All Forum Comments
Comment by Aero posted on c&c requested.... at 23/04/2009 - 02:00
Hi, Danny the 38th,
I picked up an Akasa multi-card reader from PC World (because I needed it in a hurry) for about £14. It fits in the front of the PC in a 3.5in drive slot and has an inbuilt USB socket, which was all I really wanted but wasn't available at the store on its own. It handles SDHC and provides a front-panel USB port at the same time. There might be an argument for spending a couple of quid more and getting the convenience of USB without having to rake around the back of your computer, assuming you have a USB "header" on your motherboard.
Cheers
Al
I picked up an Akasa multi-card reader from PC World (because I needed it in a hurry) for about £14. It fits in the front of the PC in a 3.5in drive slot and has an inbuilt USB socket, which was all I really wanted but wasn't available at the store on its own. It handles SDHC and provides a front-panel USB port at the same time. There might be an argument for spending a couple of quid more and getting the convenience of USB without having to rake around the back of your computer, assuming you have a USB "header" on your motherboard.
Cheers
Al
Comment by Aero posted on Compatability of SDHC Cards at 22/04/2009 - 23:42
Welcome to the forum, msuds. I'm sure you'll be as happy with your GX10 as I am with mine. If you haven't done so already, it's worth downloading the K10D instruction manual from the Pentax site. It's much clearer and easier to navigate than the Samsung effort. The main functions are the same. You'll find it at
http://www.pentaximaging.com/support/manuals-and-literature/
Have fun
Al
http://www.pentaximaging.com/support/manuals-and-literature/
Have fun
Al
Comment by Aero posted on samsung gx-10 at 17/04/2009 - 02:43
golfdiesel wrote:
The same goes for calling a film camera a "analog camera" There is nothing analog about film, it's chemical process.
Call it a chemical camera but don't call it a analog camera.
Technically, unless I've missed some major developoment, "digital" cameras are analogue at the point of capture. The output from the sensor is then converted to digital for further processing. If there's such a thing as an analogue camera, it's a digital camera. As you say, Golfdiesel, no one talks about chemical processes as being analogue.The same goes for calling a film camera a "analog camera" There is nothing analog about film, it's chemical process.
Call it a chemical camera but don't call it a analog camera.
Comment by Aero posted on SLR, EVF, point of terminology at 15/04/2009 - 12:43
Hi, Pete,
If you're still looking for a storage solution while you ponder all the points made in this thread, you might consider the Snopake business card file on special offer at this address: http://langstane.opweb.co.uk/default.asp
Al
If you're still looking for a storage solution while you ponder all the points made in this thread, you might consider the Snopake business card file on special offer at this address: http://langstane.opweb.co.uk/default.asp
Al
Comment by Aero posted on How do you store all these memory cards ? at 14/04/2009 - 12:28
Hi, Pauly,
I've got to say your images are the most impressive I've seen since joining this forum. They're well observed and beautifully executed. They don't tell us much about the state of the nation, though, because many homeless people are a victim of mental problems rather than an uncaring society.
I know one doctor, for instance, who found found himself on the streets because of an over-fondness for the grape. My lawyer died in bed, with his mother dropping off a pint of milk and a bottle of whisky every day. Boris could spend all the national budget on trying to eliminate the homelessness problem and, guess what ... you'd still be able to take this kind of photo every day in the streets of London.
We're a young species and stil deeply flawed. I wouldn't want to see the world run by the hate-filled guy pictured on TV smashing in a bank window in London.
You get out in the real world, Pauly, and document it photographically, which is what cameras/lenses/flashes are for. Too many of us (me included) investigate our images at pixel level on a computer screen. We're looking for ultimate sharpness or bokeh (when the hell did that one come in?) and the content is treated as almost irrelvant.
It's extraordinary the number of people on this forum whose cameras and/or lenses don't seem to work worth a damn. Tip: Take them back to the shop and get your money back. Alernatively, I can sell you a Minolta XK (XM), Nikon F80, Pentax MZ-M or P30t that can focus flawlessly and work every time. If I have to re-engineer a cameras's focusing system because it's 10mm out to make it work properly, they can have it back.
Pauly, I was reporter/photographer in the days when Tri-X was king and I wish my pictures had been half as good as yours. But I wish you'd stop this idiotic apostrophe nonsense. Your photos are so good that it would be a shame to alienate potential allies with this affectation. By the way, "gonna" doesn't need one and many Scots words that look as though they should end in "g" don't, so be careful. It's a minefield.
Al (just back from the best pub in Britain)
I've got to say your images are the most impressive I've seen since joining this forum. They're well observed and beautifully executed. They don't tell us much about the state of the nation, though, because many homeless people are a victim of mental problems rather than an uncaring society.
I know one doctor, for instance, who found found himself on the streets because of an over-fondness for the grape. My lawyer died in bed, with his mother dropping off a pint of milk and a bottle of whisky every day. Boris could spend all the national budget on trying to eliminate the homelessness problem and, guess what ... you'd still be able to take this kind of photo every day in the streets of London.
We're a young species and stil deeply flawed. I wouldn't want to see the world run by the hate-filled guy pictured on TV smashing in a bank window in London.
You get out in the real world, Pauly, and document it photographically, which is what cameras/lenses/flashes are for. Too many of us (me included) investigate our images at pixel level on a computer screen. We're looking for ultimate sharpness or bokeh (when the hell did that one come in?) and the content is treated as almost irrelvant.
It's extraordinary the number of people on this forum whose cameras and/or lenses don't seem to work worth a damn. Tip: Take them back to the shop and get your money back. Alernatively, I can sell you a Minolta XK (XM), Nikon F80, Pentax MZ-M or P30t that can focus flawlessly and work every time. If I have to re-engineer a cameras's focusing system because it's 10mm out to make it work properly, they can have it back.
Pauly, I was reporter/photographer in the days when Tri-X was king and I wish my pictures had been half as good as yours. But I wish you'd stop this idiotic apostrophe nonsense. Your photos are so good that it would be a shame to alienate potential allies with this affectation. By the way, "gonna" doesn't need one and many Scots words that look as though they should end in "g" don't, so be careful. It's a minefield.
Al (just back from the best pub in Britain)
Comment by Aero posted on End Homelessness Project - #4 at 10/04/2009 - 03:01
Hi, Foxy,
The resolution of your images is determined by the sensor, so many pixels wide by so many pixels deep. DPI comes into play only when you're spreading (or spreadin', as Pauly would say) those pixels over a piece of paper. The images from my Samsung GX10 come in at 310dpi for an A4 print.
Clearly, your Adobe programme is reporting the screen resolution for the picture, which could be 72dpi, 96dpi or some other number related to your monitor size, screen resolution, operating system or something equally irrelevant. Check the "image size" box or whatever Adobe calls it and stick in the printed size you want and the required dpi. Adjust this to 300dpi for photo-quality prints on your own printer and for printshop use.
I've long since abandoned Adobe for Serif PhhotoPlus, which I find can produce work to professional standards and costs a fraction of the price. It also has a superb forum. If you ask your question at http://forums.serif.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10 you'll no doubt receive a more-than-comprehensive answer. Tell them Al sent you.
Hope this helps (as they say)
Al Rogers
http://forums.serif.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10
The resolution of your images is determined by the sensor, so many pixels wide by so many pixels deep. DPI comes into play only when you're spreading (or spreadin', as Pauly would say) those pixels over a piece of paper. The images from my Samsung GX10 come in at 310dpi for an A4 print.
Clearly, your Adobe programme is reporting the screen resolution for the picture, which could be 72dpi, 96dpi or some other number related to your monitor size, screen resolution, operating system or something equally irrelevant. Check the "image size" box or whatever Adobe calls it and stick in the printed size you want and the required dpi. Adjust this to 300dpi for photo-quality prints on your own printer and for printshop use.
I've long since abandoned Adobe for Serif PhhotoPlus, which I find can produce work to professional standards and costs a fraction of the price. It also has a superb forum. If you ask your question at http://forums.serif.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10 you'll no doubt receive a more-than-comprehensive answer. Tell them Al sent you.
Hope this helps (as they say)
Al Rogers
http://forums.serif.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10
Comment by Aero posted on Printing and DPI at 10/04/2009 - 02:02
My old Achiever flash is marked N, S and T on the zoom gizmo. The manual suggests N is for a 35mm lens, S for 50mm and T for 85mm. The focal lengths could well be different on the Cobra, but the principle should be the same. It's anybody's guess what the N stands for.
Al
Al
Comment by Aero posted on Cobra D400 + ME Super + no manual = some questions at 01/04/2009 - 14:19
Just what I need ... another lens! I'm tempted, Mike-P, just for the Quick-Shift, but I must be strong. Tried out the DAL this afternoon and it's not bad at all. It's that old problem of pixel-peeping and trying to decide if it's sharp enough. I've run out of A4 photo paper and I'll have to wait till tomorrow to see how they print out. Looks good for the price, though.
Al
Al
Comment by Aero posted on DAL 50-200 at 17/03/2009 - 16:30
And thanks for that reassuarnce, Pete. Your post appeared while I was typing (as we used to say).
Alastair
Alastair
Comment by Aero posted on DAL 50-200 at 17/03/2009 - 12:55
The guy on the right makes an interesting portrait but I'm not sure how many of your "young, affluent professionals" would like to be seen in such an honest light. The guy on the right looks like a fast-rising shoe salesman. I think the key in appealing to the type of market you're aiming at is to make them look self-confident, thrusting and impishly good-looking, a little like Richard Harris. A friend of mine at the top of the oil business (who claims to have met Richard Harris enjoying a pint outside a pub in Soho one summer evening) asked me to photograph him in the style of a 1940s or 50s Hollywood movie star - in black and white. That's the way they think. Your layout and borders are perfect. I'd put a comma after "Business" and rearrange the letters in "Ecxellent".
Good luck
Al