Re: A brief PDML Easter report
Hi, frank theriault wrote: I get pissed off if I step ankle deep into a puddle. That's enough aggravation for me, thank you very much! Understandable in downtown Toronto but an entirely different experience in the middle of some good scenery and fresh air. You should try it sometime - you might get to like it. VVBG ps: by birds, you actually mean birds, right? Not the English slang for lovely young ladies? For that, I might consider the trudge through tundra as worthwhile. g Our (not so) little feathered friends, indeed. Preferable to me as it is still somewhat socially acceptable to serve them on a plate. (VBG, sardonic sideswipe at chauvenism, rabid meateaters, etc) Being woken up to the sound of them battling for favours in the middle of the forest was one of the best alarm clocks I've ever had. From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Next time we plodge up to our s in half-frozen marsh to see some birdies fornicating, I am sure you will be welcome to join in. You have no idea of the fun it can be. 8-) snip I was, of course, referring to knees in the above. spindleshanks
RE: More thoughts on the istD in the studio
Hi William/Paul, I ready your comments with interest and wonder if you'd care to comment on my the position I now find myself in. I have the opportunity to pick up a Minolta Flashmeter IV for a good price, but now the comments you both have made have given me pause. I currently have a very basic flash meter, and wanted the Minolta for more accuracy/flexibility (I'm getting into more studio work, with more multiple head setups) Having said that, I'm also planning on getting a DSLR in the next 12 months or so. Would you say I should just save my money on a meter I may not use when I've gone digital? Cheers, Simon -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 12 April 2004 6:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More thoughts on the istD in the studio I love the *istD in the studio. Sometimes I start with the flash meter, but I always end up just using the histograms. The PC socket location is nice because you can loop the cord over the top of the camera, which helps prevent disconnects. But to me, the big advantage of digital in the studio is that one can experiment more and see the results immediately. I frequently bring my laptop to the studio and download after a few shots, just to see where I'm at. It's a lot better than waiting for something from the lab. Paul On Apr 11, 2004, at 4:43 PM, William Robb wrote: I shot a couple of gigs of pictures last night in the studio. I was trying to make use of some of the features of the camera that I have ignored up to now, such as the autofocus. For portraiture, the selectable AF area function is really quite nice. The sensor locations are pretty good, though the end ones are next to useless. Running the camera vertically with the grip is pretty nice. The shutter button to 4 way switch distance is almost perfect for me. The switch itself when used with the camera in vertical orientation is quite good, far better than when being used to flip through menu options on the LCD. The camera is a bit short, and I found myself knocking the AF selector button quite often. A lock on it, much like the lock on the Program Plus on/off switch would be nice. The PC socket initially is a pain, I started off cursing where it was, and then came to like it. One of the bains of studio photography is the flash disconnecting because of the stupid PC socket, which has to be one of the most moronic designs for a plug in any application. I quickly came to appreciate that a comfortable way to hold the camera also involved holding the PC plug into the camera when shooting vertically. The 31mm is, as expected, somewhat short for use in the studio, although I did use if for a couple of longer shots. I ended up using the 77 for most everything. I am getting used to the look of it, I haven't liked it for portraiture up to now. I find it is too sharp. I do like the working distance I get with it, and it's inherent sharpness works advantageously with the sharper look of the digital camera, providing that is what you want. I like not having to use a flash meter any more. The histogram is so much nicer, and having immediate access to a preview, however small, is great for visually checking light ratios. Depth of field is a bit of a bugger. It is difficult to throttle the Normans back far enough to get a wide enough aperture to throw the background out of focus. My next shoot I won't be so lazy, and I'll take my Photogenics downtown with me. I can throttle them back to just about nothing. I did a couple of side of the road landscapey shots with the 31mm today. I will try to post some pictures later on. Thats all for now William Robb
Re: GFM and *ist D
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Cotty wrote: How about buying a hundred 32 MB CF and SD cards (using GFM proceeds) and issuing those to digi contestants - and asking for them back with the (max) three entries on. This kills several bears er birds with one stone. Maybe it's a good idea, but it doesn't solve the issue with possible picture editing etc, since it's easy to copy fixed pictures to the card from a computer. Unless people are being watched the whole time, that part has to be built on trust. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: LA Pdml'ers
´ graywolf wrote: I once paid $22 for a steak dinner. It was lousy. I once went into a restaurant that charged $250 for a steak dinner. They tossed me out because I was not dressed to their satisfaction. Just as well, I did not have $250 in the bank much less on me. Just because it happened once, that sets the course for the rest of forever? Somehow, I don't think you guys eat in the same kinds of restaurants as most of us do. Sure we do. Well, I do. We go to a Shakey's pizza place, or a local Mexican restaurant, or a small family restaurant for the usual dinner out. That's eating out, not dining. On the subject of cost for a fine restaurant, I seriously doubt I have ever ordered an entree that cost more than about $30-32. Most of the time it's around $22-28, even in the better ones. It's the fine wine that costs dearly, and if you have a small coffee after, perhaps an apertif with dessert, it all adds up. Then, usually a 20% tip, if the service has been exemplary. $5 to the car park. On the other hand, I sure don't do this every week! Perhaps not every month. I insist on dressing for dinner. That comes from the old school. Used to be in San Francisco that literally everyone dressed for dinner -- for a night out on the town. With the advent of pants suits and the proliferation of topless night clubs (and of course, that is not a cause and effect happening) things started going to hell in S.F. Used to be, like you pointed out, if you weren't dressed right -- which usually meant a tie and a jacket -- you weren't admitted. The better restaurants usually had a tie in the cloak room, even a spare jacket for the rare occasion where circumstances forced you to show up undressed. It's that sort of service, and good company, that drew most in. Why not? It was an event. A special time for all. It's hard to find a place with a dress code any more. Oh, I'm sure if you go to one of the more exclusive 5-star restaurants, it will have one, but we don't dine like that. For us, that's excessively costly. But dining out is one of the great pleasures of the good life. For us. Some folks go gambling for a special weekend, or have some other favorite way to waste their money. We dress for a night out and eat well. And probably spend less, overall. Life being what you make it, someone else will have his or her own opinion of what the good life comprises...and I'm sure it will be different from mine. smile Bon appetite! keith whaley -- Paul Stenquist wrote: That's true. At one time, San Francisco was California's first city of food, but no more. Money has a way of reshaping those kinds of things. And LA money has made it a major restaurant city. Yet California's and perhaps America's best restaurant isn't in LA or San Francisco, it's up in the Napa valley town Yountville, and it's called French Laundry. Am I opinionated when it comes to food? You bet :-).. See http://www.sterba.net/yountville/frenchlaundry/ On Apr 12, 2004, at 10:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the scenery is pretty. But, never mind, LA has come up from behind, after all. Hehehehehehe. Marnie aka Doe
Re: GFM and *ist D
Hi, Bill. I will. Jostein Quoting Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED]: How many of you are bringing an *ist D to GFM, or other DSLR for that matter. We may ask some of you for suggestions on how to set up a contest using digital photos. Bill This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
RE: renewed faith in digital... (and a boring show and tell!)
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Malcolm Smith wrote: Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: http://www.tanyamayer.com/weddinggalleriesprivate/bean/images/Bean0259.jpg My favourite (and difficult to make). Why difficult? Honest question, Kostas
Anybody need a 400mm Takumar? (Pentax screwmount M42)
Asahi Pentax 400mm F5.6 Tele-Takumar Lens, Pentax screwmount (M42) Real nice shape, Ends in 18 hours: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=4688item=3807989806 Later, JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
Re: GFM and *ist D
One way to solve that is to specify a standard resolution for the judges to view it at. For example, if they are going to view it with a projector, a 1024x768 pixel resolution is reasonable. This will pretty much remove all the differences between cameras. What's more interesting is how to relate to computer processing before submission. Jostein Quoting graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Kind of a side comment here, NPW is not limited to one brand of camera. Digital would put the PS'ers at a sever disavantage to those with DSLR's. And how do you feel about having to compete with 11-14mp images with your 6mp cameras? 35mm sides all done on the same film (NPW provides it), and processed at the same place, kind of levels the playing field for the contest. Give em a year to figure it all out for digital. -- Mark Roberts wrote: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/4/04, UNCLE BILL discumbobulated: How many of you are bringing an *ist D to GFM, or other DSLR for that matter. We may ask some of you for suggestions on how to set up a contest using digital photos. Bill Hi mate, Yup. D60 and some lenses plus MX and some lenses. How about shooting on a CF card (like you do) and then deleting everything that you don't want to enter, then handing over the CF card to a judge who downloads the contents to his laptop. The point is, the shot comes straight from the card with no chance of it going via a shooter's computer and being manipulated - colour corrected etc - just as a slide shooter's slides would be returned from the lab. That would only be true if the image was in RAW format. Then we'd have to deal with the software to do RAW conversions and (more significantly) the time required to do it. AND we'd have to download all the images from all the CF (and memory stick and SD cards) to a central computer - this takes *much* longer than simply handing someone an envelope with three slides in it! Perhaps a set number of images could be stipulated to be 'supplied to judge' on the card. You might shoot 376 pics, but you'd have to delete all but (say) 36 BOGGLE 36 images per participant??? Doug and I wouldn't get home until July! Currently, participants are allowed THREE entries! -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
PAW: Riverside blossom
After a very very rainy week, spring has arrived at last:) http://ns.atn.ro/~attila/paw/blossom.jpg In print there is some texture detail visible on the branch, which I can't get to appear on the scan... maybe it's too dark for my scanner. Comments are wellcome. Attila
Re: LA Pdml'ers...
I wouldn't count Four Seasons or Palm, because they're displaced NY restaurants. And, quite frankly, I find the Palm very ordinary, in NY, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Mexico City, and everywhere else it's been franchised. But I agree with the rest of your list. I would certainly add Ivy, Chinois, Crustacean, Mimosa, Matsuhisha (sp?), and many many others. On Apr 12, 2004, at 11:48 PM, Keith Whaley wrote: Fact is, good eating establishment snob that I am, I used to live in the Bay Area (Concord) and frequently ate in San Francisco, at the better places, like the Blue Fox, etc. Some of those were well established when L.A.'s Tommy's was still a displaced White Castle... Still, L.A. has come from behind very well, hasn't it. Four Seasons, Chez Melange, L'Orangarie, Palm, Valetino, Spago, Vito's, Michael's, Four Oaks, Le Deux Cafe, Regent Beverly Wilshire, and that's only a few that come to mind, and all without leaving town... These are also places I've personally visited and found exceptional. I only listed as many as I did, so anyone planning to visit L.A. need not stray very far to locate a fine restaurant. So it goes. keith whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 4/12/2004 6:21:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I thought San Francisco and Seattle were pretty decent places to eat as well. --- Yup. Lots of great places to eat in the San Francisco Bay Area. (And let's not limit it to just SF.) And the scenery is pretty. But, never mind, LA has come up from behind, after all. Hehehehehehe. Marnie aka Doe
Re: LA Pdml'ers...
You're right about the prices. But it's not the kind of place you visit on a regular basis. It's a rare treat. I'm a lifelong cook and my wife was a professional pastry chef. If you're really fascinated by food, an extravagant meal can be as much a treat as a new lens. And it costs almost as much. On Apr 13, 2004, at 1:12 AM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: OMG, I'm with you Graywolf! The prices on that menu are what I spend on our entire grocery order for a week - and that is for five of us, and we NEVER dine out! lol... I think I'll be eating alot of McDonald's, and Subway, and if I'm up for it, I may even splash out for dinner at Sizzler one night! lol... tan. -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2004 2:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LA Pdml'ers... I once paid $22 for a steak dinner. It was lousy. I once went into a restaurant that charged $250 for a steak dinner. They tossed me out because I was not dressed to their satisfaction. Just as well, I did not have $250 in the bank much less on me. Somehow, I don't think you guys eat in the same kinds of restaurants as most of us do. -- Paul Stenquist wrote: That's true. At one time, San Francisco was California's first city of food, but no more. Money has a way of reshaping those kinds of things. And LA money has made it a major restaurant city. Yet California's and perhaps America's best restaurant isn't in LA or San Francisco, it's up in the Napa valley town Yountville, and it's called French Laundry. Am I opinionated when it comes to food? You bet :-).. See http://www.sterba.net/yountville/frenchlaundry/ On Apr 12, 2004, at 10:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the scenery is pretty. But, never mind, LA has come up from behind, after all. Hehehehehehe. Marnie aka Doe -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: OT: Restaurants (was Re: LA Pdml'ers...)
I have enjoyed only one meal at French Laundry, but it was a meal I'll never forget. Fortunately, it was paid for by a company I was doing business with. However, next time I'm up that way I intend to treat myself to another meal. (Unless, of course, I can find another sponsor :-) On Apr 13, 2004, at 1:15 AM, John Francis wrote: That's true. At one time, San Francisco was California's first city of food, but no more. Money has a way of reshaping those kinds of things. And LA money has made it a major restaurant city. Yet California's and perhaps America's best restaurant isn't in LA or San Francisco, it's up in the Napa valley town Yountville, and it's called French Laundry. Am I opinionated when it comes to food? You bet :-).. See http://www.sterba.net/yountville/frenchlaundry/ But don't forget that Mr. Keller is currently opening a New York restaurant, so The French Laundy may well not be getting his principal attention. I'd still recommend it, though. I went there with a friend who has been treated to many a fine meal in French Michelin 3-star restaurants, and in his opinion the food at The French Laundry is the equal of anything he had in France. The service may be rather more casual American than formal, but that's a change I'm only too happy to accept.
RE: renewed faith in digital... (and a boring show and tell!)
Kostas, it was Malcolm Smith who wrote that, and not I. However... despite its seemingly simple nature, it was indeed a difficult shot to make, but probably not for reasons that Malcolm even realises. Firstly, I was on the other side of a busy highway when I shot it, with big cattle trains (semi-trailers) passing in between us. Of course, any inkling of a wedding and every truckie takes the opportunity to beep his (very loud) horn at us and to flash his very bright spotlights at us!! Made for a fun atmosphere, but they couldn't hear me and I couldn't hear them for me to give directions, so they were relying on sign language of sorts. The dirt/ground that you see in front of them is actually the dirt edging the side of the bitumen highway. They were only about 2 ft from the road. Also, it was long after sunset. That shot is very overexposed to give the impression of light, and to increase the colour saturation, but in fact, it was almost dark. I could barely see them to focus and they most definitely couldn't see me. It was shot, handheld with my Tamron 135mm (which equates to a focal length of 203mm on the *istD), f2.5 lens @f2.5 and a speed of 1/10. It was also very windy, making it even harder to hand hold. I positioned them with what was left of the sunset (a mere glow on the horizon) behind me, and I used the AF360fgz, manually at 1/1 for a touch of fill on their faces and fronts, hence the shine on their dresses. So, yep, it was quite a difficult shot, and it is one of my favourites too, but I would be interested to hear why Malcolm, you thought that it was a difficult shot to achieve? I am guessing that your thoughts were different to mine as you couldn't have possibly known the circumstances involved in shooting it. I totally agree with the branches coming out of her head thing and I can't believe that I missed it! I taught some beginner's photography classes last year, and I stressed this point frequently to my students and then went and did the thing myself, AND didn't even notice it! How funny! tan. -Original Message- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2004 7:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: renewed faith in digital... (and a boring show and tell!) On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Malcolm Smith wrote: Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: http://www.tanyamayer.com/weddinggalleriesprivate/bean/images/Bean0259.jpg My favourite (and difficult to make). Why difficult? Honest question, Kostas
Pentax spotted
Who said Pentaxes weren't tough? The picture shows a Z1p with what I think is a 250 - 600 attached being used armpit deep in water. I saw the poster in an Australian Geographic shop. http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/whatson/show.asp?ID=561442 Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
NG Posting
Subject: Pentax monocular converter WANTED Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:45:22 +0200 From: Waldemar Krasowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace I look for this small adaptor - when attached to the PK (Pentax bajonett) tele-lens it converts a lens to a spotting scope. Greets == Waldemar Krasowski ==
right angle finder
What is a reasonable price for a right angle finder on eBay? -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trieste PDML?
Apologies in advance for the very late notice and the lack of concrete plans. I will be in Trieste from tomorrow until Friday and would be keen to meet with PDMLers. Please mail me back if interested; I can bring equipment you might like to try too. Kostas
Re: GFM and *ist D
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S. And what Cotty said, jpeg only. (To nix post processing.) How would that nix post processing? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PAW: Riverside blossom
Hi! Attila, I think it works but with some modifications that I'd like to suggest. You see, the building on the background is very fascinating. At first I thought it was distracting, but then I took a mental step back g and realized I was wrong. However to let the image really shine I thing it would be a worthy idea to crop all the left, including some flowers. It then would become a square image of a fascinating, and probably old building on the back with some quite wonderful spring flowers on the front. I am going to be sending you my version in a moment. Just my pixels. Boris
Re: GFM and *ist D
Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One way to solve that is to specify a standard resolution for the judges to view it at. For example, if they are going to view it with a projector, a 1024x768 pixel resolution is reasonable. This will pretty much remove all the differences between cameras. Good idea. But what about the participants who don't know how to do this (yes, there *are* some who would fall into this category) or who do know how but don't bring a computer with them? What's more interesting is how to relate to computer processing before submission. Indeed. If an image has been resized, there's no telling what else might have been done to it (and downsizing would hide most visible manipulation artifacts). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: GFM and *ist D
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd love to see a digital competition, that would be really interesting! Make sure that they have the RAW plug-ins for the various brands though... Easier for the judges to shoot Jpeg. More skill required in shooting :-) Unless you shoot RAW and convert to JPEG before submitting the image... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: GFM and *ist D
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/4/04, IN THE LOUPE discumbobulated: Currently, participants are allowed THREE entries! I'm trying to figure some way for contestants to turn in a memory card with only 3 entries on it. Hey, can I be the one to collect the cards?! Oh...wait...they'll be expecting to get the cards BACK, right? Damn! How about buying a hundred 32 MB CF and SD cards And SmartMedia cards and XD cards and Memory Sticks (using GFM proceeds) and issuing those to digi contestants - and asking for them back with the (max) three entries on. This kills several bears er birds with one stone. Digital photographers would have to be very studious in shooting (as a slide shooter would be) Nah. The experienced digital guys would just shoot thousands of pictures using their own memory cards, edit out their best shots on their laptops and transfer the best three onto the card that they would turn in for the contest. This would put less-well-equipped photographers at a huge disadvantage. and in fact would effectively edit their selection either as they shoot on the Saturday, or just before handing back the card on the [Saturday or Sunday]. We're leaning strongly toward a Saturday evening deadline for the digital contest because the file transfer and organization and the judging will be so much more time-consuming. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: GFM and *ist D (now veering OT)
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A good Cotes du Rhone is just about the nicest thing that can be made from a grape. I concur! (And not too terribly expensive in many instances.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: GFM and *ist D
BOGGLE 36 images per participant??? Doug and I wouldn't get home until July! I hear the weather at GFM is nice throughout June.
Re: SMC F 70-210 f4.0-5.6 (autofocus lesson)
I know the D1 is fast,and the D2H seems a 'bit' faster,but only by ear,not a scientific test.My SF-1 and PZ-1 seem just a tad slower but not by much i would quess. To be honest with you,i prefer the Pentax to the Nikon,in that the Pentax seems to lock on and stay on.The Nikon sometimes focus a bit long and i have to do a quick refocus. The film Nikon bodies dont seem to have this problem.Although back focus is a major issue on some of Nikons earlier DSLRS from what i read on the lists. Dave As I remember, someone mentioned once that the PZ1p has a bigger AF motor and can do the mechanical part of focusing a lens faster then the *ist D. Is this also true on the higher end DSLRs like those whopping Nikon/Canon things? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SMC F 70-210 f4.0-5.6 (autofocus lesson)
Duh. Yeah, of course that's true. I hear the complaint all the time but being a loyal Pentax type I've never actually used them. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/13/04 09:19AM Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I remember, someone mentioned once that the PZ1p has a bigger AF motor and can do the mechanical part of focusing a lens faster then the *ist D. Is this also true on the higher end DSLRs like those whopping Nikon/Canon things? Nope. With those the AF motor is in the lens, not the camera. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve
OK, thanks. So that means, when I combine your and my remarks, that auto on the *ist D works better then P-TTL and TTL. I got the impression for a while it was only TTL that didn't work to well, but also P-TTL doesn't work very well. I really would like to see a firmware upgrade to address this shortcoming. Pentax, please, are you listening? On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 22:36, Bill Owens wrote: Yep, that's what I was trying to say. Auto flash seems to be better and more consistent than P-TTL. Bill - Original Message - From: Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 1:58 PM Subject: Re: PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve auto is not TTL, and using my Metz 40MZ-2 with TTL doesn't work as well on the *ist D as it does on the PZ-1. Also using the flash on auto with the *ist D works better then with TTL. Or were you trying to say the same thing? On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 15:11, Bill Owens wrote: 1. TTL Flash is not so hot (I use a 500, but maybe the 360 is a lot better). I'm afraid not. My 360 set on auto and my OLD Metz CT45 on auto both seem to work better on auto than the 360 on P-TTL. Bill -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: istD FA50/1.4
It helps that he is cute. LOL. Always a piece of good photographic technique. Nice shot. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MZ-S Limited
Now I wish I had kept the source of my mis-information. I have no idea who it was. Oh well. That's disconcerting, because if it had been true, it would have exposed something about the M bayo lens of which I was unaware, and #2, possibly impact any decision to purchase a *ist. I just visited the Pentax *ist site, and found this: - - - - - - Usable Lenses: Pentax KAF2-(power zoom not available), KAF-, KA- and K-mount lenses (Autofocus possible with KA- and K-mount lenses using AF adapter) When the aperture ring is set at other than A position, release lock or unlock selectable by Custom function No.17. - - - - - - Should be case closed... Thanks, everyone. (Except for the poster who said it can't use M-Series lenses.) keith whaley Paul Stenquist wrote: It is compatible with both K and M. Andre Langevin wrote: It is compatible with K's, not the M-series which followed, but it is with the A-series that followed the M's... All K-style bayonet designs. I'll have to do some research to find out why. ??? From a bayonet point of view, K-series and M-series are the same. I doubt it very much that the ist is compatible with K-series while not with the M-series. Andre
Re: MZ-S Limited
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Andre Langevin wrote: ??? From a bayonet point of view, K-series and M-series are the same. I doubt it very much that the ist is compatible with K-series while not with the M-series. I am very confused myself with this thread, but I think that by M they mean M42. Kostas
Re: PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve
- Original Message - From: Frits Wüthrich Subject: Re: PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve I got the impression for a while it was only TTL that didn't work to well, but also P-TTL doesn't work very well. I really would like to see a firmware upgrade to address this shortcoming. Pentax, please, are you listening? Analogue TTL works quite well with the ISO at 400. It seems to drift around quite a bit at 200, I haven't used it at faster ISO. From other brand users I am in contact with, TTL flash is a weak point of DSLRs as a breed. I don't see a firmware fix for this, as it seems to be a deficiency caused by the hardware. William Robb
Re: MZ-S Limited
Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is compatible with both K and M. I thought it wouldn't meter with K and M lenses (like the first firmware version of the ist-D)? Andre Langevin wrote: It is compatible with K's, not the M-series which followed, but it is with the A-series that followed the M's... All K-style bayonet designs. I'll have to do some research to find out why. ??? From a bayonet point of view, K-series and M-series are the same. I doubt it very much that the ist is compatible with K-series while not with the M-series. Andre -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Exhibit
At 09:04 AM 4/11/2004 -0400, you wrote: --- Totally cool. Congrats! Marnie aka Doe You ought to kick back a photo (or two) to Boris. ;-) Thanks, Marnie - good idea! - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: PAW - Week of 4/12
Another great shot, Ken! Looks excellent. - MCC At 03:17 PM 4/12/2004 -0400, you wrote: Taken last fall, on a very frosty morning, in the U P of Michigan. Comments - likes/dislikes - what would you have done differently http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html Thanks in advance for looking /commenting. Kenneth Waller - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: Jostein's PAW#4
Nie shot, Jostein - must of been a beautiful morning! - MCC At 05:17 PM 4/11/2004 +0200, you wrote: In June last year I had a really great photo week-end at Rjukan, a small town about as far inland as you can get in Norway. I decided to stay up until sunrise to get the first light on the mountain Gaustatoppen, which turned out this way: http://www.oksne.net/paw/paw4.html Comments are most welcome. cheers, Jostein - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: a little something i've been working on...
Nice montage, Tanya - I like the progression of the images, with your son basically turning around in the course of the series. The background looks just as you intended it on my monitor - not totally high key, but some texture left in it. The BW conversion looks excellent. Nice job! - MCC At 11:04 PM 4/12/2004 +1000, you wrote: A figure study, fairygirl style... *istD, FA 28-105m pz @ f9.5, 1/45, af360fgz, window light and white reflector. I must say, I'm rather proud of this one. Gonna have it printed up as an 18x18 inch print for my wall to commemorate my boy's 6th birthday (I took these shots on his birthday). - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve
So if I exchange my digital SCA unit for an analogue one, I get better results in TTL (at ISO400)? What SCA unit are you using, a SCA371? (If that exists, its just a guess) I use a SCA3701. On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 17:19, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Frits Wüthrich Subject: Re: PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve I got the impression for a while it was only TTL that didn't work to well, but also P-TTL doesn't work very well. I really would like to see a firmware upgrade to address this shortcoming. Pentax, please, are you listening? Analogue TTL works quite well with the ISO at 400. It seems to drift around quite a bit at 200, I haven't used it at faster ISO. From other brand users I am in contact with, TTL flash is a weak point of DSLRs as a breed. I don't see a firmware fix for this, as it seems to be a deficiency caused by the hardware. William Robb -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFM and *ist D (now veering OT)
In a message dated 4/13/2004 5:18:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S. And what Cotty said, jpeg only. (To nix post processing.) How would that nix post processing? -- Mark Roberts Well, if you shoot RAW then you HAVE to post process to turn it into JPEG. I am still talking the honor system here. Allow only shooting in JPEG and allow no post processing. People will really cheat? I doubt it. I think if people are told images have to come straight from the card with no post processing, they won't post process. I mean you are looking for the best photographs, right? Not the best PS user. And if someone does win by cheating (i.e. post processing) then, well, they do. I know, I know, some insist on shooting RAW. Well, that would make it trickier. Unless you provide all the RAW plug-ins and do the conversion yourselves. But I think the judges can set the parameters. Like the ones I have given above. People can pick out their three best shots with review. Or they can download and pick. But most people will honor an honor system. (Do THAT MANY carry around their own laptops? I don't.) Marnie aka Doe
Re: LA Pdml'ers...
Paul Stenquist wrote: I wouldn't count Four Seasons or Palm, because they're displaced NY restaurants. If a restaurant is located on Los Angeles, I have located it and like it, I don't really much care who it's Mama was... And, quite frankly, I find the Palm very ordinary, in NY, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Mexico City, and everywhere else it's been franchised. Franchised? Aha, therein lies an explanation, perhaps. I've always thought of it as family owned and grown. Any franchise can vary widely in quality from it's original, simply because the tenacles are too far from the head. Control is eventually and effectively relinquished. I know the Palm has been in L.A. for a long time. It takes on it's own character in that time. You may go to one of the other Palm restaurants, and the general layout and decor may remind you of others, but I suspect each has it's own flavor -- so to speak... I've only been going there for perhaps 9 to 10 years, but I have met a now retired chef, several waiters who've been there for years, folks/employees that make the place what it is. It helps that I went there for the first time with one of their long time employees, a bartender everybody knew and loved. So far as Four Seasons is concerned, I was last there maybe 20 years ago, and cannot speak of it's present quality. It does retain the name and aura, but I've seen other restaurants lose it over time. You don't keep customers on reputation and high prices alone. Not for long. But I agree with the rest of your list. I would certainly add Ivy, Chinois, Crustacean, Mimosa, Matsuhisha (sp?), and many many others. I can only speak of Chinois-on-Main, in south Santa Monica or Venice, the over-priced, too pretentious, impossible to get a reservation unless you know someone or are a name in the city eatery. In other words, if you're someone instantly recognizable to potential customers. A lot of places in L.A. are like that. Places to see movers and shakers, stars of tv and movies, but devoid of that draw, offer little but snotty waiters and mediochre but haughty service. That venue taints all Chinois sites. I'll never go back, and I bad mouth them every chance I get. Once was enough... The other side of the coin is Le Petit Moulin on Montana Blvd, n Santa Monica. I've been going there, on and off, for years and years. Small and classy. Back when I was much younger and a far more frequent customer, I was recognized and called by name. Service was always impeccable and the food couldn't be improved upon... keith (thanks for the memories) whaley
Re: LA Pdml'ers...
Paul Stenquist wrote: You're right about the prices. But it's not the kind of place you visit on a regular basis. It's a rare treat. I'm a lifelong cook and my wife was a professional pastry chef. If you're really fascinated by food, an extravagant meal can be as much a treat as a new lens. And it costs almost as much. Well said...I agree with you totally. Speaking of treats and rare ones at that, have you ever eaten at the Dolder Grande? Zurich? g keith
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
In a message dated 4/13/2004 6:05:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just to point out, Marnie, it's fairly easy (with a DSLR) to cheat and get extended DoF. Using a tripod, take a picture with focus at infinity and then another with the closer object in focus. These can then be combined in Photoshop. It's a way around those pesky laws of optics that control DoF. It's also a way to use a lenses best aperture (resolution) as opposed to those high f stops with great DoF but lower res. --- Hey, hey! Marnie aka Doe Hey, thanks!
Re: MZ-S Limited
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Andre Langevin wrote: ??? From a bayonet point of view, K-series and M-series are the same. I doubt it very much that the ist is compatible with K-series while not with the M-series. I am very confused myself with this thread, but I think that by M they mean M42. Kostas Undoubtedly. I made the very same hurry up and respond mistake earlier in this thread. Thanks for pointing it out. keith whaley
FYI......4GB MuVo^2 cheap, in stock
-Original Message- From: Techbargains.com Posted At: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:52 AM Posted To: Inbox Conversation: Muvo2 4GB $$180 - Apr 13 Subject: Muvo2 4GB $$180 - Apr 13 http://www.techbargains.com/news_displayItem.cfm/30037
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
At 09:14 PM 4/12/2004 -0400, you wrote: see inline. well, i am mostly shooting small birds right now more or less because that's what is handy to try and haven't had much opportunity to shoot anything very large except with tame ones. last weekend was the first time i could really try to take some of red-winged black birds, but i had all of 45 minutes to spend doing it, so i didn't have a chance to sit for a while and let them get used me so i could move in closer. OTOH, i did see a male/female pair sitting next to each other, enough to identify in binoculars, but not enough to photograph. The real challenge is to get close enough. With small warblers etc you have to get within 20 feet or so, which can be a real challenge. Around here, even the egrets and sandhill cranes are too skittish to let you get close - and since they are big birds, you don't have to get all that close. It makes one realize how lucky birders in Florida have it, where a lot of waterfowl are pretty habituated to humans. i can't find that tripod, just the 3046, in my Bogen catalog. i assume they are similar. I think the model numbers changed (or the model was updated) in the past. I've used this tripod for a few years now. the 13lbs total is only a little bit more than my setup. the Gitzo 1325 is rated to 26 lbs and weighs 4.5lbs. the leveling base weighs 1.5lbs and then the Wimberley head weighs 4lbs with the quick release. the head is rated to a lot more than 26 lbs. it's designed for 600 f4 lenses and has notes on using an 800 f5.6 on it. the lighter weight sounds nice, if it really is steady. I'm partial to the weight - especially when shooting in gales etc along the lake. Even then, the 13 lb Bogen sometimes blows over when I'm reaching in the bag to pull out the camera. I don't mind carrying the extra weight - and figure that the best way for me, personally, to carry less weight would be to go on diet :-0 do you use any special backpack for carrying the lens? the custom case is out of the question for normal use. I drop the lens, TC, and camera into a Domke long lens bag, which provides a minimal level of padding. That bag I drop into a regular backpack. The backpack is from the army surplus store - it's huge, rugged, and has a belt strap as well as the shoulder straps. I do have a bit of foam padding on the left shoulder, where I rest the tripod. do you use a beam focuser on your flash? it's something i haven't yet started doing, but i recognize that i will have to fairly soon. yeah, once at my location, i put everything together and leave it that way until i have to move a substantial distance. So far, I have not needed a beam focuser with either the AF500FTZ (with film) or with the 360 flash and the *ist. I really think that fill flash is essential when birding. When I go out shooting, I just set up in the field and leave things set up. If I'm going through a lot of brambles etc, I remove the flash and bracket since they are the most prone to getting snagged. I don;t use a cable release, but if I did I'd probably remove that as well. i have the lens strap attached and am wearing it oer my head when i mount the lens on the tripod. don't want any accidents. I do the same thing - though I usually think that if I did drop the lens, it would probably break my neck. Once on the ball head, I lock the quick release plate in place, so the lens won't fall off. the nice thing about the Gitzo leveling base on the tripod is that it makes it easy to change heads, if you need to. you thread the head on moderately tight with just fingers and then there is a lever to turn the thread itself an extra quarter turn to lock down the head. the base fits only Gitzo Systematic tripods, so you would have to switch brands. i don't know of anyone else's addon to a tripod that does the same thing. the Wimberley locks down with some easy-to-turn large knobs and doesn't budge under normal loads. The heavy duty Bogen that I use is fairly slow to change heads - you have to undo three locking screws and then unscrew the head itself. The lighterweigh Bogens have removable center posts, so with my lightweight tripod I can just pull out the center post and pop in a new one. But I prefer the heavier tripod for the 6x7 and for windy conditions. that's what i have found, and a larger aperture helps because of the higher possible shutter speed. FWIW, Canon has a 1200/5.6L IS lens that weighs almost 37 lbs. the A* 1200/8 has two 3/8 and four 1/4 mounting holes in the base. from what i can see. you want to use at least 3 of the holes on a long Arca Swiss plate. i use the Arca Swiss plates on all of my bodies and long lenses. especially on the Wimberley, i can balance the lens so that it moves freely and remains in position when i let go. the plates let me slide the lens to position it on the balance point as i add or remove things like extenders and the flash. Yes - those gimble heads are really nice. If I let go of my
Re: *ist-D and AF360fgz (was RE: Fairygirl's first ever PAW...)
Kevin Thornsberry a écrit : Tanja wrote Shot with *istD (of course!), FAJ 18-35mm @ 35mm, AF360fgz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/32), AV @ f5.6. I have the darndest time with this. I can only put my AF360fgz in manual mode or A mode if my *ist-D is turned off or if I wait long enough after pressing (or half-pressing) the shutter release so the meter shuts off. Is this normal? Yes, the 360FGZ force P-TTL setting, you must use manual mode too use TTL or Auto flash
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 4/13/2004 6:05:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just to point out, Marnie, it's fairly easy (with a DSLR) to cheat and get extended DoF. Using a tripod, take a picture with focus at infinity and then another with the closer object in focus. These can then be combined in Photoshop. It's a way around those pesky laws of optics that control DoF. It's also a way to use a lenses best aperture (resolution) as opposed to those high f stops with great DoF but lower res. --- Hey, hey! It's also easy to cheat and get reduced DOF, or at least a reasonable simulation thereof. I've noticed a lot of advertising photography with very minimal depth of field lately and many shots I've suspected of being Photoshopped with additional blur to make the DOF seem smaller than what the photographer actually obtained when taking the photo. It seems to be a very fashionable look these days, though I can't say I care for most of the examples I've seen. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
*ist compatibility (was: MZ-S Limited)
Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is compatible with both K and M. I thought it wouldn't meter with K and M lenses (like the first firmware version of the ist-D)? Yes, I confirm that. The *ist features no diaphragm simulator, just like the *ist D, hence with pre-A lenses it will meter and shoot at full aperture only (aperture priority) or not meter at all (manual). Can you call this compatibility? Pentax says it depends on how you define compatibility... In my opinion, accepting lenses and not metering/stopping down aperture is a very poor compatibility. Dario Bonazza
Re: VS: NEW_PUG - questions
Well, supposedly there is this Japanese whiskey - Suntory? - which has on it´s label: beware of imitations. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - From: Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 11:46 PM Subject: Re: VS: NEW_PUG - questions How true! Nick Clark wrote: There's no such thing as scotch whiskey!
Re: LA Pdml'ers...
In a message dated 4/12/2004 9:17:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I once paid $22 for a steak dinner. It was lousy. I once went into a restaurant that charged $250 for a steak dinner. They tossed me out because I was not dressed to their satisfaction. Just as well, I did not have $250 in the bank much less on me. Somehow, I don't think you guys eat in the same kinds of restaurants as most of us do. Marie Callendar's, Carrow's, Denny's, Wendy's, etc. My restaurants of choice. Nope, they don't. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: April PUG - comments - looooong
- Original Message - From: Dag T [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here it is: http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/04apr/ We´ll se how far I get. Christian Skofteland - USS Constellation Nice and colourful detail, but in my view there is something missing. I´m, just not sure what. Dag; Thanks for taking the time to comment on the PUG. Honestly, my shot was a last-minute job due to the fact that what I REALLY wanted to photograph was unavailable. Poor planning on my part. Basically with this shot, I was interested in the colors, but as you mention, there isn't a lot of content Thanks again Christian
Re: *ist compatibility (was: MZ-S Limited)
Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The *ist features no diaphragm simulator, just like the *ist D, hence with pre-A lenses it will meter and shoot at full aperture only (aperture priority) or not meter at all (manual). Can you call this compatibility? Pentax says it depends on how you define compatibility... In my opinion, accepting lenses and not metering/stopping down aperture is a very poor compatibility. Agreed. Which brings us back to the original statement of mine that I would consider the wonderfully small *ist as a replacement for my MX if it offered full compatibility with K and M lenses. Then again, I don't know how much film I'll be shooting at all from now on... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PAW - Blue Mountains Treefrog
It's actually a nice shot with great detail and the frog is in an interesting pose. Christian - Original Message - From: David Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a piccy I took a few months ago when I was still learning the ins and outs of the *ist D (and, for that matter, SLR photography on the whole!). http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/citropa.jpg
Re: PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve
My list of 10 most urgent improvements: 1. Faster AF. I think it's mostly a matter of power of in-camera AF motor, not so related to sensors, their layout and algorithm. Just use the PZ-1/MZ-S AF motor and you'll get a very fast AF. 2. Faster AF. 3. Release a decent RAW converting software. Current Photo Lab is useless, working worse than in-camera straight conversion. 4. Release some good digital lenses above 45mm and below 300mm focal length. A 50-150mm/4 would be a nice start. 5. In-camera IS. 6. In-camera flash compensation. 7. Instant histogram and crop histogram (a histogram of cropped area when you zoom on it during instant review). 8. On-sensor anti-dust feature. 9. Fix the door/strap problem 10. Make the 4 way switch bigger.
Re: GFM and *ist D (now veering OT)
At 11:50 AM 4/13/04, throwing caution to the wind, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if you shoot RAW then you HAVE to post process to turn it into JPEG. I am still talking the honor system here. Allow only shooting in JPEG and allow no post processing. People will really cheat? I doubt it. I think if people are told images have to come straight from the card with no post processing, they won't post process. I mean you are looking for the best photographs, right? Not the best PS user. And if someone does win by cheating (i.e. post processing) then, well, they do. I know, I know, some insist on shooting RAW. Well, that would make it trickier. Unless you provide all the RAW plug-ins and do the conversion yourselves. But I think the judges can set the parameters. Like the ones I have given above. People can pick out their three best shots with review. Or they can download and pick. But most people will honor an honor system. (Do THAT MANY carry around their own laptops? I don't.) Marnie aka Doe Marnie, Leveling the playing field is not because we think everyone will cheat, it's because we need to avoid the possibility that someone who doesn't win might accuse one of the winners of cheating. If we don't have safeguards in place, then we cannot say that so and so didn't manipulate that image. The honor system is great, and to a certain extent we have to depend on it, but not having in place a system for limitation of manipulation heavily biases the digital contest toward those with a stronger grasp of digital. Slides that we have processed are relatively easy to police; digital files require a more thorough set of restrictions. People who are heavily into digital =will= carry a laptop, and we must figure out a way to remove the temptation to manipulate the image more than was done in-camera. We have been in discussion about this since last year's contest, and the discussion will carry through this year and into the next, including some public discussion during this year's NPW. When we feel that we have a good combination of parameters-- that we can fit within the historically easy-going nature of the weekend and contest, we will put it in place and go from there. Thanks to everyone who has contribute to this discussion thus far and to anyone who cares to continue it. It has given me some things to consider. Doug
Re: Some good news....
Congrats on both accounts - that portrait is excellent! - MCC At 09:07 AM 4/12/2004 -0600, you wrote: After a totally nightmare-ish 2003, 2004 is finally starting to look up. ... - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: GFM and *ist D (now veering OT)
In a message dated 4/13/2004 10:14:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks to everyone who has contribute to this discussion thus far and to anyone who cares to continue it. It has given me some things to consider. Doug --- Ban laptops from the mountain? Won't help, of course, if they are staying elsewhere. Well, good luck! Tricky stuff. Marnie aka Doe Check all their laptops for file manipulation? Hehehehehe. Check all their photo files on HD? Hehehehehe.
Re: right angle finder
For M42 bodies, $30, refconverter M, $100, ref A, $115. - Original Message - From: Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 6:48 AM Subject: right angle finder What is a reasonable price for a right angle finder on eBay? -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: which way would you go...
The main problem with the PZ1P apart from the size (IMO) is that it can't do depth of field preview on the A setting, or at all with the new aperture-ringless lenses. So it's not as forward compatible as some say. The MZ-S can do this, but can't set the aperture except indirectly. The MZ-6 can do both but it's a bit awkward to set the aperture from the body. The film *ist can do both but won't meter properly with old non-A lenses. It's a case of paying your money and taking your choice. Nick. -Original Message- From: Butch Black[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13/04/04 02:54:33 Hi Clint; If you're happy with the lenses you have I think there is no reason to switch brands. We have a few members using the *ist-D professionally who seem to be very happy with it. You might look for a used PZ-1P (Z1-P), debatably Pentax's most professional 35mm body. It will use both lenses with and without aperture rings, works reasonably well with MF lenses, and has a reputation of being very dependable. I've had mine for about a year and have been very happy with it. Your M series bodies will make fine back up bodies.
Re: Yet another PAW
The lighting, exposure, and color are all excellent. The model seems to be uncomfortable - not so much because of her expression, more because of the position of her arms and shoulders. I'm not sure if she is laying down or stooped over a counter or tabletop. The cropped elbow seems to emphasize the awkwardness of her arms. My 2 cents - MCC At 10:45 AM 4/12/2004 -0600, you wrote: This is from Saturdays shoot. I don't know if it is good or bad. There are things I kinda like about it, and things I don't. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/IMGP2786.html Comments are allowed. William Robb - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Digital ISO And Raw Files
Something for the folks with a more technical bent - When the ISO setting is changed on the *ist-D, does that change the data recorded in the RAW file by actually changing the sensor sensitivity, or does it only affect how the recorded data is processed, post exposure. Let's say I'm shooting at 1/250th and f 8 and I shoot one shot at ISO 200 and one at ISO 800, and everything - lighitng, subject, etc - is identical except the ISO setting. So, exactly the same about of light hits the sensor. Does this result in two identical files, which are then processed differently (due to the different ISO settings) to create effectively different exposures. Or, would changing the ISO result in a true change in sensitivity in the sensor, resulting in two RAW files with different data in them? In this case, even though the amount of light hitting the sensor is the same, the sensor itself would be more or less sensitive and record data differently. I hope this makes sense - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
RE: renewed faith in digital... (and a boring show and tell!)
Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: Kostas, it was Malcolm Smith who wrote that, and not I. However... despite its seemingly simple nature, it was indeed a difficult shot to make, but probably not for reasons that Malcolm even realises. Firstly, I was on the other side of a busy highway when I shot it, with big cattle trains (semi-trailers) passing in between us. Of course, any inkling of a wedding and every truckie takes the opportunity to beep his (very loud) horn at us and to flash his very bright spotlights at us!! Made for a fun atmosphere, but they couldn't hear me and I couldn't hear them for me to give directions, so they were relying on sign language of sorts. The dirt/ground that you see in front of them is actually the dirt edging the side of the bitumen highway. They were only about 2 ft from the road. Also, it was long after sunset. That shot is very overexposed to give the impression of light, and to increase the colour saturation, but in fact, it was almost dark. I could barely see them to focus and they most definitely couldn't see me. It was shot, handheld with my Tamron 135mm (which equates to a focal length of 203mm on the *istD), f2.5 lens @f2.5 and a speed of 1/10. It was also very windy, making it even harder to hand hold. I positioned them with what was left of the sunset (a mere glow on the horizon) behind me, and I used the AF360fgz, manually at 1/1 for a touch of fill on their faces and fronts, hence the shine on their dresses. So, yep, it was quite a difficult shot, and it is one of my favourites too, but I would be interested to hear why Malcolm, you thought that it was a difficult shot to achieve? I am guessing that your thoughts were different to mine as you couldn't have possibly known the circumstances involved in shooting it. I totally agree with the branches coming out of her head thing and I can't believe that I missed it! I taught some beginner's photography classes last year, and I stressed this point frequently to my students and then went and did the thing myself, AND didn't even notice it! How funny! Hi Tanja, It was more a question of intrigue and choice from my viewpoint. I am delighted you could remember the circumstances surrounding the taking of this shot. The foreground held my attention and in my mind's eye I had pictured this as a bit of extra parking for the church where the grass was obviously flattened - not across a busy highway! It summed up an enjoyable rural wedding and the background (let's ignore the trees) was fantastic. Given the situation described I like it all the more. I certainly enjoyed looking at the wedding pictures overall, which conveyed pleasure. It is also a classic example of the problems that wedding photographers face to capture the moment. I would *never* do a wedding. Much admiration to those who do! ** On a general note, I try to view all the PUGs (for which I too would be happy to chip in towards an annual fee) and as many of the links provided in postings as my internet connection allows, as I not only find them enjoyable, but I treat them as a resource for ideas and techniques. Just that is excellent, but if you want to ask more it's interactive too vbg. For someone like myself, who picks up a camera purely for pleasure, this has prompted me on many occasions to try something different and expand my experience. A quick thanks to all. Malcolm
RE: renewed faith in digital... (and a boring show and tell!)
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: http://www.tanyamayer.com/weddinggalleriesprivate/bean/images/Bean02 59.jpg My favourite (and difficult to make). Why difficult? Honest question, A question for Tanja I suspect, but for my part I liked them all, this one above the others - just. Malcolm
Re: *ist compatibility (was: MZ-S Limited)
I thought the question was in regard to the *ist D. My mistake. Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is compatible with both K and M. I thought it wouldn't meter with K and M lenses (like the first firmware version of the ist-D)? Yes, I confirm that. The *ist features no diaphragm simulator, just like the *ist D, hence with pre-A lenses it will meter and shoot at full aperture only (aperture priority) or not meter at all (manual). Can you call this compatibility? Pentax says it depends on how you define compatibility... In my opinion, accepting lenses and not metering/stopping down aperture is a very poor compatibility. Dario Bonazza
Re: LA Pdml'ers...
No, in fact I've never been to Zurich, save as a stopover. Someday I hope to make it. Paul Stenquist wrote: You're right about the prices. But it's not the kind of place you visit on a regular basis. It's a rare treat. I'm a lifelong cook and my wife was a professional pastry chef. If you're really fascinated by food, an extravagant meal can be as much a treat as a new lens. And it costs almost as much. Well said...I agree with you totally. Speaking of treats and rare ones at that, have you ever eaten at the Dolder Grande? Zurich? g keith
RE: Digital ISO And Raw Files
I am sure the data recorded is different. I think this is because the analog signal is subject to more gain 'pre-digitisation'(!). I cant think of a tehnical reason, but I am sure that this results in a better/cleaner picture than if you shot at a lower ISO and just lightened it in PS for example. Positive that the techies here will provide the accurate reasons why, and maybe we will understand them. Even if we don't, logic suggests that you would be better off shooting at the ISO you need for correct exposure rather than boosting later - they wouldn't bother with an ISO setting otherwise. -Original Message- From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 April 2004 18:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Digital ISO And Raw Files Something for the folks with a more technical bent - When the ISO setting is changed on the *ist-D, does that change the data recorded in the RAW file by actually changing the sensor sensitivity, or does it only affect how the recorded data is processed, post exposure. Let's say I'm shooting at 1/250th and f 8 and I shoot one shot at ISO 200 and one at ISO 800, and everything - lighitng, subject, etc - is identical except the ISO setting. So, exactly the same about of light hits the sensor. Does this result in two identical files, which are then processed differently (due to the different ISO settings) to create effectively different exposures. Or, would changing the ISO result in a true change in sensitivity in the sensor, resulting in two RAW files with different data in them? In this case, even though the amount of light hitting the sensor is the same, the sensor itself would be more or less sensitive and record data differently. I hope this makes sense - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: DA 14mm
Yes, and yes. John On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:51:20 -0700, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It shouldn't ... I was just wondering aloud and asking a couple of questions (note the question marks), which, thus far, have gone unanswered. Stan Halpin wrote: So, how does that change Mark's comments in any way? It is nice to know that we can, hopefully, anticipate a quality lens, not one that panders to the bargain hunters. Stan Shel Belinkoff wrote: Umm, isn't the DA 14/2.8 designed for digital cameras? Won't it be useless on standard frame 35mm cameras? Mark Roberts wrote: In other words, this is going to be a top quality prime ultra-wide for discriminating photographers rather than a cheap ultra-wide solution for DSLR owners on a budget. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
Great work again Mark. I like the moon shot. Dave Yesterday I went to a nearby park and decided to try the *ist-D with some serious bird photography. Comments are appreciated - the link is: http://www.markcassino.com/paw/040410/ - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: GFM and *ist D
It would be useful if there were one of those auto-print machines nearby. Just put in the card, and out come the prints. No laptops allowed. John On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:18:55 -0400, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S. And what Cotty said, jpeg only. (To nix post processing.) How would that nix post processing? -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
RE: Zone Focus - what is it?
Cheating this way can just as easily be done with scanned negatives. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 13. april 2004 18:25 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 4/13/2004 6:05:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just to point out, Marnie, it's fairly easy (with a DSLR) to cheat and get extended DoF. Using a tripod, take a picture with focus at infinity and then another with the closer object in focus. These can then be combined in Photoshop. It's a way around those pesky laws of optics that control DoF. It's also a way to use a lenses best aperture (resolution) as opposed to those high f stops with great DoF but lower res. --- Hey, hey! It's also easy to cheat and get reduced DOF, or at least a reasonable simulation thereof. I've noticed a lot of advertising photography with very minimal depth of field lately and many shots I've suspected of being Photoshopped with additional blur to make the DOF seem smaller than what the photographer actually obtained when taking the photo. It seems to be a very fashionable look these days, though I can't say I care for most of the examples I've seen. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: GFM and *ist D
On 13/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] discumbobulated: How about buying a hundred 32 MB CF and SD cards (using GFM proceeds) and issuing those to digi contestants - and asking for them back with the (max) three entries on. This kills several bears er birds with one stone. Maybe it's a good idea, but it doesn't solve the issue with possible picture editing etc, since it's easy to copy fixed pictures to the card from a computer. Unless people are being watched the whole time, that part has to be built on trust. The slide shoot contest is also on trust. What is from stopping a film contestant in swapping out his/her roll of slide film for one he/she brought along? For that matter, I shoot some class slides in my own time in my own way, come along to GFM, enter the contest, wander around all day Saturday enjoying myself, then simply enter 3 nice slides on the Sunday that I have in my pocket. Just better make sure that any close-ups of plants grow plentifully in NC! The point is, it's an honour system through and through. What gain from cheating? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: GFM and *ist D
On 13/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] discumbobulated: Make sure that they have the RAW plug-ins for the various brands though... Easier for the judges to shoot Jpeg. More skill required in shooting :-) Unless you shoot RAW and convert to JPEG before submitting the image... Nope - no computers allowed!!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: GFM and *ist D
-Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The point is, it's an honour system through and through. What gain from cheating? First place gets a foot massage from Doug, so the competition gets pretty fierce. tv
Re: GFM and *ist D
On 13/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] discumbobulated: (using GFM proceeds) and issuing those to digi contestants - and asking for them back with the (max) three entries on. This kills several bears er birds with one stone. Digital photographers would have to be very studious in shooting (as a slide shooter would be) Nah. The experienced digital guys would just shoot thousands of pictures using their own memory cards, edit out their best shots on their laptops and transfer the best three onto the card that they would turn in for the contest. This would put less-well-equipped photographers at a huge disadvantage. But in the current contest, doesn't an SLR camera with 15mm, 24mm, and 200mm lenses have an advantage over a P and S shooter? Yet the P and S shooter could well win a prize. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: GFM and *ist D (now veering OT)
On 13/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] discumbobulated: Ban laptops from the mountain? Won't help, of course, if they are staying elsewhere. Well, good luck! Tricky stuff. Marnie aka Doe Check all their laptops for file manipulation? Marnie, I carry my PowerBook everywhere. I carried one everywhere even before I got into digital photography. It is not only an editing and viewing platform, it is an information centre, a music centre, a library, a TV, a radio, an archive creator, a web tool, a communications centre, a time management system - amongst others. I am happy to be called a sad git, but that's the way it is. If the camera bag and the PowerBook bag are about to fall into the water and I could save only one, it would be the PowerBook. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: GFM and *ist D
On 13/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] discumbobulated: It would be useful if there were one of those auto-print machines nearby. Just put in the card, and out come the prints. No laptops allowed. So suddenly it's a print competition? I don't think so. Laptops are allowed. It's post-processing that should not be allowed. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: GFM and *ist D
Since digital manipulation is a key part of digital photography why not allow it? No rules, other than the photo had to be taken at GFM. That would seem to make sense. Paul Ha! Take the bull by the horns! The man has a point. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: LA Pdml'ers...
You're now quoting that Jewish poet, Rabbi Burns! John On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:01:20 -0700, Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Thurber. I sometimes fear he had me in mind when he created Walter Mitty. That quotation, though, is very well-known, and has spawned many imitations. A phrase that has launched a thousand quips, you might say. But as for like intelligence, that's a tricky one. I suppose if people think and figure things out the way you do, that suggests they must be of like intelligence and experience, and if they don't, they're not. So it's a bit chicken and egg. Big Grin! Fair's fair, an' all that... doesn't mean they're either better or worse, just roughly the same thinking sort of folks... keith John On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:41:41 -0700, Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find it nice that you like (and can find) phrases that fit whatever you're thinking about at the time. Did you ever stop to think (no, no, there's more...wait for it...) that knowing the truth naturally leads one to presume others of like intelligence and experience can figure it out too? As a fellow Thurber appreciator ought to know, it applies to more than wine... keith g John Forbes wrote: I think the phrase amused by its presumption comes to mind. John On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:49:24 -0400, Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been to LA. I've been to Paris. LA is not Paris. Keith Whaley wrote: He's not. He's talking about is, pick one of the finest in any major world class city, a 4 star restaurant, and Los Angeles will be able to match it, in any respect. Absolutely true. What's more, chances are, we'll have 5 or 6 like that, and the sister city will only have one 4- or 5-star restaurant. We have a choice as to where we want to buy a fine meal or rent a Maserati for the same cost. Per person. Gratuity NOT included... bg -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: PAW #9: Apple Picking
e.) Can't refrain for artistic framing even when a-d are invoked. That's quite a bit better than the usual family snap. frank theriault wrote: This isn't really new, but I haven't had a chance to get anything new printed up this week - I'm getting back a pile of contacts tomorrow, but won't get any prints of those until next week. Since I'm going away for Easter Weekend tomorrow afternoon, I thought I'd post my PAW tonight. Taken last autumn, when I went apple picking with the kids, this is my youngest Claire: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2269307 Just a family snap, but I'd still like to hear what you think. This is proof that: a) I do shoot colour sometimes, b) I can focus when I want to, c) I can hold the camera still when I want to, d) That little Leica Summicron c 40mm is one sharp little lens!! vbg hope you enjoy, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: I'm back...with new pics
Now that's the Frank we know and err ah ehh. love, I guess. frank theriault wrote: Distracting? From what? vbg -frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Boros Attila [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip PS http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2249276size=lg Beautiful girl, but the cropped head is a bit distracting. snip _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: PAW - Yet ANOTHER bird
That's a lovely shot. The color of the sky is perfect for a silhouetted bird photo. Christian Skofteland wrote: Long story short: I live next to a 500+ acre reservoir in Maryland. Everyday I drive past an old tree only a few hundred feet from my house that is frequented by cormorants and birds of prey. Today I drove past and saw this: http://home.mindspring.com/~c_skofteland/id10.html The light was perfect, the bird was cooperating so grabbed the camera, long lens and TCs ran back to an embankment above the water and shot about 50 frames. Of course the one thing I REALLY needed was the cable release which I left at home. Most pictures suffered from camera shake, but I think this one turned out pretty good. Comments always welcomed. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NG Posting
i'm looking for one too, but i have little hope of seeing one any time soon. Herb - Original Message - From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:21 AM Subject: NG Posting Subject: Pentax monocular converter WANTED Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:45:22 +0200 From: Waldemar Krasowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace I look for this small adaptor - when attached to the PK (Pentax bajonett) tele-lens it converts a lens to a spotting scope. Greets == Waldemar Krasowski ==
Re: Digital ISO And Raw Files
the signal from the sensor is amplified before being converted to digital. Herb - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:43 PM Subject: Digital ISO And Raw Files When the ISO setting is changed on the *ist-D, does that change the data recorded in the RAW file by actually changing the sensor sensitivity, or does it only affect how the recorded data is processed, post exposure.
Re: Interesting Cloud Photo on APOD
Can't find your photo! Is this big brother watching? - Original Message - From: Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:54 AM Subject: Re: Interesting Cloud Photo on APOD Sorry, I cut off part of the link: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Daniel J. Matyola wrote: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.htm
Re: GFM and *ist D
someone who really wanted to cheat with film could do so pretty easily too. shoot as much as they want during the week before and process their slides at the same place. at what point do you trust people to follow the rules? Herb - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 3:10 PM Subject: Re: GFM and *ist D Except that one could download to a laptop, manipulate the image as much as one liked and then put it back on the memory card...
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
see inline. Herb - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:03 PM Subject: Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots The real challenge is to get close enough. With small warblers etc you have to get within 20 feet or so, which can be a real challenge. Around here, even the egrets and sandhill cranes are too skittish to let you get close - and since they are big birds, you don't have to get all that close. It makes one realize how lucky birders in Florida have it, where a lot of waterfowl are pretty habituated to humans. the closest i got in the 45 minutes i had in the marsh was about 40 feet from some red-winged blackbirds. the sparrows i posted recently were really used to people and i was also in my car, so they came within 5 feet. i hit the minimum distance stop on my FA* 400 f5.6. the last several weeks, i have had much time when i was out shooting, so the opportunities were limited. a male/female pair of cardinals spooked after i got to within about 60 feet. ghe last several weeks have just not allowed much time to really do the close approach. of course, some birds are more skittish anyway. I drop the lens, TC, and camera into a Domke long lens bag, which provides a minimal level of padding. That bag I drop into a regular backpack. The backpack is from the army surplus store - it's huge, rugged, and has a belt strap as well as the shoulder straps. I do have a bit of foam padding on the left shoulder, where I rest the tripod. i'll be looking for a long lens bag. i want to find something designed for the 400 f2.8 form factor. the 600 f4 bag from LowePro may be too large. So far, I have not needed a beam focuser with either the AF500FTZ (with film) or with the 360 flash and the *ist. I really think that fill flash is essential when birding. I do the same thing - though I usually think that if I did drop the lens, it would probably break my neck. Once on the ball head, I lock the quick release plate in place, so the lens won't fall off. well if yuo did drop the lens, life would be over anyway 8-(.
RE: GFM and *ist D
Paul, I was thinking just that myself! Also, in regards to cheating - what's to stop someone from shooting a whole heap of other slide film on the day, or even bringing slides with them and submitting those to the judges? If people wanna cheat, they will - defeats the purpose of the entire weekend though, so I really don't know what benefit they would receive from it... tan. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 April 2004 5:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GFM and *ist D Since digital manipulation is a key part of digital photography why not allow it? No rules, other than the photo had to be taken at GFM. That would seem to make sense. Paul
Re: NG Posting
You just missed one guys: http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3807094041category=15240 Funny, it's labelled as a Telescope converter rather than Monocular converter (if indeed it is the same thing?). David Herb Chong wrote: i'm looking for one too, but i have little hope of seeing one any time soon. Herb - Original Message - From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:21 AM Subject: NG Posting Subject: Pentax monocular converter WANTED Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:45:22 +0200 From: Waldemar Krasowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace I look for this small adaptor - when attached to the PK (Pentax bajonett) tele-lens it converts a lens to a spotting scope. Greets == Waldemar Krasowski ==
RE: GFM and *ist D
Yeah, but I don't think that them not having as many PS skills than others is in fact a disadvantage or makes an unlevel playing field. To me, it is no different than somebody entering the contest who has more photographic technical knowledge than the guy next to him. Or for that matter, the guy sporting the latest Nikon film body (or whatever), when compared with someone sporting an old Spotmatic. I think that it should be judged on the final results that are presented to the judges and not how the photographer achieved the result. PS manipulation to me is akin to dodging and burning etc in the darkroom - it is a means to an end and it is the artists vision that should be judged. As long as every entrant has access to all of the available mediums/technologies etc, then that is what I would consider a level playing field, and comparing one person's knowledge or skills base is irrelevant. The display of somebody's knowledge, skills, creative vision in the form of a captured image is what the competition is all about, imho. However, practically speaking, it needs to be as easy for the judges as possible and by adding all these twists and turns it would only make things more complicated. And, god help us if some quick fingered theif ever climbed the mountain during that particular weekend, can you imagine the $$$ value of all of the equipment being carted up there?!?! And if we are talking of adding photoprinters and laptops to the mix, holey dooly! tan. Or allow PhotoShop manipulation as Paul suggested. Though I think that distinctly makes an unlevel playing field. As some are a lot better at it. But maybe that would make any worries go away. Wouldn't help those that do not have laptops, but the rules would be clear that those without would probably be at a disadvantage.
Re: GFM and *ist D
I think our main concern is the logistics of dealing with changing the format of the contest from film to digital and less on the possibility of cheating. We're hoping to change from film to digital next year (2005). Bill - Original Message - From: Tanya Mayer Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:40 PM Subject: RE: GFM and *ist D Paul, I was thinking just that myself! Also, in regards to cheating - what's to stop someone from shooting a whole heap of other slide film on the day, or even bringing slides with them and submitting those to the judges? If people wanna cheat, they will - defeats the purpose of the entire weekend though, so I really don't know what benefit they would receive from it... tan. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 April 2004 5:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GFM and *ist D Since digital manipulation is a key part of digital photography why not allow it? No rules, other than the photo had to be taken at GFM. That would seem to make sense. Paul
Re: GFM and *ist D
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 13/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] discumbobulated: Nah. The experienced digital guys would just shoot thousands of pictures using their own memory cards, edit out their best shots on their laptops and transfer the best three onto the card that they would turn in for the contest. This would put less-well-equipped photographers at a huge disadvantage. But in the current contest, doesn't an SLR camera with 15mm, 24mm, and 200mm lenses have an advantage over a P and S shooter? Yet the P and S shooter could well win a prize. The disparity is vastly greater with digital, especially with regards to having the ability to take hundreds of shots and cherry pick the best. But the image quality issue is real, too. This is part of the major sea change that digital has caused. In the past, someone with a K1000 and 50mm f/2.0 could, in many situations, get exactly the same final image quality as someone with an EOS 1v and some expensive L glass. As long as you're set on a 24 x 36 film format your main determinant of image quality (especially in tripod-mounted landscape shots) is the lens. This has changed forever with digital because the camera *does* affect image quality. The disparity between APS format digital and full-frame is almost as great as between 35mm film and 645 (it's *slightly* less, a 1:2.3 ratio rather than 1:2.7). Fortunately this isn't going to be a big deal at GFM where the winners are only printed at 8 x 12 inches. Oh, but since the winners are made into 8 x 12 prints for display at GFM, the judges are going to need to see something quite a bit larger than a 600 x 800 pixel file, aren't they? Damn. There's another complication! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Pentax spotted
I wonder if pin sharp result are possible with setup like this. Last time I tried, my Z-1p was hopeless with 300/4.5+2X due to mirror/shutter vibration even though the shutter was 1/250s on tripod. :-( Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Who said Pentaxes weren't tough? The picture shows a Z1p with what I think is a 250 - 600 attached being used armpit deep in water. I saw the poster in an Australian Geographic shop. http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/whatson/show.asp?ID=561442 _ http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: GFM and *ist D
On Apr 13, 2004, at 3:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or allow PhotoShop manipulation as Paul suggested. Though I think that distinctly makes an unlevel playing field. As some are a lot better at it. Isn't manipulation part of being a good digital photographer? Manipulation is the future of photography. It's time to recognize it as part of the process. Paul
Re: GFM and *ist D (now veering OT)
- Original Message - From: Gonz Subject: Re: GFM and *ist D (now veering OT) But some of us still prefer Cabs and Bordeaux style blends. :) I've never been able to figure you guys out. William Robb
Re: PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve
- Original Message - From: Frits Wüthrich Subject: Re: PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve So if I exchange my digital SCA unit for an analogue one, I get better results in TTL (at ISO400)? What SCA unit are you using, a SCA371? (If that exists, its just a guess) I use a SCA3701. C81 on a Metz 60 CT-2. William Robb
Re: VS: NEW_PUG - questions
- Original Message - From: Raimo K Subject: Re: VS: NEW_PUG - questions Well, supposedly there is this Japanese whiskey - Suntory? - which has on it´s label: beware of imitations. I have tried their pseudo Scotch. I can't imagine wanting to imitate it. The only malt whisky I have tasted that was worse was a Nova Scotia malt whisky that had a distinctive sewer flavour. William Robb
RE: *ist-D and AF360fgz (was RE: Fairygirl's first ever PAW...)
Even in manual mode mine forces P-TTL or SB mode. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michel Carrère-Gée Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist-D and AF360fgz (was RE: Fairygirl's first ever PAW...) Kevin Thornsberry a écrit : Tanja wrote Shot with *istD (of course!), FAJ 18-35mm @ 35mm, AF360fgz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/32), AV @ f5.6. I have the darndest time with this. I can only put my AF360fgz in manual mode or A mode if my *ist-D is turned off or if I wait long enough after pressing (or half-pressing) the shutter release so the meter shuts off. Is this normal? Yes, the 360FGZ force P-TTL setting, you must use manual mode too use TTL or Auto flash
Re: GFM and *ist D
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: GFM and *ist D Isn't manipulation part of being a good digital photographer? Manipulation is the future of photography. It's time to recognize it as part of the process. Paul Manipulation of some sort has always been part of photography, and the better photographers generally are better manipulators as well. OTOH, digital manipulation has opened some doors that are difficult, if not totally impossible to open with film manipulation, and generally, has made the process of manipulation far easier that it is with film. I still think they are two seperate entities, and if you are going to have a photo contest, then film images and digital images (whether they are film derived initially or not) should not be judged against each other, at least not until late in the day when one is trying to judge the best image of the contest. Think dog shows, where each breed is judged seperately, with the best of breed advancing to a class contest, and best of class advancing to the best of show contest. William Robb
Re: GFM and *ist D
On 13 Apr 2004 at 18:48, William Robb wrote: Think dog shows, where each breed is judged seperately, with the best of breed advancing to a class contest, and best of class advancing to the best of show contest. I think that's a bad analogy given that the final output on which judgement is made can be totally independent from the initial capture medium, unlike doggy comps. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: right angle finder
Frits, Prices for the Spotmatic/K1000 finders are cheap ($30-$50?). For an M or A finder (the ones with the 1X-2X switch), I'd say anything under $70 is cheap and over $150 expensive. $110 to $130 is a real bargain on the new price of $200+. Regards, Bob S. What is a reasonable price for a right angle finder on eBay? -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFM and *ist D
In a message dated 4/13/2004 1:02:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Going to digital for the contest will at least enable the staff to have a lot more time to sort and judge the photos. My current thoughts are to have each contestant still submit a memory card with 3 photos to be considered, and for the format to be jpeg. It's too much to ask for the judges to have to contend with several proprietary RAW formats to use this format. Since judging will be done via computer, file size is somewhat irrelevant since a 2 or 3 meg file looks nearly the same on a screen as a 6 meg file. Bill --- Sounds good. Marnie aka Doe
