I was referring to Los Angeles, which is where he shot a good portion of his
photographs; although I'm sure Louisiana would offer some very interesting
possibilities as well.
I've never had a problem with Mafud and I still correspond with him
occasionally. I guess we have a lot in commoncantankerous in our
old age.
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 06:45 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 12:12 AM, Dr E D F Williams wrote:
Mafud was
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 04:39 PM, Ken Archer wrote:
Does it need to go to the hospital?
--
Kenneth Archer, San Antonio, Texas
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Ken,
I don't know. I snatched it up and put it on a shelf and I'm trying not
to think about it. Nothing I can do about it tonight,
Norm Bruce,
Anybody who has two email accounts subscribed to the pdml,
and uses one to respond to his comments from the other
is way over the top for me.
...and cabin fever hasn't even started yet in the great white north. g
Regards, Bob S.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce, you're right,
Seems like I lost half my Pentax mail volume when I applied those
two filters.
Well, it's maybe not quite ~half~ - g. However, my Nuisance
folder for those two accounts has 139 posts in it from November
alone.
Fred
I sort of miss Mafud, but Kirkland Ramsey is another story. Much more
belligerent I'd say. I'm still not sure they were one and the same,
although some evidence seemed to suggest that.
Paul
Bob Walkden wrote:
Hi,
Anybody who has two email accounts subscribed to the pdml,
and uses one to
Hi,
I sort of miss Mafud, but Kirkland Ramsey is another story. Much more
belligerent I'd say. I'm still not sure they were one and the same,
although some evidence seemed to suggest that.
we could put some of their emails through a stylistic analyzer - the
type of thing they use to decide
William Robb wrote:
Matt Grene. Publisher of Bio-Agrinetics, or some such. INSERT THEME
FROM MISSION IMPOSSIBLE HERE
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:pnstenquist;comcast.net]
I sort of miss Mafud, but Kirkland Ramsey is another story.
Much more
belligerent I'd say.
Just a little note supporting the argument that the *vast* majority of
PDMLers are decent folks...yesterday the DC
So, for those anti-socialites who failed to show up, you missed a good
time.
tv
OUCH!
I did see Geoff and Wendy this afternoon at ACE dropping off a truckload of
film. Tom, I'm surprised you didn't scare him away from there! ;-)
Christian
12:38 AM
Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
I sort of miss Mafud, but Kirkland Ramsey is another story. Much more
belligerent I'd say. I'm still not sure they were one and the same,
although some evidence seemed to suggest that.
Paul
Bob Walkden wrote:
Hi
- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams
Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Mafud was intelligent and still is - I think.
He sure was fun for a session of bear baiting.
WW
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 11:49 PM, Brad Dobo wrote:
I talked to Pentax on this one and they don't make a hood for the lens,
because it really is not needed at all. I have the FA version.
Putting a
UV type filter on will not be protecting the front element anyhow, and
with
the SMC
with it in that
respect (usage, just not people telling me so).
Spill yer guts Dan ;-)
Regards,
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
On Wednesday
Perhaps Dan was refering to when a filter was used. But I suppose you can
use whatever 58mm hood you found. I tried the A*85/1.4 67mm hood with
step-up ring and it worked fine, but I have never actually used it in
practice.
regards,
Alan Chan
Intriguing, what makes you say that? On the
Yes, with a filter, I can see a need for the hood. Dan where are you, clear
up this mystery! ;-)
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Perhaps Dan
This guy sounds like an a-hole, Brad.
He says anyone on the Net is a crap hobbyist, yet he's had no contact with
anyone on this list, hasn't seen anyone's work, knows nothing about anyone on
this list (except you).
Seems to me that there are a few pros here, and a few serious hobbyists whose
Why are you subscribed to a list of crap hobbyists?
Pentax Guy wrote:
snip a load of crap
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 01:32 PM, Pentax Guy wrote:
Hey Dan,
Intriguing, what makes you say that? On the lighter side, I didn't
think we
ever admit to Pentax errors? ;-) On the more practical side, I'm
looking at
my lens now, read your email and decided to pull it out. By design
Hey, that's ok Frank, I'll reply to your post, clear up anything, add,
whatnot, but after this, it's just like the bokeh, I won't even open emails
regarding, so just a heads up for people so you don't waste your time. Pass
the word because everyone was going to jump on me while I just wrote an
Does it need to go to the hospital?
On Monday 11 November 2002 03:32 am, Dan Scott wrote:
(just dropped my freakin FA 35/2 onto the bare floor from shoulder
height and watched it bounce down the freakin hall and bank off a
couple of doors !#@$%)
--
Kenneth Archer, San Antonio, Texas
[EMAIL
Norm,
And you are responding from some ignorant, psychotic kid from Pavement
Narrows Ontario, because?
I'm crushed, crushed by my bitter disappointment in you.
BR
From: Norman Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why are you subscribed to a list of crap hobbyists?
Pentax Guy wrote:
snip a load of crap
Bruce, you're right, damn it you're right... Maybe I was hoping for a
response along the lines of after I consult my fellow knights of the
round table, etc. etc. .the tennis balls coming out of the TV will
tell us what to doetc. etc..
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
Norm,
And you are
On 7 Nov 2002 at 1:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Put a high quality UV filter on and protect the lens, your investment and
your fear of accidently scratching the lens...
If the FA is like the A100/2.8 macro you'd really have to go out of your way to
scratch the front element. Most of my
On 7 Nov 2002 at 1:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Put a high quality UV filter on and protect the lens, your investment
and
your fear of accidently scratching the lens...
If the FA is like the A100/2.8 macro you'd really have to go out of your
way to
scratch the front element. Most of my
, but not that one. But if he feels better/safer
with one on, then by all means do so, but, it's such a nice lens, get a
nice
BW or something :)
Brad
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about
on, then by all means do so, but, it's such a nice lens, get a nice
BW or something :)
Brad
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Put a high quality UV filter
27 matches
Mail list logo
