Beau Photo. They know their stuff, but the attitude of some people there
sucks.
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21-Nov-03 21:20
> To: Pentax Peepl
> Subject: Re: Cleaning the CCD
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Bucky wrote:
>
> > As an aside, the pla
What is a safe amount (or recommend time to stay under) if I was going to
do some astrophotography?
Leonard Paris wrote:
> Kodak gold CD-R disks were excellent. Unfortunately, they don't
> make them anymore. Has anyone had any experience with TDK black? I can't
> find them around here but have heard they are very good.
That reminds me - I bought some Verbatim "vinyl" CDRs a few months ago.
Ha
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Bucky wrote:
> As an aside, the place I phoned to get the supplies is probably the most
> pro-oriented shop in Vancouver, which seems to translate into the fact that
> they hold Pentax 35mm (or D-SLRs) in a certain amount of contempt. They
> asked me what I had - D1, D100, Ca
So I did it.
The anti-aliasing filter of my *istD finally got some sticky crud on it that
the CO2 wouldn't blow off. I suspect that the stuff came out of the 24-90 I
just bought from KEH, which came packed in styrofoam, always a problem with
static. Add to that the highly charged CCD, and WHAMMO
I met a rep at an equipment show and lamented that I couldn't use my older K
and M lenses, the way I could on my PZ1-p, on the *ist D. She kept
insisting I could do aperture priority on the digital. Then she thought
about it and said NO. I said Pentax had lost a sale because of this
compatibilit
on 11/21/03 9:17 PM, John Francis at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone on the list own this lens
>
> That would be me
>
>> Is the Pentax 250-600 worth it?
>
> You'll have to decide that for yourself.
> In my case I probably wouldn't have bought one new, but (thanks
> to a heads-up fro
i don't know where people get this idea that CF cards are fragile. there
proven cases where the cards have been through all kinds of things they were
never designed to and held up. all the verified cases that i know of data
loss have been because of user error. lots of anecdotes and no proof.
chang
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Tainter"
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:01 PM
Subject: Film ID
> In 1992 and 93 I shot some color negative film by Kodak that is labeled
> 5115 PPA. I think it was ISO 100. Does anyone know what this was called?
I think that was Ektapress.
Willi
>
> Does anyone on the list own this lens
That would be me
> Is the Pentax 250-600 worth it?
You'll have to decide that for yourself.
In my case I probably wouldn't have bought one new, but (thanks
to a heads-up from somebody on this list) managed to pick up a
used one at an extremely attractiv
First up, congrats Shel on stirring up the folk with the 'hot' topic-
unfortunately I missed the majority of early discussion and got whopped with
it when I woke up this morning (OT: always wondered- if your birthday was
around 7pm US time, say on a Monday the 2nd of some month, if you moved to
Aus
In 1992 and 93 I shot some color negative film by Kodak that is labeled
5115 PPA. I think it was ISO 100. Does anyone know what this was called?
Thanks,
Joe
One of our local stores hosted a bunch of reps today. I've met the
Pentax guy before. He had heard no feedback on the *ist D (Christmas is
coming and he's on the road), and so was very glad to hear that I like
it, and that those on this list do also.
I mainly wanted to ask him when the DA 16-45
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I suppose another way of phrasing my response would be, at what point is it
> "fun" to make a photo of a fat person? In what setting would it be more
> acceptable? For example, had this woman been sitting without the coke in
> front of her, or the menu behind her, might t
For 21 pounds, I would not complain about much. The description lists
it as a 'Kiron'. So buyer beware...
Good luck :)
rg
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Just bought this off ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2962277257&
Butch Black wrote:
> (snip, snip)
> In thinking about my uncomfortableness I realize that this picture goes
> against my "we need a gentler world" philosophy. My opinion is that the
> image's potential to hurt far outweighs any socio/political statement, or
> expression of art, the image may h
Just to jump in here, I doubt if it's possible to put a definite number on
it, and even if we did it would be an arbitrary one. It's something that
people judge on a shot-by-shot basis.
Here's an interesting thought. Taking photos of obese people ordering
fast food wouldn't be considered rude i
I don't believe I did. I wondered if there was a medical problem ... but
perhaps that's spitting hairs.
No, it's not always right to do something because it's "called" art. But since
you brought up whether or not street photography IS art, I replied that I
thought it was. Graffiti, methinks, is
I've "hid" the camera for some of my best shots. I shot this in Paris
(where I ran into some problems with unwilling subjects) by placing the
camera on the table, "guesstimating" the focus and framing, and opening
the shutter while looking somewhere else.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo
> Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> My question to the list: Should this photo have been taken? Do you
> think it is overly critical of the subject or sympathetic, or perhaps
> judgmental? Maybe I'm being critical of myself, using the photo to work
> through or better understand my own situation and pro
I suppose another way of phrasing my response would be, at what point is it
"fun" to make a photo of a fat person? In what setting would it be more
acceptable? For example, had this woman been sitting without the coke in
front of her, or the menu behind her, might this have been a fun foto? How
Where is the line of obesity drawn, Ann? How much overweight must one be
before making a photograph is verboten?
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> It's extremely cruel, Shel - you certainly have not shown it to anyone.
> If she were not so pathologically obese the shot with the sign in it and
> her clutchi
First a disclaimer: I did not receive digest V03 #1479, so there are
possibly other comments that I haven't seen yet.
And what might the thickness of one's glasses have to do with a person's
mental state?
There are forms of (usually from birth) mental disorders that have physical
manifestations.
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>
> It's extremely cruel, Shel - you certainly have not shown it to anyone.
OF course I meant to say "you certainly SHOULD NOT have..."
Guess my emotional response is evident!
annsan
Does anyone on the list own this lens, or has anyone used it and tested the optical
quality?? I have the SIgma 50-500/6.3, which is quite good optically and much smaller
(not to mention 10x cheaper). Is the Pentax 250-600 worth it? I have never seen any
mention of test results or real world s
> > P.S. Don't you just love the advice that film should be removed
> > from the canister and placed in a clear plastic bag?
> > And why just unexposed film, anyway? What about exposed
> > but undeveloped film?
>
> You carry the unexposed film with a bit of the leader hanging
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>> All this talk of beef stew made me want some. I've got the
>> beef simmering
>> now. Anybody else making stew this week ?
>>
>> Butch
>>
>
>I'm doing chicken and dumplings sunday.
Going around to a mate's house in the morning to watch England TRASH
Shel posted, among many other things:
> ... there ARE people on this list who eschew all that (and I know that you
know
> that), and look for films with more natural or neutral colors - who prefer
the Egyptian
> cotton of photography rather than the enhanced polyester look.
Just wanted to let yo
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>You try getting a 70-lb camera bag into carry-on sometime.
>
>Heck, that's above the weight limit for *checked* baggage on
>some airlines - I've had to pay excess baggage a few times.
>
>These things are tools, not pets. They have a nice Pelican
>case to
Keith Whaley wrote:
John Francis wrote:
FYI, the TSA has made a change in the regs:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1248.xml
Well, yes. But the additional bag still has to comply with the
weight and size restrictions for carry-on baggage. It's rather
hard for
Graywolf posted:
> What bothers me, Shel is the judgments you expressed about the woman. Without
> them it is just a photo of her. With them it is a serious put down. This is
the
> thing one has to watch for using such photos editorially. If you imply, much
> less say something (in this case th
And what might the thickness of one's glasses have to do with a person's mental
state? If thick glasses may indicate mental problems, perhaps a blind person
should be institutionalized or given a lobotomy, as their mental problems may be
far greater, and people wearing contact lenses might just ne
Street photography is most certainly art. The street photographer must
recognize a worthy image in a matter of seconds and act immediately.
I've blown so many great photos, it makes me cry. I don't think there's
any greater measure of photographic skill than that of capturing the
moment as it h
A release is required when the photo is used for commercial purposes.
The most common example would be for advertising use. If you intend to
capitalize on someone's image, you must have their permission.
On Friday, November 21, 2003, at 04:31 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disg
John Francis wrote:
>
> >
> > FYI, the TSA has made a change in the regs:
> >
> > http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1248.xml
>
> Well, yes. But the additional bag still has to comply with the
> weight and size restrictions for carry-on baggage. It's rather
> hard for me t
> >So, if y'want to publish a photo from years before, and y'can't find the
> >subject, and a release is required, whadday do? Fake the release?
If you publish and get sued it's bad enough! If you fake the release, you
may well have committed fraud and wind up behing bars even!
I think, taken in context, that the critic's comment was more intended
to convey the mood that Avedon made in the portraits, which made no
pretense that his father was, quite literally, wasting away. Definitely
an unflattering portrayal of the subject, but still a portrait, nonetheless.
-Mat (g
> -Original Message-
> From: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> All this talk of beef stew made me want some. I've got the
> beef simmering
> now. Anybody else making stew this week ?
>
> Butch
>
I'm doing chicken and dumplings sunday.
tv
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>You don't use a photo without release for any commercial purpose. You
can lose
>your happy home. The stock house I work with won't accept any people shots
>without detailed releases. And in special cases, such as with shots that
>depict alcohol or tobacco
All this talk of beef stew made me want some. I've got the beef simmering
now. Anybody else making stew this week ?
Butch
Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself.
Hermann Hesse (Demian)
My 2¢ worth
I'm uncomfortable with it, it begs too many questions. The coke bottle
eyeglasses makes me wonder if there is an underlying medical problem, or
possibly a mental problem.
This also brings up the whole question: is street photography "art" and if
so does that give the photographer the
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>So, if y'want to publish a photo from years before, and y'can't find the
>subject, and a release is required, whadday do? Fake the release?
When is a release required?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
>
> FYI, the TSA has made a change in the regs:
>
> http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1248.xml
Well, yes. But the additional bag still has to comply with the
weight and size restrictions for carry-on baggage. It's rather
hard for me to carry my 250-600 that way. So my choi
I think the photo itself is fine, the thing that urks me is the title
"Big Eater" i think this degrades both the photo and subject.
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>So, how did you sneak it? Did you actually hide the camera or did you
>do the old "I'm just checking the dials, oops, I shot off a frame, I
>wish I knew how this thing worked" routine?
Damn, I thought i was the only one.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
None of the above. A photograph cannot be critical or subjective or
judgmental. Only the viewer harbours those abilities.
Cheers,
Cotty
Exactly. The photograph is an image. The image invokes a viewer response.
Ignoring any legal question, morality is in the mind of the viewer.
Should Shel hav
I don't have a problem with the photo's being taken. Shoot now, edit
later. It does come across as judgmental to me because of the context.
Had you shot a thin woman in a diner, or a fat woman playing with her kids
or petting a dog, it would be different. Juxtaposing a grossly overweight
person
>
> On 21/11/03, "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>
> >(including airline travel; my cameras go in checked baggage).
>
> ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
>
>
>
> You sir, are completely bonkers.
You try getting a 70-lb camera bag into carry-on sometime.
Heck, that's above the weight limit f
Hi Boris
The exposure was good, it was in focus with no motion blur. It did strike me
as being a little too static for my tastes. It almost looked like the game
was over and everyone was trying to decide where to go for a beer. I would
try to catch more of a sense of action, If you time it for pea
So now we're cheap because we choose not to spend $20K on a sound system?
Ok, this is where I bow out of this thread.
chris
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> You guys need to go listen to some vinyl on a $20K
> system. If you cant hear the difference between
> that and a $2K syste
John Francis wrote:
>Many of us don't use over-saturated films (e.g. shooting Provia, not Velvia).
And while the tonal qualities of a digital black-and-white print aren't a
match
for even a reasonable-quality chemical print, it's a lot closer for colour;
the
price of a top-quality colour print is
From: Mat Maessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The classic example that I use is Richard Avedon's portraits of his father.
As one critic described it, he "murdered his own father with the camera."
Then it is apparent that the 'critic' didn't read the text that went with
the photographs.
Lewis
___
If you replace the A mount with the M mount
the A pin will have to be removed.
To do that ...
1. put the lens on "A"
2. Remove the mount slowly.
3. You should be able to pick up the pin assembly with a magnet
and place it into a ziplock for storage until regaining your senses.
CRB
Years ago I overheard this comment while passing a couple of people talking in the
street:
"There was no such thing as ugly until people tried to become beautiful."
shel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And, of course, how does one qualify or quantify what's attractive?
>
> In her own way she is
Well, it is a good street shot. It has atmosphere. It says something about
contemporary life. It in itself is not derogatory of the subject. The viewer's
personal biases are not the photographer's concern (except the photographer's
personal biases to himself, in this particular case).
--
Shel
Shel wrote:
>Ann Sanfedele and I have been having that discussion for a year or so
And, of course, how does one qualify or quantify what's attractive?
eXactly. Just relabel it from "big eater" to something else, because big
eater is a value judgment and an assumption on your part. In her own w
Cotty wrote:
>Marnie you *fatist* !!! LOL.
I'm overweight myself, so how could I be. ;-)
Not way overweight, but in mine own eyes I am fat.
Marnie aka Doe
På 21. nov. 2003 kl. 19.57 skrev Dr E D F Williams:
Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure some will ... but:
I thought it was okay to take pictures in a public place and use them
in
publications without any permission from the subject. Of course
MacChicken
or Captain's Cook, or wherever it was,
You don't use a photo without release for any commercial purpose. You can lose
your happy home. The stock house I work with won't accept any people shots
without detailed releases. And in special cases, such as with shots that
depict alcohol or tobacco use, the release has to specify how the person
FYI, the TSA has made a change in the regs:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1248.xml
--
Thomas Van Veen Photography
www.thomasvanveen.com
301-758-3085
A good photograph always reveals something about the photographer.
A REALLY good photograph reveals it without the photographer, or
sometimes even the viewer, realizing it.
-Mat
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
After viewing the photograph I realized that I was also confronting some of my
own demons and lo
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>Art isn't always beautiful. But it should always make you think...
>
>-Mat
Couldn't have put it better!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Ma
On 21/11/03, "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>(including airline travel; my cameras go in checked baggage).
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
While I wasn't right out in the open, she did see me photographing the
area while she was ordering her meal. In fact, we even spoke briefly ...
nothing of any consequence, just a few words about ordering at the
window. So, while I didn't ask permission to take the shot, and I didn't
stick the cam
So, if y'want to publish a photo from years before, and y'can't find the
subject, and a release is required, whadday do? Fake the release?
Cotty wrote:
>
> >I've always wondered about that, actually, how does a photographer track
> down
> >people they may have shot years ago?
>
> You can't.
>
>
Hallo,
on the www.photozone.de Alexander gave a link to the german pentax side with
a flash overview:
http://www.pentax.de/mediapool/attachments/photo/100/106/97229/Blitzuebersic
ht.pdf
There it was shown, that the AF360FGZ will work in TTL-mode with the LX,
Super A and 645
I tested it and now
Bob Blakely wrote:
9.I bet that's a diet drink she has there - or perhaps a new prescription for her glasses.
"May I take your order, miss?"
"Yes, I'll have a double cheeseburger, a large fry, with a diet coke."
"Would you like that order "value sized"?
"Sure, why not..."
Only in the good o
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>The subject says it all, but here's why! I just got a Pentax A70-210/4 zoom
>in excellent condition (for A$110), except for the mount, which has some
>rough patches where various people have abused it. What are the pitfalls
>(and is it practical) in tak
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>Social commentary as Raimo said. Perfectly acceptable. I find it an
>interesting photograph. I am not repulsed. I am not repulsed by fatties,
Marnie you *fatist* !!! LOL.
>I've always wondered about that, actually, how does a photographer track
down
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> My question to the list: Should this photo have been taken?
Yes. At least there's nothing to prevent you from taking it. I
personally have no issue with sneaked shots. It's been done as long as
there have been c
I love it when Bob wakes up.
tv
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> 1.It is never immoral and should never be illegal to
> freeze an instant (any
> instant) in time of any one or thing seen in a public
> place. There is
> clearly no expectation
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure some will ... but:
>
> I thought it was okay to take pictures in a public place and use them in
> publications without any permission from the subject. Of course MacChicken
> or Captain's Cook, or wherever it was, is not a public place, or is it? To
> take
>
>
> Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Thanks Paul. Would you remember what you paid for it?
> >
> >
I believe it was $60 the last time I had it done. This was on a Vivitar Series 1
90/2.5 macro.
1. It is never immoral and should never be illegal to freeze an instant (any
instant) in time of any one or thing seen in a public place. There is
clearly no expectation of privacy in the public arena.
2. The presentation of truth clearly available to the public is never
immoral. It is s
Hi John ...
My purpose for showing this photograph here and at this time is to work through
some issues about the purpose of my photography as well as some personal
issues. However, when the photograph presented itself to me, those thoughts did
not cross my mind. I saw something in the scene tha
It's a great shot. An interesting composition and compelling subject
matter. However, I would be afraid of angering and hurting the subject. if
I was caught taking it surreptitiously. I doubt if I would have the nerve
to ask her to pose. She almost surely would say no. If I thought I could
shoot i
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>My question to the list: Should this photo have been taken? Do you
>think it is overly critical of the subject or sympathetic, or perhaps
>judgmental? Maybe I'm being critical of myself, using the photo to work
>through or better understand my own situ
Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure some will ... but:
I thought it was okay to take pictures in a public place and use them in
publications without any permission from the subject. Of course MacChicken
or Captain's Cook, or wherever it was, is not a public place, or is it? To
take pictures in a
Hi,
Your comments are quite helpful and well thought out.
Actually, there is no "title" to the photo other than the "working" title so I
could recognize it on the hard disk. Had I been completely comfortable with
the photograph, and my taking it, it would have probably had a real title, and
been
Do all "portraits" have to be attractive to be good portraits?
Most certainly not. The portrait is entirely what the photographer wants
it to be.
The classic example that I use is Richard Avedon's portraits of his
father. As one critic described it, he "murdered his own father with the
camera."
> -Original Message-
> From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Many of us don't use over-saturated films (e.g. shooting
> Provia, not Velvia).
> And while the tonal qualities of a digital black-and-white
> print aren't a match
> for even a reasonable-quality chemical print, it's
The instruction list was good.
I'll just add some additional thoughts and concerns:
1. Move the lens OFF the "A" position.
Otherwise you risk having the "A" pin fly away.
2. The yellow Stanley set available @ your local Wal-Mart
hardware department has one Philips that's a perfect fit for the
s
> The funny thing here is I think we old folks need a better sound system then the
> younger folks. Why? Well, I at least have a far harder time separating noise, so
> the less noise the better the sound to my ears. Current consumer sound is: 1.
> loud. 2. excessively bassy. 3. noisy.
Current
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Good points, Christian ... but let me ask this: Is it a more honest
> portrayal of
> a subject when they know they are going to be photographed and start
> "performing" for the camera? I suppose it could be in some situat
Graywolf wrote:
>We would hate the lack of tonality in digital prints. We would
hate the over sharpened look of digital prints. Funny thing is most of us on
this list think all those things I just listed are positive rather than
negative
features. Well they do say beauty (quality) is in the eye
Hi,
In the case of the MZ-S, I understand that it was the software.
m
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
>
> ... when a modern Pentax body starts overlapping frames?
> Is there a clutch in the take-up that begins to slip
> or is it gears?
> Just curious.
>
> CRB
Hey Shel, welcome back!
I think the best argument for taking this picture is that you generally
cannot go back and recreate a missed opportunity. "Shoot first, ask
questions later".Even if the questions are only to yourself regarding
not only technical aspects but personal/moral aspects abou
Mark Roberts writes:
>It's very easy to do: Only 5 screws. But if you use the mount from an
>M50/1.7 (or any other K/M lens) you'll lose matrix metering due to the
>lack of aperture contacts. With a bit of modification you can work
>around that, though.
I wrote:
>Being an 'A' lens, there are non
>
> But, coming back to this picture, is it the unflattering portrayal that
> bothers you the most, or that the photo was taken without permission? Had
> this photo been of a beautiful woman, in a more flattering situation, but
> still taken in the same manner, would you feel the same way?
How w
I think you missed the point. I didn't judge her, but, rather, looked at the
various possibilities that may have existed in her life, and in mine, as well. It
was musing, not judging ... exploring possibilities.
I believe we can all agree that a photograph should make the viewer think. Should
i
This is social documentary.
Totally acceptable, in the right context even highly commendable.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: PDML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quite honestly Shel, as much as I've respected you over the years, I am
repulsed by this photograph. Not by the subject, framing, or technical
details, but by the very fact that this sort of photography is akin to
voyeurism.
If you told us that she gave you permission to photograph her, I wouldn'
On Friday, Nov 21, 2003, at 03:10 America/New_York, David Mann wrote:
I seem to recall that one of the slower USB versions was renamed to USB
2.0 or something like that to make it more marketable when the higher
speed USB 2 came out. I think one is called "fast USB2" and the other
"high-speed USB
> when a modern Pentax body starts overlapping frames?
> Is there a clutch in the take-up that begins to slip
> or is it gears?
> Just curious.
>
> CRB
>
How modern?
My ZX-5n started doing this when I'd had it about 13 months. (I had the
extended warranty. Back to Pentax it went for repair
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> It sounds like a fungus. A good camera repair shop should be able to
> disassemble the lens and clean it. If it's as minor as it sounds, the
> repair should be 100% successful. I've had it done on a couple of lenses,
> and all have remained clean.
Than
Hi gang,
Notice I said "taking," for this photo wasn't offered, and the shutter
was tripped surreptitiously. The woman had no idea that I was going to
take this picture of her.
I have mixed feelings about this shot. On the one hand it seemingly
reflects an aspect of American culture, yet, on the
It sounds like a fungus. A good camera repair shop should be able to
disassemble the lens and clean it. If it's as minor as it sounds, the
repair should be 100% successful. I've had it done on a couple of lenses,
and all have remained clean.
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> As I got no interest so f
All auctions close on Sunday. Thanks in advance for your interest!
Pentax ZX-5 QD w/35-70 PK-F Zoom, other accessories (Item #2966059206)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2966059206
Pentax Super Program w/50mm lens, other accessories (Item #2966061505)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBa
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Sylwester Pietrzyk"
> Subject: and now me - 011101100... + Q
>
> > 4. Some of my flash (with AF360) shots were alightly underexposed. Should
> it
> > work this way?
>
> I've found that my camera tenns to over exp
- Original Message -
From: "Collin Brendemuehl"
Subject: So what happens ...
> ... when a modern Pentax body starts overlapping frames?
> Is there a clutch in the take-up that begins to slip
> or is it gears?
> Just curious.
It's indicative of the death of the little mice that you hear
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
