P. J. Alling wrote:
I think Frank owes everyone on the list a beer...
Except me. Frank does not owe me a beer. (Nor I him.)
ERNR
Cotty wrote:
On 10/5/05, E.R.N. Reed, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think Frank owes everyone on the list a beer...
Except me. Frank does not owe me a beer. (Nor I him.)
He doesn't owe you a beer Eleanour??
Damnit Frank, how'd you manage that?
Now you owe her a beer for that!
I
frank theriault wrote:
On 5/11/05, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I experienced an interesting contrast in styles on Saturday. My
daughter was off to the prom and I was taking pictures of her and her
date. snip
Must have been hard shooting whilst holding the camera with one
UncaMikey wrote: (among other things)
By the way, that's a bit devious, using a picture of your mother as an
example, isn't it? I mean, who could possibly criticize a picture of
someone's mother LARF! Looks great to me!
From plenty of painful personal experience, I can tell you the answer
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
You've pretty well nailed it, Bruce, although according to (ERN?) some of
the things that are lacking in Elements are available one way or another.
She posted that information a few days ago, but I can't recall exactly
what's available or the sources. I seem to recall some
Happy Birthday, Mark!
John Francis wrote:
May 15? He can't have that - that's *my* birthday.
(And I had it first, by over a decade ... )
And Happy Birthday, John Francis!
(Now, doesn't Amita have one coming up sometime this month also?)
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: David Oswald
Subject: Re: A star in the making...
It seems to me this trend toward view screen shooting (as opposed to
looking through a viewfinder) must in some way affect the outcome of
the shot. Just as top-view cameras encourage
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
with the subtleties of exposure. The little buttons make adjustments a
real PITA.
John Francis loaned me a Super Program which I've yet to try. From the
kudos it's received here, it may be a nice alternative to the ME-S.
Don Sanderson wrote:
Hi Godfrey,
LX screens work fine in the MX.
The MX is designed so the user can easily change them too.
I've heard some say there are exposure errors with LX screens
but I've never had a problem. .../
Neither have I.
ERNR
On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:30:39 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and
shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless?
Several!
Yuppie.
Trendy.
Snob.
and some more that involve language I don't use...
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On May 16, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
WIndows 98, Photoshop ELements 2.0
won't read RAW.
is there a simple upgrade I can get to do it?
Adobe Photoshop Elements v3.0 includes the ability to use the Adobe
Camera Raw v2.4
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On May 17, 2005, at 5:01 AM, Tom Reese wrote:
My SO just bought the new Canon digital Rebel (X something or other?)
and Photoshop CS can't open the raw files. She tells me that Adobe
may not be supporting CS 1 anymore and she will probably have to
upgrade to CS 2 to
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 00:44:02 -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
Oh, yea, the Alpharetta Autobahn, know it well.
To me, the ultimate irony is that the Krautmobiles around here are
usually the slowest, least considerate, and least well driven of the
vehicles on the road. With
UncaMikey wrote:
--- Leon Mlakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, let's bite the bullet ...
I'm trying to build a collection of hopefully non-cliché portraits
of my daughter, as she grows. This is one of my favorites:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3374686
Excellent! Very well
frank theriault wrote:
Interesting article. I understood every word.
I just don't know what they mean when they're put together that way.
Quote file!!
Bruce Dayton wrote:
I can certainly appreciate where you are coming from - but I'm not
sure I understand what you really want to know. On the one hand you
say that you don't really want to deal with the nuts and bolts of
photography and on the other hand you are asking about the nuts and
bolts.
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Amita Guha wrote:
From: E.R.N. Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And Happy Birthday, John Francis!
(Now, doesn't Amita have one coming up sometime this month also?)
Wow, you have a good memory! :) Yep, it's this Friday. I'm celebrating with
a trip to London
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/trail1.htm
Comments welcome.
I like it too. Paths leading away to unknown destinations are a
quintessential Eleanor shot also!
ERNR
Thibouille wrote:
MX has interchangeable screens while KX has mirror lock-up.
Make your choice. ...
This is why I prefer the LX to both ...
;-)
Mishka wrote:
MX has a kinda mirror lock up. Just tap lightly the release button.
It's a hack, but it works.
On *my* MX, lightly tapping the release button releases the shutter.
It's a very sensitive release.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure I've followed everything in this discussion, but on the whole
my RAW files usually look slightly or more than slightly underexposed. Doesn't
bother me because it means I have more to work with. Easier to lighten than
darken. Hard to correct blown
Frantisek wrote:
Saturday, May 21, 2005, 1:17:02 PM, E.R.N. wrote:
ERNR Mishka wrote:
MX has a kinda mirror lock up. Just tap lightly the release button.
It's a hack, but it works.
ERNR On *my* MX, lightly tapping the release button releases the shutter.
ERNR It's a very
David Savage wrote:
Have a good weekend Frank.
The Queens actual birthday is April 15. Here in West Australia the
Queens birthday public holiday is Sept. 26. The rest of the country
has it on Jun 13.
Weird!
On 5/21/05, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's first thing Saturday
Mishka wrote:
why not move to texas?
You mean, Texas where the death penalty is applied to those who break
the law against shooting people?
On 5/23/05, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
found that there are a lot of people in the world who feel their
mission in life is making as many
Herb Chong wrote:
1G in RAW mode isn't enough for a good hour of shooting.
Surely that depends on what you are shooting?
(since what will influence how fast)
Also will depend on your shooting style.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
A scosh is a term that means just a little, but by no definite amount.
How does it relate to a smidgen? More, less or about the same?
ERNR
genuinely interested
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://members.aol.com/eactivist/POPPIES/
Thoughts and comments welcome.
I really like these.
More detailed response included in private email.
ERNR
frank theriault wrote:
On 5/25/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think what Tom is aiming at is having a path to more upmarket models.
Like, if you buy into a carmaker that has economy and midrange cars, but
no high end sport model, you might consider switching brands for that
sport
Cotty wrote:
I know what a Valley Girl is - I grew up with them ;-)
Valley Girls grew up?
... YOU grew up?
never mind ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've taken more Mom hands. I also slipped a couple of these. :-)
I know it's tightly framed, but I don't mind it. In fact, it's probably the
best I will ever get.
http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/momface.htm
Good job, Marnie, and thank you for sharing
Cotty wrote:
On 25/5/05, E.R.N. Reed, discombobulated, unleashed:
ERNR
*former* amateur mechanic
Why Eleanour, there are indeed a few more strings to your bow than meets
the eye.
I used to have a lovely little cartoon that I cut out of a British
magazine years and years ago (early
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE:
Looking for a lense
what is a LENSE?
Merriam-Webster calls it a variant of lens
William Robb
They must have given in.
A few years ago I was arguing with someone as to whether there was such
a word
Graywolf wrote:
I would think it is an British variant of lens.
That would be why the ten dictionaries I consulted came from both sides
of the pond. (Although I think both Webster's and Oxford dictionaries
also show the spellings in the other dialect.) In any case, I grew up
with the
glenn murphy wrote:
Sometimes I try to paddle upstream, other times I just get the hell
out of the water and hike.
Mark!!
Graywolf wrote:
I have heard that unaccented proper English is very similar to
Midwestern American English. What is otherwise spoken in England is
British English, except for those who speak Cockney. I've never even
seen that referred to as a dialect of English grin. The popular
Australian
Bob W wrote:
Hi,
*no such thing as British spelling. There's American English, and
then English used by everybody else in the English speaking world.
British spelling implies the non-American version is the minority
version, where in fact the opposite is true.
And that's my pet rant,
Bob W wrote:
Hi,
As I said in my response to Graywolf, I was strictly
referring to SPELLING and to my knowledge are two standards
of spelling in English.
Accents, slang, pronunciation and the use of different words
for the same object (e.g. lorry vs. truck) are not included
in spelling.
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005, John Forbes wrote:
You haven't read your Bible, Kostas.
Gasp! 12 years at school, compulsory theology course. Only in a
different language :-)))
However, I am not sure the Bible is a good grammar companion; isn't it
full of thys,
william sawyer wrote:
Thanks for looking, Paul. All I have is PS Elements 2, though. I'm planning
on upgrading the version 3, but don't know if either has the
shadow/highlight tool.
Version 3 does, but IIRC version 2 does not.
John Forbes wrote:
There are certainly some obsolete words, but it was the most read book
in English until fairly recently, so its influence (on the language)
was immense.
It is still the only version in English that can be read with
pleasure. IMHO.
John, have you seen the one called
Bob W wrote:
Hi,
Jamaican English is a diglossic language. This means that it comes in two
quite different forms, which are used in different situations.
The article you cited, says (as do I) that Jamaican patois is *not*
English. It's not Jamaican English -- it's not English at all.
Fred wrote:
Of course the King James version! Is there any other? None in English,
of that I am certain. There are a number of failed attempts, but none
that are in any way readable. :-)
OK, I've stayed out of this so far, but...
There are literally dozens of Bible versions in
David Nelson wrote:
It's a nice pic... but what have the romans ever done for us?
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education,
wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and
public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
(-:
Language ...
Do
Cotty wrote:
On 31/5/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
I guess that was my point.
People don't realize sometimes just how big the big Canon is.
It's something to consider when you are wishing for performance enhancement
features though.
I think it appears big when all
Amita Guha wrote:
Nate and I did a BH trip today. Under the rules of Mutually Assured
Destruction Ah, the joys of being married...
The whole system falls completely apart when/if you acquire children.
Just warning you.
Graywolf wrote:
Luckily Pentax does have some residual reputation, but only with us
older folks, and those who remember using a K-1000 in college.
Seems to me that the vast majority of those who remember starting with a
K1000, switched brands when they outgrew the K1000.
Present company
Christian wrote:
To keep the oddball customers coming back, they had better come out with
something to keep the fans of the LX, PZ-1, MZ-S type cameras around. ...
Although the interesting thing, to me, is that the LX, the PZ-1 and the
MZ-S were three very different cameras -- I can't quite
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I
would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven
and wide screen TV) that are found in many pro cameras for a simplified
feature set and a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry
Bob W wrote:
Luckily the French and the Dutch have relieved me of the burden of having to
read the constitution before deciding which way to vote. I'm instinctively
pro-European, but I was feeling inclined to vote against it just for being
so long.
All the other countries should just adopt
Toralf Lund wrote:
As another spin-off from the looong why choose *istDL thread, I
thought I might mention that I completely agree with the
whoever-it-was who said that what he'd really like to see, was
something that might be described as a digital version of the MZ-5n
(or ZX-5n.) Like that
Alin Flaider wrote:
I'd get a DSLR with the 5N controls layout (or MX for that matter).
Distinct buttons for the essential photographic functions, not
buried in obscure LCD menus. Come to that I don't think I even need
an LCD.
And yes, it needs to be 8 MP or more and sport at least the
Scott Loveless wrote:
This is all part of your ploy to take over the world, isn't it? Why
is it that everytime I see an LX or some other goody, the bidding has
already gone above KEH prices?
so buy one from KEH then -- that's what I did ...
;-)
It's a conspiracy, I tell ya. Anyway,
mike wilson wrote:
Missing covers (one of which you will _have_ to replace before
use)
Which one -- I couldn't tell from the pictures?
ERNR
just curious
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
Certainly within some pro fashion photog groups there is someone highly
respected who uses a 6x7 solution, and
perhaps some popular wedding person who uses a 645 system.
Other than those possibilities, maybe Shel or WW?
Nah -- I think it probably still is Sir
John Celio wrote:
Is there any way to find out the EXACT camera model and lens that
Ringo was using? I've been dying to know.
Well, he's still alive, right? So -- Perhaps you could ask him.
Seriously.
I think some of those big star types see at least *some* of their fan
mail. (And he
Don Sanderson wrote:
Totally off topic but I just recieved the Nikon FM that I ordered
out of curiosity after hearing it compared to the MX.
The first thing I noticed is that it's VERY well built.
The second was that the viewfinder is very dark compared to
the MX, or any other M body.
For those
Cesar wrote:
Hmmm, maybe I should just keep quiet about how many were actually mine
:-)
And here I thought I had left so much behind - good thing we did not
shoot a collection of lenses :-P
No I do not own a camera store,
Anybody else notice he *didn't* say he hadn't bought out the
mike wilson wrote:
Don't know for sure about MX but LX are plastic and a very fragile one at that. Damaged by most normal solvents.
Also easily damaged by inexperienced users in the process of replacing
them ... :-(
The one that came in my MX felt just as plasticky as the LX screen I put
Dario Bonazza wrote:
The last glass focusing screens seen in Pentax cameras were employed
in K-series cameras, including the early K1000.
After that, all Pentax 35mm SLR cameras since 1976 use plastic
screens, including most of K1000, the MX and the LX.
I don't know about MF.
A rather known
Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
I thought that Yanks, Brits and Aussies spoke the same language, but
now I'm not so sure:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4074760.stm
Chav? Asbo? squeaky-bum time? What language is that, anyway?
They *write* very similar languages, but *speak* the same one? No
Boris Liberman wrote:
There is a word in Hebrew that sounds exactly this - interesant - I
hope its meaning is self-evident. Our age is that of interesants,
nothing more, nothing less...
In English, the first word that comes to my mind to describe your
coworker is jackass -- however, there
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Last year at GFM we drove up to the top of the mountain thru that S
curve. It must be a 15-20% grade at the curve. As we reached it, a
25 or 30 foot long delivery truck, not a van but a HEAVY truck with
dual rear wheels, was trying to make it up the grade. We watched him
Cotty wrote:
On 13/6/05, E.R.N. Reed, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sounds so very familiar -- I remember on my trip (late July last year)
watching with fascination (and photographing, of course!) a bright red
Coca-Cola truck goin' up there last summer. I do appreciate the
dedication
mike wilson wrote:
8-) Or two wheels - your choice of motive power. Going down on a bicycle
would be excellent.
OH MY . !!
Mark Roberts wrote:
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Jackson verdict imminent.
I'll try to contain my excitement...
:)
Well, it signals the opening up (in a day or so) of lots of space for
other stories.
ERNR
ticked at the Special Report preempting Jeopardy! -- why
Some TV person providing commentary on the Spurs game last night used
the word discombobulated.
Better half wondered if the guy accidentally looked into a dictionary
and decided he had to use that word on the air.
I wondered if you were moonlighting.
ERNR
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Please keep us up to date on this late breaking and important news, won't
you ;-)) Was Jackson a Pentax user, or abuser?
Well I hear there was a pretty big crowd outside the courthouse.
Law of averages suggest there might've been a Pentax PS digital or two
there.
:-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think an 8 megapixel digital SLR is a feeble hope. I'd say it's a certainty. Naming it LX is indeed a feeble hope. The name LX was chosen in honor of Asahi's 60th anniversary. There's no logic in using that numeral again.
Logic? Pentax??
If I might just remind
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
You must be overlooking the fact that this is 30EUR
for a LOWER MODEL not just 30EUR lower price on same
modelI seriously doubt many if ANY people would choose
a lower model at 670EUR over a better model at 700EUR.
I, for one, don't doubt it at all. People do the
Graywolf wrote:
Which I guess brings up another possible item for the FAQ. e.g.:
THREADS: There is no need to respond to each and every post in a
thread. Most folks who are following the thread read every post in it.
So stating your point once, or maybe twice, is all that is needed.
Flame
Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can find copies on ebay. Just make sure you don't get a site
license version. Those are not upgradeable.
Also be sure you don't buy a disk that someone's already installed and
registered. If the license number has
Tim Sherburne wrote:
On 6/16/05 12:54, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
the licence of a registered piece of software in Adobe's records to
somebody else. I went through it a few weeks ago, selling my Photoshop
Elements version 2 to a friend because I no longer needed it after
buying version 3.
I
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I don't mean tweaks, like sharpening, color
adjustment, and the like, but changing backgrounds, focus, and major
alterations. The rationale seemed to be that what you'd like to see as a
final result may not always be in the scene.
IMO, this type of article is a
Christian wrote:
Really what Shel and E. are saying is that they don't like this FORM of
photography; purists that they are.
Well, when I say iced tea is not Coke, I mean that they are different,
not that I don't like iced tea. The fact that I don't like iced tea is
irrelevant, even
Christian wrote:
(among other things)
Does it need a name? Does it matter if
Paul calls it a photograph and Cotty calls it Collage? For the record,
yes, I call it a photograph. But who cares?
The point I keep trying to make -- and I'm starting to wonder why I'm
still trying -- is that
Herb Chong wrote:
the agreement is that all of the above are photographs.
If you read the thread you'll note that no such agreement exists.
Joaquim Carvalho wrote:
Now that Macs have reasonable prices and a secure viruseless OS why
does the majority of people keep buying one Windows PC after another
and won't even consider them as an alternative?
Because they are used to, and like, the Windows interface better than
the Mac one?
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jun 18, 2005, at 7:23 AM, William Robb wrote:
I find it odd that a group of photographers are debating the ethics
of intellectual property rights.
Any one of us would be totally pissfaced if someone lifted one of
our photos to use without paying (remember the
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Where'd you ever get such a ridiculous notion? The book is for flattening
prints.
Mark!!
Don Williams wrote ...
HEY! You're back!!
When did you come back? Have you been lurking?
Good to see you.
ERNR
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hey, are you suggesting I only use Pentax?
Shel (Leica-Yashicamat-Sony-Olympus-Rollei owner/user)
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If everyone on this left because they bought something other than a
Pentax, it would just be Shel and some guy
On 6/25/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The mercury topped off in the high nineties (F of course) today, so two
ice creams are allowed. By the way this is NOT a street shot because it
was not taken with a focal length prescribed by the AOPSS (Arcane Order
of Pretentious Street
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hey, are you suggesting I only use Pentax?
Shel (Leica-Yashicamat-Sony-Olympus-Rollei owner/user)
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If everyone on this left
Tim Øsleby wrote:
(among other things)
You might ask why I shot raw then. To be honest, I don't really know. It
just sounds like the right thing to do. Hope to learn this soon.
Tim, we've had a lot of threads in recent months about shooting Raw. You might find the
archived posts of
Mark Roberts wrote:
Daniel Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, just want to get some opinions. I'm planning on getting an istds
and a 28mm prime, and I like to do low-light work. Which lens would
you pick, the sigma 28mm 1.8 or the FA pentax 28mm 2.8? I'm used to
shooting at a very
frank theriault wrote:
I guess
that's just the way the human brain works: we seem to be hardwired
with this insatiable desire to pigeon-hole everything. If a category
doesn't exist to stick something into, we'll invent one.
I think we're hardwired that way to make it easier to find stuff.
frank theriault wrote:
On 6/27/05, Jerome Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Duh, that's obvious. It would be a doggone architectural street
portraiture. Well... that is, unless it was taken with extention tubes.
Then it woud be a macro shot g
Damn. Should I use colour or bw?
Butch Black wrote:
On 25 Jun, 2005, at 8:47, P. J. Alling wrote:
They supply AA alkaline batteries with the *ist-DL. Then recommend
against them. How cheap can you get...
and cheap is what they're aiming for, they give picture capacity for
128mb sd cards.
Not that surprising. Most of
Mark Roberts wrote:
Tim Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thibouille, we all know that what you really meant to say was that a 200mm
lens is still a 200mm lens regardless of the size of the sensitized material
you stick it in front of.
I expect Thibouille knows this and that's why
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Thank you both for the enlightenment. Much as I love the PDML banter,
I do not often keep notes on individual subscribers' pet dyspepsia.
Also, you were not here at the time of that particular Big Fight. Had
you been, I suspect you might have remembered it without
Amita Guha wrote:
Thanks, Anothony. I'm planning to use the 90mm as a portrait lens. If I were
concerned about my back (and I am) I'd leave the Tamron 28-75mm at home, but
my husband convinced me to bring it.
Sounds like good reason for your husband to carry it for you.
Joseph Tainter wrote:
Today I received from BH a Lexar Multi-Card Reader. Windows XP is
unable to recognize it.
Has anyone found a multi-card reader that works with Windows XP?
My Lexar multi-card reader (which, IIRC, I bought at Wal*Mart) works
with Windows XP.
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
The first one is a nice strong photo.
The second has no context or story, and offers little to involve the
viewer.
How nice it is to know that you sometimes work late and eat supper at
work.
What is your project? If these are two images from the same
Graywolf wrote:
I just did a BIN on a used Oylmpus C-5050. That makes me a double
traitor. Buying a digi-tal, and buying a foreign brand. I have wanted
one of these since they were anounced but had to wait until I could
get it for pocket change. Hey, I am buying a camera that is only 3-4
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_nightlights.html
Equipment:
Pentax *ist-D SMC/Pentax 43mm Ltd.
As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored.
Mesa thinking you were trying to capture light sources of as many
different color temperatures
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Your Favorite Pentax Camera
LOL One of my favorite portraits was made in a completely dark
room save
for the changing light of a TV screen. The LX, set on auto,
performed very
well ... I was quote
Brian Walters wrote:
Well, that is interesting.
I don't know why but it never occurred to me that the 90WR's remote
would work with the *istDS. Given that the Remote Control F sells
for about A$45, the 90WR that I picked up on EBay a few weeks ago for
A$15 now seems an even greater
Jostein wrote:
Btw, the *istD is the tool I use most, but doesn't even come close in terms of
being a favourite tool. I hate its ergonomics. Not that it is particularly bad,
but it doesn't fit my hands. I hate the eyepiece that keeps coming off,
Jostein, would you like me to post you a
Tom Reese wrote:
There's something very satisfying about the clunking sound that
shutter makes.
It scares away hummingbirds.
Not a good feature if you happen to be trying to photograph the
hummingbirds.
ERNR
hasn't used a K1000 for years, except for borrowing father's briefly for
the
1 - 100 of 777 matches
Mail list logo
