the
top. I stated my opinoin in that specific issue. No more, no less.
Back to harmless lurkin again.
Tim
Mostly harmless.
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0
-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo
Ok, but I think the quality or
lack thereof is independent
of performance optimization
at any paricular focussing distance,
and since this is a portrait
type lens, it probably is focus
optimized at a closer distance
than inifinity
Nice.
I have heaps of shots of these things:
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP3380.jpg
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP3363.jpg
(that sugary syrup tastes really nice)
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP3354.jpg
And this should impress Mark, this one
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I apologize,
MARK!
--
Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
J. C. O'Connell
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:50 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo
Ok, but I think the quality or
lack thereof is independent
of performance optimization
at any paricular focussing distance
Thibouille,
I'm not sure what you started, or what might be going on. Remember, I
completely filter at least one boob from my email universe entirely
so that it remains peaceful here. Noise like that isn't worth
expending any thought on.
Well.. as usual :'(
Yeah I will end doing the same.
Mmm I find the bokeh to be quite OK: not bad but not good either.
But this lens seems very sharp otherwise.
Mmm I wonder if digital vs film has a big influence over bokeh. I'd
like to see a comparison like this.
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,
- Original Message -
From: Thibouille
Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
Mmm I find the bokeh to be quite OK: not bad but not good either.
But this lens seems very sharp otherwise.
Mmm I wonder if digital vs film has a big influence over bokeh. I'd
like to see a comparison
??
The M85/2 has excellent rendering properties. I only sold mine
because I wanted the shorter focal length and full functionality of
the shorter FA77.
The bokeh of any lens is very sensitive to what has been done to
render the image, not to the capture medium. Clumsy image processing
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
- Original Message -
From: Thibouille
Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
Mmm I find the bokeh to be quite OK: not bad but not good either. But
this lens seems very sharp otherwise.
Mmm I wonder if digital vs film
of
the formed lens image.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:57 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
??
The M85/2 has excellent rendering properties. I
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
- Original Message -
From: Thibouille
Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
Mmm I find the bokeh to be quite OK: not bad but not good either. But
this lens seems very sharp otherwise.
Mmm I wonder if digital vs
-- Original message --
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Secondly, this WR guy's posts, really show
he is completely clueless. His deductions make
no sense because he either doesnt understand
or never noticed how unsharp mask works
or he doesnt read
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:58:25 -0400
Secondly, this WR guy's posts, really show
he is completely clueless. His deductions make
no sense because he either doesnt understand
or never noticed how unsharp mask works
or he
On 4/23/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Secondly, this WR guy's posts, really show
he is completely clueless. His deductions make
no sense because he either doesnt understand
or never noticed how unsharp mask works
Maybe so. But his pictures look better than yours.
-Mat
--
Yup, you have got this guy WR
down to a tee.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 4:25 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
egomania irrational self-centered attitude
Well if I wondered it is because I did not know ;) Never had any time
to play to see if medium had any influence. I do not usually state
things just because I think they are. Reason for me being ignorant.
On another POV: s**t, what did I start ? :(
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
Looks like I'm going to need tighter filtering, but, as long as I saw this
...
JCO, the thread has moved from your specific comment through the general
rendering of the 85mm lens bokeh to some general comments about bokeh.
It's no longer about YOUR specific comments. Threads and discussions on
: Monday, April 23, 2007 4:52 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
On 4/23/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Secondly, this WR guy's posts, really show
he is completely clueless. His deductions make
no sense because he either doesnt understand
Do you mean this ISN'T the PJCODML (Pummel JCO Discuss Mailing List) ?
Pardon me. Which door was it?
Tom C.
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
Date: Mon, 23
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Shel Belinkoff
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:33 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
Looks like I'm going to need tighter filtering, but, as long as I saw
this ...
JCO, the thread has
else's wrong.
And even if someone else was wrong, so what?
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:01:09 -0400
So what is the word for compulsive baiting ?
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
egomania irrational self-centered attitude or self-worship
enissomaniainability to prevent onself from attacking
On Apr 23, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Thibouille wrote:
Well if I wondered it is because I did not know ;) Never had any time
to play to see if medium had any influence. I do not usually state
things just because I think they are. Reason for me being ignorant.
On another POV: s**t, what did I start
I wasn't baiting. I frankly couldn't care less how/if he responds.
Tom C.
From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:15:38 -0400
So what
are not the one being
repeatedly subjected to it.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:20 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
I'm curious if this is the only place you feel persecuted
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
HUH?
Mark!
--
Scott Loveless
www.twosixteen.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
@pdml.net
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:16:21 -0400
HUH? If someone else is WRONG when
they imply I must not know what the hell I am
doing to defend their WRONG contention, they
are going to get a reply to set he record
I agree, the Boketh is ordinary. But no one commented on the shot. Actually
quite good. It looks like an Australian bottle brush flower. I am sure it is
not native to Florida.
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
List pdml@pdml.net
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:16:21 -0400
HUH? If someone else is WRONG when
they imply I must not know what the hell I am
doing to defend their WRONG contention, they
are going to get a reply to set he
No problem.
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:44:08 -0400
I apologize, it was someone else telling
me to let it slide
together so you
could see/notice that in the second photo easier.
I.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bob Rapp
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:32 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo
I
-
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo
If you look at the first bokeh test photo
I posted shot at F2.0 from yesterday ,you will see the
bokeh
On 4/24/07, Bob Rapp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like an Australian bottle brush flower. I am sure it is
not native to Florida.
That's a bottle brush alright.
Here's one I took that's in the garden:
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP3390.jpg
The native birds love them.
it physically
a VERY small optical/mechanical design.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bob Rapp
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 8:32 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo
I had seen them both. I think
Here's one I shot at Huntington Gardens in Pasadena, California:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5887044size=lg
On Apr 23, 2007, at 8:37 PM, David Savage wrote:
On 4/24/07, Bob Rapp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like an Australian bottle brush flower. I am sure it is
not
36 matches
Mail list logo
