IS THIS A 100% CROP AND WHAT PART OF THE
FRAME WAS IT TAKEN FROM? CENTER/EDGE/CORNER?
JCO
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brendan MacRae
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:53 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Full frame lenses
You need 2 - you have to have a backup. Or use one for colour pixels
and the other for black white pixels.
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Juan Buhler
Sent: 14 April 2007 01:34
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject:
It's just differences in how the cards format. Much like two
different hard drives of the same nominal capacity, you'll often seen
a couple meg difference in their formatted capacity.
Godfrey
On Apr 13, 2007, at 10:04 PM, Juan Buhler wrote:
The only SD card I was using with the K10D was a
If you have the money and can afford it, why not? Especially if you
have lenses that you can use on it.
If I still had my Leica M lenses, I'd have done something to get one.
But I sold all that stuff off in 2002 and find I'm happier with the
SLR camera.
G
On Apr 13, 2007, at 5:33 PM, Juan
It's a 100% crop from nearly the dead center of the
image.
-Brendan
--- J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IS THIS A 100% CROP AND WHAT PART OF THE
FRAME WAS IT TAKEN FROM? CENTER/EDGE/CORNER?
JCO
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
On 14/4/07, Digital Image Studio, discombobulated, unleashed:
MIG welder, now we're talking, beat that for butcherous Cotty :-)
I can go one better. If JCO gets some of that stubbornness and fits it
to the threads of the lens, it should stay stuck in it's ways for all of time!
(JCO's posts go
On 14/04/07, Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a 100% crop from nearly the dead center of the
image.
Interesting, that means that it's not the normal transverse chromatic
aberration that becomes more visible as you move towards the edge of
the image but is likely longitudinal
On 13/4/07, Mark Erickson, discombobulated, unleashed:
Brendan's post and the response bring up an interesting issue that seems to
increasingly dominate the digital photography world--pixel peeping and
hunting for defects. It is easy to zoom up to 200% and tear apart an image,
but how much of
--- Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14/04/07, Brendan MacRae
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a 100% crop from nearly the dead center of
the
image.
Interesting, that means that it's not the normal
transverse chromatic
aberration that becomes more visible as you move
On 13/4/07, Juan Buhler, discombobulated, unleashed:
Please, help me save $5000 and stay on the Pentax side...
Or, help me rationalize this crazy purchase :)
Don't rationalise - follow your heart.
I'd love one.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
At 03:24 PM 14/04/2007, Brendan MacRae wrote:
--- Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14/04/07, Brendan MacRae
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a 100% crop from nearly the dead center of
the
image.
Interesting, that means that it's not the normal
transverse chromatic
Very common. Same goes for hard drives.
Manufacturer sell devices with capacity calculated as if (only
marketting purpose of course) 1GB was 1000 MB, 1MB = 1000KB and 1 KB =
1000 Bytes which of course wrong (1024, not 1000).
Add on top of that that some device do not have exactly the same
Thanks Bruce and Russell
On 4/14/07, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
very nice moody photo, nice conversion too.
Russ
On 4/12/07, Alastair Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
http://www.pbase.com/kiwibiologist/image/77040452
another from the same beach as Dog's on
On 14/04/07, Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, ACR is completely ineffectual with this one.
Some of the Photoshop tips I've seen can make a
dent...but not enough of one.
The answer is get some decent APO lenses I guess, this is exactly the
reason that my V125/2.5 is so much more
There is no easy way around this - the Leica M8 IS a lovely camera.?
But it's not for the same work as a Pentax DSLR. Can you imagine shooting
soccer game (with a 170-500mm zoom) with a M8?
I think Lieca is for (rich) people who occationally take pictures, while
travelling, on business trips,
On 14/04/07, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very common. Same goes for hard drives.
Manufacturer sell devices with capacity calculated as if (only
marketting purpose of course) 1GB was 1000 MB, 1MB = 1000KB and 1 KB =
1000 Bytes which of course wrong (1024, not 1000).
Add on top of that
I think Lieca is for (rich) people who occationally take
pictures, while
travelling, on business trips, a walk in the park etc.
[...]
life. People buy
an M8 for the same resons you buy a Porche, Ferrari or BMW.
Take your Pentax to the ballgame, the beach, the hike,
anywhere you go - to
Juan Buhler escribió:
As some of you know, I've been missing my Leica rangefinder since I
returned to Pentax in 2004 with an istD.
Now, I wasn't really thinking seriously about buying an M8 until
today, when two things happened: I realized I'm getting a nice tax
refund that I wasn't
On 4/14/07, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well said! This is the kind of rich know-nothing idiot who uses
Leicas:
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2003/jul/cbresson/corbis/
cbresson_ut0143043.jpg
Bah. That guy looks like a painter, actually.
I'd much rather look like this one:
Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do have an M6, with a Summicron 50, a Voigtlander 28/3.5, and a
Jupiter 35/2.8. And I still use it, lately I've been shooting color
film with it so I can have almost the same bw workflow as I use with
digital.
The M6 is the camera I 'learned' to do
On Apr 14, 2007, at 7:36 PM, Thibouille wrote:
Very common. Same goes for hard drives.
Manufacturer sell devices with capacity calculated as if (only
marketting purpose of course) 1GB was 1000 MB, 1MB = 1000KB and 1 KB =
1000 Bytes which of course wrong (1024, not 1000).
To be pedantic, SI
On 14/4/07, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
Well said! This is the kind of rich know-nothing idiot who uses
Leicas:
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2003/jul/cbresson/corbis/
cbresson_ut0143043.jpg
Yeah, he's crap isn't he.
Juan, if you really want to be this sort of person,
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:18:32 +1000, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 14/04/07, Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a 100% crop from nearly the dead center of the
image.
Interesting, that means that it's not the normal transverse chromatic
aberration that becomes more visible as you move
On 4/14/07, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well said! This is the kind of rich know-nothing idiot who uses
Leicas:
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2003/jul/cbresson/corbis/
cbresson_ut0143043.jpg
Bah. That guy looks like a painter, actually.
I'd much rather look
Well you don't know how manufacturers obtain card of said capacity.
If for a 2GB card you need 4 512KB chips you may loose capacity in
this way. (may because really I'm guessing here). Better card will use
only one device but I don't think speaking in volume, that most cards
are made from only one
Sure, on a physical pointof view but computers do not use and address
data this way so at best their specifications are misleading.
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It occurs to me that if you push film as hard as the militant pixel
peepers push these digital images, they start to show defects as well,
graininess being foremost among them. And surprise, surprise, you get
more grain when you go to higher ISO film. Seems like there is a lot of
On 4/14/07, David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 14, 2007, at 7:36 PM, Thibouille wrote:
Very common. Same goes for hard drives.
Manufacturer sell devices with capacity calculated as if (only
marketting purpose of course) 1GB was 1000 MB, 1MB = 1000KB and 1 KB =
1000 Bytes which of
On 2/4/07, Frits Wüthrich, discombobulated, unleashed:
The default insert that comes with this bag, is that sufficient to store all
your equipment into the bag? Could you share a photo showing how it is
stored
in your bag? The inserts on the website of Domke are just cryptic drawings.
Thanks
Thanks Boris.
I'll try for some different perspectives on this building next time I'm in
Sydney.
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
Quoting Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Good rhythm. But somehow I want a wider view.
Boris
I think I prefer Kennyboy.
He can turn his cap around when it is in the way. The other guy doesn't seem
to be able to look into his camera because of his stiff upper lip.
Tim Typo
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Seriously lovely camera, but overpriced even by Leica standards.
Your photographic efforts would be served much better if your $5000
(plus whatever lenses cost) were spent elsewhere. Even a trip somewhere
interesting to shoot photos.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Erickson wrote:
snip
Right on.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
then its definately NOT CA.
CA presents itself as a difference
in magnification of the R/G/B
images but when you look at the
center this difference is nearly
zero even with HUGE CA in a lens.
What that is, I dont know, but
it cant be CA because if it was,
there would be an impossibly large
Tom's comments only apply to **35MM** film vs current DSLRS, if you go
bigger,
film still rules because you can eliminate the problems
of **35mm film** while still maintaining its advantages
like greater dynamic range and resolution.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I only use the clone tool for a bit of final cleanup. I use replace
color as the principal tool. I find this better than desaturating
alone, because I can match it exactly to the background. You simply
choose the color of the fringe with the eyedropper. Go to replace
color. Set fuzziness
I agree. We've become paranoid about every little defect. With film,
we couldn't fix 'em, so we didn't worry. I refuse to agonize over
minutiae. The only time I have problems with fringing is in the case
you mentioned below: Backlit tree branches in winter. Ditto for
backlit birds against
Hey all.
Hope everyone was good. Looks like abit of mail to sift through.
Arrived back from Vegas. LATE last night.
The four of us had a great time. Liz even liked the Valley of Fire
photo tour, i had to talk her into going on.
That was my hi lite of the trip. Thanks again Ken for the tip.
I
On 14/04/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
then its definately NOT CA.
CA presents itself as a difference
in magnification of the R/G/B
images but when you look at the
center this difference is nearly
zero even with HUGE CA in a lens.
What that is, I dont know, but
it cant be CA
On 14/04/07, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. We've become paranoid about every little defect. With film,
we couldn't fix 'em, so we didn't worry. I refuse to agonize over
minutiae. The only time I have problems with fringing is in the case
you mentioned below: Backlit tree
On 14/04/07, Tom Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It occurs to me that if you push film as hard as the militant pixel
peepers push these digital images, they start to show defects as well,
graininess being foremost among them. And surprise, surprise, you get
more grain when you go to higher
Very true. For the foreseeable future, a bigger piece of film is always
going to beat out a smaller sensor in terms of absolute IQ, DR, etc.
However, the bigger the piece of film ,the greater the attendant PITA
factor for working with it, and the greater cost.
Part of me wants to get into
If the flange isn't wide enough you won't be able to modify the lens to
lock onto the camera body. There can be other mechanical problems as
you have also mentioned.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
thanks for the tip. It looks like this lens won't
work ( mamiya 55mm F1.8) because the hole that
would
That's fringing, and the CA tool won't fix it. It took me about three
minutes to fix it in PhotoShop. I selected the problem areas, because
the red matched the color of his lips. I then used replace color to
replace the red with the background color and touched up with the
clone tool.
I get the same results, but my Sandisk cards are Extreme III. I guess
the Transcend actually has a little more memory.
On Apr 14, 2007, at 1:04 AM, Juan Buhler wrote:
The only SD card I was using with the K10D was a Sandisk Ultra II 2GB.
When in RAW (PEF) mode, with the card just formatted,
Actually, there was a considerable amount of fringing here. I removed
the worst of it. But this lens combination is particularly prone to
that. If Ken would just loan me his FA 600/4, I could probably solve
the problem :-).
Paul
On Apr 14, 2007, at 1:07 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
This is
Thanks Boris. I had planned to buy either a DA 70 or an FA 77 until I
was laid off. But I would miss being able to dial in a focal length
in this situation. To grab these portrait shots I position myself in
a chair with the camera in my lap. I drink coffee, read the paper,
and study the
You have to warn us when you're going to post something like that. I
damn near ruined my keyboard spraying coffee all over it...
Juan Buhler wrote:
On 4/14/07, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well said! This is the kind of rich know-nothing idiot who uses
Leicas:
Then it's almost certainly fringing. And if it was a RAW shot and the
CA correction in ACR didn't help, it's definitely fringing.
Paul
On Apr 14, 2007, at 3:04 AM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
It's a 100% crop from nearly the dead center of the
image.
-Brendan
--- J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL
Both fringing and CA can look the same. The only way to tell the
difference is to try the CA correction in ACR. If the color can't be
altered, then it's fringing. I find that nine times out of ten, it's
fringing when shooting digital.
Paul
On Apr 14, 2007, at 1:39 AM, Digital Image Studio
thanks for the tip. It looks like this lens won't
work ( mamiya 55mm F1.8) because the hole that
would need to be drilled in the lens's flange
would be interfering with the lens's aperture
setting ring movement. drats! Seems like you said,
this can only be done on M42 lenses that have
large
In a message dated 4/13/2007 8:03:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5845273
Nice shot, good light. I find his mouth sort of odd, but have concluded he
was blowing out smoke.
Marnie aka Doe :-)
Brendan -
I've always felt that Photoshop was not a photographer's tool. I
started with Picture Window Pro and moved to Photoshop when I needed
to do raw conversion. I've read the latest version of Picture Window
Pro handles batches of files and does raw conversion and I'm
considering moving
In a message dated 4/13/2007 10:08:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Typical Yosemite color anyway, this time unartified, unmucked with. If
you
think I should bring up the shadows more, just say so.
In a message dated 4/13/2007 8:24:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Enough light today to shoot some birds with my f11 rig. K10D, A
400/5.6, A2X-S converter and the Kirk Flash Xtender on the Pentax 540.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5845294size=lg
As many of you know, I've manufactured an adapter that allows use of
Contax/Zeiss manual-focus SLR lenses on Canon EOS cameras for more
than five years. I've had numerous requests for an adapter to allow
the use of Nikon SLR lenses on EOS cameras. Initially, I wasn't very
interested in
Thanks Marnie.
On Apr 14, 2007, at 9:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 4/13/2007 8:24:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Enough light today to shoot some birds with my f11 rig. K10D, A
400/5.6, A2X-S converter and the Kirk Flash Xtender on the Pentax
In a message dated 4/13/2007 5:32:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I decided to take Marnie's advice and lighten the tower a bit. I'm not
sure this works as well thought I was able to get more detail, (and
apparent sharpness), out of the stone work. In the color
life. People buy
an M8 for the same resons you buy a Porche, Ferrari or BMW.
Take your Pentax to the ballgame, the beach, the hike,
anywhere you go - to
take pictures. The SLR/DSLR is the choise of photographers.
People buy a
DSLR to take pictures.
Well said! This is the kind of
Nope,if there would be that much
CA of **either** type, right in the
center of ANY lens, the amount you would see in the
edges or corners in same image would be absolutely horrendous
and no commercial lenses are/were ever that bad.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Digital SLRS/photography is also a pain in the ass in
some KEY ways. For good quality, you still have to process your
RAW images. This is digital's dirty little secret.
I say its actually much easier to go shoot
some color film, drop it off at a lab, and
get nicely exposed, sharp prints. No, its
yes, I mounted lens on the camera to check,
these mamiya SX lenses ( excellent optically )
have big outer aperture rings near the flange
and this ring is in the spot where the
pin hole would need to drilled so it wont
work because it wouldnt lock or the aperture
ring wouldnt be able to be turned
Thinking a little more on this and reading the sentiments posted
after mine ...
I know a lot of Leica owners. Many are wealthy lawyers and doctors
who hobby in photography, that's true. But many are also very
talented and passionate photographers who use their Leica equipment,
much as I
Personally I always liked the darkroom aspect of photography. And the
digital equivalent is no different.
Cheers,
Dave
On 4/14/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Digital SLRS/photography is also a pain in the ass in
some KEY ways. For good quality, you still have to process your
I don't completely agree. Sure it's fun to tweek an occasional really
favorite image to perfection,
but when you have to do dozens, hundreds, thousands of them
it just gets old pretty quick. I know when I now shoot
a 2GB card of RAW (about 180 images ) , I dread having to do all the
image
Agreed. It's even more fun in some ways. No chemical odors wafting
from the computer.
Paul
On Apr 14, 2007, at 10:42 AM, David Savage wrote:
Personally I always liked the darkroom aspect of photography. And the
digital equivalent is no different.
Cheers,
Dave
On 4/14/07, J. C.
Thanks Boris. The height is just right for me so that I can view it
without scrolling, on my macbook. Maybe I will have to go to the
small/large method... but that won't be for a while.
Russ
On 4/13/07, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russel, there you go:
1) good, very good
2) not
Even the diehard Leica shooters are a bit unhappy with the M8. I
think that is the sentiment that is reflected in most of these
comments. It has nothing to do with envy or bigotry. If I were
looking for a Leica digital, I would wait for the next version. And
if I could afford one, I would
Wanna do all of mine for me? See how fun that is?
I always liked darkroom for the control you couldnt
get in a lab like custom cropping, but with RAw you have to do a lot of
work just to open, and do basics like levels and sharpness
that you got done for you at a lab with basic film processing
You can shoot jpeg and drop them off at a lab for processing, and
some high-end labs now do RAW as well. It's the same equation as
before. Those who will settle for someone else's work shoot jpeg and
drop the card off at a lab. Those who wish to do their own, shoot
RAW. I wouldn't have
Furthermore, look at the subject: Please unenable me! He asked for
arguments against a Leica purchase. He got 'em.
Paul
On Apr 14, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Even the diehard Leica shooters are a bit unhappy with the M8. I
think that is the sentiment that is reflected in most of
On 4/14/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't completely agree. Sure it's fun to tweek an occasional really
favorite image to perfection,
but when you have to do dozens, hundreds, thousands of them
it just gets old pretty quick.
True. That's when the lab comes in right handy.
On 15/04/07, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can shoot jpeg and drop them off at a lab for processing, and
some high-end labs now do RAW as well. It's the same equation as
before. Those who will settle for someone else's work shoot jpeg and
drop the card off at a lab. Those who
P. J. Alling wrote:
You could have an Epson RD-1 for about half that.
More like one fifth, methinks.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
nope, as I just posted, if you shoot jpeg
you have to be REAL careful with the exposure
or you wont get as good a results as with
film and this is even more work than RAW processing is.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Tom Simpson wrote:
[...] my digital images simply look and print better most anything
I have ever taken with film, and are a hell of a lot less labor-
intensive and bother to work with. [...]
Wow, I can only agree with this. I've never done darkroom wet
printing, but I've scanned and printed
Going OT:
Gmail doesn't seem to like you at times Boris :-) I read these message
earlier today from my other email address, and it's just now shown up
in my Gmail inbox. 10 hours late.
That's the second time this week that's happened to messages from you.
Oh well!!
Cheers,
Dave (Cotty, don't
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I dont agree that batch RAW processing works as
well as individual processing. I have just
tried several batch RAW processors and they
dont work anywhere near as well as image
by image manual processing does ( at least
the ones I tried). There are just too many
I dont agree that batch RAW processing works as
well as individual processing. I have just
tried several batch RAW processors and they
dont work anywhere near as well as image
by image manual processing does ( at least
the ones I tried). There are just too many
factors like, exposure, contrast
On 14/4/07, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Gmail doesn't seem to like you at times Boris :-) I read these message
earlier today from my other email address, and it's just now shown up
in my Gmail inbox. 10 hours late.
That's the second time this week that's happened to messages from
OK, send you tax return check to me, properly endorsed, and I will
guarantee you will not spend it on a Leica Juan gives out the best
straight lines on the list.
-graywolf
Juan Buhler wrote:
As some of you know, I've been missing my Leica rangefinder since I
returned to Pentax in 2004 with
Just playing around on a Saturday morning...
Near me, very near, is a gazebo high on a hill. Well, a foothill. It looks
abandoned. There is nothing near it (a building complex below it, but they
appear to be completely unconnected) and no path to it.
I keep wondering what the story is
yes of course, you can and should do that when you can,
but its not often possible due to factors like changing lenses,
changing lighting, different ISOs shot, different macro
magnification exposure factors, variable aperture zooms,
etc, etc, etc. The reason this was better with film was
the
Brendan MacRae wrote:
What's the deal with film camera lenses and chromatic
aberration on the K10D?
The K10D sensor seems much more prone to CA than the *ist-D. It's not
limited to full frame lenses - I see virtually no CA in my A* 200 or
400, but get moderate CA in the DA 18-55 and
--- David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:24 PM 14/04/2007, Brendan MacRae wrote:
--- Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 14/04/07, Brendan MacRae
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a 100% crop from nearly the dead center
of
the
image.
Interesting,
On 4/14/07, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14/4/07, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Gmail doesn't seem to like you at times Boris :-) I read these message
earlier today from my other email address, and it's just now shown up
in my Gmail inbox. 10 hours late.
That's the second
--- Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14/04/07, Brendan MacRae
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, ACR is completely ineffectual with this one.
Some of the Photoshop tips I've seen can make a
dent...but not enough of one.
The answer is get some decent APO lenses I guess,
FRINGING is not causeed by CA, so getting
an APO lens to eliminate CA is not going
to help the FRINGING problem.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brendan MacRae
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:19 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On 15/04/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FRINGING is not causeed by CA, so getting
an APO lens to eliminate CA is not going
to help the FRINGING problem.
APO lenses are precisely designed to minimize longitudinal/axial
chromatic aberrations, such a lens may still exhibit some
Yeah, that's a pretty good job, Paul. I understand
that my technique is lacking at this point which is
why I've been trying every fix I come across. There's
A LOT more fringing in this image, however. Plus,
there's purple/bluish fringing, as well...making the
retouching a doozy.
Anyway, at least
I know what an APO lens is. If the problem,
which is FRINGING, not CA, is not caused by CA,
then getting an APO lens to minimize or
eliminate CA, isnt going help the FRINGING
problem at all.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Digital
The trick though, is not trying to batch process a whole card of shots
automatically (as you've said auto RAW conversion sucks) but to review
the shots, find groups of similar images and process those groups in
batches.
Here's and a real world example of how I generally process my shots:
Brendan MacRae wrote:
I've heard some claim that APO will help in this regard.
Supposedly the Sigma 400 APO solves this problem but I
haven't seen anything definitive.
Well, I'll let you know. I'll shoot the Mitty vintage races later this
month, and the Sigma usually comes out for at least a
UNSHARP MASK alone, which needs the image to be viewed
at 100% to set properly, cant be done with thumbnails
so there is no way to group them easily like you suggest
unless you open every file at full size which is a very
time consuming process I have grown to hate for an entire card.
jco
I can appreciate why you're stalking this scene. This perspective is
composed well, but, to me, the gazebo should stand alone on the crest
of the hill and against the sky only.
BTW, I don't feel that the tilt is a negative. In fact, I think it adds
to its charm.
Maybe a brooding sky and the gazebo
Juan,
Please, help me save $5000 and stay on the Pentax side...
do you have _ALL_ Limited lenses already? ;-)
Cheers,
Peter
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Hello Brendan,
That is one of the reasons (price is another) that I have been using
Picture Window Pro. It was designed by a photographer for
photographers. The style is much more in harmony with how you think.
You might want to download a trial and see what you think.
Actually USM can be applied without viewing the image at 100%. I know
from experience that a 800x536 @ 72 dpi web image, for example,
requires USM settings ot 95%, 0.8 pixels, 10 threshold to suit my
tastes. 9 times out of 10 these settings work perfectly, but I do get
the occasional image that I
Thanks, that's fairly strange.
Boris
David Savage wrote:
Going OT:
Gmail doesn't seem to like you at times Boris :-) I read these message
earlier today from my other email address, and it's just now shown up
in my Gmail inbox. 10 hours late.
That's the second time this week that's
I also have a PQI card that formats to 120. All my Trancends are 123
like yours. I'm sure the internal size of the memory is very slightly
different, but conforms to the 2gb standard. A bit like focal lengths
on lenses. They are not marked exactly as to their focal length.
--
Bruce
Friday,
1 - 100 of 225 matches
Mail list logo
