Attached Link: http://www.peternorquist.com/technotes/zone_system_p1.html

For a quick introduction of how to take advantage of
shutter speeds and f-stop settings, have a look at the
link above, which explains the Zone System of photographic
exposure.

I have to say that the more you play with that thing, the
more interesting results you get! I have no idea what that
thing would be good for, in it's current manifestation,
but if I found it in a junk shop I doubt I could resist
buying it (and you wonder why I have no space here for a
darkroom??) I really liked the B&W version in the gallery.

Rork, for me it's a matter of necessity. The biggest advantage that (small format) film offers over digital is the level of creative control you get in the darkroom. I simply have no space here for a darkroom setup. The biggest disadvantage of most digital cameras, for me, is that you can't use the nice 35mm lenses with them (unless, as you say, you're willing to spend lots of money for a D1x). That's why, for my purposes, a good solution would be a digital conversion of a regular SLR. P.S. I really would like to set up a darkroom. So much so that I'm tempted to set one up in my bathroom! :-)

Um, in response to Rick "way-cool" Sammon, since when is Bill
Gates an expert in digital imaging technology? The only
expertise Bill Gates has, that I know of, is in buying out
his competition... But enough of that. This new technology
is interesting in that it can produce much denser photo-
sensors; three times as dense as current tech.

What I'd love to see this company do is to produce a line
of affordable "digital backs" for popular 35mm SLRs. The
sensor would have to be the size of a 35mm frame (36x24mm)
and would be embedded in a replacement back cover for
SLRs such as Nikon N- and F- series cameras, and of course
my Pentax K1000! The empty space where the film cartidge
would go could provide space for the support electronics.

The difficulty in this, and hence the expence, would be in
growing substrates large enough to fill a 35mm frame. I
guess the only thing I can hope for then is that the Foveon
technology will drive the price of current CMOS tech down
to the point that CMOS sensors of 36x24mm size will become
affordable enough to produce inexpensive digital backs.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=158897&Start=1&Sectionid=8&WhatsNew=Yes

My personal favorite was the second tiger picture. I
especially liked that you caught the face of the youth in
the background. And those whiskers!

Ditto on all of what Alpha says. And Misha, to answer your question, after reading all of the bad reports on Sigma zoom lenses, I feel very fortunate to have had my Sigma zoom on the camera rather than the plain-jane Pentax-A SMC 50mm f2 prime that came with the K1000. It seems from the reports that Sigma zoom lenses, especially when used with the aperture wide open, are optically pretty poor. From what I've read, the Sigma primes aren't as bad, which would explain why your 180 macro seems to perform well as opposed to your Sigma zoom. I've never found any explaination as to why the zoom lenses suffer and the primes don't. It would seem that poor optical perfomance would have to do with lens element quality, which should be the same for zooms and primes from the same manufacturer.

Ah Slynky, I was pulling your leg, man! I wasn't being
pissy; I was making a joke about the quality of Sigma
zoom lenses in general ("performance hasn't degraded"
from new). That self-portrait was a mock-up done with a
cotton ball stretched over the lens of my digital camera.
The color effects were done in the Gimp: decompose image
into CYM components, motion blur each component at a
different angle, then recompose the image.

Heh! Sorry if you misunderstood. I figured you'd be tipped
off by the speed with which I replied (2 hours).

Nope, hardly noticable.

That's a fascinating image. Really makes you wonder how that
jug got there. The jug has to be several hundred years old
but the tree looks much younger, which is somewhat
perplexing. Did someone, say, 50 years ago, find that
broken jug and hang it on the branch? Was the jug lying
there for a hundred and fifty years when by chance a sapling
grew up next to it and also by chance one of it's branches
just happened to grow through the handle and slowly lift
the jug up with it?

It's very interesting to imagine the possibilities.

Look what happens when the second image is rotated to the
same (camera) orientation as the first. The patterns of color
abberations are nearly identical. This makes me think that
it's not a natural effect (i.e. prism stuff).

I wonder what would happen if you were to take a few test
shots with the same camera/lens/film; one shot of a white
sheet of paper with a spot light source in a darkened room,
and another shot of a black background with the light source
shining on the camera itself, in order to induce
light leakage.

Once you've got your test shots scanned in, jack up the saturation
and look for that pattern of color in them.

I was a little distracted by the border along the bottom of
the image, Jordy. I see that it's not, but it looks sort of
like blurred text that's been clipped off at the bottom.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a guess that
you're using the Gimp for post work and you used
Script-Fu->Decor->Fuzzy Border. If I happen to be right,
then I might suggest that you decrease the Granularity
setting to get a slightly finer grain of "fuzzing".

It's a very powerful image, and in general I think the
postwork texturing suits it very well.

It's funny that you bring this up, Misha. I had noticed
the coloring in this series and almost mentioned it, but
I had thought it might have been either a natural effect
(such as a prismatic effect on the sunlight due to ice
crystals) or a postprocessing effect. Whichever, it seems
fairly subtle, and since I like color gradients anyway, I
found it to be a pleasent effect.

If it's not a light leak in the camera or bad film, then
the only other explanation I can think of is the prismatic
effect of ice/snow crystals (only a whole bunch of them
spread over the field of view).

They look like SEA DILL PICKLES! I remember those things
from when I lived near the coast as a kid. They are full
of air and when your squeeze them between your fingers
they make the most sickly wheazing sound. Like a plastic
mustard bottle that needs refilling. GROSS!

Doruksal, you've been concerned about your terms and definitions several times. I just thought I'd say that I have no trouble at all understanding you. I always want to thank people for learning and using my language. I'd miss so much good conversation otherwise.