Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: olympus Digest V1 #278

Subject: [OM] Re: olympus Digest V1 #278
From: Stephen Scharf <scharfsj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 23:17:41 -0800
>
>
>From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Trip to the big city - looking at cameras
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 05:56:53 +0000
><SNIP>
>
>By the way, Stephen spent some time trying to persuade the List of the
>merits of an E-1, I am sure.  Wasn't he loaned one?
>
>Chris

I used an E-1 for the better of two days at the 
Superbike races at Fontana in April.
I liked it for the most part, and I did post what 
I felt was an a fair assessment of the camera. 
While I liked the lenses and image quality a lot, 
it had some implementation issues that I felt 
kept it from being a fully realized design:

In summary:
Pluses:
Absolutely beautiful build quality (VFR-like, in motorcycle parlance)
Excellent image quality
Zuikos are typically fabulous, compact, light and sharp.
Very good metering
Excellent histograms (probably consistently the best I've ever seen)
Neutral color images, though not perfectly 
neutral (FWIW, haven't seen any digital camera 
that is).
Minuses:
Noisy at 400 ISO and above
Daylight AF Acceptable but not exceptional, AF 
performance is marginal even in only moderately 
low light
Slow write times to CF card
Slow image review times on LCD
Clumsy workflow in getting the histogram on LCD
Arrangement of a multitude of buttons is quirky; seems to have no logical flow

Someone here posted that they thought 4/3" sensor 
is a "cul de sac", which is the best description 
I've heard of the format. All in all, a nice 
first effort, but not a home run in my book. 
OTOH, I'll take an E-1 rather than shoot with 
film again any day of the week.

-Stephen.




>On 31 Oct 2004, at 3:33, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
>>
>>  Idiot, idiot, idiot (sound of palm slapping forehead, etc.) I forgot
>>  the auto stripping in the new regime. Can't post it to my own site for
>>  reasons stated - I'll find another way.
>>  AndrewF
>>
>>
><|_:-)_|>
>C M I Barker
>Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
>+44 (0)7092 251126
>http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
>http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: 10/28 fragment of my day
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:00:47 +0000
>
>
>Hi Joel
>
>No, the colours look fine; but I was interested in your processes.   I
>normally leave curves alone as I am almost bound to bugger up decent
>pictures!
>
>A couple of other points: I don't think that PS does anything but offer
>you advice about format when you Save for the Web; and why change to
>sRGB?  Is it because you reckon that most viewers will have that set up
>on their monitors?
>
>Thanks
>
>Chris
>
>On 31 Oct 2004, at 1:07, Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
>>  Chris,
>>  Sorry to nudge a bruise.  I was very impressed jp2000 when I played
>>  with it
>>  once, but I do recall a lot of overhead to the process.
>>
>>  I've been thinking more about your original question on postprocessing
>>  of
>>  the image (which is here:  http://soli.inav.net/~jdub/day/day27.html).
>>   I
>>  started to wonder why you asked, and then wondered if the colors are
>>  screwy
>>  on your machine, and then realized my standard processing, while
>>  standard
>>  for me, is a bit more than just cropping.  So let me itemize my post
>>  routine:
>>
>>  1) Set levels (this might have required setting the black point only)
>>  2) Mess with curves (this one didn't require any messing)
>>  3) Resize to c.400x600 pixels @72 dpi
>>  4) "Save for web" in PS at about 50KB
>>  5) Open file, change profile to sRGB, and re-save
>>
>>  The last step makes the colors more garish on the web version in
>>  Photoshop.  In the various browsers it makes a better match to the
>>  original
>>  capture in PS (on my machine).
>>
>>  Joel W.
>>
><|_:-)_|>
>C M I Barker
>Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
>+44 (0)7092 251126
>http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
>http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Subject: [OM] List-mom: politics
>From: Thomas Heide Clausen <T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:13 +0100
>
>
>Guys,
>
>I know that elections are upcomming in some regions of the world, and that
>this topic thus is very much present in the mind of those who're up for
>voting.
>
>However unless Maitani is nominated for office (wouldn't that be cool?), 
>could we try to keep political discussions at bay on the list?
>
>Thanks -- and Greetings from a very tired list-mom, who just did two tours
>'round this planet...
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:54:50 +0100
>Subject: [OM] Re: List-mom: politics
>From: iwert <iwert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>>
>  > Thanks -- and Greetings from a very tired list-mom, who just did two tours
>>  'round this planet...
>
>Thomas, didn't Nasa say they'll start relounching the shuttle april next
>year? sleep well, and have sweet dreams about Maitani for president!
>
>Iwert.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: List-mom: politics
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:39:23 +1100
>
>
>No, shan't!
>(stamps feet, pouts, chews the carpet...)
>AndrewF
>
>
>On 31/10/2004, at 6:13 AM, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
>
>>
>>  However unless Maitani is nominated for office (wouldn't that be
>>  cool?),
>>  could we try to keep political discussions at bay on the list?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Trip to the big city - looking at cameras
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:42:03 +1100
>
>
>Already hosted by WayneH - about to post the link.
>Steven turned up with a D60, 1D and some serious glass and no Oly at
>all. He says the Mike Veglia called him a Canon enabler. He may have
>liked the E1 but he ain't got one!
>Andrew
>
>
>On 31/10/2004, at 4:56 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
>>
>>  Send it to me if you like AndrewF.  I will put it (briefly) on my .mac
>>  site ( good to see you're an iBook user as well...)
>>
>>  By the way, Stephen spent some time trying to persuade the List of the
>>  merits of an E-1, I am sure.  Wasn't he loaned one?
>>
>>  Chris
>>
>>  On 31 Oct 2004, at 3:33, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  Idiot, idiot, idiot (sound of palm slapping forehead, etc.) I forgot
>>>  the auto stripping in the new regime. Can't post it to my own site for
>>>  reasons stated - I'll find another way.
>>>  AndrewF
>>>
>>>
>>  <|_:-)_|>
>>  C M I Barker
>>  Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
>>  +44 (0)7092 251126
>>  http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
>>  http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
>>
>>
>>  ==============================================
>>  List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>  List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>  ==============================================
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Trip to the big city - looking at cameras
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:43:53 +1100
>
>
>http://lrh.structuregraphs.com/backless.htm
>To avoid confusion - this was at the school graduation - not the
>Brownlow which I wouldn't attend at gunpoint.
>AndrewF
>
>
>On 30/10/2004, at 11:50 PM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>>  OK - there you go (sorry for posting a jpeg but it was requested!) The
>>  Brownlow is a medal presented to a local footballer in the regional
>>  novelty code each year - best and fairest. At the awards night, players
>>  tend to turn up with 'trophy blondes' - this year, one was
>>  transparently a model furthering her own career with a frock that was
>>  utterly dependent on double-sided tape.
>>  10D, 400ASA,  17-40/4 (I think), 420EX. I need a Stofen!
>>  AndrewF
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:44:44 -0800 (PST)
>From: Richard Lovison <sylv4700@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Wooo Hoooo . . . Found the Lens Hood!
>
>
>--- "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>  Now I need to run it through some paces to see what it can do . . .
>>  some of which will be a few astro-photos with its fast aperture . . .
>>  relatively wide field compared to prime focus stuff through a 'scope.
>>
>>  -- John Lind
>>  (Who really needs to get a GEM with polar alignment 'scope and RA
>>  drive for
>>  doing the sky stuff)
>
>Hi John,
>
>Your 14" Celestron doesn't have a drive?  Must be a pain to view
>anything if it doesn't.  If it does, why not piggyback the OM and
>Tamron  on the Celestron and guide through it?
>
>Richard
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:47:51 -0800 (PST)
>From: Richard Lovison <sylv4700@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] [photo] fall forest 2
>
>http://people.simons-rock.edu/rlovison/temp/FallForest2.html
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Wayne Harridge" <wayneharridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: [photo] fall forest 2
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:56:51 +1100
>
>
>>
>>  http://people.simons-rock.edu/rlovison/temp/FallForest2.html
>>
>
>Great Autumn image.
>
>...Wayne
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Trip to the big city - looking at cameras
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:14:46 +0000
>
>
>Oh!
>
>Twice! ;-)
>
>On 31 Oct 2004, at 9:42, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
>>
>>  Already hosted by WayneH - about to post the link.
>>  Steven turned up with a D60, 1D and some serious glass and no Oly at
>>  all. He says the Mike Veglia called him a Canon enabler. He may have
>>  liked the E1 but he ain't got one!
>>  Andrew
>>
>>
>>  On 31/10/2004, at 4:56 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  Send it to me if you like AndrewF.  I will put it (briefly) on my .mac
>>>  site ( good to see you're an iBook user as well...)
>>>
>>>  By the way, Stephen spent some time trying to persuade the List of the
>>>  merits of an E-1, I am sure.  Wasn't he loaned one?
>>>
>>>  Chris
>>>
>>>  On 31 Oct 2004, at 3:33, Andrew Fildes wrote:
><|_:-)_|>
>C M I Barker
>Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
>+44 (0)7092 251126
>http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
>http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
>Subject: [OM] Re: [photo] fall forest 2
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:47:24 +0000
>
>Richard,
>
>Have you been in our back yard?  Why didn't you 
>come in for a beverage appropriate to the time 
>of day?  Seriously, I could step out the back 
>door from the basement and take a nearly 
>identical photograph.  Nicely done.
>
>This, however, is the first time in many years 
>that I haven't added to the thousands of fall 
>foliage shots I have, dating back to the '60s. 
>Because of the hurricanes that kept hitting 
>Florida thisyear, then winding down by lashing 
>Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina with 
>strong winds and heavy rain, lots of leaves and 
>limbs came down long before the colors started 
>to appear, and this year everything hereabouts 
>just looks kind of ragged and the colors seem a 
>little subdued.  Maybe next year.
>
>Walt
>
>--
>"Anything more than 500 yards from
>the car just isn't photogenic." --
>Edward Weston
>
>
>-------------- Original message from Richard 
>Lovison <sylv4700@xxxxxxxxx>: --------------
>
>
>>  http://people.simons-rock.edu/rlovison/temp/FallForest2.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:47:02 -0500
>From: "Earl Dunbar" <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Trip to the big city - pro processing lab
>
>
>I agree that he's generally OK.  I bought an 
>Invercone for my Weston Master IV from him, and 
>it was MUCH better than the picture.  I pay 
>attention to his text and go by that.  With 
>Rocky, I think the bad pics are an advantage to 
>a knowledgeable buyer.
>
>Earl
>
>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
>
>On 10/31/2004 at 2:30 PM Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
>>Absolutely. There's an English seller (Rocky) who is notorious for his 
>>pix - huge files, uncropped and out of focus. He's generally OK but I 
>>just don't bother any more - too much like hard work. I cannot 
>>understand why someone with deals in the many thousands hasn't wised 
>>up. NOTHING improves bidding as much as 2 or 3 decent pix.
>>And missing bits is a worry all right - I live in terror of losing a 
>>16mm front cap or 135mm macro rear cap. Some of them I store at home 
>>and use cheap substitutes in the field. To lose the caps from an LF 
>>lens is very careless indeed.
>>AndrewF
>>
>>
>>On 31/10/2004, at 3:23 AM, Walt Wayman wrote:
>>
>>>  Jim,
>>>
>>>  Ordinarily, that's probably exactly what I would do.  But there are a 
>>>  couple of things about this auction that cause me to hesitate punching 
>  >> the BIN button and, instead, hoping to snipe it for somewhat less.  
>>>  (Pay attention here, *Bay sellers.)
>>>
>>>  First, anyone who would (or should) have a lens of this quality and 
>>>  price ought to be able to take a better picture of it for the auction.
>>>
>>>  Second, he says he has the front and back caps, but not the originals.
>  >>  I'm one of the world's worst slobs, totally disorganized, slovenly 
>>>  even, sometimes fearful of dying under an avalanche of possessions as 
>>>  I pass along one of the narrow paths through the clutter in this 
>>>  house.  But there are lenses I've had for 40 years that still have the 
>>>  original front and back caps.  Not a big deal, I suppose, but it's 
>>>  still a bit of a red flag for me.
>>>
>>>  These little things cause me to hesitate just enough that I've set a 
>>>  snipe a reasonable amount lower than the BIN.  If it gets the lens, 
>>>  okay.  If not, that's okay too.  Like trains and busses, there's 
>>>  always another one coming along.
>>>
>>>  Walt
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  "Anything more than 500 yards from
>>>  the car just isn't photogenic." --
>>>  Edward Weston
>>>
>>>
>>>  -------------- Original message from Jim Brokaw <jbrokaw@xxxxxxxx>: 
>>>  --------------
>>>
>>>
>>>>  on 10/29/04 11:06 AM, Walt Wayman at hiwayman@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  And here's a lens I really, really, really want, need, must have, 
>>>>>  can't live
>>>>>  without. So how much should I snipe it for?
>>>>>
>>>>>  http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
>>>>>  ViewItem&category=15247&item=3848389291
>>>>>
>>>>>  Oh, and when I get this marvelous macro miracle machine finished, 
>>>>>  I'll post
>>>>>  pictures, both of and taken by it. Luv them 6x9 Velvia trannies! 
>>>>>  Digit that,
>>>>>  pixel heads!
>>>>
>>>>  When I 'really really really want need must have can't live without'
>>>>  something, I just buy it...
>>>>
>>>>  the BIN was still there when I checked.
>>>>
>>>>  Will this cover 6x9 or just 4x5?
>>>>  --
>>>>
>>>>  Jim Brokaw
>>>>  OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
>>>>
>>>  ==============================================
>>>  List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>  List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>  ==============================================
>>>
>>
>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>==============================================
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:49:02 -0500
>From: "Earl Dunbar" <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: {OT} Retired? Keep things interesting....
>
>
>Jump back into the pool...it's pretty 
>interesting in the top 10.  With no females in 
>the finals, it is disappointing from that 
>aspect. 
>
>Earl
>
>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
>
>On 10/30/2004 at 8:38 PM Mike wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>For those of you outside the great white north, see cbc.ca/greatest.
>>>
>>>Earl
>>>
>>I lost interest when that hockey announcer who dresses in a full Chicago
>>(Don Cherry) made it and the only women were pop singers.
>>
>>mike
>>
>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>==============================================
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:11:31 -0800 (PST)
>From: Richard Lovison <sylv4700@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] [astro photo] Pleiades
>
>This is a photo taken in 1991 when my wife and I took a trip to the
>Star Hill Inn in New Mexico.  It was a 30 minute manually guided
>exposure taken with an OM-1 and a Takahashi FC-60 that was piggybacked
>on a Meade LX3.
>
>http://people.simons-rock.edu/rlovison/temp/Pleiades.html 
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:20:17 -0800 (PST)
>From: Richard Lovison <sylv4700@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: [photo] fall forest 2
>
>Hi Walt,
>
>Thanks for the feedback and the invite. :)  If I would have been near
>your backyard it would have been my pleasure to stop in for a
>beverage... it would have been nice to meet you.  :)
>
>Sorry to hear about the tree damage and lack luster fall.  For us, this
>year has been an improvement over last year's due to a little less
>rainfall.
>
>Best regards,
>Richard
>
>--- Walt Wayman <hiwayman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>  Richard,
>>
>>  Have you been in our back yard?  Why didn't you come in for a
>  > beverage appropriate to the time of day?  Seriously, I could step out
>>  the back door from the basement and take a nearly identical
>>  photograph.  Nicely done.
>>
>>  This, however, is the first time in many years that I haven't added
>>  to the thousands of fall foliage shots I have, dating back to the
>>  '60s.  Because of the hurricanes that kept hitting Florida thisyear,
>>  then winding down by lashing Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina
>>  with strong winds and heavy rain, lots of leaves and limbs came down
>>  long before the colors started to appear, and this year everything
>>  hereabouts just looks kind of ragged and the colors seem a little
>>  subdued.  Maybe next year.
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:38:05 -0500
>From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] The Old 14" and New 16" 'Scope Saga [was Wooo Hoooo . . .
>
>At 06:44 AM 10/31/04, Richard wrote:
>
>>Hi John,
>>
>>Your 14" Celestron doesn't have a drive?  Must be a pain to view
>>anything if it doesn't.  If it does, why not piggyback the OM and
>>Tamron  on the Celestron and guide through it?
>
>The 14" 'scope isn't mine.  It's in the IU-Kokomo observatory:
>    http://www.kac.johnlind.net/
>Unfortunately it doesn't have a piggyback camera mount . . . won't be up
>much longer either . . . not worth adding one now.  I need to get a fairly
>lightweight GEM/RA-drive and polar scope that can hopefully mount to my
>heavy duty Bogen (I have an extra center column for it).
>
>Attempted installation of the new 16" Meade that will replace it, the Lunar
>eclipse, and having the observatory open for public viewing of the eclipse
>was another story . . .
>
>We were supposed to have a new 16" Meade up before the eclipse.  A new 6"
>Takahashi refractor will also be piggybacked on it (need to get the 16" up
>first).  That was repeatedly delayed by the school.  Sufficient sniveling
>by the Physics Department and the fact that a news release had already gone
>out announcing the observatory would be open for the eclipse got some
>facilities folks reallocated for a couple days . . . just before the
>eclipse (typical bureaucracy).  In the process of unpacking the remaining
>mounting hardware, we found "insurmountable" pier mounting problems with
>the pier, custom made equatorial wedge and the Meade 'scope RA drive
>base.  The 14" and its equatorial wedge had already been dismounted.  It
>had to get put back on the pier the day of the eclipse.  Getting its ~300
>pounds of mass hauled up a narrow stairwell and puting it back on the pier
>in a few hours without damaging it was an achievement itself . . . still
>needs to be polar aligned . . . wasn't important for Lunar viewing by the
>public; the Moon would drift even if it were.
>
>Monday evening I need to make some measurements to ensure the rework of the
>new equatorial wedge puts the new 'scope in the center of the dome (the
>pier is offset).  If there's clear enough sky we'll do a rough polar
>alignment of the old 14" 'scope to 44' from Polaris toward Cassiopeia . . .
>don't know if we'll have enough time to tweak it with North-South and
>East-West drift measurements.
>
>-- John Lind
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: [astro photo] Pleiades
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:43:32 +0000
>
>
>Smashing Richard!
>
>Chris
>On 31 Oct 2004, at 15:11, Richard Lovison wrote:
>
>>  This is a photo taken in 1991 when my wife and I took a trip to the
>>  Star Hill Inn in New Mexico.  It was a 30 minute manually guided
>>  exposure taken with an OM-1 and a Takahashi FC-60 that was piggybacked
>>  on a Meade LX3.
>>
>>  http://people.simons-rock.edu/rlovison/temp/Pleiades.html
>  >
><|_:-)_|>
>C M I Barker
>Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
>+44 (0)7092 251126
>http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
>http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:06:47 -0500
>From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: [astro photo] Pleiades
>
>Very nicely done Richard . . . especially for 30 minutes using a portable
>setup . . . looks like excellent polar alignment (no visible rotation).
>
>Wish we had that kind of "seeing" more often here.  The "Seven Sisters" is
>definintely a much, much bigger family!
>
>-- John
>
>At 10:11 AM 10/31/04, you wrote:
>>This is a photo taken in 1991 when my wife and I took a trip to the
>>Star Hill Inn in New Mexico.  It was a 30 minute manually guided
>>exposure taken with an OM-1 and a Takahashi FC-60 that was piggybacked
>>on a Meade LX3.
>>
>>http://people.simons-rock.edu/rlovison/temp/Pleiades.html
>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>==============================================
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:12:06 -0600
>From: Joel Wilcox <jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: 10/28 fragment of my day
>
>Chris,
>Yes, that's pretty much correct about the browsers and sRGB.  I pull the
>capture image into AdobeRGB when it opens, as that's my working space
>(forgot to mention that step).  Left in AdobeRGB, the browsers will flatten
>out and desaturate the color.  Such at least is the behavior in the PC
>world.  I'd be curious if it is similar on a Mac, if you care to experiment.
>
>My curves adjustments are extremely simple, and there are mainly two of
>them (almost never used together -- one or the other is usually
>enough).  Assuming levels have already been corrected (white and black
>points only), in curves I will sometimes grab the line right in the middle
>at around 128 and drag it down to about 115.  This often improves the
>"body" of the color palette, and it's very subtle and, I think, not
>damaging.  The other adjustment is for contrast:  click the very middle of
>the line to anchor it, and then grab the middle of the lower segment and
>pull down a little and watch to see if contrast improves.
>
>I will soon have access to an old G4 Powerbook at work, so I expect to be
>ambidextrous in the future with any luck.
>
>Joel W.
>
>At 06:00 AM 10/31/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>
>>Hi Joel
>>
>>No, the colours look fine; but I was interested in your processes.   I
>>normally leave curves alone as I am almost bound to bugger up decent
>>pictures!
>>
>>A couple of other points: I don't think that PS does anything but offer
>>you advice about format when you Save for the Web; and why change to
>>sRGB?  Is it because you reckon that most viewers will have that set up
>>on their monitors?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>On 31 Oct 2004, at 1:07, Joel Wilcox wrote:
>>
>>  > Chris,
>>  > Sorry to nudge a bruise.  I was very impressed jp2000 when I played
>>  > with it
>>  > once, but I do recall a lot of overhead to the process.
>>  >
>>  > I've been thinking more about your original question on postprocessing
>>  > of
>>  > the image (which is here:  http://soli.inav.net/~jdub/day/day27.html).
>>  >  I
>>  > started to wonder why you asked, and then wondered if the colors are
>>  > screwy
>>  > on your machine, and then realized my standard processing, while
>>  > standard
>>  > for me, is a bit more than just cropping.  So let me itemize my post
>>  > routine:
>>  >
>>  > 1) Set levels (this might have required setting the black point only)
>>  > 2) Mess with curves (this one didn't require any messing)
>>  > 3) Resize to c.400x600 pixels @72 dpi
>>  > 4) "Save for web" in PS at about 50KB
>>  > 5) Open file, change profile to sRGB, and re-save
>>  >
>>  > The last step makes the colors more garish on the web version in
>>  > Photoshop.  In the various browsers it makes a better match to the
>>  > original
>>  > capture in PS (on my machine).
>>  >
>>  > Joel W.
>  > >
>><|_:-)_|>
>>C M I Barker
>>Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
>>+44 (0)7092 251126
>>http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
>>http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
>>
>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>  >==============================================
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:25:37 -0600
>From: Joel Wilcox <jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: [photo] fall forest 2
>
>That's very nice, Richard.  It's so hard to get a coherent image in such
>situations when the chaos of subject-matter, that looks so great in 3-D,
>flattens out on film, but you've captured a good feeling of three
>dimensions here.  Well done!
>
>Joel W.
>
>At 03:47 AM 10/31/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>>http://people.simons-rock.edu/rlovison/temp/FallForest2.html
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:35:53 -0500
>Subject: [OM] Re: Tamron 80-200/2.8 was Wooo Hoooo . . .
>From: Andrew Gullen <andrew.gullen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>on 2004/10/30 11:47 PM, John A. Lind at jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>  I'm concluding from the remarks of others that the lens hood for the Tamron
>>  80-200 f/2.8 SP LD can be rather hard to find.
>
>How necessary is the hood (i.e., how flare-prone are they)?
>
>Andrew
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:44:11 -0800
>Subject: [OM] Re: [OT] Some GREAT images
>From: Rob Harrison <robhar@xxxxxx>
>
>On 10/29/04 5:42 AM, "Richard Lovison" <sylv4700@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>  The photo by Kent Porter took my
>>  breath away.
>
>I had the same reaction to the Mark Bialek image. Fantastic photo. Has a
>dark Edward Hopper look to it--very evocative.
>
>Rob Harrison
>Seattle
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
>Subject: [OM] Re: Tamron 80-200/2.8 was Wooo Hoooo . . .
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:06:01 +0000
>
>Andrew,
>
>A hood, any hood, as long as it doesn't 
>vignette, is preferable to no hood at all.  I 
>have the proper hood for my 80-200/2.8 Tamron, 
>and it's always used, except when I feel the 
>need for a filter.  Then, since I don't have a 
>set of 77mm filters, I use a 77-82mm step-up 
>ring and a two-inch deep, $10, metal, 82mm 
>screw-in hood I got off *Bay a couple of years 
>ago.  If you've got this lens and don't have the 
>"proper" bayonet hood, a screw-in 77mm hood a 
>couple of inches deep will do just as well.  May 
>not look as good, but it'll do the job, and you 
>could probably find one in the junk bin at most 
>any camera store.
>
>Walt
>
>--
>"Anything more than 500 yards from
>the car just isn't photogenic." --
>Edward Weston
>
>
>-------------- Original message from Andrew 
>Gullen <andrew.gullen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: 
>--------------
>
>
>>  on 2004/10/30 11:47 PM, John A. Lind at jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>  > I'm concluding from the remarks of others 
>>that the lens hood for the Tamron
>>  > 80-200 f/2.8 SP LD can be rather hard to find.
>>
>>  How necessary is the hood (i.e., how flare-prone are they)?
>>
>>  Andrew
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:20:06 -0800
>Subject: [OM] Re: Trip to the big city - looking at cameras
>From: Jim Brokaw <jbrokaw@xxxxxxxx>
>
>on 10/31/04 1:43 AM, Andrew Fildes at afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>  http://lrh.structuregraphs.com/backless.htm
>>  To avoid confusion - this was at the school graduation - not the
>>  Brownlow which I wouldn't attend at gunpoint.
>>  AndrewF
>
>Well... that looks to be a very studious student...! Thanks for the
>opportunity to evaluate the photographic qualities presented.
>--
>
>Jim Brokaw
>OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
>Subject: [OM] Re: Trip to the big city - looking at cameras
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:29:40 +0000
>
>Only dirty old men with smutty minds would look twice at such a photograph.
>
>How do I turn this thing into wallpaper?
>
>Seriously, being a dirty old man myself, I had a 
>shocking encounter with reality last month when 
>we spent a few days at the beach (the "shore" to 
>you up-east folks) with our daughter, son-in-law 
>and grandson.  After a beer or two on the beach, 
>I noticed a very shapely, super-sexy young woman 
>walking away from me down the beach about a 
>hundred feet away.  After oogling her and 
>thinking dirty old man thoughts, I suddenly 
>realized, as she turned to come back, that this 
>was my 32-year-old daughter!  I had never before 
>noticed what a babe she is!  Talk about feeling 
>like a pervert for a few hours!
>
>Luckily, we all went for bloody Marys and a 
>generally liquid lunch and I soon felt better. 
>My biggest mistake was confessing my evil 
>thoughts.  She and her mother still rag on me 
>about it.
>
>Walt, Viagra-free so far
>
>--
>"Anything more than 500 yards from
>the car just isn't photogenic." --
>Edward Weston
>
>
>-------------- Original message from Jim Brokaw 
><jbrokaw@xxxxxxxx>: --------------
>
>
>>  on 10/31/04 1:43 AM, Andrew Fildes at afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>  > http://lrh.structuregraphs.com/backless.htm
>>  > To avoid confusion - this was at the school graduation - not the
>>  > Brownlow which I wouldn't attend at gunpoint.
>>  > AndrewF
>>
>>  Well... that looks to be a very studious student...! Thanks for the
>>  opportunity to evaluate the photographic qualities presented.
>>  --
>>
>>  Jim Brokaw
>>  OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ==============================================
>>  List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>  List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>  ==============================================
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:17:53 -0500
>From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Tamron 80-200/2.8 was Wooo Hoooo . . .
>
>At 03:06 PM 10/31/04, Walt wrote (in part):
>>Andrew,
>>
>>A hood, any hood, as long as it doesn't vignette, is preferable to no hood
>>at all.
>
>Yes!
>
>The center of the lens objective on the 80-200/2.8 Tamron is also fairly
>close to the end of the filter ring . . . it's set back from it, but not by
>much.  Whether or not one experiences flare with a particular lens is also
>situational . . . subject material (including off-axis light sources) and
>filter use.  Lenses I would otherwise rate as superbly immune to flare in
>many daylight and on-camera flash situations can produce ghost reflections
>and a little aperture flare in very low light . . . especially if there are
>relatively bright light sources forward of the lens front.  A proper hood
>reduces risk of this.  IMVHO there is NO dioptric or catadioptric camera
>lens made that is "flare proof."
>
>Another situation that most wouldn't experience is with off-camera lighting
>(studio lights) if, for compositional reasons, the camera position is
>behind the lights.  Spill from brollies when just behind the
>monolight/brollie gap in the "spill" region can be quite troublesome.  It's
>not very detectable in the viewfinder even if modeling lights are at full
>power.
>
>I've become AR about hood use finding that flare occurrance goes down
>significantly when lens hoods are used at all times, and when filters are
>removed in low light.
>
>-- John
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Jeff Keller" <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: [OT] Some GREAT images
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:19:47 -0800
>
>
>Along with the Christian Charisus photo and the no. 3 already mentioned that
>covers my four favorites.
>-jeff
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rob Harrison" <robhar@xxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: [OT] Some GREAT images
>
>
>>  On 10/29/04 5:42 AM, "Richard Lovison" <sylv4700@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>  The photo by Kent Porter took my
>>>  breath away.
>>
>>  I had the same reaction to the Mark Bialek image. Fantastic photo. Has a
>>  dark Edward Hopper look to it--very evocative.
>>
>>  Rob Harrison
>>  Seattle
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Brian Swale" <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:21:43 +1300
>Subject: [OM] ( OM ) bargain 100/2
>
>
>Hi all
>
>just seen - no connection etc
>
>Zuiko 100/2  $usd 106
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3344&item=3848715274&rd=1
>
>Brian
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:33:56 +0100
>Subject: [OM] bargain 100/2
>From: iwert <iwert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Brian wrote:
>
>Hi all
>
>just seen - no connection etc
>
>Zuiko 100/2  $usd 106
>
>-----------
>
>Jumped to 255 already!
>
>I just Binned a NIB Tokina ATX 90mm f2.5 macro for 50 euro...
>
>Missed my zuiko a bit, but at this price I could not resist the tokina!
>
>Iwert.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:01:02 -0800 (PST)
>From: Richard Lovison <sylv4700@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: The Old 14" and New 16" 'Scope 
>Saga [was Wooo Hoooo . . .  Fo
>
>--- "John A. Lind" <jljlindpitfire.net> wrote:
>
>>  We were supposed to have a new 16" Meade up before the eclipse.  A
>>  new 6" TaTakahashierefractorill also be piggybacked on it (need to
>get > the 16" up first).
>
>Oh my, I'm drooling... a 6" TaTakahashi I bet that scope will be used
>more than the 16" Meade.  
>
>>  Monday evening I need to make some measurements to ensure the rework
>>  of the new equatorial wedge puts the new 'scope in the center of the
>>  dome(the pier is offset).
>
>So if I understand you correctly, the new wedge will set the Meade off
>center from the pier?  By how much?  The wedge must have a unique and
>robust design  to provide stability with the offset.  I'd love to see a
>photo of it if you can find the free time to take one.  I wish I lived
>nearby so I could take a peek. :)                                     
>                                                                       
>                                                                       
>                                                                       
>                                                                       
>                                                         
>
>Thanks for your kind words on my asastrohoto of the PlPleiades I was
>able to extract a bit more detail in the digital file than I had in the
>print by using the curves tool.  I wish I had hyhyperedolor film
>available to me when I took the photo.
>
>Richard
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
>http://messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:22:30 -0500
>From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Tamron 80-200/2.8 was Wooo Hoooo . . .
>
>I should also add with regard to lens hood use on a tele-zoom . . .
>
>In a long prime, the rear element is typically well forward of the lens
>mounting flange and there are light baffles between the rear element and
>lens mount . . . which should make it less prone to certain types of
>off-axis flare.
>
>Unlike long primes, the rear element of a tele-zoom is usually at or very
>near the lens mount leaving no room for any light baffles.  In the case of
>this specific 80-200/2.8 Tamron, the rear element doesn't move and it's
>right at the lens mount.
>
>-- John Lind
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: christian <fischerchristian@xxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Tamron hoods
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:30:38 +0100
>
>
>A link with the different models of Tamron lenses
>with pictures and hood that fit any model.
>Hope it usefull.
>
>http://h0060971a2bec.ne.client2.attbi.com/pk/800/
>
>Christian
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: christian <fischerchristian@xxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Tamron hoods
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:36:14 +0100
>
>
>Excuse me (too late ... and poor english).
>Le Dimanche 31 Octobre 2004 23:30, vous avez Ècrit :
>>  A link with the different models of Tamron lenses
>with pictures and hood that fits (!) each (!) model.
>>  Hope it usefull.
>>
>>  http://h0060971a2bec.ne.client2.attbi.com/pk/800/
>>
>>  Christian
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "John Wheeler" <wheelej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Trip to the big city - looking at cameras
>Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:38:56 +1100
>
>
>And when in Sydney he made very good sense as to why we should consider that
>20D thing. I'm now desparately trying to fill rather than pilfer the penny
>jar. Mind you, while I'm happy to be corrected about the comparison between
>weights of 10D's and Lee Enfields I'm pretty sure that with some of
>Stephen's Can*n lenses the kilos approach that of a Bren gun! (Of course
>Natchos were in 1954 :)
>
>John,
>Sydney, Oz.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Fildes
>
><snip>
>
>Steven turned up with a D60, 1D and some serious glass and no Oly at
>all. He says the Mike Veglia called him a Canon enabler. He may have
>liked the E1 but he ain't got one!
>AndrewF
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:00:25 -0500
>Subject: [OM] Re: Tamron 80-200/2.8 was Wooo Hoooo . . .
>From: Andrew Gullen <andrew.gullen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>on 2004/10/31 3:06 PM, Walt Wayman at hiwayman@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>  Then, since I don't have a set of 77mm filters, I use a 77-82mm step-up ring
>>  and a two-inch deep, $10, metal, 82mm screw-in 
>>hood I got off *Bay a couple of
>>  years ago.  If you've got this lens and don't 
>>have the "proper" bayonet hood,
>>  a screw-in 77mm hood a couple of inches deep will do just as well.
>
>Thanks Walt, that's a good point. I can probably dumpster-dive something
>temporarily that will be 90% as good.
>
>on 2004/10/31 4:17 PM, John A. Lind at jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>  ...  Whether or not one experiences flare with a particular lens is also
>>  situational . . . subject material (including off-axis light sources) and
>>  filter use.  Lenses I would otherwise rate as superbly immune to flare in
>>  many daylight and on-camera flash situations can produce ghost reflections
>>  and a little aperture flare in very low light . . . especially if there are
>>  relatively bright light sources forward of the lens front.
>
>While some of the situations I want to use this in are fairly flat light,
>some may not be. As well, even the flat light light can be overhead
>fluorescent banks (ech) which could cause flare. I've had to print B&W shots
>from other zooms with higher grade filters and suspect flare is partly to
>blame (of course, so is the flat light).
>
>A couple more questions for the 80-200 owners if I could:
>  - What's the distance on the real thing from the thread to the front edge?
>  - What's the type code (e.g. XY3Z)?
>
>Thanks,
>Andrew
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:52:04 +1100
>From: Andrew McPhee <macca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Esoterica - OM microsope mount on oBoy
>
>
>Just what a Zuikoholic needs to complete their collection...
>http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=7321&item=3849737694&rd=1
>
>No connection, etc.
>
>Andrew McPhee
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Jeff Keller" <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Tamron 80-200/2.8 was Wooo Hoooo . . .
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:17:32 -0800
>
>
>End of hood is 1.75" beyond end of lens, 3.74" inside diameter.
>Tamron hood labeled 82FH
>
>-jeff
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andrew Gullen" <andrew.gullen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Tamron 80-200/2.8 was Wooo Hoooo . . .
>
>
>>
>>  A couple more questions for the 80-200 owners if I could:
>>  - What's the distance on the real thing from the thread to the front edge?
>>  - What's the type code (e.g. XY3Z)?
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of olympus Digest V1 #278
>*****************************


-- 


2001 CBR600F4i - Fantastic!
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz