, and will become something
special for someone.  Oh, yeah, ask a lot of money for it as well."

All that being said, I actually know why I like it, I just feel rather
uncomfortable talking about it, and besides, I really do think that
it's more important viewers form their own opinions as to why they
feel the way they do about a given piece.  However, I like it due to
the following (among other) reasons:

Okay, it's blurry.  It's not a motion blur like a car, scooter, bike
or even a pedestrian going by.  It's me, the photographer, moving past
the scene that's causing the blur.  When I'm walking through a crowded
city, I don't make connections with most of those that I pass.  I only
see them peripherally.  I walk by them without noticing them, and they
don't notice me - as the fellow in the foreground of the photo seems
to be unaware of my presence.

So, to me, this is about the disconnect of living and moving about in
a big city.  The irony that among millions of people, we actually have
fewer close relationships - we walk around with blinders on, oblivious
to what's around us.  It's as if we have sensory overload, and it all
becomes a blur - just like the picture.  Have you ever felt that way? 
I have.


The reason I don't like talking like that, is that I hate sounding
overblown, pretentious and all artsy about it - especially since it
really is just a blurry photo.  I didn't intend for it to come out
that way, it just did, and I saw the neg, and I thought it looked
pretty cool.  I wouldn't say it was an accident, but I wouldn't say
that I took the photo thinking it would look that way, either.

It just is what it is.

cheers,
frnk

Re: Interior photography and the *istD

2005-09-20 Thread graywolf

Well, Mark, from you who does a lot of stitched panos that seem to be 
the the definitive statement.


BUT a 14mm costs a lot of money. I shot my living room with my DP&S at 
35mm (equiv) and stitched 3 horizontal images together. They covered 
almost 180 degrees (I actually cropped the ends of the image), took 
about 30 minutes to shoot and stitch including figuring out how to use 
the stitching software (it is surprisingly easy). Saved $ . So 
I would say that a 35mm (equiv) lens would work fine if verticals images 
were shot and stitched in normal sized rooms, and a 24mm (equiv) for 
small rooms. If Scott has Photoshop CS2 stitching software is built in, 
and there are several rather inexpensive programs that can do it (my Oly 
came with stitching software included).


Also real estate photography does not pay a lot, most of it being done 
with a digital point and shoot nowadays. And the high-end stuff, where 
there is actually some money to be made, is still shot with a view 
camera to the best of my knowledge. I doubt that Scott could make enough 
to pay for that 14mm lens and a DSLR.


--graywolf
--

Mark Roberts wrote:


Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 


I may have a line on a job taking photographs for a company that does
interior and exterior work for real estate companies.  While I don't
know the details of said work just yet, I do know that they provide
those interior panoramas that are quite popular with online real
estate listings.  If the job pans out I'm considering purchasing an
*istD or DS.  Was wondering if any of you might have an opinion on
which lenses might be most useful in that situation?  My first
thoughts were to get the widest lens I could find, but after looking
at some of the wonderful landscape panoramas stitched together by Mark
I'm not sure that a super wide angle lens would be absolutely
necessary.

Any thoughts?
   



If (and only if) you need to make large prints then stitching is the way
to go: With care taken in taking the original shots and the use of
dedicated stitching software like PanoramaMaker, it's much faster and
easier than most people think.

If it's for online use only, (and it sounds from your description as if
that's the case) you won't need the high resolution of multi-image
stitching - just go with a top-quality rectilinear wide angle. 


In short: Get yourself an ist-D or DS2 and the recent Pentax 14mm prime.
:)

Re: istDS Exposure Problems

2005-09-20 Thread graywolf


Was the ISO set to a fixed value or was it on AUTO?

Shel Belinkoff wrote:


No metering, Paul.  It was all in manual.  Camera in Manual mode (M on the
dial), aperture set manually, shutter speed set manually.

Re: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)

I get 13 years (72-85), and those were the years Pentax was outselling 
about everybody (the golden years?). Of course if they had real backward 
compatability you could use that Tessar you  bought in 1905 on the D 
. Funny thing is that if Pentax were like the other companies it 
would have a Z-mount and nothing else would even fit on the camera.


See, I was staying out of this, but Bill managed to suck me in. Address 
your complaints to him .


William Robb wrote:



- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)




PENTAX DSLRS DO NOT SUPPORT OPEN APERTURE METERING
or ANY AE MODES with the majority of PENTAX lenses in existance
that fit it! (MOST PENTAX bayonet mount lenses lose key lens features
on these cameras due to lack of the cam sensors in the bodies).



Lets see, K/M lenses were made for some 7 years then production 
discontinued, A lenses and beyond (which offer open aperture metering) 
have been made for some 22 years.
Just on production time alone, you are going to have to go a long way 
to prove that one John.

Maybe you have some production figures you aren't telling us about?

William Robb






--

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

Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)

I believe that there are different sects amoungst the Amish that have 
different ideas of what they can and can not use. Some of them own 
automobiles, others have to use a horse drawn buggy. Also it  is my 
understanding that even the very most conservitive require that their 
kids go out and live in the modern world a couple of years before they 
confirm to the old ways. They seem like very sensible people to me.


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



John Francis wrote:


Nope - that's just stereotyping.  The Amish aren't anti-technology;
they just evaluate any new technology before possibly using it.
Cell phones can be found in (some) Amish communities.


On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:23:12AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
 

The Amish, have Cell Phones?  I think that's literally against their 
religion.

Re: Purple Fringing

While there is a chromatic aberration that will cause purple fringing, 
that will show on film as well. My understanding is that the purple 
fringing Shel is probably talking about is a digital artifact caused by 
high contrast edges. There is a control in the Raw Converter in 
Photoshop CS2 that is supposed to minimize  purple fringing. I have not 
used it because Ihave  not seen the problem to the point where it is 
visible in the 8x10 to 8.5x11 prints I do, so this is all theoretical to 
me.


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



Paul Stenquist wrote:


Hi Shel,
Sometimes it's a result of red and blue chromatic aberration. If so, 
you can correct it reasonably well by going to the "lens" tab in the 
RAW converter and adjusting the CA sliders. At other times it seems to 
be the result of backlight on dark objects, such as branches against a 
sky and doesn't seem to be affected much by CA adustment. I find this 
effect is more common to some lenses than others. In situations where 
it was important to remove the fringe and CA adjustment yields little 
improvement, I've occasionally resorted to cloning it out after 
masking or selecting the appropriate area. Lots of work, but it can be 
done effectively.

Paul
On Sep 21, 2005, at 6:48 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Any suggestions on how to rid an image of purple fringing ...


Shel

Re: PPI for Printing

Try up-sizing them in Photoshop, the new "Bicubic, Smoother" seems to 
work about as well as the expensive add ons do.  For inkjet prints I 
find anything over 200ppi works fine, below that I see a loss of 
quality. I have not had any outsourced prints done so can not address 
that issue.


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



Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Whenever I have prints made on the Lightjet or the Frontier, I use 300ppi
to 330ppi or so for the resolution (is that the term?) which gives me a
nice, big, richly detailed print from scanned negatives.  Using the same
resolution with the DS results in a much smaller print size, on the order
of 6x9.  The lab people around here recommend the greater ppi for quality
work.

I've also heard that 240ppi is acceptable, although that it's used more for
inkjet prints.

So, what ppi do you use for what size/type prints?  If all I can get are
small prints using the recommended ppi from the digi, well, that's an
unhappy circumstance.  But it seems that many of you are getting larger
than 6x9 prints from the DSLR.


Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?"

Re: PDML 10th anniversary


I was here a bit before that while it was still with Pentax.

I want to thank Doug for keeping up this list for almost five years now. 
And, mostly, putting up with the likes of me.


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



Doug Brewer wrote:

It was five years ago this December that the server blew up. I think  
that was the last straw for the good folks at Pentax. It was during  
that month that they began casting about for someone to take over.  
After they called me and asked what I thought about it and who would  
be a good choice, someone there said, "hey, why don't =you= do it?"


I downloaded the software and we went live right around Christmas or  
New Year's Day. Took me a while to get it stable (Freakin PERL...)  
but it seems to be working okay now.



On Sep 21, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:



When did you take over the list, Doug? I joined up just a few months
before that.


--
Mark Roberts

PDML Mini-FAQ link


http://graywolfphoto.com/pentax/pdml-faq.html

--

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

Re: 3rd *istD body bites the dust

I should think *ist part of the name should say it all. It is a low end 
modern camea, I would guess that 20,000 cycles would be about the MTBF. 
Heavy duty pro cameras are supposedly designed for 150,000 cycles, and 
something like the K-1000 and most Pentax of that era would probably be 
about 50,000 cycles.  20,000 cycles seems low but very few snapshooters 
would approach that in they entire lifetimes, and that is manifestly the 
market the camera was designed for.


MTBF  (Mean Time Before Failure) usually expressed in hours or cycles is 
the design life of equipment. It is an average, some may fail 
immediately some may go 10 times that long, but it does give some idea 
of how long something is intended to keep on working.



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



Kevin Waterson wrote:


This one time, at band camp, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 

How are you using them? I have two bodies that I work hard nearly every 
day. With about 2 1/2 years of combined use and 15,000 frames or so, no 
problems. Do you get them wet, drop them, subject them to a lot of RFI?
   



When shooting dance most of the performances are of 2 minutes approx.
In that time I will fire off about 15-20 shots. I do this for 15-18 hours.
Is there a use-by on amount of images shot using a digital, like a 
2 year/50,000 shot warranty? I was sort of hoping that less moving 
parts meant better longevity. I used the MZ-S's in the same way and

they have stood the test quite well. I even dropped one onto concrete
when I knocked over a tripod.

Kind regards
Kevin

Re: anti-shake imminent? we can dream....

I fact, historically, licensing technology has been one of Pentax's ways 
of doing business.


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



William Robb wrote:



- Original Message - From: "Mark Erickson"
Subject: anti-shake imminent? we can dream



All,
I just checked the US Patent Trademark Office "Pregrant Publication 
Database".  I got a list of 14 documents that Pentax has filed since 
Jan 1, 2005 that include either the phrase "anti-shake" or "shake 
correction" in the title.
We all know that Pentax has many patents for technologies that they 
never productized themselves, but this looks like a lot of activity 
in a short period of time.  We can hope, can't we?



Perhaps they stay in business by inventing technology and then 
licencing it to other companies, without implementing it in their own 
products.


William Robb

Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)

Just in time manufacturing is correct. An order is placed, when enough 
orders are piled up a run is made to fill those orders. The product is 
shipped to the Phillipines where the distribution center ships to the 
dealers (nothing goes to the distributors, nothing sits in warehouses). 
This is Pentaxes current distribution plan.


The only distributors that may stockpile stuff are those that are not 
owned and operated by Pentax, but most of those seem to be dropping 
items like they are hot potatoes.


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



Gonz wrote:

I've heard and seen the opposite.  B&H, Adorama, and others cant seem 
to keep them in stock, and they are selling at new prices.  I dont 
think Pentax is building them fast enough, or they are using some type 
of just in time manufacturing scheme to avoid oversupplying the lenses 
and having excess inventory.  I also suspect that they are attempting 
to replace many of their lens line with a DA line to better fit the 
digital market, witness the 14mm DA, 16-45DA, 50 2.8 macro DA, 100mm 
macro DA, various 18-xxx DA zooms, and the upcoming 12-24 DA, which I 
really want!  Try bidding on a FA 50 1.4 lens on ebay, I've seen them 
sell for more than new!  Scan some previous threads discussing this 
insanity.  I think Don pointed out a K24mm2.8 that sold for a 
ridiculous amount recently.



rg


J. C. O'Connell wrote:


The K/M lenses are high priced on ebay?
Have you looked at new lenses from pentax
cost. They sell for less than new cost,
substantially less. I think your assumption
that they are all going on DSLRS is not
warranted, wheres the proof? That would
fall into the "unknown" category in my
opinion. But one thing is certain, there
will be even more demand for then if and when
pentax comes out with and upgraded DSLR
that supports ALL bayonet FF lens features including
K/M lenses.
jco

-Original Message-
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 
2005 10:35 AM

To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)


Actually, the high price of lenses on ebay, even for K/M versions, 
indicates that there is high demand for them.  Why?  Not because 
people are putting them on their film cameras. Film is dead. ;)  
Because people have just bought a *D, *DS, or *DL.  That means that 
those people are going to use them on a digital camera that has by 
some opinions, rendered them useless.  Why the discrepancy?  I 
believe that the vast majority of the people are content with the fix 
provided by Pentax, otherwise the value of K/M lenses would be way 
below what we are seeing.   The market speaks for itself.



rg


J. C. O'Connell wrote:


-Original Message-
From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sure, but most don't want old lenses.

==
I don’t think AGE has anything to do with
lens purchases or utility . You buy for
image quality, focal lengths, speeds,
coating types, bulky or compactness, features like manual or auto
focus, metering capability, etc. You don’t
buy or not buy a lens based on what year it
was made. It may sound like nit picking but
its hard to tell if you are just stereotyping
all the KM lenses as all unwanted because they are
missing AF or something. Sometimes the features
they have are MORE important than some new
feature they don’t have like AF to the buyer so AGE
is not really ever the issue. Features and performance
are and why I disagree that PENTAX should totally abandon key 
features of the KM lenses ( over 9 million of them

by your last post?) at this time
JCO

Re: OT: A favour to ask.

Load fine for me.  Your servers are responding faster than most as well. 
However, I am on ultra high speed cable (roughly equivalent to a T3 line).


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



David Savage wrote:


G'day All,

I'm having problems viewing my PESO's & GESO's. The pages load but the
images take forever to download (if they even do). The problem is the
same no matter which browser I use, and I have no problems viewing any
other web sites.

Before I start annoying my ISP's support people, I thought I'd see if
the problem is on my end first. If you would be so kind, could you
please  have a look at the following & let me know if they are 
loading for you.


<http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_003.htm>

<http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_008.htm>

<http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/IMGP1355.jpg>

<http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_007/geso_007.htm>


Thanks in advance.


Dave

Re: OT: Christmas in Sept. iBook is here


Well then, Merry Christmas to You.

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



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Woo Hoo.
I was out in the field the last few days on some pipeline work east of 
Toronto,and i quess
my laptop 
was delivered to the office yesterday.


Now the fun begins.:-)

Dave

Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)

Guilty of using 30 year old cameras by preference, and even 50+ yo ones. 
Also guilty of using 30 year old hi-fi. However I really don't think 
manufacturers should cater to the likes of me.


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



Pål Jensen wrote:

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


 


The first one is funny -if more people want
to buy something than want to sell it -
the price goes up. and since the supply
is fixed AND known to be large, that means theres more
DEMAND than before the prices went up.
How can you say that "lots" of people don't
want them? That could only be true if
these lenses were rare but they are not
as about half of all PK lenses ever made are K/M type
which is very important data provided by YOU.
This is basic economics...
   



There are 9 400 000 KM and M lenses manufactured. There are not 9 400 000 in use. Hardly anything made 30 years ago in current use. In addition to this fact, almost all K and M lenses are focal length and lens types hardly anyone want or buys these days. I'm afraid that 135mm, 28mm, 35mm and even 24mm lenses, aren't very popular unless they are very fast. At best compatibility with K and M lenses is a fringe benefit for the odd Pentax users who happens to have a K lens laying around. Everything else is too small a market to even consider. If Pentax will support K and M lenses they will do it in a body that cost some money. 
There are in fact more Canon FD lenses made than Pentax K and M lenses. In addition they are more "desireable" because Canon sold more to the pros. Still, theres zero demand for an FD mount Canon DSLR. God, these Canon people must be stupid!
You do the fatal mistake of equaling you estotetric, (lunatic) fringe interest with interest of the average buyers. 



 


You think thousands of dollars or even hundreds of
thosands of dollars FOR THE COMPANY is expensive
for a very valuable feature THEY CAN SELL - not give
away. The cost per body to implement is far less
than the income dollars per body they can sell it for
IMHO. That's not unreasonable, that's how companies
make money. Develop features that cost less to develop
than they generate in revenue. This is basic business economics.
   




There is no revenue for supporting obsolete equipment made 30 years ago. They make 120 000 DSLR's a year. If the feature cost $10 a body then its 1 200 000 out of the window. 
It is not a valuable feature as you claim. Pentax can still claim the best backwards compatibility in the business. Thats probably good enough for the marketing people. 

 


Your last comment is unsupported. What leads you
to believe this is the case? The exact number of K/M lenses
sitting around in closets unused is unknown
except for the fact we know its somewhere between
zero and roughly 9 millionBut you are claiming
MOST of them are, WHY are you making that claim?
   




Because hardly anyone is using 30 year old stuff. Just like hardly anyone are using 30 year old hi-fi equipment. Those who do, do it BECAUSE it is old and they have rarely any interest in compatibility with new equipment.  


Pål

Re: OT: Christmas in Sept. iBook is here

Leave it to you Brits to come up with a color code and then use the same 
color for two of the states . Why not black, black special, black 
extra special, black ultra special, and black with cream and sugar?


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



Cotty wrote:


On 22/9/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:

 


Now the fun begins.:-)
   

Great news. I'll alert Godders that he needs to up his state to  
bikini black.
 


I'm not entirely certain I understand the bikini bit. ???
   



Here you go lad:

<http://www.answers.com/topic/bikini-state>




Cheers,
 Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: printers

For photos the individual ink tanks are not that hot a deal. That is 
because you tend to use them all up at about the same time. Graphic art 
work where you may be doing a lot of pages with the same color in them 
is where the individual tanks help a lot. On the other hand I just 
replaced my Epson 820 with an R200. The 2 Epson brand cartridges for the 
820 are $45 locally and the 6 cartridges for the R200 are $85. Yes I can 
see I will save a lot with those individual tanks . I can see a 
cheap CIS in my future.


BTW, for anybody interested the head went in the 820 (immediately after 
I obtained a large supply of ink cartridges of course).  Would not print 
magenta nor light cyan. Definately the piezo in the head, not dried ink 
as I purged the head with cleaning fluid and all 6 nozzles had no 
difference in resistance.  New head was $85.96, new printer was $69 + 
$10 postage - $20 rebate (the R200 is apparently being replace by a 
R220). That was a no brainer (the 820 ink can go on ebay).


About CIS (continuous-flow ink systems): I have done some web research 
(reading stuff by people using it) and it seems like they do not last 
long. After thinking about it I figure that is because they use the same 
ink cartridges as regular refills. Those carts are designed to be used 
once. They tend to work fine for 3-4 refills but the CIS has that 
equivalent of 8-10 refills in one ink fill. My conculsion is that the 
cartridges will have to be replaced often. However for the R200 you can 
get a CIS for about the price of a set of Epson cartridges. So I figure 
that even if I replace it every 6-8 months it will be a lot cheaper than 
buying cartridges. However I am also look at those refillable in the 
printer cartridges, they might be a better way to go.


I thought this information may be of interest to those on the list who, 
like me, can not afford one of those dream printers.


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



Adam Maas wrote:

The individual tanks are also a big win, as you only need replace the 
inks you've used up, and ink costs are significantly cheaper.

Re: printing papers ...

The Epson R series printers seem to have a suction pump to pull ink 
through the nozzles during the cleaning cycles that should eliminate a 
lot of the well know Epson clogging problems.  But as Dave mentions 
using the printer once a week helps even if it does not have the suction 
pump. Neither  helps with a dead piezo element however.


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



David Mann wrote:


On Sep 22, 2005, at 10:47 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

I print with an Epson 2200 and am very satisfied. In several years  
and over 600 13 x 19 prints, I've never experienced a drip or a  
clogged head.



I've had head clogs with my 2100 (=2200 but with different  
accessories in the box) if I'm not using it often enough.  Lately  
I've been making sure that I use it at least once a week and it has  
been behaving much better.


I might even have a go at doing a 329mm panorama soon...

Cheers,

- Dave

Re: Sensors That Shift?


I don't think you have thought that through, Jens.

1. The shifting sensor does not loose pixels as shifting in PS does.
2. As for the viewfinder all that takes is a full-frame viewfinder with 
a moving mask.

3. Maybe the same people who would pay $1000 for a shift lens?

On the other hand shortly it will probably be just as cheap to buy a 
full-frame camera and crop the image for shift as it would be to buy a 
special APS shift body. So I guess the issue is moot.


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



Jens Bladt wrote:


I don't really thinks so.
Fist of all, shifitng can be done in Photshop quite easily.
Secondly because the sensor image isn't visible until the frame is already
exposed.
This means you'll be guessing whow much shiftig is needed. Even if you had a
"shiftable" vievfinder the image would be to small to adequately preadjust
correctly anyway.
I guess a shift lens and later Photoshop is the most affordableway to go
right now.
Who would pay 300-500 USD moore for the body, if it had a shift opportunity,
that only a few people would actually use?
Regards
Jens Bladt


Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Glen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 22. september 2005 09:18
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Sensors That Shift?


Since the current sensors are smaller than 24 x 36 mm, could a camera be
built in such a way that it could shift the sensor up and down, and from
side to side? This would have a similar use as a shift lens would have. Of
course, you would have to use lenses made to cover the full 24 x 36 format.
The current DA lenses wouldn't work with a moveable sensor.

I think this might be a cool feature for some people, especially for those
who photograph architecture.

There is also one other potential use for a moveable sensor. When
photographing stationary objects and using a tripod, the sensor could be
used to take more than one image of the subject. Each image would be taken
with the sensor shifted a sub-pixel distance vertically and horizontally
between images. Let's say that instead of a single image, we capture 9
images, arranged in a grid pattern centered around what would have been the
normal single image. We then use this grid of 9 images to create a
higher-resolution image than a single image capture would have produced.
This should be a way to quadruple the amount of effective pixels, while
using the same sensor. Unfortunately, it would only work for situations
where the camera and subject were kept stationary with respect to each
other. Still, I bet a lot of photographers would benefit from such a boost
in resolution under such circumstances. Also, you could possibly develop
some enhanced noise reduction techniques by analyzing the extra exposures
and tossing out any pixels which seemed abnormally bright.

Would this idea of shifting the sensor in sub-pixel amounts actually help
yield higher resolutions? My intuition tells me that it would give images
with higher effective resolution than the single images we currently have,
but perhaps not quite as nice as a sensor with a truly quadrupled pixel
count. However, it should be a lot cheaper to build than a sensor with a
quadrupled pixel count.  ;)

Of course, the sub-pixel shift was thought up as a way to boost effective
resolution, while maintaining full compatibility with DA lenses. If the
sub-pixel shift idea doesn't work, I have a second idea for increasing the
total resolution of the captured image. Once again, it only works for
stationary subjects. For each image, make 4 captures. Shift the position of
the sensor to the top-left corner of the 24x36mm frame for the 1st capture,
then to the top-right corner, then the bottom-right, and finally to the
bottom-left corner of the 24x36mm frame. This way, you have covered the
full 24x36mm frame in 4 tiles. Then, seamlessly stitch these tiles together
in software to create a single full-frame image with much more than our
normal 6.1 megapixels. Of course you lose the compatibility with DA lenses,
and would have to use lenses designed to cover the full 24x36mm frame. I'm
not sure how many extra megapixels you would gain from simply extending the
effective sensor coverage to 24x36 mm. Maybe someone on the list knows how
to calculate this?


take care,
Glen

Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?

The components most likely to fail in a piece of electrical/electronic 
equipment are switchs. So the way to make cameras more reliable is to 
remove the mechanical aperture ring from the lens that is used only with 
that lens and replace it with a multi-position, multi-function switch 
that is not only used to set aperture with every lens, but also as a 
shutter speed switch, an ISO switch, etc. Almost guaranteed to reduce 
the usable life of the camera by a factor of 100 or so (To be honest it 
also reduces the cost of manufacture by a factor of 2 or 3).  This is 
progress?


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



P. J. Alling wrote:

Aperture rings are redundant, you will learn to love wheels. (Repeat 
10,000 times, if you still like aperture rings start over).

Re: OT: Christmas in Sept. iBook is here

The last one was a test to see if anyone would bother to read through 
all of them.


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



E.R.N. Reed wrote:


graywolf wrote:

Leave it to you Brits to come up with a color code and then use the 
same color for two of the states . Why not black, black 
special, black extra special, black ultra special, and black with 
cream and sugar? 



Um, graywolf, I don't drink coffee so I could be way off here, but I 
have the impression that once you add cream, it's no longer black. 
Your point is a good one, but I think if you just changed the last one 
to "black with sugar" it would remain valid.

Hope this helps.

ERNR
:-D


yes, I am very idle at the moment ...

Re: Not Franks Digital P&S was [Re: PESO -- The Littlest Moped]

Yes but he can not ignor the freewheel. I bet he hates that as he can 
not stand at the light rocking the bike back and forth an inch but has 
to put his foot down. That is assuming he is not one of those rare 
people who can balance a bike that is not moving at all, I have known a 
couple.


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



Cotty wrote:


On 23/9/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:

 

So, right now, my only workable bike actually has gears and brakes. 
   



Yeah, but you don't actually have to *use* them you know.

[Fear is the mindkiller :]




Cheers,
 Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?


Irony (probably does not translate well).

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



Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:


On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, graywolf wrote:


So the way to make cameras more reliable is to remove


 ^

the mechanical aperture ring from the lens that is used only with 
that lens and replace it with a multi-position, multi-function switch 
that is not only used to set aperture with every lens, but also as a 
shutter speed switch, an ISO switch, etc. Almost guaranteed to reduce 
the usable life of the camera by


^^

Contradiction? Or am I too tired anymore?

Kostas

Re: anybody still shoot film?


Of course!

Color with the MX'en, ME Super and Canonet GIII 1.7
B&W with the 4x5 Graphic

But I am afraid I have gone digital for snapshots, and occassional 
speculative make-a-buck shoot and print shots. "psst, hey buddy, want to 
buy a framed photo of your car (boat, airplane, store, kid, etc)?"


Unfortunately I have not been doing much of anything the past few weeks, 
but am feeling better now.


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



Bill D. Casselberry wrote:


 Hey kids!

   I'm back  ;^)

   Got myself another 6x7 & the 45mm lens and a bunch of E100vs

   ... a 165mm f2.8, a 300mm f4 and some miscellany are enroute
	   to the new abodeLet The "Real Photography" Begin!!! 

   PS: it'll also do digital via a film scanner, something like 
   250 megapixels or some such ...  
 !8^D  egads!


   Wild Bill on the "Skenick Oregon Koast"

Re: TLR cameras. Note topic change.

In this case my experience says Bill is correct. If the subject looks 
dead center into the taking lens the eyes of the portrait will seem to 
follow the viewer around, but if they are just slightly off they will 
not. Portrait painters have used this optical illustion for centuries.


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



William Robb wrote:



- Original Message - From: "keith_w"
Subject: Re: TLR cameras. Note topic change.




Which lens to look at?
Were you using a Gowlandflex, or what?
Seems to me, at normal portrait distance, you shouldn't be able to 
tell which lens the sitter was looking at!



You can tell if a subject is looking right down the barrel or just off 
to the side.

Try this sometime:
Have a person look right into the lens for one picture, then have them 
move their head just enough that they are looking at your shutter finger.

You'll see, the one shot just looks a bit off.

William Robb

Re: TLR cameras. Note topic change.


I believe the MX is being used as a viewfinder, not just a display.

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



keith_w wrote:


Tim Sherburne wrote:




On 9/23/05 11:31, keith_w wrote:



Which lens to look at?
Were you using a Gowlandflex, or what?






Now that one I had to google. Heck, there's even Pentax content on this
page:

<http://www.petergowland.com/camera/>

Gotta find one of those 8x10 'flexes... :)

t



Impressive, aren't they?
I see he chose a Pentax MX to display in one of his shots...
As he did when he chose California girls for his glamor shots, he 
maintained exquisite taste...


keith whaley

Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?

And I was being ironic, although no one will be able to tell that from 
your quote. Oh well.


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



P. J. Alling wrote:


No, I was being sarcastic.

graywolf wrote:

The components most likely to fail in a piece of 
electrical/electronic equipment are switchs. So the way to make 
cameras more reliable is to remove the mechanical aperture ring from 
the lens that is used only with that lens and replace it with a 
multi-position, multi-function switch that is not only used to set 
aperture with every lens, but also as a shutter speed switch, an ISO 
switch, etc. Almost guaranteed to reduce the usable life of the 
camera by a factor of 100 or so (To be honest it also reduces the 
cost of manufacture by a factor of 2 or 3).  This is progress?


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



P. J. Alling wrote:

Aperture rings are redundant, you will learn to love wheels. (Repeat 
10,000 times, if you still like aperture rings start over).

Re: Sensors That Shift?

DOF has nothing to do with focal length, but with diameter of the 
aperture opening. Aperture (not f-stop), magnification, and CC (although 
usually CC is figured for an 8x10 print and can thus be considered a 
constant) are all that affect DOF. Any other values in the formulas 
resolve down to those three.




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



Adam Maas wrote:

And then you referred to the 'Extreme DoF' of APS formats, which 
doesn't exist. There's a small shift, based on the acceptable size of 
the Circle of Confusion, which goes down as the size of the 
sensor/negative does, but by that argument, 35mm has 'Extreme DoF'.


It's the ultra-small sensors on most P&S cameras that have 'Extreme 
DoF', but that's mostly a function of the extremely short focal 
lengths of their lenses, as DoF is far more contingent of focal length 
than CoC size. When your 'normal' lens is in the 7mm range, you will 
see ridiculously large DoF at even large apertures.


-Adam



J. C. O'Connell wrote:


read the post again, I compared APS DOF
to LARGE FORMAT not 35mm
jco

-Original Message-
From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 
23, 2005 2:09 PM

To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Sensors That Shift?


There's very little change in DoF between APS and 35mm. About a 1 
stop difference in all.


-Adam



J. C. O'Connell wrote:


Not to spoil your fun but the extreme DOF
that APS formats low magnificaton yeilds
would make this of much less value say compared
to large format with its inherent lower DOF.
jco

-Original Message-
From: Glen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:40 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Sensors That Shift?


At 11:08 AM 9/23/2005, Mark Roberts wrote:




OK, how about sensors that *tilt*, for DOF control like you get with a
view camera?

...and, no, I'm not serious.
;-)




Oh, why not? I'm sure some people would make good use of it. I think a
tilt-shift sensor matched with a tilt-shift lens would be very fun 
to play




with. Pentax has always liked to explore "alternative" film formats. 
I think this would be a cool way for them to explore alternative 
digital

formats.

I want a Pentax APS digital view camera.  :)


take care,
Glen

Re: printers

If you can believe those Wilhelm (sp?) test the HP Designjet prints will 
outlast Epson prints by a factor of at least 2. But I will not be around 
to care.


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



Herb Chong wrote:

you haven't mentioned anything about fade resistance. the Epson is 
much more so than the HP. don't know if you care, but i do, which is 
why anything other than an Epson won't do for me.


Herb...
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PDML" 
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 10:16 AM
Subject: printers


The Epson allows B&W tone control through its driver and the  
QuadToneRIP driver handles it as well. The individual tanks are a 
bit  fussy for me, the Epson software has its good and bad points, 
took a  while to learn, and I could probably do better with some more 
time to  learn it.


The HP allows you to mix and match three of 5 recommended ink carts  
to achieve a wide range of B&W tones.  Their software seems easier  
and faster to use. It's not super fast but it's fast enough.

Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)

Since the MZ-D and MZ-S were engineered together I would think that if 
the D had hit production it would have had full K/M compatibility. Also, 
I would not bet that the MZ-D would not show up in the future with a 
different sensor and updated electronics. After all they've already paid 
for most of the engineering, and as most MZ-S owners will tell you it is 
a damn good base to build on. I can not imagine them building a full 
frame sensor camera on a *ist chassis unless the sensors became as cheap 
as a can of tuna fish.


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



Adam Maas wrote:


William Robb wrote:



- Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)


I didn't have to.  There were more than enough witness' to it's 
existence. It's not like I believe in flying saucers or not believe 
in them.  I'm very cynical, but I believe there was a full frame 6 
megapixal Pentax DSLR which, due to a large number of circumstances, 
put Pentax back into their cautious mode, when bold moves are 
probably necessary.  I also believe that due to it's user interface 
it had full support for K/M lenses.  Your statement to the contrary 
not withstanding.




The MZ-D(ebacle) was long enough ago that I don't remember for sure 
if they showed a working camera or a non working mock up.
It's debatable, that they would have left the mechanical support on 
the MZ-D, had it seen the light of day anyway.
Did I read in one of your posts that the istD had the mechanical 
linkages in preproduction models but by the time the camera was in 
stores, the linkage was gone?


William Robb




I would expect them to have left in the comaptibility, it's not like 
they were working off a platform that already had abandoned this 
compatibility (As the *ist did)


-Adam

Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)

Just a thought backed up by nothing. Since purple fringing is a digital 
artifact cause by high-contrast edges in the image, is it is not posible 
that less highly refined lenses would seem to work better? Some of the 
Pentax lenses reputed not to work so well with digital are amoung the 
sharpest and highest contrast ones they ever made.


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



Adam Maas wrote:

Ironically, my worst film performer (Formula 5 28mm f2.8) is quite 
acceptable on Digital. And it's a cheap off brand K lens I bought for 
$10CDN.


-Adam


P. J. Alling wrote:

Well Pentax supports them, in all exposure modes.  They certainly 
don't treat them as if they were obsolete.  Don't you see a flaw in 
just about every bodies logic here?  On both sides of this debate?  I 
know I do.  Especially since I have a number of K/M mount lenses 
which give as good as or better performance on the APS digital format 
than they do on film.


William Robb wrote:



- Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)


There are also newer lenses, post K/M that exhibit CA when used on 
digital, are these also obsolete?





I have one of those as well.
If it's not correctable, then for digital, yes, it isn't usable, and 
by definition, obsolete, even if nothing has replaced it.

YMMV

William Robb

Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)

Actually the sensor was not junk. It is still used in a number of medium 
format backs. What the problem seemed to be was Phillips was having 
yield problems, and therefore not able to deliver in the quantities 
ordered. Pentax coming in late was just not able to get them. The bad 
reputation of the Contax had more to do with piss-ass poor software than 
the sensor, although many still think the sensor was the problem.


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



Cotty wrote:


On 23/9/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:

 


http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/bodies/prototypes/MZ-D.html

Shel 
   



I cry buckets whenever I see that. It was a cruel thing to do, but not as
cruel as actually releasing it I suppose. The sensor was junk. So sad, as
it's the reason I didn't wait, and bought a D60 instead.

But I'm happier now. Like my first ever girlfriend, bittersweet memories!




Cheers,
 Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Goofy Flashing Flash Arrow in DS


Simply rewrite the firmware .

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



Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Resistance is futile?

It's still an stupid setup, imo.  Just as not being able to turn of the
green focus confirmation light.  After all, the beeps and bells can be
turned off, the red focus indicators can be turned off ... oh, well, I'm
beginning to sound like JCO.  Better go make some pix.

Shel 

 


[Original Message]
From: John Forbes 
   



 

I'm sure Shel will soon get used to it.  He's coming from a world that  
Oskar Barnack would have found familiar to the world of ultra-tech. 
   

He'll  
 


adapt with a little time.

Re: Pentax Petition-UPDATE

Yes they do monitor the list. However, they think we a micro-segment of 
their customer base that catering to would be a idiot waste of money. If 
we come up with something they think Joe Consumer might like it may show 
up in one of their future products. It is like, they said the LX-2000 
did not sell well. Wonder how it would have sold if you could have 
walked into a store and bought one instead of having to figure out how 
to import it yourself? The problem tends to be the type of stores that 
sell cameras nowadays are not willing to stock expensive cameras. My 
suggestion to the rep was that Pentax should floor-plan (provide on 
consignment) the high-end stuff. He said that is NOT going to happen.


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



Don Sanderson wrote:


Well, so far, not so good. ;-(

We've only had a few interested parties so far, not nearly
enough to have an impact on Pentax decision making.

I've talked to other PDML members more in the know
about this than I and they feel Pentax already monitors
this, and other lists, so this may not be a worthwhile effort.

Regardless, I will keep [EMAIL PROTECTED] active
for comments on this subject AND I am working on a
web form that will allow people to enter their "wish list"
and demographics and I will monitor and tally this on
a regular basis. Results will be reported to the PDML.

It will be a few days before this happens as my web
skills have gotten "a tad" rusty. ;-)

Don

Re: Published


Congradulations.

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



Dario Bonazza wrote:


Remember this picture in my ETH gallery?
http://www.dariobonazza.com/enter/eth11.jpg

This is what a magazine made of it (with my permission):
http://www.dariobonazza.com/provv/celtica.jpg

Dario

Re: printers

Well, my actual previous experience with individual ink tanks was a 4 
color Canon. If I ran out of one ink, other than black, I might as well 
buy them all as I would just have to make several trips to the store in 
the next week if I didn't. I do not use up the black all that fast as 
text printing has been done on a laser printer for the past 15 years, 
and it still works as good as new. Now, if we could get photo quality 
inkjets like that...


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



David Mann wrote:


On Sep 24, 2005, at 3:50 AM, graywolf wrote:

For photos the individual ink tanks are not that hot a deal. That  is 
because you tend to use them all up at about the same time.



Mine are used up at greatly different rates.  I think that light  
magenta is the fastest to go, closely followed by light cyan and  
probably photo black.


- Dave

Re: printing papers ...

Well, the EPS 820 did not, and the R200 does. You can tell the 
difference by just looking at the cleaning pad. The R200 has a sealing 
gasket around it that the head presses down against. You can also see 
the pump if you look into the right front corner of the casing. Maybe 
the 1200 series had that but the consumer photo printers did not and 
they were notorious cloggers. Anyway since I now have the R200 I hope 
that it does not have the clogging proplems I had with the 820, I did 
find a way to mostly work around it but it was a bit of a hassle.


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



mike wilson wrote:


Powell Hargrave wrote:

I think all Epson ink jet printers have a vacuum pump to suck ink 
through

the heads to clear clogs.  I know all the older ones do.

Powell



There's a pump to pull the waste ink away from the head sponge into 
the waste ink receptacle at the bottom of the printer but I don't 
think it actually sucks (sorry, ENR)ink from the head.  There is a 
function to make the print head run full speed (for want of a better 
description) to try to blow ink through all nozzles.






Godfrey's 1270, the 1280, and most of the higher end consumer Epson 
printers all have it.

Herb...

Re: a camera I wish Pentax made...

Aways having prefer RF's for general photography, I am glad someone 
makes such a digital. I only wish I could afford one. However if I had 
one I would propably wish it was full-frame .


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



Cotty wrote:


Here's a camera I wish Pentax made:

<http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml>

Re: Better Tripod Enabled.


Oh, those.

I am on my 3rd one (3021 actually). No they didn't wear out,  I just 
stupidly sold them.


I wish I still had the first one as each one was a little more cheaply 
made than the last . I will keep this one (made in the early 
ninties) as I think I would have to change brands if I had to replace it.


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



Don Sanderson wrote:


Oh, DUH!

 


http://www.adorama.com/BG3021BP.html
   



One O' Dose!

Don

 


-Original Message-
From: Rick Womer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 1:31 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Better Tripod Enabled.


One of what?

--- Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

   


Local store had one of these at the Adorama price so
I've finally upgraded from my Bogen 3011.
Adjusts from about 6 feet all the way to ground
level
and solid as a rock.
Maybe I can get some use out of the 300/2.8 and
F1.7x combination now, the 3011 just wasn't stiff
enough.

Don


 




__ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: OT: Survived Katrina, Survived Rita