doug elick

I found an email from Yahoo in my inbox today. Verizon is buying them and new terms of service will take effect June 8, 2017. The entire thing is found at this following link: Yahoo Terms of Service

 

The following, relevant parts are quoted below:

 

9.

CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE YAHOO SERVICES

Yahoo does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Yahoo Services. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo Services, you grant Yahoo the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

 

9.2 With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo Services other than Yahoo Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo removes such Content from the Yahoo Services.

 

"Publicly accessible" areas of the Yahoo Services are those areas of the Yahoo network of properties that are intended by Yahoo to be available to the general public. By way of example, publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo Services would include Yahoo Message Boards and portions of Yahoo Groups and Flickr that are open to both members and visitors. However, publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo Services would not include portions of Yahoo Groups that are limited to members, Yahoo services intended for private communication such as Yahoo Mail or Yahoo Messenger, or areas off of the Yahoo network of properties such as portions of World Wide Web sites that are accessible via hypertext or other links but are not hosted or served by Yahoo.

Send physical prints next time?

<p>Yup, you're right, it's a f3.5 35-105 Pentax A. I shouldn't post late at night. Never the less, it's a big, heavy chunk of glass i quite enjoy.</p>

<p>New lenses are ever sharper and contrasty, but sometimes that's not what I want. The f1.4 50mm wide open isn't bleeding sharp, but it has a lovely look to me. I should do a few tests with the 50mm and the kit 18-135 set to 50 (@ same aperture); maybe I'm full of it and I won't be able to tell if there's a difference, but my gut says there is.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>First picture from the K3. Since it was dark and rainy, I grabbed a shot of my dog on the back porch. ISO 3200, SMC-M 50mm f1.4. Just a 60 watt light above. Processed with no sharpening or denoise in RRP 64<br /><br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Honestly, for many years the fast 50 was all I owned. And later a sort of fast 75 on a TLR. I think the limitation was useful in my formative years. I do find I gravitate towards fast lenses. Zooms are nice, but it's hard to swallow that f3.5-5.8 pill. I don't really do much action, do the AF system isn't that important to me. And honestly, in the past, i was all about prefocus, pre-exposure (hyper focal distance) and a good eye. <br>

I still love my 35-135 and see it edging out the kit lens at the far end since it's constant aperture even out to 135. I might walk the city with the f2.8 28mm "Wide" lens, since it'll more or less be a prime in APS-C land. I think my next lenses will probably be a fast, wide prime and perhaps somehow that goes longer than the 135. BTW, the K3 sporting the 35-135 is slightly reminiscent of my C330 - heavy!<br>

I have much to learn - the buzzilion options on the K3 and the digital darkroom workflow. I have a good textbook understanding, but have way too many holes in my knowledge. By the way, I concede my earlier statements about Photoshop, et al might sound acerbic or judgmental - that wasn't my intent. I'm just a little fed up with the artificiality I'm perceiving in today's world.<br>

I like to shoot architecture, nature, friends, weather, astronomical objects, whatever catches my eye. And I think most of the beauty I see is in the morning or evening light (or even night) when that fast lens is worth gold. I've never really thought about it - I've felt my "eye" coming back and have been tired of not having a good carry camera. I still have a love for B&W and MF cameras, but those have become a niche. I'm super excited to have a camera platform this versatile with such great sharpness and color rendition - and I can afford it! </p>

<p>Now if somebody would just bring out a DTLR!</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the K3 in hand! Bwahahaha! I have to say I like the kit lens, but I really got spoiled by my f3.5 35-135mm and f1.4 50mm. The A zoom is easy to use; the M lenses take a little more work, but the green button or even better stopping down using the DoF preview on the power switch makes metering pretty easy. And the old M 2.8 28mm is pretty much a pancake prime on this body.<br>

Of course I sit here with a brand new camera and it's dark and rainy outside. Still, I'm STOKED!</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>On a side note, one of the things I miss in our digital world is film grain. There is merit in salt 'n pepper grain, weird bokah, flare, skewed colors, long toe curves, etc. I miss Kodachrome, Verichrome Pan, Ektachrome...</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice, I quite appreciate it. </p>

<p>I'm not completely green to digital image processing; I used the Canon and have been playing with images for Astrophotography. Since they're free, I already have IRIS, Gimp / UFraw, Raw Therapee and will check out LightZone. I'll probably wind up with Lightroom, but I'm not sure about full on PS - I'll be blunt and say most of what I see done with PS is not photography at best, garish crap at worse and I want nothing to do with it (please, I'm not trying to start a holy war in this thread). Lets just say I'm on the "FoundView" side of the scale - just tweaking the gamma, saturation, sharpness, etc. If I can't find inspiration in the world, I'm doing it wrong.</p>

<p>I'm hoping the K3 isn't behind (to far) the K5 as far as DR and noise are concerned.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

 

<p>My Macbook is a unibody Macbook (not pro). Dual core 2.4 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 10.7.5; it's no spring chicken. A new machine is in my future anyway - dealing with GoPro video in "Protune" mode spitting out 1080P/60 (or higher!) - up to 45 Mb/Sec bitrate - presents a challenge for this machine and a bigger one to my patience. </p>

<p>I'm hanging on to the MF gear primarily for B&W work. <br>

That's a shame about your Rollei. People shouldn't dork with lenses unless they know exactly what they're doing. My 'cord has a f3.5 Schneider Xenar - if one works within its limitations, it's a great lens. Be aware of flare and don't expect miracles wide open and it won't disappoint. Honestly, choice lenses on the C330 system are no slouches either - again, understanding the limits of their coating tech, etc. they're damned sharp - the black 180mm tele for example is such a specimen. I really enjoy the C330 the most when compared to the Rollei and RB67 in terms of usability and workman like reliability. The Rollei excels at light, unobtrusive street photography and the build quality is awe inspiring, but you have one focal length. The Rb67 gives you that beautiful big negative, but it's big, heavy and HEAVY (did I mention it's heavy?). Plus, it's kind of quirky. And I have a "thing" for TLRs.</p>

<p>Basically, a clean C330F is a solid workhorse that will win no awards for style, but should someone attempt to mug you, you could beat them senseless with it and then proceed to photograph the gruesome results afterwards. BTW, once you experience the joy of flash sync at 1/500 with a dead silent leaf shutter, 1/buzzillion speed focal plane shutters seem annoying.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>I'm still not giving up on my Rolleicord IV, C330 kit and RB67 kit. But those are machines that lend themselves to specific cases. 35mm (and now digital) is the "jack of all trades".</p>

<p>I have a ton to learn. Does the K3 have a built in intervalometer? Is the ground glass changeable? Is it possible to power it externally (think time lapse)? Can the HDR function be used in conjunction with time lapse? *Is my old Macbook up to the task of 24 MP RAWs*? This will give me a reason to once more establish a relationship with a good photo processor in town (there are only two left!) since I'm just not going to dork with high end ink-jet. I've still yet to run the Ektar 100 I have in my freezer through the RB67 or C330.</p>

<p>Well, we'll see how well those old lenses work on a new K3 (in conjunction with the 18-135)....</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>Oh, I've been reading the Pentax forums with great interest. From what I can tell, the consensus is that roughly speaking, the K3 image quality is better than the D7100 and though no slouch, behind the D600. And that the K3 is a quantum leap in speed/responsiveness over its predecessor. And finally that it could be a bit noisier than the K5II, but it's not exactly apples to apples since it's a 24 MP sensor. The example photos posted and the 100% crops show how the resolution is bordering on outright silly/crazy. They have to be bumping up against the lens itself in that regard.<br>

The whole noise question concerns me the most, since I enjoy available light and will be using this for astrophotography (on a scope) from time to time. Certainly the higher MP sensor would give me more room to crop.... I've also seen charts from the K5 that show it has more red sensitivity compared to Canikon cameras, which would explain why folks are getting impressive results when capturing H-alpha nebulae with unmodified cameras.</p>

<p>I think it's inevitable that I'm going to wind up purchasing either a K5II or K3 with the 18-135. The question becomes, "Does the K3 represent $600 worth of performance and future proofing over the K5II?". I wish the DxO and Dpreview reviews were available now!</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>I very much appreciate all the input I've received thus far. The thought of a used body is intriguing, but I'm not just looking at this as only a way to emulate manual work in the digital world. Yes, the ability to manually control the camera (w/o digging into menus) is paramount, but advances such as high effective ISO, in body IS, high pixel count, greater bit depth (14 vs 12), etc. that a newer model brings are important aspects as well. I truly am looking at this as an investment in a system. I want to be able to use older lenses, but not necessarily be *forced* into it.</p>

<p>I looked at the A7's specs and it is truly impressive. I like the rangefinder look 'n feel and the FF sensor, but there are some deficiencies to me. Namely, there are currently only 4 lenses available, the the max effective ISO is much lower and it's more expensive than the K3 with the 35-135 kit lens to boot. I'm not sure how I feel about the electronic viewfinder too, but at least it has more than a display. As someone with limited funds (many Pentax limited lenses cost a significant chunk [or more] than the yearly budget I've allotted for photograpy), I'm looking for the "jack of all trades" and view the purchase as a long term investment. The K1000 has been my primary 35mm camera for almost 30 years! I know the lifecycle of a digital camera is less than the mechanical wonders of yore of course, but you can see where I'm coming from. If money was no object, I'd *leap* at a 645D, but high value is quite important. Why do you think I'm still a fan of Pentax? When I can afford a digital camera that can match the beautiful creamy tone the RB67 loaded with a nice slow B&W film carefully developed in Rodinol and printed with love can produce, then I'll finally let go of film.</p>

<p>I know the lifecycle of a digital camera is less than the mechanical wonders of yore, of course, but you can see where I'm coming from. Heck, given the resonable success I've had with the modest, "give away" Rebel Digital, the prospect of tossing a K5 II or K3 (if its high ISO specs live up to the hype) onto my f5 10 inch telescope is almost mouth watering. I've read snippets that it might be possible to use the camera's sensor shift to compensate for short term drift - is this true ?!?</p>

<p>Given my shooting style, the prospect of a a fast lens on a body with built in IS and extremely high ISO also means I could chuck my flash unit for all intents and purposes - it would fry a dSLR anyway (modified V283).</p>

<p>Please keep your thoughts and experiences coming. I have much to think about. It seems I make a major photographic gear purchase every 10 years or so and need to make sure that what I finally invest in not only performs well but is enjoyable to use. I'll admit it and say I indeed suffer from gear lust and a new piece of kit can inspire me to get out and brave the elements/crowds/etc. Some of my favorite medium format photos were taken with my first MF camera, a modest Rolleicord IV. Exploring uncharted territory was invigorating.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br /> Doug</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Geoff - A $2000 body mated to a $200 lens makes perfect sense if it does what I want it to. I'll reiterate that the purchase of a dSLR will of course represent entering into a full system. I fully expect to purchase modern lenses over time, but budget is a concern. Since the modern dSLR is more than just a film transport, I want to get the best body I can afford and mate lenses I acquire over time. Lets not forget there's a huge used market and I already have a stable of older Pentax lenses. Since I couldn't care less about AF functionality, the only criteria I have is how well a particular chunk of glass does its job on the camera. The longevity of the K-mount system is attractive to me - I don't have terribly deep pockets.<br>

<br />I certainly understand that time marches on and one risks irrelevance by ignoring it. That being said, for many, many years, my choice for a portable camera was a 35mm SLR with a tack sharp, fast 50 - the aesthetic grabs something deep inside me. Of course I never have nor am I going to askew wides, teles, zooms, etc, but whatever system I wind up with, I very much want the equivalent of that fast 50. It represents a big dilemma since APS-C changes the FOV, rendering my M 50 into a short tele. What modern Pentax prime would give the equivalent perspective of a 50mm while remaining tack sharp and fast? I prefer available light photography and the prospect of a fast prime on a body/sensor combination that can produce finer resolution (less grain or noise at high ISO) than any film ever could is really exciting to me.<br>

<br />I suppose I should have prefaced all of this by saying my photography has been in the doldrums the past couple of years. The prospect of augmenting my modest stable of cameras with a good dSLR is exciting. I gravitated towards MF for a good while, but I'm missing the 35mm "style" and want to get back to it. </p>

<p>JDM - you answered your own question. Color 35mm film no longer has a clear advantage over digital. Add in the economics and there's why I'm finally considering a nice dSLR; I stated this.</p>

<p>I did not characterize AF cameras as "spray and pray"; rather, that it is not my style. AF is nice, but is not a primary purchasing concern. No chip at all - to each his or her own.</p>

<p>You are correct that most SLRs can be used in manual mode, but the way controls are implemented on various models vary like night and day. Since I've already stated I hate menu diving and appreciate having all the basic functions expressed in real tactile controls, I think it's fair to say a good many SLRs could be eliminated by this criteria alone, wouldn't you agree? Pentax SLRs have been known for their particularly good ergonomics and workflow, which is why I'm strongly considering, "staying in the family" so to speak.</p>

<p>As for the idea that old lenses are to be relegated to the dustbin of history, I disagree. Time might march on, but a great lens formula remains so regardless. Of course I'd augment any new dSLR with modern lenses, but since I've stated I have older glass I'd like to continue using, it's rather silly to suggest I make a choice that abandons the ability to choose the best of new and old lenses. Sure, newer designs might be engineered specifically for APS-C, but does that necessarily automatically mean they're superior? I don't think so. An APS-C prime only has to cover that rather small area, but my old f1.4 50mm for example, had to be reasonably sharp, wide open, out to the far edge of a 135 frame. On an APS-C camera, if anything, that small sensor will be in the sweet spot. But of course pleasing ultra-wide angle formulas for small sensors are completely different animals that are more difficult to economically realize. As for zooms, in general I'm sure most are better these days, but there were some gems even in the days of flying dinosaurs. Like everything in life, there are trade-offs.</p>

<p>Nice tripod by the way; we have something in common apparently. I love my Tiltall.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>Perhaps I should have set the stage a bit better. I do have a Panasonic Lumix as a "carry about" camera and am very pleased with it in that role. It's generally sharp and produces a color palate I find pleasing. However, I detest menu diving and shutter lag annoys me even more. The final straw is I *hate* looking at a display to frame a photo. I do have a "hand me down", 1st generation digital Rebel, but I can never click with that camera - again, I hate having to dig into menus or switch control mode contexts to get to basic settings like aperture and shutter speed. I'm not actually a luddite, I'm a tech worker who just doesn't want to feel like I'm operating a computer while practicing photography - the interface should assist me, not get in the way. I have a brand new GoPro Black Hero 3+; for its designed task, it's a brilliant little bit of gear.</p>

<p>I never upgraded from the modest K-1000 because it did everything I needed. Sure, the center weighted meter could be fooled, but it wasn't hard to eyeball a scene and compensate as needed. Lack of AF was never an issue; I'd guestimate my subject, preset the exposure and prefocus using hyperfocal distance. The only features I missed on the K-1000 was DoFP and possibly MLU, but the deficiency was forgiven since that camera has been a flawless companion for nearly 30 years. Ignoring the Lumix and Rebel, the K-1000 is the only camera I own with a meter of any kind. I seem to do fine with the Rolleicord IV, C330 kit and RB67 kit - they just aren't very portable and their advantage for color photography is slipping. For B&W work, I'll stick with the medium format gear and the K-1000 for fun. <br>

<br />On a basic level, if I were designing a camera, it would be a fully manual, mechanical camera with digital sensor that represents a great value. I do not practice "spray and pray" photography and I've found the fuzzy logic between my ears to be quite sufficient. I have a few photos that one might call, "decisive moment" images, but I got them because I was prepared, not because I had a megabuck camera. My reasons for considering the K3 (or perhaps K5II) are because of their fully expressed manual controls and their sensor and processing capability which for a lack of better terms, represent the equivalent of excellent "film". Yes, a good AF and auto-exposure system will be nice to have, but they will be necessary to get the job done maybe 10% of the time or less. All I really want is great glass and a great sensor in my hands; I'll take care of the rest.</p>

<p> Douglas Elick<br>

P.S. I thought I read the K3 will do focus peaking - something quite handy when using manual glass, I imagine. I take it the K5II cannot?</p>

<p>I've been a luddite and have held off buying a dSLR for quite some time. That plus the never ending "feature creep" that kept me wanting the next great thing. The reality is that the style of color shooting I would have used a 35mm camera for is finally dead to me due to the economics/availability of film and processing. I eyeballed the K5II and came *so* close to pulling the trigger, but held off. The K3 however might tip the scale and if its low light / high ISO performance is at least equal to the K5II, it'll be highly compelling.<br>

I know that on paper, with a few exceptions, all the old Pentax lenses will work on their modern bodies, but I wonder how friendly the workflow is when using old "M" lenses though. The lack of AF is inconsequential to me, but if I can't get into a "groove", I won't use the lenses and I'm not ready to give up on my small stable of old Pentax glass. For example, of all my cameras/lenses including Mamiya and Rollei MF, the 50mm SMC Pentax-M f1.4 is my absolute favorite - quite literally I'd move it from my trusty 28 year old K1000 to the K3. Those of you with experience giving new life to your old glass by using it on a modern body, how has it worked out for you? How well does Pentax implement/support stop down mode? An afterthought or well married to the "UI"?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Doug</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the info. I have a couple light seal replacement kits for my RB67 on the way, VC filters and the under the lens holder for my B8 on order (B&H actually has that part available for order!) and I'm eyeballing a small closet in my basement (and I mean SMALL) that was clearly a darkroom at one point. I think I'm going to grab a Photoflex film changing tent (go big) so I can load reels with a little less pressure as well. No darkroom I ever assembled was 100% light tight even with meticulous and judicious use of aluminum tape and light seals. I've had issues loading certain films onto steel reels before. I learned with plastic reels, but since I've gravitated to diluted/compensating developing techniques, I've tried to move away from them.<br>

They're probably a couple years old, but I have a tub of various films in the fridge I wanted to try and there's already some Fomapan 100 in there. I also found a set of 6x6cm negatives on FP4 that I souped in Rodinal at the old house and never printed. They look a little dense, but will be good practice for printing. A couple frames are a rusty old railroad bridge and with the B8 all the way up (90 mm lens), the rivets are clearly visible and sharp. A few more are the moon over my home town of Cincinnati, reflecting off of the river. I need to get my printing groove back and these images will be good practice. It's been so long since I dodged and burned and I've never tried split grade printing. I haven't used VC paper since high school.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>Thanks for the answers. I'm getting back into "wet" photography and the RB is the camera I've used the least. I'm pleased and irritated that lenses are so cheap...much cheaper than what I paid for mine! Maybe I'll invest in good lens hoods and see how the old non C 90 works out. Or just grab a newer version since I have no idea how long the shutter will last in it. I'm a "normal" focal length kind of guy, so the 90 needs to perform well.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Doug</p>

<p>I have an RB67 with 60mm C and 180mm C lens, but the 90mm is a 1st generation lens. Given I can get a C 90mm for under $100, is it worth the upgrade? How much better is the C than the original design? And again the KL vs the C? The KL 90 will work fine on an older non-S body, correct?<br>

I'm perfectly happy with the Black 55mm, 80mm and 180mm lenses I have for my C330 and have had good results from the Xenar on my Rolleicord IV when used with care as comparison; I'm still feeling out the RB...I only get it out when the extra size and weight is really worth it. I almost treat it like a mini-large format within my stable of MF gear.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

Doug</p>

<p>Thanks for the great information. I should say that I have perceptions based on past (old) experience that might not be valid anymore. I never took to T-grained style films because they seemed to "clinical" to me. They seem(ed) very sharp and accurate, but these days, I'm not sure what advantage they have over a good digital sensor and someone adept with Photoshop. I'm not necessarily going for all out sharpness and accuracy. My goal has always been to squeeze out as much tone as possible. To that end, more classic films seemed to fit the bill. If I could have anything, I'd take APX-25 and APX-100 in Rodinal.<br>

Trying to get back into the game, I find the landscape quite confusing. Old films being resurrected under different names and/or different companies. Old stock rebranded and sold under different names. Old names returning under different banners. Kodak has changed and dropped emulsions so many times I've completely lost track outside of good ol' TX and TXP (and Pro is dying too?). I wish there was a master chart of what is currently available, what its heritage is, what the curve looks like and how long it's projected to be around.<br>

I'm sort of mentally excluding 400 speed films from my quest because Tri-X has always been my "go to" in that range. Also, when I get to a point where higher film speed becomes important, I usually switch to a smaller format. If I'm going to go to the trouble of lugging the RB out, it's because I want that tone and small grain....lower speed films seem more appropriate here.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Doug</p>

 

<p>I forgot to mention, I'm specifically looking for 120 size rolls. When I say clone, let's take it to mean, "as close as we can get".<br>

Seems all my favorite films have been killed. VP, Plus-X, APX-100.... I like that non-linear curve of those films. Stuff like T-MAX seems to flat, too clinical and accurate to me.<br>

I suppose I should ask about paper in the other forum.<br>

I feel like I need to get back to B&W and love the process before it's gone forever.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>What's the consensus on Rollei Retro? Online examples catch my eye.<br>

And now I find that it was APX 100. No wonder! And it's gone too. What's the Best current APX-100 clone?</p>

<p>Doug</p>