Op Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:39:02 +0100 schreef Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the
list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the
move
to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the
Hi Shel,
My only digital is the Optio 555, if we don't count the digital
workflow from Large Format (4x5) slides thru the Epson Expression
1680 Pro to PS.
I'm still waiting for a full frame DSLR. Maybe I will go over to the
dark s(l)ide, the Canon 5D is appealing (and besides, my only AF lens
is
There were a lot of cameras and other things I could have sold to generate
some quick cash. The istDS returned a greater percentage of the purchase
price than the film cameras would have, and since more people are
interested in digital than film, I figured it would sell faster - it sold
in a few
I have not either made move to digital. I like the stuff I have.
However, for bird photography I'm considering getting a digital - also
for the sake of being able to check out exposures. Otherwise I'm quite
happy with my MF and 35mm stuff. I do some cold weather photography and
my LX and
For your information. In science a lot of people - including myself dont
use MS unless forced to by external party. In the Unix/Linux community
there are a lot of software that will do the job as well or even better
than MS stuff which often can only be used on MS platforms which
sometimes is
On 11/12/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
I normally don't post auctions, but this is a kinda cool lens.
William Robb
http://cgi.ebay.com/Huge-CANON-800mm-3-8-
Lens_W0QQitemZ7568780308QQcategoryZ30027QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Made for Canon by Pratt and Whitney!
Cheers,
Cotty
On 12/12/05, David Mann, discombobulated, unleashed:
$960.00 is a nice price?!?
Four years ago I bought a mint-in-box 85 1.4 for 650 GBP and sold a year
later for 750 GBP to help fund digital.
My current 85 is mint minus, or if you listen to the Allingator, trashed ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
On 11/12/05, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
Actually that's not quite right. The APS-H format is 30.2x16.7mm which
gives a different aspect (~1/1.8) ratio than the 28.7x17.8mm (~1/1.6)
sensor on the Canon.
Thanx
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places,
For that kind of money you could
probably get a Questar. The aperture
would be smaller but so would the
aberrations.
Don W
Cotty wrote:
On 11/12/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
I normally don't post auctions, but this is a kinda cool lens.
William Robb
On 11/12/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
.. which isn't really APS-film sized, any more than so-called APS-C
sensor is.
APS film formats:
APS (H) 17 x 30
APS (C) 17 x 25.5
APS (P) 12 x 30
Thanx Godders
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People,
From: Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/12/12 Mon AM 05:23:18 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: For Roberts, Brewer and others who ride on two wheels
On Dec 10, 2005, at 7:36 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
On 12/10/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott
David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious about your industrial night scenes. What about them makes
them nearly impossible with digital? This is an honest question. I've
found digital's low-light capability to be better than the film I've
used.
The problem is with the lights
It's about time I posted another pic... I have several versions of
this one; this is just the first I came to when scanning. The others
are on the next row which I'll process at a future date :)
I've put in a fair bit of work trying to maintain some detail inside
the big hole... you may
One of those (A*200/4) just went in the UK for rather a lot.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemrd=1item=7566855898ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT
- Original Message -
From: Jim King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 3:21 AM
Subject: Re:
What I thought was a dust spot in my scan was anything but...
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/bug.jpg [29kb]
(That's a 100% crop at 4800ppi)
In reality it's a tiny little dead bug that was on the emulsion side
of one corner of my slide. Its body is all of 0.5mm long.
- Dave
Hi David,
Wonderful picture. You really got the rocks right. Is it some kind of
limestone?
Where in Canterbury is it? I've been to NZ some four times and plan to
go there again withthe family. We went together there and they were so
taken that they just wanted to go back. Its a lovely place
I'm not regular poster, but sometimes i think about going digital.
For example, i was asked to shoot some event this week:
If i have DSLR, then it will be somewhat easier. Now i have option to
use my MZ-3 and Press-800, with 50mm and 135mm manual focus lens.
Great setup for landscape/nature
G'day All,
Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
Decided to go looking for it I thought I'd post the link here.
Cheers,
Dave
On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
Decided to go looking for it I thought I'd post the link here.
You know what thought did? Followed a muck-cart and thought it were a
weddin' ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
A user A*85/1.4 is about all I could ever afford.
And even thendefinitely a streach.
Collin
At 03:44 AM 12/12/2005, you wrote:
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:21:10 -0500
From: Jim King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Nice price
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This one is from Bryce National Park, UT:
http://www.misenet.sk/USA/Br.html
Bedo.
David Mann wrote:
What I thought was a dust spot in my scan was anything but...
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/bug.jpg [29kb]
(That's a 100% crop at 4800ppi)
In reality it's a tiny little dead bug that was on the emulsion side of
one corner of my slide. Its body is all of 0.5mm
David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Decided to go looking for it I thought I'd post the link here.
...the violas have a bottom B flat marked 'tremolando ma quasi
pensato'. They must not play this note, only think it! (Gerard
Hoffnung)
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG -
Agree.
If i have a chance to get used istD, i'll get it. But otherwise i'm
planning to robber some bank shortly after P645D will be available :D
But more likely, that i get wide angle lens for my 645 or get 67.
Gasha
David Mann wrote:
Me.
A digi body is in my long-term plans, but there's
Who said an MX with a standard lens couldnt take nice pictures.
Wonderfult colors and cropping.
Cheers,
Ronald
Peter Lacus wrote:
This one is from Bryce National Park, UT:
http://www.misenet.sk/USA/Br.html
Bedo.
whoosh
? That went straight over my tired head.
Dave
On 12/12/05, Ralf R. Radermacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Decided to go looking for it I thought I'd post the link here.
...the violas have a bottom B flat marked 'tremolando ma quasi
pensato'.
You are in minority, yes.
But I'm with you (for what it's worth) ;-)
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So what's your point :-)
I hadn't heard that one. Bit different from the one I grew up with. Funnier too.
Dave
On 12/12/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
Decided to
Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over
highlights than you can achieve with any film. For extreme situations,
it's easy to marry two exposures. Controlling flare is mainly a lensing
issue. The most current Pentax glass, such as the FA 35/2, can handle
situations
Nice shots by the way. You make the mundane quite attractive. Good work.
Paul
On Dec 12, 2005, at 6:46 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over
highlights than you can achieve with any film. For extreme situations,
it's easy to marry two
Hohooo,
i'm not alone bug shooter :)
Here'is my bug:
somehow this creature got onto my Reala 100/120 roll, when shooting
snowy mountain ranges...
Taken with Lubitel 166U TLR. Epson 3170 scan (3200dpi, 100%crop)
http://gasha.pie-dabas.net/temp/skudra-reala.jpg
Gasha
David Mann wrote:
A mighty fine picture.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
From: David Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12. desember 2005 10:45
Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over
highlights than you can achieve with any film.
No, it doesn't. Once the sensor is saturated no RAW format in the world
will bring back the lost infirmation.
For extreme
David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
whoosh
? That went straight over my tired head.
You *thought* you posted the link here.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10,
Ah! :-)
I thought I had. Maybe I was mistaken.
Dave
On 12/12/05, Ralf R. Radermacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
whoosh
? That went straight over my tired head.
You *thought* you posted the link here.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG -
Wonderful in every aspect of the word.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
From: Peter Lacus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12.
The PSCS RAW converter will extrapolate missing highlight information
in one channel based on that in other channels, according to Adobe.
Based on considerable personal experience, I can say that I've seen
highlights appear when the exposure is dialed down in conversion that
were at not
Beautiful picture. Thanks for sharing.
Paul
On Dec 12, 2005, at 7:10 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
Wonderful in every aspect of the word.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever
David Savage wrote:
Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
Decided to go looking for it I thought I'd post the link here.
So why didn't you?
Tom Reese
- Original Message -
From: Ralf R. Radermacher
Subject: Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over
highlights than you can achieve with any film.
No, it doesn't. Once the sensor is saturated no RAW format in the world
will
- Original Message -
From: David Mann
Subject: Re: Nice price.
$960.00 is a nice price?!?
I might hang on to mine for retirement.
Nice for the buyer.
They seem to run a couple of hundred dollars more when they show up.
William Robb
We've already been through this Tom :-)
In my defence it's been a long day my brain's a little mushier than usual.
Dave
On 12/12/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Savage wrote:
Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
Decided to go looking for it
Are you still thinking about posting the link, or have you now decided
against it?
And if so, curious minds would be interested to know why.
John
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:44:58 -, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We've already been through this Tom :-)
In my defence it's been a
David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my defence it's been a long day my brain's a little mushier than usual.
That still leaves is without the link.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Control over highlights isn't the same thing as trying to save a buggered
exposure.
Try to save the highlights off a 2 stop overexposed slide some time
Tell you what. I'll simply win the lottery next weekend and then I'll
invite you all over for a
HA!
I have a short attention span. What was it I was supposed to be thinking about.
...oh that's right:
http://www.time.com/time/yip/2005/
Sorry folks.
Dave
On 12/12/05, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you still thinking about posting the link, or have you now decided
against it?
me. no plans till I can put a 15mm on without problems, and when I do,
I want it to have a 15mm focal length. I might have to wait till no film is
available, lol.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, December
Sounds like a plan. Count me in :-)).
Seriously, your photography is excellent. But it's interesting to
consider what might be possible here.
Paul
On Dec 12, 2005, at 7:58 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Control over highlights isn't the same thing as
On 12/11/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without responsibility rights are meaningless. I don't think you even
understand what freedom is if you
accept it doesn't exist. I think understand you much better than you
will ever understand me, but then you
are already a slave.
I
This one time, at band camp, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Kevin,
What digital bodies are you using?
I have 3 *istD bodies.
Sorry if I gave the impression they were of various makes.
Kind regards
Kevin
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
On 12/11/05, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only real rights any of us have are those rights conferred by law.
Anything else is just fantasy, wishful thinking and hot air.snip
Governments and their laws ~recognize~ the rights that we all have as
human beings.
cheers,
frank
--
On Dec 11, 2005, at 4:05 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
There are many labs here - almost too many to count - that use DnD.
Your comment comes across as though you feel there's something
wrong with
the process. Is that the case?
No, there is nothing wrong with DnD if it is done right. The
On Dec 12, 2005, at 2:48 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Not true. Adobe has no restriction about using a legally obtained
academic
version of Photoshop for commercial purposes. In fact, that's
~exactly~
what Adobe would like you to do as that will usually start you on the
upgrade path and
Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
me. no plans till I can put a 15mm...
That lens alone is reason enough for keeping at least one analog body.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries -
I've been getting every post twice for the last ten hours. Is anyone else
noticing this?
Unsubscribing twice wasn't the answer, the second attempt got the I
couldn't find your name on the list response, which proved that I wasn't
double subscribed.
I resubscribed and hoped that the problem
Everything is working fine here Anthony.
Dave
On 12/12/05, Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been getting every post twice for the last ten hours. Is anyone else
noticing this?
Unsubscribing twice wasn't the answer, the second attempt got the I
couldn't find your name on the list
My biggest problem was processing. The
nearest lab is Jyväskylä, a 75 km drive
there and back. So I do/did my own
processing -- both C41 and E6. It became
a dreadful chore because I have no
permanent lab space and had to do it in
the bathroom/sauna. Unpacking, filling
the water bath,
Good point. However, I have no complaints with the performance of the
DA 12-24. Great flare resistance, good sharpness, even in the corners.
Paul
On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:44 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
me. no plans till I can put a 15mm...
That lens
On 12/8/05, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been preoccupied with trivial things like work and family and still
have not gone through all my Cape May images.
Here is an adult black skimmer with his buddies:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3935397
I'd appreciate comments
On 12/12/05, David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's about time I posted another pic... I have several versions of
this one; this is just the first I came to when scanning. The others
are on the next row which I'll process at a future date :)
I've put in a fair bit of work trying to
On 12/12/05, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everything is working fine here Anthony.
All's fine here, too.
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Dave my only nit with this is that I prefer the black hole be lower in the
frame. drawing the viewer in more than as you have it
Was this a color capture?
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PAW - Cave Stream
It's about time I posted
One can make adapter, to the dark side, like Cotty did ;)
I still wonder sometimes, what is cheaper:
1) full frame body, with great prime wide angle lens
2) cropped sensor body, with extreme wide angle without corners.
3) MF camera with wide angle lens.
Gasha
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Good
frank theriault wrote:
On 12/11/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without responsibility rights are meaningless. I don't think you even
understand what freedom is if you
accept it doesn't exist. I think understand you much better than you
will ever understand me, but then you
are
On 12/12/05, David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I thought was a dust spot in my scan was anything but...
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/bug.jpg [29kb]
(That's a 100% crop at 4800ppi)
In reality it's a tiny little dead bug that was on the emulsion side
of one corner of my slide.
On 12/12/05, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/05, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everything is working fine here Anthony.
All's fine here, too.
-frank
Well, that second one was just cruel, wasn't it?
LOL
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri
On 12/12/05, Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one is from Bryce National Park, UT:
http://www.misenet.sk/USA/Br.html
Amazing light! Well caught.
Overall, a lovely pic.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
I can see that you guys haven't gotten the bugs worked out of your photography.
;-)
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Gasha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Aliens
Hohooo,
i'm not alone bug shooter :)
Here'is my bug:
somehow this creature got onto my Reala 100/120 roll, when
On 12/10/05, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check out
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html
All comments solicited
Yeah, nay, and/or otherwise
What would you do differently?
Thanks in advance
Kenneth Waller
Poor little fella!
I like this a lot - the
Don't you mean the fourth one, Frank? :-)
regards,
Anthony Farr
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 1:04 AM
(snip)
Well, that second one was just cruel, wasn't it?
LOL
-frank
I had the same problem some days ago. Now it is back to normal.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Farr [mailto:[EMAIL
On 12/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, except when they chew on shoes and throw up and stuff. Nyah, even then.
Or shred the mail :-)
http://www.pbase.com/wendybeard/image/53463679
--
Wendy Beard
Ottawa
Canada
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
That still leaves is without the link.
I'll take pity on you all:
http://www.time.com/time/yip/2005/
It's prominent on their front page... :-)
S
On 12/8/05, Paul Sorenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So...we're out of town for 4 days - daughter-in-law is pregnant and due
to deliver on the 10th, but the doc says it may be sooner. We tell her
no births until we're back in town. Arrive home 1PM, baby born 4:21PM.
Perfect timing, perfect
On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
In my defence it's been a long day my brain's a little mushier than usual.
Porridge ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
In a message dated 12/12/2005 3:18:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That being the case, the term 100% crop doesn't mean anything to me.
Perhaps you can elucidate?
thanks, keith whaley
=
Ditto. Seems an oxymoron. I have decided people mean it's NOT cropped when
On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
...oh that's right:
http://www.time.com/time/yip/2005/
Numbers 11 and 18 are excellent. I think they should rename this batch
'Best News Photo' as I fail to see why a corpse, face down in a flood,
would be considered as 'Best Photo of the
In a message dated 12/12/2005 3:17:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one is from Bryce National Park, UT:
http://www.misenet.sk/USA/Br.html
Bedo.
===
Very nice! Sigh. Want to see the SW again.
Marnie aka Doe
On 12/12/05, Gasha, discombobulated, unleashed:
1) full frame body, with great prime wide angle lens
2) cropped sensor body, with extreme wide angle without corners.
3) MF camera with wide angle lens.
I'd vote number 2.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
Hi,
Congratulations! It must be a great feeling to have a new, healthy baby in
the family.
Shel
You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
On 12/8/05, Paul Sorenson wrote:
http://home.earthlink.net/~allaround6/cal/imgp0199.htm
Comments, critiques OK, but mostly just bragging ;)
I have been waiting before writing a comment on this one. Hoping it would
grow on me in some way.
My problem is that I've seen similar hundreds of times before. A decade or
two ago, little bird in cold weather pictures (in photos or at christmas
cards) was the big thing in my part of the
On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
So what's your point :-)
Like, where's the link?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/12/12 Mon PM 02:49:18 GMT
To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005
On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
So what's your point :-)
Like, where's the link?
Rats.
The photo ~is~ cropped in that what you see is not full frame. However,
the portion that you see is shown at 100% of the original size, it's not
been resized in any way.
Shel
You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not lately.
Jack
--- Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been getting every post twice for the last ten hours. Is anyone
else
noticing this?
Unsubscribing twice wasn't the answer, the second attempt got the I
couldn't find your name on the list response, which proved that I
Gives meaning to the time-worn student's excuse, The dog ate my homework.
Shel
You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
From: wendy beard
Or shred the mail :-)
http://www.pbase.com/wendybeard/image/53463679
On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:54, Cotty wrote:
Numbers 11 and 18 are excellent. I think they should rename this batch
'Best News Photo' as I fail to see why a corpse, face down in a flood,
would be considered as 'Best Photo of the Year 2005'.
How 'bout Best Images of Death and Destruction 2005?
In a message dated 12/12/2005 7:05:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The photo ~is~ cropped in that what you see is not full frame. However,
the portion that you see is shown at 100% of the original size, it's not
been resized in any way.
Shel
Thx. Okay, I guess
This image is a worthy reminder of one that's stuck with me for many
years. A Chickadee hunkered down on a snowy branch with a cap of snow
covering the top of its head.
The ultimate in cute. (wish I had taken it)
Jack
--- Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been waiting before writing a
I think they should rename this batch 'Best News Photo'
Agreed
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005 - With link
On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
...oh that's right:
Cotty is right. Not really a best photograph gallery.
39, I like a lot but 18 stuck me.
I've seen better photographs here on the list though.
Aren't we about due for best quotes from the PDML list?
Wouldn't it be cool to have a best photograph posted to the list all year
contest? I nominate
Great light. Interesting subject and composition.
Christian
- Original Message -
From: Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 6:16 AM
Subject: PAW: Evening Bryce
This one is from Bryce National Park, UT:
- Original Message -
From: Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Who said an MX with a standard lens couldnt take nice pictures.
I don't think anyone in their right mind COULD say that. It's an awesome
combination.
Christian
I like it. Neat subject and great depth.
Christian
- Original Message -
From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=154t=1
There is not one happy picture among them sad that the best news of
the year is death, destruction and suffering. I'm sure SOMETHING happy had
to have happened in the past 12 months to balance out all this misery.
Christian
- Original Message -
From: David Savage [EMAIL
Thanks Marnie and Tim! :-)
Christian
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: PESO - Skimmers
Okay, after reading the whole thread, I guess I was the only one that
really
liked the abstraction.
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, John Graves wrote:
Very nice pictures. Next time I will work harder. Has anybody tried a screw
mount 85 MM? Is the A 85 F1.9 the same lens in a new mount.?. Do I need to
start looking for the A or F 85 mm?? So many questions.so little
money
The 85/1.9 is not
On 12/12/05, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is not one happy picture among them sad that the best news of
the year is death, destruction and suffering. I'm sure SOMETHING happy had
to have happened in the past 12 months to balance out all this misery.
I was thinking
Christian wrote:
There is not one happy picture among them sad that the best
news of the year is death, destruction and suffering. I'm sure
SOMETHING happy had to have happened in the past 12 months to balance
out all this misery.
Probably.
Hopefully, next year they'll have some
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The photo ~is~ cropped in that what you see is not full frame. However,
the portion that you see is shown at 100% of the original size, it's not
been resized in any way.
Shel
Okay then. If that's how you define it, that makes sense.
However, let's do the numbers. If
1 - 100 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
