Industry wide indications and ceasing film body development by Pentax altogether in early 2003 more than suggest the manual focus Pentax LX will not be having an upgrade (except, perhaps for very rare Limited Edition Models hand assembled by special commission by the new HoyaPentax Corporation). In 2008 Pentax became a division of Hoya Corporation, which had together with Pentax released jointly developed professional grade optics (since 2005); Pentax has shifted its attention to development of auto focus Digital SLRs having build qualities constructed for the long run--now with weather seals--like the LX. You may use this site for common support and sharing of mutual users knowledge or experiences among yourselves. You may also use this message board as a guestbook for the advanced users Pentax SLR cameras from the LX forward, including many such auto focus film cameras, and Pentax digital SLR cameras. We keep the site going too for the WORD SEARCH FEATURE found here as to its magnificent K mount system user archives: as have been shared here for many years. Have an inquiry related to Pentax gear? First try KEYING IN YOUR KEY WORD(S) for a preexisting archived response on your subject of inquiry from this LX site. If your inquiry or sharing is from advanced users K10D, K20D, or K200D SLR needs, proceed on to t NEW PENTAX ADVANCED USERS K10D, K20D SLR site.
This LX site was specifically created for the great Pentax LX SLR camera model(s), and now has incorporated increased opportunity for an expanded interchange with the introductions of the Pentax K10D, K20D, and K200D SLRs to include advanced and professional digital user models. Interchange is encouraged with the intention to continue as a forum for advanced system users of past K-mount film based SLR systems and the mentioned Pentax DSLRs. With decreasing forum traffic here, and enthusiasts moving on with SLR digital imaging products futures, we hope the continued convenience of this site and its past Pentax advanced LX users data archives--provided by the database KEY WORD SEARCH FEATURE found here--can be very useful to you. Most past site user techniques, systems components, and lenses of Pentax advanced applications--as have been past examined by users on this site--are still of use regarding the newest Pentax SLRs. Please don't mail us with other than constructive suggestions or to rectify mistakes found within this site, thank you. Since this is a non-profitable resource site, maintained by professional and advanced system users, the developer of this site reserves the rights to censor or delete any inappropriate, unrelated, misleading or excessively hostile messages posted herein. If your intention is to dispose of your Pentax cameras or its accompanying accessories and/or you are looking for a used model, or even for any of its system components: please use a separate section with a higher volume of related traffic for these purposes: on the Free Trade Zone site instead. The Photography In Malaysia sites sponsor has no Guestbook standing on its own, because it is an integral part of the MIR site. But if you want to leave a note on your experience of visiting our site and its service, you may use the MIR's Guestbook found at another new window by clicking on the Guestbook Link.
Add a Posting to the Message Board
A kind reminder: Please do not misuse of this message board system.
Main Index Page of Pentax LX SLR Website
The respective Message Boards are some of the HARDEST hit sections of the PIM served sites; if, at any one time, the traffic is high--the table of contents or individual pages may take a while to load your input data, or our's. So, just be patient. If your interaction stalls, just click on the 'Reload' or 'Refresh' button on your browser menu once to re-attempt interaction here. Thank you. Welcome to MIR!
1. From : test-window (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 02:46 PM Saturday 24 June, 2006
testing using windows OS /IE2. From : test (email@example.com)
Url : http://test.com
Date : 12:17 PM Saturday 24 June, 2006
""""Dummy text:- Submit any comments that you wish: positive suggestions, constructive criticisms, personal greetings, random musings, whatever you want but MUST be relative to the specific Pentax LX SLR camera(s) or its system accessories. I reserve absolute right to change, modify or remove comments that are non-relative, non-constructive, misleading OR excessively hostile messages posted herein..."
The first post I have added "xxxxex, XXXXXambling, SSSSSenax etc (words that appeared in the banned list). and the post stopped me from seeing this. This isthe second post.3. From : Philip Ashman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 05:32 AM Saturday 24 June, 2006
I agree with what you say Ivan and certainly technology does need to advance and people adapt, but perhaps just not at the rate it is doing currently. The trend now, and indeed as mentioned by Globetrotter, the advice in magazines is to spend more time on the scramble to ensure you are fully up to date, than focussing on the main point i.e. learning photographic skills with whatever medium you employ.
Naturally, I was aware that motor drives have for some time allowed film cameras to capture up to 8fps, but unless you were/are a pro, then apart from the odd time when a superb chance arose, the cost of film and indeed for the amateur, the limit of 36 frames before changing a roll ( I have never had a bulk film loader) prevented this trawling of images relentlessly. It is, however, now within the reach of the beginner and those with limited funds.
It just does not seem right that the unskilled can effecively turn out a stunning image with very little knowledge of actual photography by trawling (as you put it) and then post processing until it is the way they want. Maybe it is just a case of sour grapes on my part, as although I can now do that myself with my DSLR (should I wish) I still put as much effort (or try to) in the image capture skills at source for, if nothing else, my own satisfaction. It took me many years to learn the lowly skills I have so far achieved and I'm not about to ditch them and let technology take over fully.
A very good and interesting point you raised about how a digital image may well be questioned as to authenticity, whereas a slide, simply cannot be altered, as far as I am aware, and is pure simple photography at it's best.
For me its a bit like the advent of microwave cookers that again took away the need for many skills, were fast and convenient. They do and can produce acceptable food for eating, but not quite the same as a meal cooked conventionally by a skilled cook/chef.
OK for those that can't be bothered to learn to cook, but lacking the taste, texture and downright yumminess of properly prepared meals from raw ingredients.
I think I have now become a 'grumpy old man' and my children are right after all! LOL.
4. From : Ivan J. Eberle (Pupfish@starband.net)
Url : http://www.ivaneberle.com
Date : 10:44 PM Friday 23 June, 2006
For the sake of spirited and healthy debate, any motordrive body with 5 fps sequence capability--regardless of whether its' digital or film--can at first push one into the machine-gunning (or the "trawling" sort of mode you describe). It certainly happened to me when 20 years ago I bought a Motor Drive LX. My actual percentage of keepers went down for a time, until I worked out an improvement in sharpness technique, and also learned that "spray and pray" was at all not the same thing as the "decisive moment". (Multiple decisive moments can and do happen at short intervals, and that is truly the only beauty of a fast motor, in my more-evolved and humbled opinion. Incidentally, my F5 shoots at 8fps). Any such technology that allows one to capture a voluminous number images also creates the need to do more ruthless editing, which invariably hastens the learning curve into taking better images for anyone serious about practicing their craft.
In the case of creating a bunch of post-processing computer hacks instead of photographers, I don't see post-processing a very efficient alternative to getting it right in the camera in the first place. It certain is not a faster way to work, to fix stuff in post. So on balance, and over time, it's going to advance the craft. Which raises the bar for everyone, so that the photographer not keeping abreast of this steep curve is no longer just treading water, but sinking (particularly if one is exhibiting and showing or competing in any form).
At first technological advances in photography are astounding, but before long they seem to be self-congratulatory, and soon there is a glut of images where technique gets in the way of good photography. But in the end the very popularity becomes it's own undoing.
As a for instance, remember how those absurd photo composites were all the rage right after Photoshop hit the mainstream circa 1992? How ho-hum that quickly all became in a couple of short years. Then a top nature photographer got busted for cloning in a few extra animals to fill in the gaps in the herd. And the trend shifted to authenticity of the image, documenting the chain of command, despite (or because of) the ease of fabricating. And so the wheel turns...
This is just some of the blowback that has lead people back to film, or has kept some of the trend-watchers shooting it instead of jumping ship.
You might have seen my mountain lion images captured in April. I'll admit that I shoot film in large part due to the familiarity with it and having the equipment already. But it wasn't lost on me in planning for the mountain lion that I needed to get its image ON FILM, for authenticity. (As it turned out, almost immediately, I had people commenting me it looked "too perfect".)
I wonder if the Cornell researcher who got those 24 video frames of the hotly-debated Ivory-Billed Woodpecker wouldn't have been far better off using an old Super 8 instead?
Ivan5. From : GLOBETROTTER (email@example.com)
Url : http://www.wilderness-image.co.uk
Date : 04:02 PM Friday 23 June, 2006
Anton wrote: 'are things in reverse, are they getting worse?'
I Think he has hit the nail on the head with most of his post. With so many people prepared to accept the dreadful results on even the best of mobile phones, and even the tinny sounds that come out of them...or even an MP3; and with so many companies vying for us to view HD TV screens, yet so many people that actually buy one (no matter how expensive!) think that they are watching HD programmes when they are not! - It is no surprise that people are beginning to accept lower and lower quality as part of life.
The main theme that runs through all this movement of change is Convenience...it is so conveinient to leave everything at home, and to be able to phone friends, take photos of them, and watch movies, all on a tiny object that fits in your pocket...regardless of how terrible and small and out of foucus the actual image we are trying to squint to see is...and how awful your favourite band sounds when listening to one.
The other thing that you mention - that of owning a high Meg digital camera - yet still producing thousands of dull and uninteresting photos from it, no matter how good the actual quality of the actual image file - is right on the button.
I agree that a lot of magazines over the past few years have lowered their quality, and lost a lot of 'soul & passion' from the majority of images reproduced on their glossy pages.
I think that humans cannot help but think that a new a new gadget and technology MUST be better than what proceeds it, so they just HAVE to buy one an use it, even though they often forget to notice that the new object is now made of cheap and flimsy plastic instead of sturdy metal, and has been superceded within days by yet another similar object that is even MORE convenient... no matter what the output. Millions will buy it if the advertising and marketing is good enough. How could we have survived without such a product before?
At least there are still enough of us 'old camp' warriors to keep everyone in check, and maintain something of the values of the past and drag them, screaming, into the future.
6. From : Philip Ashman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 03:34 PM Friday 23 June, 2006
Interesting comments Ivan, with elements I had not considered regarding film-v-digital, in particular when relating to pro/commercial work.
Certainly digital allows the image producer far more scope in post processing and instant playback to ensure they are producing what is required in the highly competitive marketplace and indeed the opportunity to get the final result spot on rather than just OK.
My own thoughts were related more to the actual image capture and the possibility of laziness/complacency to creep up in and what I call the 'blanket shooting' of subjects in the knowledge that with enough variables covered the desired result should follow amongst the multitiude of shots taken. This with the added knowledge that digital post processing is far easier (once mastered) for correcting errors than, as you mention, the darkroom process. No mess, no worries about dust, temperature, timings etc... and most importantly no continued prohibitive costs once the hardware and software has been acquired.
Perhaps an analogy, at least for me and what I get from my photography, is to compare film and digital to fishing. (Globetrotter may find this interesting, or even amusing). Man out to capture that special specimen fish using rod and line has to carefully assess a lot of factors and use skills learnt and honed from experience over many years to ensure he gets it right and may be rewarded with a fine specimen using these skills. Each cast of the line takes into account the composition of the water, the weather, the best spot to fish and skilled use of tackle, preparation of bait. This I liken to film photography. On the other hand the commercial fisherman needing to ensure he captures a quantity of saleable fish, including good specimens, resorts to sweeping large areas of the water where the fish are believed to be using methods and equipment that allow 'blanket coverage' of the area pulling in many fish and then sorting out the ones that meet his requirements and discarding those of no use. This I liken to digital photography and rapid image taking at 5-6 frames per second in long bursts of just about everything onto a massive memory card, relying on instant playback as well to check exposure levels etc..This in the safe knowledge that if any doubt you can re-take after adjusting your settings there and then.
I do not say that there is anything at all wrong with this if your main consideration is 'the end justifies the means', but simply that it may make some people lazy and complacent and the 'craft' of photography as a skilled creative media slowly disappears. I feel it is not as rewarding as capturing that special image using film where all the skills you needed to learn had to be applied and nothing is left to chance with very selective and carefully planned shooting. You get no second chance with film, especially outdoor work (landscape/nature/wildlife/candid/sport etc..) and non reliance on digital post processing can, I feel, make you a far better photographer in the long run, especially if you have no designs upon making a living from your work and as such competitiveness is not an issue.
It is clear to me from reading the many photography magazines now available that far more emphasis is placed on digital post processing skills than image taking skills and I feel that this will lead to people new to photography as a craft/hobby failing to grasp and learn the important basics in many areas, as was necessary before the digital age.
At the end of the day though it's the individuals' choice and if everyone is happy that way, then so be it. People these days appear to need instant gratification and are unprepared to either take the time to learn or use anything that is not the very latest technology and designed to remove any user skill.
Philip7. From : test1 (email@example.com)
Url : http://www.somehwere.com
Date : 01:16 PM Friday 23 June, 2006
testing. dummy: Last Reminder: if you are NOT comfortable with this kind of public exposure of your personal email PLEASE use/select a One-Time Email (or creative alternation of your actual email) for this purpose (deletion request of email will NOT be entertained due to heavy workload). To AVOID being lead to unspecific/related external site(s), this board only accepts PLAIN TEXT postings; further, using special HTML tags other than plain text to attract attention is NOT encouraged IF you wish to sell/buy/announce products/services OTHER THAN photographic equipment/services, please make use/test drive the NEW FREE TRADE ZONE section in MIR website.
-**** it works *****8. From : Jay (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 02:12 AM Friday 23 June, 2006
Ivan, [The like of this message was posted, then appearing in our administrative area as one short message among about 100 short Italian Spams, it was inadvertantly deleted]. Thank you for your postings, which have me considering my craft at a deeper level. It is good to incorporate into this consideration all that you have shared as challenging to professional imaging processes and outcomes. --Jay9. From : Ivan J. Eberle (Pupfish@starband.net)
Url : http://www.ivaneberle.com
Date : 11:19 PM Thursday 22 June, 2006
Read a fascinating article in the New Yorker magazine the other day (available on-line for free) about a man blind for 50 years who was suddenly "gifted" with sight. Surprisingly, a very sad turn of events, and quite thought-provoking,
One of these thoughts being that working in the total darkness of my darkroom by touch (developing pin-registered pan masking film for contrast masks in open trays, loading film reels, etc.) gives me real gratitude for having excellent vision--and a real taste of what life might be like without. Perhaps a substantial part of the reason why I yet enjoy getting in my D/R and practicing my craft, too.
Film does several things very well. And some things not nearly as well as digital. First thing that immediately comes to mind is that the darkroom gremlins of dust and scratches . These can be mitigated only somewhat by careful handling, but the reality is that if you make a few hundred prints of any slide or neg with the attendant handling (maybe even mounting it and a contrast mask to a registration pin stage), or circulate it in the mails a couple of times for them to send off for drumscanning (boy, that really dates me, doesn't it?) the emulsion WILL get beaten up. Hand spotting prints is a royal pain. Spotting COLOR prints is really an arcane science--last I looked for them, they don't even make the spotting colors anymore.
I don't believe for an instant that digital technology has allowed me to get complacent or lazy. Huge learing curve, much new hardware to master. It was much easier to look at an Ilfochrome print when dry and shrug "good enough", when I knew that improving on the color or contrast would be very hit or miss for what remaining incremental improvement might be possible. Now, endless tweaking in Photoshop.
Digital really has raised the bar.
It strikes me that one simply has to be a much better photographer, working longer and harder, if one is going to try to compete professionally using film nowadays versus digital capture than was previously necessary in a film-only world. For instance, I know firsthand how difficult it is to get the kind of critical sharpness (the kind that stands up to 100% Photoshop scrutiny) with slow speed slide film and moving subjects in flattering light. Now, with digital one simply boosts the ISO on the fly from shot to shot, for a higher shutter speed to freeze the action. That's a huge deficit to overcome.
So, I think, to remain competitive (perhaps even have an edge, for the time being), it's necessary to straddle the digital divide, to be highly fluent in both worlds.
10. From : Philip Ashman (email@example.com)PAGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217
Url : http://
Date : 03:57 PM Thursday 22 June, 2006
Whilst I have embraced the new digital revolution with the acquisition of the *istds some time back, I have of course remained commited to film as well, using my 2 LX's for colour slide and b & w film work. There is just something about film that digital cannot provide and I believe it to be mostly down to a sense of workmanship and satisfaction that you get with a true craft.
So, rather late in the day (in my case) I have taken what some (mistakenly) might consider a backward step and acquired a film developing kit to do my own processing. B & W for starters, although I do hope to progress to silde film processing eventually.
Having processed my first 2 films in the last couple of days (Delta 100 & Pan 50 plus)I now wonder why I left it so long.
Apart from initial spool loading difficulties (need to practice some more),I successfully produced 2 fine sets of negs and thoroughly enjoyed myself. What a far better feeling to do it yourself and be in full control from taking the pictures to producing the end result, for scanning in my case, and then printing on my HP Photosmart 7350.
I would love to go the whole hog and do my own darkroom printing direct from the negs, but regretably I simpy do not have the room in my little abode.
If anything this new found joy is likely to encourage me even more to use my LX's and not my DSLR quite as much as I was doing, out of simple convenience and perhaps laziness.
I'm not in any way suggesting that digital will no longer feature in my work, but that film will be back to the forefront given a new lease of life and I will continue with it for as long as I am able and it remains available, especialy as it will become more cost effective as I delve deeper into my own processing and learn those new skills.
Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks? LOL.
Maintainers for Pentax LX Series SLR Camera Models Message Board:
Tony Davies-Patrick (Globetrotter) (firstname.lastname@example.org); Mico Smiljanic (email@example.com);
Jay Hart (firstname.lastname@example.org); Philip Ashman (email@example.com)
| Post a Message to the Message Board |
Archived Messages of Previous Postings
001-050 | 051-100 | 101-150 | 151-200
Back to Main Index Page of
Pentax LX SLR Camera Website
Back to Message Board of
Pentax LX SLR Camera
for New/Used photographic equipment
on Pentax LX SLR camera
Home - Photography in Malaysia
Copyright © 2007. leofoo @. MIR Web Development Team.
Version three Re-Programmed by our in-house Fairuz Sulaiman, improved from original version by Ang Seng Leong ,Yeak Ngai Siew, Rizal Yahya, Halimaton Yahya (Members of the MIR Web Development Team)
MIR Guestbook On-line. Developed & Copyright@ 2001 by MIR Communications Sdn. Bhd.