The linkages would be a bitch, and probably unprotected and fragile. On
the plus side it would probably be expensive.
Peter Loveday wrote:
In the long run I would love a FF M42 DSLR. I do not think it
is out of the question either once the DSLR market gets more
mature. It would have to push the
I've got an entry for PUG all ready to go, but it occurred to me that
I'd heard some mumblings about changes in where PUG lives and such.
What's the e-mail address to send a PUG entry to? (I can't use the
autopug site)
DJE
On 19/7/04, arnie, discombobulated, offered:
The other I went to downtown Manhattan to take some pictures and lo! my
rechargable cr-v3's are dead! so i went into the nearest shop, bought a pack
of AA's, and went on shooting.
I love Pentax!
arnie
Sorry, I just can't get my head around this
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Herb Chong wrote:
part of the reason film is as cheap as it is is because there are a lot of
rolls of film being manufactured. the number of rolls in 2000 is about 15%
Then how can you explain Ilford? A niche manufacturer that produces much
lower volumes of a specialist
Fra: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really don't think film will die anytime soon. I pretty much agree
with Graywolf's predictions that the big players will leave and the
smaller ones will see their business go up. All processing will become
Actually, I was thinking about this rumour:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1028message=9474786
a REAL full frame 645...
DagT
Fra: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Once again I must ask, Why. It makes more sense to put the FF sensor in
a 35mm size body, maybe with a
But then on the other hand, my new at the time, Honeywell Pentax H-3 cost 200
1961-62 dollars. That is roughly $2500-3000 in todays money. Most current film
cameras in that price range (Leica, Nikon F5, etc.) will last quite a while too.
--
glenn murphy wrote:
I don't think film will completely
Yes, and that is why for an equivalent focal lenght you get more DOF
with the *ist than with film. Because a 50mm lens has more DOF than a
75mm lens.
A.
On 20 Jul 2004, at 02:36, Don Sanderson wrote:
Tanya, that 50mm lens is still a 50mm, not a 75. You're just using a
piece
out of the middle
On Tue 2004-07-20 (02:47), Don Sanderson wrote:
In the pastI've had a few posts not get to the list and a few from others I
didn't get.
But tonite I've read at least 15 responses that made no sense because I
never got the post they were responding to.
Hm - up to now I expected a local
Hi!
Well I thought it was about time for me particularly after the recent threads.
Back to practicality, note the extensive out of control depth of field in my
PAW image produced using the *ist D and A50/2.8 Macro at f8:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2541857size=sm
Rob, this one
Camera companies in general like to sell new lenses as it makes them
more money, so whilst it is possible I dont think you will find Pentax
themselves doing it but rather smaller outfits like Cosina, as they
have with the TM.
A.
On 20 Jul 2004, at 02:40, Peter Loveday wrote:
In the long run I
So it's done! And successful. Following up tips from Bill and Don, I managed
to stumble upon a service manual for another Compaq laptop, and searching
harder I actually found one for my own model. Turns out, Bill, that two
screws under the laptop did have to be removed before I could pry off the
Thats right Jens, nobody said digital per se was the cause but rather
the sensor size, and i particular the APS sensor of the *ist and other
digitals (there are only 2 full-frame dititals on the market so for the
purposes of the current discusión digital currently means APS or
smaller). Its
No, he won't get the point Rob, but I do. Tks.
Norm
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 20 Jul 2004 at 12:10, Antonio Aparicio wrote:
So you see my point then, that is unless you think that that particular image
has excessive DOF of course. I put that image up to exemplify the fact that
even at f9 (sorry
On 20 Jul 2004 at 7:58, Chris Stoddart wrote:
Then how can you explain Ilford? A niche manufacturer that produces much
lower volumes of a specialist product and charges a competitve rate whilst
still making a profit.
Chris have you had a good look at the Ilford catalogue of late? They aren't
because it is shipable. You only need one supplier anywhere
in the world, not a photofinisher in your neighborhood.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax
Related to this thread, I read that most digitally captured images are never
printed, just used for web posting and email,
Kenneth Waller
I believe it Ken. Since we bought our lovely A60 Canon digital point and
shoot we tend never to get prints done. We did once, but have just never got
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you could persuade Kodak to make one - they did for Nikon and Canon
mounts. But then again, they are 5000 USD +. Who'd pay that much for a FF
camera? Not me, anyway.
Looked at the cost of the smaller-sensored EOS-1D2 or the Nikon D1X?
Not much change
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Related to this thread, I read that most digitally captured images are never
printed, just used for web posting and email,
And even more are just stored on a hard drive and forgotten about...they
don't take up physical space so they're a lot easier to
Regarding the M42 DSLR, I love M42 and have a huge collection both
bodies
and lenses but when it comes to shooting M42, I don't need metering, I
don't
need motordrive, I don't need AE, but there is one thing I will not
accept
and that is no auto aperture function. I would never buy a m42 DSLR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless Canon actually does what is rumored and puts out a 10D replacement
at 8MP
I think that would be a very smart move for them if they could make it
happen. Perhaps keeping as much of the 10D chassis as possible and
leaving out all the high-speed technology of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know Augusts PUG is due tuesday, but I thought I would comment on some
of Julys .I liked them all but I hope to add more comments later.
-Robert Gonzalez Mortor and Pestle
Very nice shot Robert. It shows the simple life. Man,
No photograph in a grey space!
Jens
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 20. juli 2004 13:41
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: PAW OOC DOF
On 20 Jul 2004 at 12:10, Antonio Aparicio
A hard drive is physical space ... just smaller than a shoebox under the
bed or a photo album. Eventually a hard drive runs out of space and then
something has to be done with the photos stored on it.
Jerry Todd
Dancing Frog Studio
Calaveras, California
From: Billy Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Calling the PDML knowledge bank...
I need a lightwieght camera for R/C model planes (250 g) aerial photography.
I remeber someone here not long ago (Rob Studdert ?) said that it was great
for travelling - was it the Olympus AX???
Jens
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, people USING film still outnumbers those using digital. However, those
BUYING new cameras are buying digital and not film
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was:
Not so. Those consumers who used to bring film in for processing are now
bringing in memory cards for us to print, and those prints are basically the
same cost as film prints and are on the same paper.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For film it may well have been the Olympus mju II, which is called
something else in the US I think. This only has a fixed lens but is
smaller than pretty much any APS compact and on a par with todays
digitals (except the optio S its ilk). I am guessing you don't
want/cant use zoom in this kind
This rang a bell from something I read on the BBC website a while back -
did a search and here it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3343857.stm
You will find links to what may be some useful resources on the right
hand side.
-Original Message-
From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL
Quick question: Super A : linear or circular polarizer?
A.
I know it is not what You have asked for, but probably may help
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=48632item=5709721060rd=1
There are also other kind of this things, some with audio, other infrared,
etc...
they all can be powered by batteries (9volt)
danilo
Alle 15:35,
I know it is not what You have asked for, but probably may help
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=48632item=5709721060rd=1
There are also other kind of this things, some with audio, other infrared,
etc...
they all can be powered by batteries (9volt)
danilo
Alle 15:35,
And eBay itself isn't a worldwide list with a searchable interface? Nice
try, Kostas.
On 7/20/04 2:45, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
That's quite different to publicising in a worldwide list
with a searchable interface.
Good grief, why did I ever bring up 3rd world! My apologies to the list.
It doesn't matter where it is. If the family can't afford to buy a digital,
but can afford to use a film camera occasionally it could be your neighbor
I'm talking about.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Norm
Linear -- it's the standard Pentax centerweighted gallium meter in
the prism, which doesn't require the circular polarizer. Though it
has TTL flash metering, it doesn't have the semi-silvered spot on the
mirror that requires light to pass through the mirror to a meter cell
(or an autofocus
Too bad I can't sacrifice my 2 kids! g
jb `:^)
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Tim Sherburne wrote:
And eBay itself isn't a worldwide list with a searchable interface? Nice
try, Kostas.
No, it's only a searchable site. From which you missed the lens you
wanted, as you admit, because it has a lot of noise and quirks.
Kostas
Many thanks Joe.
A.
On 20 Jul 2004, at 18:23, Joe Wilensky wrote:
Linear -- it's the standard Pentax centerweighted gallium meter in the
prism, which doesn't require the circular polarizer. Though it has TTL
flash metering, it doesn't have the semi-silvered spot on the mirror
that requires
Thats cheap, did you see the one with start price of $900!
I wonder if those who own this lens could comment on whether they think
it is actually worth this sort of money given you could buy a rather
nice SH MF setup for that sort of money.
Would this lens beat say a Rollei 6003 with an 80mm or
--- Joe Wilensky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linear -- it's the standard Pentax centerweighted
gallium meter in
the prism, which doesn't require the circular
polarizer. Though it
(like the LX or
autofocus cameras).
Joe
Quick question: Super A : linear or circular
polarizer?
A.
It's an autofocus MX!
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/krg/trucs/trucs.htm
big grin here
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
--- Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not so. Those consumers who used to bring film in
for processing are now
bringing in memory cards for us to print, and those
prints are basically the
same cost as film prints and are on the same paper.
Bill
Is the light source led or laser in the
Kostas... The long and short of it is that I think it's okay for people to
post eBay listings. I don't want to put words in John's mouth, but I'm
guessing that he wanted to simply let others on the list know of an
opportunity, which seems neighborly to me. If I run across a good deal on
eBay that
It is not going to match/beat hardly any MF lens/film combos.
But placed on a future FF Pentax DSLR it might match/beat
a lot more.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SMC A* 85mm
The AutoPUG is back. I submitted all sent mails to it.
Cheers
Adelheid
My sincerest apologies for this situation. This is not the first time my
web space provider has extended periods of downtime. Mail to addresses at
my
domain will not come through either.
This was the last drop for me,
Yeah,
Can you believe these single-use digital cameras that are being sold?
Twenty-five shots, LCD, $18.99?
Tom C.
From: Yefei He [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital(long)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:30:41 -0500
China is already
How about sharing the ones you are planing to bid on? Oh That is a different
story, is it?
--
Tim Sherburne wrote:
Kostas... The long and short of it is that I think it's okay for people to
post eBay listings. I don't want to put words in John's mouth, but I'm
guessing that he wanted to
Been meaning to ask how that was coming along?
--
AvK wrote:
You will no worries :-)
Started to work on the film. It is a nightmare to compress, but fun to watch
at least for the attendees of GFM 2004 I think.
Cheers
Adelheid
Yeah, I'm jealous toowe better see some pictures Adelheid.
Norm
I don't think they are really being sold, just a one use solution. You
have to give the camera back, the payment is for the prints correct?
Tom C wrote:
Can you believe these single-use digital cameras that are being sold?
Twenty-five shots, LCD, $18.99?
--- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Bailey
Subject: Re: Super A : linear or circular polarizer?
LX
But, since the LX meters off the film after the
mirror
flips up the exposure will be correct if you use
the
auto exposure mode.
On 20/7/04, Kristian Walsh, discombobulated, offered:
The point is, I don't need to replace them. I brought 3 proprietary
batteries plus the charger to GFM.
On the other hand: Lithium-Ion batteries lose their effectiveness after
about 24-30 months, whether you use them or not, so buying three
On 20/7/04, Daniel J. Matyola, discombobulated, offered:
Batteries sometimes get lost; chargers can be lost or damaged. It is
great to have a camera like the *ist d that can utilize AA batteries
from the corner convenience store in an emergency.
Point taken. I have yet to encounter a
On 20/7/04, graywolf, discombobulated, offered:
How about sharing the ones you are planing to bid on? Oh That is a
different
story, is it?
HAR!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
I have a roll of Kodachrome in my PZ-1 that has not been used since I
bought my *istD 9 months ago. And my ME has a half finished Tri-x in it
that has also been abandoned. My ME-Super is empty. My daughters are
the only ones using film right now, one with a PZ-20 with chrome and the
other
That's what I assume as well.
I wonder what they do with the camera after that. Recycle? Rebuild?
Sanitize? Could one accidentally get a camera that had been recycled and
find that some one else's photos were still on the flash memory?
Tom C.
From: Norm Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
On 20 Jul 2004 at 12:51, David Miers wrote:
How
many will get sick of the battery game? Having to make sure the batteries always
have a fresh charge on them ahead of time. I use my digital rarely and have
this problem all the time. Shoot, the batteries will probably fail since I
forgot to
- Original Message -
From: John Bailey
Subject: Re: Super A : linear or circular polarizer? LX
I believe the continous light OTF metering in the LX
only works at
shutter speeds below the sync speed. At higher
speeds the shutter
speed in determined from light reflected off
On 20 Jul 2004 at 12:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
It is not going to match/beat hardly any MF lens/film combos.
But placed on a future FF Pentax DSLR it might match/beat
a lot more.
Well if you look at absolute speed it's the outright winner.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Making sure batteries are charged on a digi-cam is analogous to
ensuring that
you have films with you a spare meter battery.
I am finding that since I have to be constantly aware of the
On 19 Jul 2004 at 15:45, Tim Sherburne wrote:
Those of you who feel differently about John's posting need to wake up: The days
of cheap, undiscovered eBay listings on good stuff is ancient history.
I'm sure no one would get upset if the information was shared post auction. You
do have to
Guys,
The problem has been noted by people in at least four countries (UK,
USA, Australia and Norway). I'm sure it happens elsewhere too.
To me, this looks like an infrastructure problem. Graywolf mentioned a
possible update of server anti-spam. That would make sense since it
would only affect
On 20 Jul 2004 at 17:35, Jens Bladt wrote:
Calling the PDML knowledge bank...
I need a lightwieght camera for R/C model planes (250 g) aerial photography. I
remeber someone here not long ago (Rob Studdert ?) said that it was great for
travelling - was it the Olympus AX??? Jens
I don't know
Not quite, since you can always (still) buy film as you go.
Some digital cameras have very special batteries, you don't get in every
mall. And you don't need to recharge film. I always have loads of film in
the fridge. I just grab a handfull as I leave the house. I guess both the
*ist D and MZ-S
My answer is simple. I don't want to. For many reasons.
Pentax make brilliant user interfaces.
And afforable consumer lenses as well a pro lenses. I can buy affordable and
still hope for professional lenses.
Good backwards compatibility (could be even better) - excellent old lenses
may cost less
Does anyone know if there was a square metal clamp type hood (like the one for
the Takumar 1:3.5 28mm) made to suite 35/28/24mm lenses that would fit on a
54mm OD lens barrel (52mm filter ring)?
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oh that Film vs Digital thread was so much fun, why don't we start it again, but this
time do digital vs film.
The noise to signal ratio on this list is getting terrible. Ultimately, I don't give
a rats ass about digital, I'm not worried about film until they stop processing mine,
and you can
Hey that sounds like censorship to me! :)
Tom C.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Digital vs Film
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:14:16 -0400
Oh that Film vs Digital thread was so much fun, why don't we start it
again, but this time do digital vs
On 19 Jul 2004 at 15:45, Tim Sherburne wrote:
Those of you who feel differently about John's posting need to
wake up: The days
of cheap, undiscovered eBay listings on good stuff is ancient history.
I'm not so sure I agree with that, after thinking about this post for a
while I started
I'd sure want to see a lens test on this before I bought one. I'll bet
it won't perform as well as the DA 16-45.
OTOH, it may be less expensive, and more importantly, you may actually
be able to buy one.
Joe
at high cost, or low or unpredictable quality.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:41 AM
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
because it is shipable. You only need one supplier
I took that thread as Pentax digi vs Penatx film.
A decision I've been struggling with.
Learned a very great deal from it.
Sticking with film. (For now)
Don
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:14 PM
To: [EMAIL
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:43:51 -0700, Tim Sherburne wrote:
If I run across a good deal on eBay that I can't use, I'll share
it with the group because I know someone out there can use it.
Please don't. The list has discussed this at least annually since I
came on board in 1998. Each time the
Rut Ro Rorge, I smell smoke! ;-)
Don
-Original Message-
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Digital vs Film
Hey that sounds like censorship to me! :)
Tom C.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/
Thanks for the link, Rob. I guess my 35 mm. lenses will have less DOF on
the *ist D.
Joe
even at my rate of shooting, i keep everything online and expect my hard
drive capacity to grow significantly faster than my ability to fill it.
165GB right now and growing about 1-2 GB each time i go out to shoot. i had
planned to do archiving on DVD, but it looks like i won't ever have to,
using
Dag wrote:
The DOF scale on Pentax lenses refers to a CoC of 35 microns, while the
corresponding CoC for the APS sensor is 20 microns.
Dag, where did you get that 20 microns figure? Can we reliably use it?
Thanks,
Joe
Does anyone know anything about this lens? The spec. and price are good, but
I have found no review or reference. How is the optics? Anyone used or owned
one? Any comments?
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
_
Take advantage of
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
On 20 Jul 2004 at 18:37, Joseph Tainter wrote:
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/
Thanks for the link, Rob. I guess my 35 mm. lenses will have less DOF on
the *ist D.
Well yes and no :-) As you may have seen in that article the DOF scales on most
35mm full frame lenses are
wrong, I get C-41 superb results, no scratches,
and CHEAPER than the photofinishers. Results
are more consisitant because I do it myself
and my techniques are easily repeated. Every
photofinisher is going to be slightly different
I would think.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong
On 20 Jul 2004 at 20:35, Herb Chong wrote:
even at my rate of shooting, i keep everything online and expect my hard
drive capacity to grow significantly faster than my ability to fill it.
165GB right now and growing about 1-2 GB each time i go out to shoot. i had
planned to do archiving on
the major record labels now derive 15% of their profits from sales of ring
tunes for cell phones. have you used a recent model Sony? you can choose
your sounds for many of the camera's functions.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
we will never have much effect on their market. most of the entire camera
market is young women who are in charge of the family's memories of
important events in their children's lives. by PMAI estimates, this is about
70% of all of the potential camera buyers in North America. they want a box
I came up with a new technique today. Pre-fixing negatives.
Last night I loaded my daylight developing tank (the bathroom is still only
light tight at night) with the 6 sheets of 4x5 Plus-X film I had shot last week.
Today I measured out the D-76 1:1, a water stop bath, and fixer 1:3 all of them
That's just way too cool! (ROTFLMAO)
Don
-Original Message-
From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Digital vs Film
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
in 5 years, i would like to see you do the same. we're not talking today.
this instant, there are still more film cameras than digital cameras. if
this instant were to continue without change, Butch, William, and Bill would
not be thinking of new careers.
Herb...
- Original Message -
On 20 Jul 2004 at 20:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh that Film vs Digital thread was so much fun, why don't we start it again, but
this time do digital vs film.
The noise to signal ratio on this list is getting terrible. Ultimately, I don't
give a rats ass about digital, I'm not worried
i'm looking at a 1TB RAID box too.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Lacie have a 1TB external drive box now too, it's pretty well priced
The lens I have is the Rikenon P Zoom. I got it off eBay a few years ago to
go with my Ricoh XR-X-3PF. The P lenses allowed you to use the program mode
on the camera. The lens is a heavy beast. I am satisfied with the results
I get with it. I can use the lens on my LX; I just have to watch
I wonder if this has some impact on the issue of sharpness/unsharpness...
not of the *ist D vs. other DSLR's, but in general, if DOF is somewhat less
than expected...
Tom C.
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OT: DOF and
Ah, embarrassingly, you're not alone
Norm
graywolf wrote:
However, this is, I think, the stupidest thing I have ever done in a
darkroom.
Notice anything of note, interest, etc. in the profile of those bringing
in memory cards, etc. for printing?
Otis Wright
Bill Owens wrote:
Not so. Those consumers who used to bring film in for processing are now
bringing in memory cards for us to print, and those prints are basically the
same
Not rules, Don, just general consensus.
For Sale (and Want To Buy): Pentax stuff anytime. Although many only want to
have to look on Fridays, and prefer For Sale Fridays. Most of us would prefer
that you limit any non-Pentax stuff to Fridays as well.
Ebay: It is all right to mention things YOU
- Original Message -
From: Don Sanderson
Subject: Comment and Question (WAS: RE: Apology for)
SO hows about a little FAQ with dos and don'ts and definitions
so us
newbies don't have to rub quite so much fur the wrong way?
Rules are for wimps.
I figure if something
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Tainter
Subject: RE: Digital vs Film
When I got my *ist D I expected still to use film. As it is, I
haven't
shot any since last September, and don't know when I will again.
I wanted some realy wide angle stuff the other day, so I tossed my
15mm
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
wrong, I get C-41 superb results, no scratches,
and CHEAPER than the photofinishers. Results
are more consisitant because I do it myself
and my techniques are easily repeated. Every
Hey, great idea! You could customize your prints to your customers eyesight.
What a great marketing tool.
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 20 Jul 2004 at 21:04, graywolf wrote:
CoC is fixed at
1/100th inch in such a case, and is based upon average human eyesight.
I believe we should all have our
I use a Hama clamp-on rectangular hood for 52mm filter on SMCP 28/3.5 and
SMCP 35/3.5 lenses. It is light plastic and not fancy, but it does a good
job. I lined the inside of the hood with flocked paper, and it is a black
hole. I do the same with most solid hoods; otherwise, many of them can
I use paper drums for sheet film and patterson tanks for roll film.
both using constant agitation with a drum roller. Very consistant
results. Total investment in the equipment about $100.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Thank You Norm...
Regards, Bob S.
I don't think Bob was referring to pros and cons of the new media, I would imagine,
like me, endless speculation as to market stats and the end-time date of film's
demise.
Norm
Rob Studdert wrote:
If you are referring to the posts that have been made lately
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
