I'm always glad to hear that someone is reading Maugham. It has long been a mystery to me that one of the best writers the 20th century is mentioned infrequently on LitNet. As someone who has an interest in painting, you will appreciate Maugham's handling of the story. Being American, I think you would find The Razor's Edge, if you haven't read it already, another great read. It ties with The Great Gatsby for the book that I have read most often. Let me know what you think of The Moon and Sixpence when you get to the end; I don't think you will be disappointed.
I thought you would be interested to know that I am now reading "The Moon and Sixpence". A great read thus far. I'm at the point where Strickland is under the care of Mrs. Stroeve.
Thanks Gilliatt, I have only been popping in and out of Litnet on account of further revision to the third proof copy of my novel A Tangled Web. It's rather frustrating because I had hoped to complete it and send some people copies for Christmas but it's a painstaking process and will probably take the rest of this week to complete. Anyhow, I hope you have a happy and prosperous 2011 despite what looks like a rather bleak prospect for the western hemisphere.
Belated Merry Christmas Brian and wishing you a happy new year! I'm home for this entire week, but I must return to Illinois on January 3rd. However, looks like I will be home for good at the end of January. Regards, Gilliatt
The lenses are physically adaptable but even when the camera is set to manual, they won't work. I am not too bothered about it as the digital lens seems capable of handling most situations. One of the things I find difficult to get used to is that the shutter release button stops halfway down to focus and has to be pressed again to release the shutter; I keep pressing it right down and it doesn't take the picture but goes back to square one. I haven't really got around to using the camera so far because I have been working on completing and proof reading my latest book and it has been very time consuming. In fact, proof reading is an absolute nightmare and in some respects even more difficult than writing itself.
When you say the lenses aren't compatible, does that mean physically or digitally? (or both?) If your lenses can physically attach, it seems to me that you should be able to get an image somehow. It sounds like a moot point though, if you've already been told they aren't compatible. With my camera, you must select a few custom settings in the menu options and of course set the mode dial to manual, in order to have any success. Focusing is manual and you must input the focal point of the manual lens attached. The photo you saw was slightly out of focus. The old pentax utilized the "split screen" focus tool. The new one does not have that, but instead relies on the laser / sensor w/ beep to indicate when the subject is focused, but I haven't quite mastered the technique.
Hi Gilliatt, We seem to have lost the photo of your Pentax but I did catch it before it went. I remember it as being a very popular camera in the UK back then. I was interested to see that you had managed to photograph it using on of your old lenses but as the picture illustrated, there is less black/white definition using the monochrome facility of the digital camera. Out of interest, I tried today to use one of my old Nikon lenses on my digital in spite of being told that they are not compatible. The result was Zero picture but just an information screen of the setting. If I had bought the Nikon D5000, I would have been able to use my old lenses but that would heave meant extra expense.
Greetings Brian from frigid Rockford. You may recall our past conversation regarding our 35mm relics and the photo you shared of your Nikon. Well, I finally managed to take a photo of my "old" Pentax ME Super using the new Pentax K-7. Here it is: I was experimenting with the older manual lenses on the new digital camera. The photo above utilized a Vivitar 35mm to 70mm zoom with a compatible Pentax "K" mount. I attached a physical "red" filter to the lens in addition to applying the monochrome digital filter. BTW, the lens in the photo is a 25mm Macro. Gilliatt
Yep Gilliatt, That's what I thought it resembled at the time. It was in bronze coloured glass on stilts and very high ( as one would expect from Mies van der Rohe ) and would have dominated a site that had formerly held a Victorian design occupied by Mappin and Webb a well known jewelry store. No.1 Poultry ( because poultry used to be sold there in medieval times) was a prime site at the heart of London's financial centre and Lord Palumbo's building would have been a major blight. Prince Charles sacrificed his friendship with Palumbo by speaking out against it and it wasn't built. It was something of a pyrrhic victory because another architect, James Stirling, was commissioned to build a weird looking building that Prince Charles described as looking like a 1930s radio but it went ahead. However, it is not as gruesome as van der Rohe's scheme
I have been reading some of the architectural comments the Prince Charles has made over the years and here is one that must have rattled the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) considerably, judging by what happened after he had criticised one particular scheme: The Ivor Crewe Lecture Hall, University of Essex WHAT THE PRINCE SAID: February 2008 he described the building, used by the Prince to address an audience of soldiers, as looking "like a dustbin". WHAT HAPPENED: It subsequently won one of the East of England regional 2008 awards from the RIBA. I'm not a monarchist but 3 cheers for the Prince of Wales.
