From OutdoorNM at yahoo.com Fri Jul 3 07:41:23 2009 From: OutdoorNM at yahoo.com (Lincoln Michaud) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:41:23 -0600 Subject: [ContaxG] K25 and Mailers Message-ID: Hi Folks, I have a couple rolls of K25 that I would like to send over the 'pond' to London. Do you think the film would get thru' USA mail security without being partially exposed by xray? K25 requires special processing here, and I have mailers for that process. The mailers say, "This mailer valid only in the United States". If my friend sends the exposed film with the mailer from London and puts my USA address on the return section, do you think that would work? Is the Kodak Fairlawn, New Jersey address still correct? Thanks for you help, Linc From redbike64 at hotmail.com Fri Jul 3 18:32:12 2009 From: redbike64 at hotmail.com (Rick Dreher) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:32:12 -0700 Subject: [ContaxG] K25 and Mailers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Linc, Shouldn't be a concern. After all, we all use mailers, right? Now if you were checking it as baggage.... Cheers, Rick > To: contaxg at contaxg.com > From: OutdoorNM at yahoo.com > Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:41:23 -0600 > Subject: [ContaxG] K25 and Mailers > > Hi Folks, > > I have a couple rolls of K25 that I would like to send over the > 'pond' to London. Do you think the film would get thru' USA mail > security without being partially exposed by xray? K25 requires > special processing here, and I have mailers for that process. The > mailers say, "This mailer valid only in the United States". If my > friend sends the exposed film with the mailer from London and puts my > USA address on the return section, do you think that would work? Is > the Kodak Fairlawn, New Jersey address still correct? > > Thanks for you help, > > Linc > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From OutdoorNM at yahoo.com Fri Jul 3 22:36:35 2009 From: OutdoorNM at yahoo.com (Lincoln Michaud) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 22:36:35 -0700 Subject: [ContaxG] K25 and Mailers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99210E22-B522-422C-8CBC-B6DC9E83DB62@yahoo.com> Thanks Rick, I'm gonna take the chance. I don't know if mailers are just a US thing or not. Europeans seem to have their stuff done at local labs. Have a good 4th! Linc On Jul 3, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Rick Dreher wrote: > Hi Linc, > > Shouldn't be a concern. After all, we all use mailers, right? Now > if you were checking it as baggage.... > > Cheers, > > Rick > > > To: contaxg at contaxg.com > > From: OutdoorNM at yahoo.com > > Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:41:23 -0600 > > Subject: [ContaxG] K25 and Mailers > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > I have a couple rolls of K25 that I would like to send over the > > 'pond' to London. Do you think the film would get thru' USA mail > > security without being partially exposed by xray? K25 requires > > special processing here, and I have mailers for that process. The > > mailers say, "This mailer valid only in the United States". If my > > friend sends the exposed film with the mailer from London and > puts my > > USA address on the return section, do you think that would work? Is > > the Kodak Fairlawn, New Jersey address still correct? > > > > Thanks for you help, > > > > Linc > > _______________________________________________ > > contaxg mailing list > > contaxg at contaxg.com > > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > > Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. See how. > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.bjorke at comcast.net Sat Jul 4 11:35:18 2009 From: k.bjorke at comcast.net (K Bjorke) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:35:18 -0700 Subject: [ContaxG] K25 and Mailers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A4FA0E6.3000506@comcast.net> tough call. Can it be hand-carried by someone and dropped in the US post? is there an announced expiration date on Kodak's service? Lincoln Michaud wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I have a couple rolls of K25 that I would like to send over the 'pond' > to London. Do you think the film would get thru' USA mail security > without being partially exposed by xray? K25 requires special > processing here, and I have mailers for that process. The mailers say, > "This mailer valid only in the United States". If my friend sends > the exposed film with the mailer from London and puts my USA address > on the return section, do you think that would work? Is the Kodak > Fairlawn, New Jersey address still correct? > > Thanks for you help, > > Linc > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > > From OutdoorNM at yahoo.com Sat Jul 4 13:57:30 2009 From: OutdoorNM at yahoo.com (Lincoln Michaud) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 13:57:30 -0700 Subject: [ContaxG] K25 and Mailers In-Reply-To: <4A4FA0E6.3000506@comcast.net> References: <4A4FA0E6.3000506@comcast.net> Message-ID: <90443112-68D6-44C1-9913-E21F008C7274@yahoo.com> Kevin, I will mail these rolls and mailers to my friend in England. When he has them exposed , he can mail them in a package to the processing place stateside. I have put my return address on the mailers so that they will be mailed to me after processing. By the way, Kodak has told me that regardless of the expiration date on the mailers, they never really expire. Also the new place that is handling Fuji , in Parsons Kansas will be doing Kodachrome as long as people send it in or there are chemicals. They don't have the film for sale , but can process. Thanks, Linc On Jul 4, 2009, at 11:35 AM, K Bjorke wrote: > tough call. Can it be hand-carried by someone and dropped in the US > post? > > is there an announced expiration date on Kodak's service? > > Lincoln Michaud wrote: >> Hi Folks, >> >> I have a couple rolls of K25 that I would like to send over the >> 'pond' to London. Do you think the film would get thru' USA mail >> security without being partially exposed by xray? K25 requires >> special processing here, and I have mailers for that process. The >> mailers say, "This mailer valid only in the United States". If >> my friend sends the exposed film with the mailer from London and >> puts my USA address on the return section, do you think that >> would work? Is the Kodak Fairlawn, New Jersey address still correct? >> >> Thanks for you help, >> >> Linc >> _______________________________________________ >> contaxg mailing list >> contaxg at contaxg.com >> http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg From peter at timedworld.com Wed Jul 29 09:18:27 2009 From: peter at timedworld.com (Peter Brooks) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:18:27 +0100 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc Message-ID: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> Hello all, I'm a fairly new user of the ContaxG Pages website (and to developing and scanning film). As a bit of a purist I thought I would just scan my negs and upload them. A couple of comments have suggested adjusting levels in photoshop, and having tried it on a couple of images that were a bit flat it can certainly make a big difference. My two queries (which I guess relate directly to use of the site rather than the camera) are: 1) Do you use any manipulation after scanning? Always, sometimes, never? 2) Would it be considered bad practice to update an image already posted to the site with one that has levels adjusted? (And does it just replace the image if you 'edit' and select the modified one from your hard drive?) Sorry for such tedious questions, I love the site and using my G1 - it just encourages me to burn up film! Cheers Peter From OutdoorNM at yahoo.com Wed Jul 29 15:40:25 2009 From: OutdoorNM at yahoo.com (Lincoln Michaud) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:40:25 -0600 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> References: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> Message-ID: Welcome Peter, Unfortunately, the term 'manipulation' has a negative connotation. I think the general view of G listmembers is that editing that is an effort to restore the image to the original capture is not manipulation, but correction. If you bring the left side marker of the levels to the 'base of the mountain' it can remove a lot of scanning 'noise'. Certainly, there was no noise in the original capture. The gray area starts when enhancements substantially change the image. Most folks are comfortable with the photographer detailing substantial enhancement; they really need to say what they did. I don't know where the line is concerning substantial or non- substantial. Photography is an artform, if someone turns a color image b&w and jacks up the contrast, it is a form of expression. I think the photographer gains respect if s/he details the changes. Others can also learn from the photographers editing proceedure. You can edit your image and replace with an updated version. I think this is a good thing, since you sometimes miss things on the original upload. You are correct, if you upload a new image, it just replaces the old image. A note: The carefully edited image you upload may not be seen the same way by others. It is part of the problem of different systems not agreeing on a uniform method of display. I think it works best to be conservative on enhancements; oversharpening, high contrast and saturation can look like cartoons on someone else's monitor. Also a large file image will be crunched down to the site default of 900x- this downsizing will often make the image look bad. You have a choice of loading at 900x or hoping the viewer will click on the image for full size. Most regular sitegoers have set their pref's to full size, but generally visitors see the 900x size. Hope that helps, Linc On Jul 29, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Peter Brooks wrote: > Hello all, I'm a fairly new user of the ContaxG Pages website (and to > developing and scanning film). > > As a bit of a purist I thought I would just scan my negs and upload > them. A couple of comments have suggested adjusting levels in > photoshop, and having tried it on a couple of images that were a bit > flat it can certainly make a big difference. > > My two queries (which I guess relate directly to use of the site > rather than the camera) are: > > 1) Do you use any manipulation after scanning? Always, sometimes, > never? > > 2) Would it be considered bad practice to update an image already > posted to the site with one that has levels adjusted? (And does it > just replace the image if you 'edit' and select the modified one from > your hard drive?) > > Sorry for such tedious questions, I love the site and using my G1 - > it just encourages me to burn up film! > > Cheers > Peter > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg From Bob at BobMichaels.org Wed Jul 29 18:08:54 2009 From: Bob at BobMichaels.org (Bob Michaels) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:08:54 -0400 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: References: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> Message-ID: <4A70F2A6.7070302@BobMichaels.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bob at BobMichaels.org Wed Jul 29 17:53:21 2009 From: Bob at BobMichaels.org (Bob Michaels) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:53:21 -0400 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> References: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> Message-ID: <4A70EF01.1050505@BobMichaels.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From OutdoorNM at yahoo.com Wed Jul 29 19:57:01 2009 From: OutdoorNM at yahoo.com (Lincoln Michaud) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:57:01 -0600 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: <4A70F2A6.7070302@BobMichaels.org> References: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> <4A70F2A6.7070302@BobMichaels.org> Message-ID: <21F21A3F-6474-4EBF-8B96-EE715BD44FFD@yahoo.com> Hi Bob, Thanks for that sage input. I have to wonder how many folks from the G list are subscribed to this discussion. I have a feeling that the majority of listmembers don't even know about this discussion, because they have not subscribed to contaxg at contaxg.com. I would like to ask Glen that question, but no-one seems to be able to contact him lately. Linc On Jul 29, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Bob Michaels wrote: > Lincoln Michaud wrote: > > A note: The carefully edited image you upload may not be seen the > same way by others. It is part of the problem of different systems > not agreeing on a uniform method of display. I think it works > best to be conservative on enhancements; oversharpening, high > contrast and saturation can look like cartoons on someone else's > monitor. > > Linc > > Peter: > > What Linc said is true for some. There are also some of us who have > color calibrated monitors and use color managed web browsers such > as Version 3 of Firefox or a handful of others. You can be assured > that if your system is color managed, we are seeing exactly the > same thing you are. > > Bob Michaels > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From glen at broadpool.com Wed Jul 29 21:49:53 2009 From: glen at broadpool.com (Glen Campbell) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:49:53 -0700 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: <21F21A3F-6474-4EBF-8B96-EE715BD44FFD@yahoo.com> References: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> <4A70F2A6.7070302@BobMichaels.org> <21F21A3F-6474-4EBF-8B96-EE715BD44FFD@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1b68acbf0907292149n6be4b3b1w32223468e03eb0fe@mail.gmail.com> Really? I haven't heard of anyone having problems. On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Lincoln Michaud wrote: > Hi Bob, > Thanks for that sage input. ? I have to wonder how many folks from the G > list are subscribed to this discussion. ?I have a feeling that the majority > of listmembers don't even know about this discussion, because they have not > subscribed to ?contaxg at contaxg.com. ?I would like to ask Glen that question, > but no-one seems to be able to contact him lately. > > Linc > > On Jul 29, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Bob Michaels wrote: > > Lincoln Michaud wrote: > > A note:?? The carefully edited image you upload may not be seen the same way > by others.? It is part of the problem of different systems not agreeing on a > uniform method of display.?? I think it works best to be conservative on > enhancements;? oversharpening, high contrast and saturation can look like > cartoons on someone else's monitor. > > Linc > > Peter: > > What Linc said is true for some. There are also some of us who have color > calibrated monitors and use color managed web browsers such as Version 3 of > Firefox or a handful of others. You can be assured that if your system is > color managed, we are seeing exactly the same thing you are. > > Bob Michaels > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > > From glen at broadpool.com Wed Jul 29 21:51:35 2009 From: glen at broadpool.com (Glen Campbell) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:51:35 -0700 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: <21F21A3F-6474-4EBF-8B96-EE715BD44FFD@yahoo.com> References: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> <4A70F2A6.7070302@BobMichaels.org> <21F21A3F-6474-4EBF-8B96-EE715BD44FFD@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1b68acbf0907292151o12b58c66m6fa4e25db65c4d3a@mail.gmail.com> FYI, there are 215 people subscribed to this list. There are several thousand people registered on the website, but the vast majority of activity (about 95%) on the website these days is limited to less than 20 people. On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Lincoln Michaud wrote: > Hi Bob, > Thanks for that sage input. ? I have to wonder how many folks from the G > list are subscribed to this discussion. ?I have a feeling that the majority > of listmembers don't even know about this discussion, because they have not > subscribed to ?contaxg at contaxg.com. ?I would like to ask Glen that question, > but no-one seems to be able to contact him lately. > > Linc > > On Jul 29, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Bob Michaels wrote: > > Lincoln Michaud wrote: > > A note:?? The carefully edited image you upload may not be seen the same way > by others.? It is part of the problem of different systems not agreeing on a > uniform method of display.?? I think it works best to be conservative on > enhancements;? oversharpening, high contrast and saturation can look like > cartoons on someone else's monitor. > > Linc > > Peter: > > What Linc said is true for some. There are also some of us who have color > calibrated monitors and use color managed web browsers such as Version 3 of > Firefox or a handful of others. You can be assured that if your system is > color managed, we are seeing exactly the same thing you are. > > Bob Michaels > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > > From knutskjaerven at mail.tele.dk Thu Jul 30 02:20:12 2009 From: knutskjaerven at mail.tele.dk (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Knut_Skj=E6rven?=) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:20:12 +0200 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: References: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> Message-ID: Welcome Peter. One single comment from me. On 30/07/2009, at 00.40, Lincoln Michaud wrote: > You can edit your image and replace with an updated version. I > think this is a good thing, since you sometimes miss things on the > original upload. You are correct, if you upload a new image, it > just replaces the old image. Linc, I don't find this good practice at all. Could, however, to a certain extend depend on the degree of change you make. Make sure that your image is as good as it can get BEFORE you load it to the site. If you "withdraw" an image because you have discovered a single piece of dust that you want to correct, you can do that but you need to let everybody know that you have done it by placing a comment on your own image or state it in the caption. These are the original site rules, as I remember them. If you re-edit an image, let's say make a new crop or convert to b&w, and than load it once more you should mort certainly do that as a seperate image. Remember people rate and comment on the original image, so you need to have the original image stick in there :-). Best of luck with your posts, Peter :-). Bw Knut From Stuart.Kendall at cogent.co.uk Thu Jul 30 02:42:07 2009 From: Stuart.Kendall at cogent.co.uk (Stuart Kendall) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:42:07 +0100 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: <1b68acbf0907292151o12b58c66m6fa4e25db65c4d3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1215FB8D94AB874083742E19B6CB29DC02756CE0@exchange.cogent.local> Hi Bob, Linc and the other less-than-20 Active Contax Zealots. I'm one of the 215 Passive Contax Zealots who love the dialogue/knowledge/advice imparted and shared on the site by the twenty of you, but don't the get time or feel the need to replicate some of the incisive pov's under discussion. That's why you don't often hear from us. But I (together with 214 others) am (and are) always there, listening. And, FWIW, you may be interested to know that I've archived every single thread on this site since it started in the hopes that I can read them thoroughly when I retire. (By which time there may have been a global wipe-out of all micro-processing equipment and we'll all be back shooting film anyway!) Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks, and keep talking! Stuart -----Original Message----- From: contaxg-bounces at contaxg.com [mailto:contaxg-bounces at contaxg.com] On Behalf Of Glen Campbell Sent: 30 July 2009 05:52 To: the Contax G discussion list Subject: Re: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc FYI, there are 215 people subscribed to this list. There are several thousand people registered on the website, but the vast majority of activity (about 95%) on the website these days is limited to less than 20 people. On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Lincoln Michaud wrote: > Hi Bob, > Thanks for that sage input. ? I have to wonder how many folks from the > G list are subscribed to this discussion. ?I have a feeling that the > majority of listmembers don't even know about this discussion, because > they have not subscribed to ?contaxg at contaxg.com. ?I would like to ask > Glen that question, but no-one seems to be able to contact him lately. > > Linc > > On Jul 29, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Bob Michaels wrote: > > Lincoln Michaud wrote: > > A note:?? The carefully edited image you upload may not be seen the > same way by others.? It is part of the problem of different systems > not agreeing on a uniform method of display.?? I think it works best > to be conservative on enhancements;? oversharpening, high contrast and > saturation can look like cartoons on someone else's monitor. > > Linc > > Peter: > > What Linc said is true for some. There are also some of us who have > color calibrated monitors and use color managed web browsers such as > Version 3 of Firefox or a handful of others. You can be assured that > if your system is color managed, we are seeing exactly the same thing you are. > > Bob Michaels > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > > _______________________________________________ contaxg mailing list contaxg at contaxg.com http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail and any attachments are intended for those to whom it is addressed and may be confidential. If you have received them in error please notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail and attachments from your computer. Unless you are the intended recipient you are not authorised to and must not read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and do not necessarily represent the views of our company. Cogent Elliott Limited. Registered office Heath Farm Hampton Lane Meriden CV7 7LL. Registration number 839992 England. From OutdoorNM at yahoo.com Thu Jul 30 02:59:56 2009 From: OutdoorNM at yahoo.com (Lincoln Michaud) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:59:56 -0600 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: <1b68acbf0907292149n6be4b3b1w32223468e03eb0fe@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> <4A70F2A6.7070302@BobMichaels.org> <21F21A3F-6474-4EBF-8B96-EE715BD44FFD@yahoo.com> <1b68acbf0907292149n6be4b3b1w32223468e03eb0fe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Glen, We have been having problems on the Not.contaxg site. Steven King's ad for the tripod on e-bay has been causing the FP to not wrap and stretch the FP way to right. Steve tried to remove the ad but was unable. Since the ad has almost completed its course, he decided to wait til it goes away of its own accord. Others have commented that you have not been accessable. Glad to see that is not so, Linc On Jul 29, 2009, at 10:49 PM, Glen Campbell wrote: > Really? I haven't heard of anyone having problems. > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Lincoln > Michaud wrote: >> Hi Bob, >> Thanks for that sage input. I have to wonder how many folks from >> the G >> list are subscribed to this discussion. I have a feeling that the >> majority >> of listmembers don't even know about this discussion, because they >> have not >> subscribed to contaxg at contaxg.com. I would like to ask Glen that >> question, >> but no-one seems to be able to contact him lately. >> >> Linc >> >> On Jul 29, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Bob Michaels wrote: >> >> Lincoln Michaud wrote: >> >> A note: The carefully edited image you upload may not be seen >> the same way >> by others. It is part of the problem of different systems not >> agreeing on a >> uniform method of display. I think it works best to be >> conservative on >> enhancements; oversharpening, high contrast and saturation can >> look like >> cartoons on someone else's monitor. >> >> Linc >> >> Peter: >> >> What Linc said is true for some. There are also some of us who >> have color >> calibrated monitors and use color managed web browsers such as >> Version 3 of >> Firefox or a handful of others. You can be assured that if your >> system is >> color managed, we are seeing exactly the same thing you are. >> >> Bob Michaels >> _______________________________________________ >> contaxg mailing list >> contaxg at contaxg.com >> http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> contaxg mailing list >> contaxg at contaxg.com >> http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg >> >> > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg From OutdoorNM at yahoo.com Thu Jul 30 03:07:02 2009 From: OutdoorNM at yahoo.com (Lincoln Michaud) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:07:02 -0600 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: <1b68acbf0907292151o12b58c66m6fa4e25db65c4d3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> <4A70F2A6.7070302@BobMichaels.org> <21F21A3F-6474-4EBF-8B96-EE715BD44FFD@yahoo.com> <1b68acbf0907292151o12b58c66m6fa4e25db65c4d3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <52E5D7A1-C6FF-4CE0-8FE8-A0FC800D9AA0@yahoo.com> Glen, I assume that by the term 'activity' , you mean posting. I would think a lot of people read the information but don't necessarily take part in the dialog. I mean, why subscribe if you are not exposing yourself to the information? Linc On Jul 29, 2009, at 10:51 PM, Glen Campbell wrote: > FYI, there are 215 people subscribed to this list. There are several > thousand people registered on the website, but the vast majority of > activity (about 95%) on the website these days is limited to less than > 20 people. > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Lincoln > Michaud wrote: >> Hi Bob, >> Thanks for that sage input. I have to wonder how many folks from >> the G >> list are subscribed to this discussion. I have a feeling that the >> majority >> of listmembers don't even know about this discussion, because they >> have not >> subscribed to contaxg at contaxg.com. I would like to ask Glen that >> question, >> but no-one seems to be able to contact him lately. >> >> Linc >> >> On Jul 29, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Bob Michaels wrote: >> >> Lincoln Michaud wrote: >> >> A note: The carefully edited image you upload may not be seen >> the same way >> by others. It is part of the problem of different systems not >> agreeing on a >> uniform method of display. I think it works best to be >> conservative on >> enhancements; oversharpening, high contrast and saturation can >> look like >> cartoons on someone else's monitor. >> >> Linc >> >> Peter: >> >> What Linc said is true for some. There are also some of us who >> have color >> calibrated monitors and use color managed web browsers such as >> Version 3 of >> Firefox or a handful of others. You can be assured that if your >> system is >> color managed, we are seeing exactly the same thing you are. >> >> Bob Michaels >> _______________________________________________ >> contaxg mailing list >> contaxg at contaxg.com >> http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> contaxg mailing list >> contaxg at contaxg.com >> http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg >> >> > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg From OutdoorNM at yahoo.com Thu Jul 30 03:37:32 2009 From: OutdoorNM at yahoo.com (Lincoln Michaud) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:37:32 -0600 Subject: [ContaxG] E-mailing Listmembers Message-ID: <26F1AE5F-C288-40F9-8B09-25612C5BB60A@yahoo.com> Hi Glen, As I remember, we used to be able to e-mail listmembers from the site. In other words, if I wanted to contact Knut and did not have his current e-address, I could do a search on the G site and find the link to his e-mail. E-mailing from the list has an advantage, since it carries the 'stamp' of the G site. This way, the recipient knows that it is someone trying to contact him from the list. Now, however, when you click on the e-mail link it takes you to a huge list of listmembers you 'can't' e-mail. Is there a change, or am I doing something wrong? Linc From OutdoorNM at yahoo.com Thu Jul 30 05:24:28 2009 From: OutdoorNM at yahoo.com (Lincoln Michaud) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:24:28 -0600 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: References: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> Message-ID: <8CEC483F-BC15-4DD9-B43C-099C6AF214D5@yahoo.com> Knut, I agree generally with what you have said. I think Peter is probably talking about making small adjustments that were missed initially. Also sometimes other people notice something you have missed. I don't remember that there was ever a site rule about this- I just think it was generally accepted correct procedure that was agreed upon. Certainly we want the original image to stick in there. If people are seeing a magenta cast in your image, that you DON'T see- I don't see any problem correcting this and making note of the change. Of course, uploading a separate image for larger changes is the correct thing to do. Linc On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Knut Skj?rven wrote: > Welcome Peter. > > One single comment from me. > > On 30/07/2009, at 00.40, Lincoln Michaud wrote: > >> You can edit your image and replace with an updated version. I >> think this is a good thing, since you sometimes miss things on the >> original upload. You are correct, if you upload a new image, it >> just replaces the old image. > > > Linc, I don't find this good practice at all. Could, however, to > a certain extend depend on the degree of change you make. > > Make sure that your image is as good as it can get BEFORE you load > it to the site. If you "withdraw" an image because you have > discovered a single piece of dust that you want to correct, you can > do that but you need to let everybody know that you have done it by > placing a comment on your own image or state it in the caption. > These are the original site rules, as I remember them. > > If you re-edit an image, let's say make a new crop or convert to > b&w, and than load it once more you should mort certainly do that > as a seperate image. > > Remember people rate and comment on the original image, so you need > to have the original image stick in there :-). > > Best of luck with your posts, Peter :-). > > Bw > > Knut > > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg From OutdoorNM at yahoo.com Thu Jul 30 05:31:53 2009 From: OutdoorNM at yahoo.com (Lincoln Michaud) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:31:53 -0600 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: <1215FB8D94AB874083742E19B6CB29DC02756CE0@exchange.cogent.local> References: <1215FB8D94AB874083742E19B6CB29DC02756CE0@exchange.cogent.local> Message-ID: <603AC2C9-A952-4F05-A5F9-89AEBD3608F5@yahoo.com> Hi Stuart! I can believe there are a lot more of you smart watchers and readers. It's good to have you guys poke up your heads now and then! I often think of how many are 'out there' waiting for me to make another dumb statement! :-) Linc On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:42 AM, Stuart Kendall wrote: > Hi Bob, Linc and the other less-than-20 Active Contax Zealots. > > I'm one of the 215 Passive Contax Zealots who love the dialogue/ > knowledge/advice imparted and shared on the site by the twenty of > you, but don't the get time or feel the need to replicate some of > the incisive pov's under discussion. That's why you don't often > hear from us. > > But I (together with 214 others) am (and are) always there, listening. > > And, FWIW, you may be interested to know that I've archived every > single thread on this site since it started in the hopes that I can > read them thoroughly when I retire. > > (By which time there may have been a global wipe-out of all micro- > processing equipment and we'll all be back shooting film anyway!) > > Just thought I'd let you know. > > Thanks, and keep talking! > > Stuart > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: contaxg-bounces at contaxg.com [mailto:contaxg- > bounces at contaxg.com] On Behalf Of Glen Campbell > Sent: 30 July 2009 05:52 > To: the Contax G discussion list > Subject: Re: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc > > FYI, there are 215 people subscribed to this list. There are > several thousand people registered on the website, but the vast > majority of activity (about 95%) on the website these days is > limited to less than 20 people. > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Lincoln > Michaud wrote: >> Hi Bob, >> Thanks for that sage input. I have to wonder how many folks from >> the >> G list are subscribed to this discussion. I have a feeling that the >> majority of listmembers don't even know about this discussion, >> because >> they have not subscribed to contaxg at contaxg.com. I would like to >> ask >> Glen that question, but no-one seems to be able to contact him >> lately. >> >> Linc >> >> On Jul 29, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Bob Michaels wrote: >> >> Lincoln Michaud wrote: >> >> A note: The carefully edited image you upload may not be seen the >> same way by others. It is part of the problem of different systems >> not agreeing on a uniform method of display. I think it works best >> to be conservative on enhancements; oversharpening, high contrast >> and >> saturation can look like cartoons on someone else's monitor. >> >> Linc >> >> Peter: >> >> What Linc said is true for some. There are also some of us who have >> color calibrated monitors and use color managed web browsers such as >> Version 3 of Firefox or a handful of others. You can be assured that >> if your system is color managed, we are seeing exactly the same >> thing you are. >> >> Bob Michaels >> _______________________________________________ >> contaxg mailing list >> contaxg at contaxg.com >> http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> contaxg mailing list >> contaxg at contaxg.com >> http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg >> >> > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This e-mail and any attachments are intended for those to whom it > is addressed and may be confidential. If you have received them in > error please notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail > and attachments from your computer. Unless you are the intended > recipient you are not authorised to and must not read, copy, > distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it. Any views > or opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender, and do not necessarily represent the views of our company. > Cogent Elliott Limited. Registered office Heath Farm Hampton Lane > Meriden CV7 7LL. Registration number 839992 England. > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg From jawarden at mac.com Thu Jul 30 05:34:50 2009 From: jawarden at mac.com (jeffrey warden) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:34:50 -0400 Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations In-Reply-To: <52E5D7A1-C6FF-4CE0-8FE8-A0FC800D9AA0@yahoo.com> References: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> <4A70F2A6.7070302@BobMichaels.org> <21F21A3F-6474-4EBF-8B96-EE715BD44FFD@yahoo.com> <1b68acbf0907292151o12b58c66m6fa4e25db65c4d3a@mail.gmail.com> <52E5D7A1-C6FF-4CE0-8FE8-A0FC800D9AA0@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6EA32399-032C-4E1E-A30B-E112D3E6527F@mac.com> Hi all, I'm using Kevin Bjorke's DoF calculator, and it says that my 28MM lens at f5.6 yields a hyperfocal distance of 5.6meters. Easy to remember (5.6 at 5.6) so I like that. Yesterday I was playing around with several other DoF calcs on-line and they all say the Hf distance should be 4.6meters. I know there is more than one way to calculate this but I'm wondering if one is best. I'm thinking of 8X10" prints as my max size here. One of the calcs is called OptiCalc (for MacOS) and is fun to try. Thanks, Jeff From glen at broadpool.com Thu Jul 30 07:29:50 2009 From: glen at broadpool.com (Glen Campbell) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:29:50 -0700 Subject: [ContaxG] E-mailing Listmembers In-Reply-To: <26F1AE5F-C288-40F9-8B09-25612C5BB60A@yahoo.com> References: <26F1AE5F-C288-40F9-8B09-25612C5BB60A@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1b68acbf0907300729v48209102uad4c2d1fcabb3184@mail.gmail.com> Hm. That's a very curious bug. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Lincoln Michaud wrote: > Hi Glen, > > As I remember, we used to be able to e-mail listmembers from the site. ?In > other words, if I wanted to contact Knut and did not have his current > e-address, I could do a search on the G site and find the link to his > e-mail. ?E-mailing from the list has an advantage, since it carries the > 'stamp' of the G site. This way, the recipient knows that it is someone > trying to contact him from the list. ?Now, however, when you click on the > e-mail link it takes you to a huge list of listmembers you 'can't' e-mail. > Is there a change, or am I doing something wrong? > > Linc > > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > From glen at broadpool.com Thu Jul 30 07:34:31 2009 From: glen at broadpool.com (Glen Campbell) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:34:31 -0700 Subject: [ContaxG] E-mailing Listmembers In-Reply-To: <1b68acbf0907300729v48209102uad4c2d1fcabb3184@mail.gmail.com> References: <26F1AE5F-C288-40F9-8B09-25612C5BB60A@yahoo.com> <1b68acbf0907300729v48209102uad4c2d1fcabb3184@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1b68acbf0907300734k20e5cfc4h572bc88948790dc5@mail.gmail.com> It's fixed now. Bad webserver config. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Glen Campbell wrote: > Hm. That's a very curious bug. > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Lincoln Michaud wrote: >> Hi Glen, >> >> As I remember, we used to be able to e-mail listmembers from the site. ?In >> other words, if I wanted to contact Knut and did not have his current >> e-address, I could do a search on the G site and find the link to his >> e-mail. ?E-mailing from the list has an advantage, since it carries the >> 'stamp' of the G site. This way, the recipient knows that it is someone >> trying to contact him from the list. ?Now, however, when you click on the >> e-mail link it takes you to a huge list of listmembers you 'can't' e-mail. >> Is there a change, or am I doing something wrong? >> >> Linc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> contaxg mailing list >> contaxg at contaxg.com >> http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg >> > From austin.franklin at charter.net Thu Jul 30 07:33:01 2009 From: austin.franklin at charter.net (Austin Franklin) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:33:01 -0400 Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations In-Reply-To: <6EA32399-032C-4E1E-A30B-E112D3E6527F@mac.com> Message-ID: Hi Jeff, > Yesterday I was playing around with several other DoF calcs on-line > and they all say the Hf distance should be 4.6meters. I know there is > more than one way to calculate this but I'm wondering if one is best. > I'm thinking of 8X10" prints as my max size here. > > One of the calcs is called OptiCalc (for MacOS) and is fun to try. There really is only one "formula" for calculating DOF. It's the CoC (Circle Of Confusion), which is one of the parameters, that differs. Regards, Austin From lotusm50 at sprynet.com Thu Jul 30 07:26:22 2009 From: lotusm50 at sprynet.com (lotusm50 at sprynet.com) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:26:22 -0400 Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations In-Reply-To: <6EA32399-032C-4E1E-A30B-E112D3E6527F@mac.com> References: <4A707653.5866.210E508@peter.timedworld.com> <4A70F2A6.7070302@BobMichaels.org> <21F21A3F-6474-4EBF-8B96-EE715BD44FFD@yahoo.com> <1b68acbf0907292151o12b58c66m6fa4e25db65c4d3a@mail.gmail.com> <52E5D7A1-C6FF-4CE0-8FE8-A0FC800D9AA0@yahoo.com> <6EA32399-032C-4E1E-A30B-E112D3E6527F@mac.com> Message-ID: <4A71AD8E.4060901@sprynet.com> Is the circle of confusion used in the calculators different? Are the other on-line DOF calculators oriented towards digital, while Kevin's is toward film? Digital is known to display less DOF than film (and therefore the DOF calculator might use a small circle of confusion. jeffrey warden wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm using Kevin Bjorke's DoF calculator, and it says that my 28MM lens > at f5.6 yields a hyperfocal distance of 5.6meters. Easy to remember > (5.6 at 5.6) so I like that. > > Yesterday I was playing around with several other DoF calcs on-line > and they all say the Hf distance should be 4.6meters. I know there is > more than one way to calculate this but I'm wondering if one is best. > I'm thinking of 8X10" prints as my max size here. > > One of the calcs is called OptiCalc (for MacOS) and is fun to try. > > Thanks, > > Jeff > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > From peter at timedworld.com Thu Jul 30 13:10:17 2009 From: peter at timedworld.com (Peter Brooks) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:10:17 +0100 Subject: [ContaxG] Photoshop levels etc In-Reply-To: <603AC2C9-A952-4F05-A5F9-89AEBD3608F5@yahoo.com> References: <1215FB8D94AB874083742E19B6CB29DC02756CE0@exchange.cogent.local>, <603AC2C9-A952-4F05-A5F9-89AEBD3608F5@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A71FE29.3591.170B7C8@peter.timedworld.com> Thanks everyone for your intelligent replies. (I've updated a couple of my images with some levels tweaking in PS - only wish I had done it before uploading, will make it part of my routine from now on). Many thanks Peter From austin.franklin at charter.net Thu Jul 30 12:59:10 2009 From: austin.franklin at charter.net (Austin Franklin) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:59:10 -0400 Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations In-Reply-To: <4A71AD8E.4060901@sprynet.com> Message-ID: Hi Lotus, > Is the circle of confusion used in the calculators different? If they give different answers, then yes ;-) > Are the other on-line DOF calculators oriented towards digital, while > Kevin's is toward film? Digital is known to display less DOF than film > (and therefore the DOF calculator might use a small circle of confusion. There is no difference in the formula for film or digital. Again, it's simply the CoC that would be different. Best Regards, Austin From jawarden at mac.com Thu Jul 30 16:16:20 2009 From: jawarden at mac.com (jeffrey warden) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:16:20 -0400 Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <151AE427-6361-41D5-ADDF-2D8EF0E73A4C@mac.com> Hi all, and thanks for the replies. Kevin's is for film, and the others can be for film or digital. Kevin's specifies .025mm circle of confusion, but the others don't say what they're using. I did some test shots with the 28MM and Kevin's figure seems to work so I'll stick with that unless I hear differently. Best regards, Jeff On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: > Hi Lotus, > >> Is the circle of confusion used in the calculators different? > > If they give different answers, then yes ;-) > >> Are the other on-line DOF calculators oriented towards digital, while >> Kevin's is toward film? Digital is known to display less DOF than >> film >> (and therefore the DOF calculator might use a small circle of >> confusion. > > There is no difference in the formula for film or digital. Again, > it's > simply the CoC that would be different. > > Best Regards, > > Austin > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg From austin.franklin at charter.net Thu Jul 30 17:15:35 2009 From: austin.franklin at charter.net (Austin Franklin) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:15:35 -0400 Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations In-Reply-To: <151AE427-6361-41D5-ADDF-2D8EF0E73A4C@mac.com> Message-ID: Hi Jeff, The CoC is based on format mostly. CoC is a calculated number based on scientifically derived visual acuity and a standardized viewing distance. Typically, a 0.025mm CoC is the "Leica" value for CoC for 35mm. What format does "Kevin's" use .025mm for? Best Regards, Austin > -----Original Message----- > From: contaxg-bounces at contaxg.com [mailto:contaxg-bounces at contaxg.com]On > Behalf Of jeffrey warden > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:16 PM > To: the Contax G discussion list > Subject: Re: [ContaxG] Dof calculations > > > Hi all, and thanks for the replies. > > Kevin's is for film, and the others can be for film or digital. > Kevin's specifies .025mm circle of confusion, but the others don't say > what they're using. > > I did some test shots with the 28MM and Kevin's figure seems to work > so I'll stick with that unless I hear differently. > > Best regards, > > Jeff > > On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: > > > Hi Lotus, > > > >> Is the circle of confusion used in the calculators different? > > > > If they give different answers, then yes ;-) > > > >> Are the other on-line DOF calculators oriented towards digital, while > >> Kevin's is toward film? Digital is known to display less DOF than > >> film > >> (and therefore the DOF calculator might use a small circle of > >> confusion. > > > > There is no difference in the formula for film or digital. Again, > > it's > > simply the CoC that would be different. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Austin > > _______________________________________________ > > contaxg mailing list > > contaxg at contaxg.com > > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg > From lotusm50 at sprynet.com Thu Jul 30 18:28:37 2009 From: lotusm50 at sprynet.com (lotusm50 at sprynet.com) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:28:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations Message-ID: <32236574.1249003717638.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Austin- That's pretty much what I said -- sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear. That the difference in the formulas would be in the circle of confusion -- using a smaller CoC in the formula gives smaller DOF. It is possible that a formula oriented toward digital would use a smaller CoC because of the smaller apparent DOF with digital sensors relative to film. -----Original Message----- >From: Austin Franklin >Sent: Jul 30, 2009 3:59 PM >To: the Contax G discussion list >Subject: Re: [ContaxG] Dof calculations > >Hi Lotus, > >> Is the circle of confusion used in the calculators different? > >If they give different answers, then yes ;-) > >> Are the other on-line DOF calculators oriented towards digital, while >> Kevin's is toward film? Digital is known to display less DOF than film >> (and therefore the DOF calculator might use a small circle of confusion. > >There is no difference in the formula for film or digital. Again, it's >simply the CoC that would be different. > >Best Regards, > >Austin >_______________________________________________ >contaxg mailing list >contaxg at contaxg.com >http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg From jawarden at mac.com Thu Jul 30 19:40:17 2009 From: jawarden at mac.com (jeffrey warden) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:40:17 -0400 Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58A01082-8CEC-4A90-A7FF-CB9478843794@mac.com> Hi Austin, He was using .025MM for 35MM format. Kevin's is an excel spreadsheet that he apparently made for the Contax G community some time back, as it covers our lenses. Just go to the ContaxG page and type in "DoF chart" in the search and voila. He made two versions and I'm using version 2. Cheers, Jeff On Jul 30, 2009, at 8:15 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > The CoC is based on format mostly. CoC is a calculated number based > on > scientifically derived visual acuity and a standardized viewing > distance. > Typically, a 0.025mm CoC is the "Leica" value for CoC for 35mm. > What format > does "Kevin's" use .025mm for? > > Best Regards, > > Austin > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: contaxg-bounces at contaxg.com [mailto:contaxg- >> bounces at contaxg.com]On >> Behalf Of jeffrey warden >> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:16 PM >> To: the Contax G discussion list >> Subject: Re: [ContaxG] Dof calculations >> >> >> Hi all, and thanks for the replies. >> >> Kevin's is for film, and the others can be for film or digital. >> Kevin's specifies .025mm circle of confusion, but the others don't >> say >> what they're using. >> >> I did some test shots with the 28MM and Kevin's figure seems to work >> so I'll stick with that unless I hear differently. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Jeff >> >> On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: >> >>> Hi Lotus, >>> >>>> Is the circle of confusion used in the calculators different? >>> >>> If they give different answers, then yes ;-) >>> >>>> Are the other on-line DOF calculators oriented towards digital, >>>> while >>>> Kevin's is toward film? Digital is known to display less DOF than >>>> film >>>> (and therefore the DOF calculator might use a small circle of >>>> confusion. >>> >>> There is no difference in the formula for film or digital. Again, >>> it's >>> simply the CoC that would be different. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Austin >>> _______________________________________________ >>> contaxg mailing list >>> contaxg at contaxg.com >>> http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> contaxg mailing list >> contaxg at contaxg.com >> http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg >> > _______________________________________________ > contaxg mailing list > contaxg at contaxg.com > http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg From peter at timedworld.com Fri Jul 31 00:12:53 2009 From: peter at timedworld.com (Peter Brooks) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:12:53 +0100 Subject: [ContaxG] Minor bug & a feature suggestion Message-ID: <4A729975.18881.255A70@peter.timedworld.com> Hi, this message I guess is for Glen... I've come across a very minor bug on the site - in the 'Images - Top 100' folder, if I use the slideshow feature it only ever cycles on the images from the first page, no matter which page I am looking at... (IMO it would be great for the slideshow to cycle on all images from that folder, without having to choose pages first). What would be really great would be a random image slideshow (from the entire site) - I could sit and watch this all day (and there is a serious risk that I would). With minimal detail, maybe just title and photographer (clicking image or title could take you to a full details page...) Once again, great site, I'm enjoying it immensely. Best wishes Peter From austin.franklin at charter.net Fri Jul 31 05:43:27 2009 From: austin.franklin at charter.net (Austin Franklin) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:43:27 -0400 Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations In-Reply-To: <32236574.1249003717638.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Hi Lotus, > It is possible that a formula oriented toward > digital would use a smaller CoC because of the smaller apparent > DOF with digital sensors relative to film. There shouldn't be any different DOF for film vs digital. Best Regards, Austin From twooaks at winco.net Fri Jul 31 06:34:41 2009 From: twooaks at winco.net (John W. Modlin) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:34:41 -0500 Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations In-Reply-To: References: <32236574.1249003717638.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <001801ca11e3$a9bc0380$0202a8c0@John> I agree, the lens algorithms should be the same. I do believe that on some DOF sites there are discussions concerning the CoC as it affects the different crop factors of various digital sensors. I really like reading these discussions, but unfortunately, right now I do not have the time to research the issue so that I could speak with authority on this topic. Best Regards, John -----Original Message----- From: contaxg-bounces at contaxg.com [mailto:contaxg-bounces at contaxg.com] On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 7:43 AM To: lotusm50 at sprynet.com; the Contax G discussion list Subject: Re: [ContaxG] Dof calculations Hi Lotus, > It is possible that a formula oriented toward > digital would use a smaller CoC because of the smaller apparent > DOF with digital sensors relative to film. There shouldn't be any different DOF for film vs digital. Best Regards, Austin _______________________________________________ contaxg mailing list contaxg at contaxg.com http://dotlist.org/mailman/listinfo/contaxg From lotusm50 at sprynet.com Fri Jul 31 07:13:15 2009 From: lotusm50 at sprynet.com (lotusm50 at sprynet.com) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:13:15 -0400 Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A72FBFB.1010502@sprynet.com> "Shouldn't be". perhaps. But as discussed on many on-line forums, with examples to back it up, there is an apparent difference in DOF. I've even seen a scientific explanation for this a while back. Digital "appears" to provide less DOF. Austin Franklin wrote: > Hi Lotus, > >> It is possible that a formula oriented toward >> digital would use a smaller CoC because of the smaller apparent >> DOF with digital sensors relative to film. >> > > There shouldn't be any different DOF for film vs digital. > > Best Regards, > > Austin > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lotusm50 at sprynet.com Fri Jul 31 08:52:44 2009 From: lotusm50 at sprynet.com (lotusm50 at sprynet.com) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:52:44 -0400 Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations In-Reply-To: <4A72FBFB.1010502@sprynet.com> References: <4A72FBFB.1010502@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <4A73134C.2030908@sprynet.com> I should clarify a little more so there is no confusion. "Digital "appears' to provide less DOF than film of the same size/area (i.e., full frame sensor vs. 35mm film). I would also point out that different lenses of the same focal length can appear to have different amount of depth of field. Finally, the circle of confusion is a subjective measure that gives the range of "acceptable" focus. It is not a number cast in stone, and can vary depending on your needs and situation including, lens used, output size and media, viewing distance, personal preference, even as some have indicated, pixel size. lotusm50 at sprynet.com wrote: > "Shouldn't be". perhaps. But as discussed on many on-line forums, > with examples to back it up, there is an apparent difference in DOF. > I've even seen a scientific explanation for this a while back. > Digital "appears" to provide less DOF. > > > Austin Franklin wrote: >> Hi Lotus, >> >>> It is possible that a formula oriented toward >>> digital would use a smaller CoC because of the smaller apparent >>> DOF with digital sensors relative to film. >>> >> >> There shouldn't be any different DOF for film vs digital. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Austin >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.bjorke at comcast.net Fri Jul 31 21:44:40 2009 From: k.bjorke at comcast.net (K Bjorke) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:44:40 -0700 Subject: [ContaxG] Dof calculations In-Reply-To: <4A73134C.2030908@sprynet.com> References: <4A72FBFB.1010502@sprynet.com> <4A73134C.2030908@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <4A73C838.4020007@comcast.net> I chose a very conservative size for my acceptable CoC. If you use a larger, less-demanding definition of "in focus," then your calculated hyperfocal distances will indeed be closer. For some lenses, esp SLR wides and zooms, a tight CoC is simply never going to be obtained anyway (this may also be true for primes at the high and low f/stops). As for digital having less DoF than a film, this is silly if the sensors are the same size -- unless there are diffraction or diffusion effects in the CCD/CMOS chip. A good digital camera can resolve as much as the best same-size film these days. With the exception of Leica-mount and adaptable cameras, however, I have my doubts about the precision of the available lenses compared to film RF's. And those Leica-compatible cameras have yet to be made available in a 35mm-sized format. Small cameras will have *more* DoF, since their focal lengths are shorter -- a look through the math (in the excel spreadsheet, for example) will show that the CoC calculations for any given f/stop are based on the ratio of the focus distance to the focal length. That is, the ratio of a subject at 2 meters to a 50mm lens will be 40, while to a 25mm lens it will be 80. Reducing the focal length for a small sensor is equivalent to scaling-up the scene, which in turn moves your hyperfocal distance proportionately closer. For those who want to geek out on such things, I suggest looking for a copy of the ASC (American Cinematographer's Society) guide at your local library. Cinema is far more demanding in therms of matching-up color, DoF, and exposure than still photography. As for my use of that spreadsheet, I printed it small and scotch-taped it to the back of my G2. That print-out's still there.