Hah! Good one!
I go that far back, but didn't mention it because we were talking about hard
drives.
I'm sure you used 80 col cards to be read to punch the holes in your
re-assembled tapes too…
Of course, that was long after the wooden pencil and lined paper were used as
data storage. In that
that just blew me and others
away with it's detail. Its hard for me to justify a new body just for a ff
sensor or 24MP.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts
postmas...@robertstech.com
Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size
People in my camera club are similar. They have lots of disposable
income, and enjoy spending money on their hobby. There is some
keeping up with the Joneses when a new model comes out.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Rob Studdert distudio.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 February 2013 16:16, David
Bruce Walker wrote:
Often all the spec-peeping and measurebating produces heat but no light.
Exactly. That's one of the reasons I'm less interested in high
megapixel count and resolution numbers and more interested in tonal
characteristics, particularly with respect to BW.
--
Mark Roberts -
well its certainly a specialty lens.
-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-
-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bill
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:50 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size
On 06/02/2013 2:24 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
well its certainly a specialty lens.
It's a wide angle to normal zoom. Nothing specialized about it.
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the
, February 06, 2013 11:17 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!
On 06/02/2013 2:24 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
well its certainly a specialty lens.
It's a wide angle to normal zoom. Nothing specialized about it.
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http
On 06/02/2013 11:07 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.
Whatever. I suppose by the same logic, an 80-200/2.8 is a specialized lens.
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On 2/6/2013 12:33 PM, Bill wrote:
On 06/02/2013 11:07 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.
Whatever. I suppose by the same logic, an 80-200/2.8 is a specialized
lens.
bill
I kind
Bill wrote:
On 06/02/2013 11:07 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.
Whatever. I suppose by the same logic, an 80-200/2.8 is a specialized lens.
The 17-55/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 are
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
14-24, 24-70, 70-200, plus their 50 f1.4 85 f1.4).
Earlier upthread I said:
Realistically, you probably need to commit to spending nearly 10K to
get a
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:11 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically I've notice that the aperture sweet spot is even more
critical at such a high MP count.
When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
14-24, 24-70, 780-200, ptus their 50 f1.4 85 f1.4).
All this measurbating is making me glad I've actually been *using* a
24MP full-frame for a couple of years.
--
Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the
So from your experience Mark, what has 24MP done for your photography?
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com
Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!
All this measurbating is making me glad I've actually been *using* a
24MP full-frame for a couple of years
I meant to include fill-frame in that question.
-Forwarded Message-
From: Kenneth Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com
Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!
So from your experience Mark, what has 24MP done for your photography?
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts postmas
Does that mean you have a high IQ?
stan
On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
All this measurbating is making me glad I've actually been *using* a
24MP full-frame for a couple of years.
--
Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
PDML
On 6/2/13, J.C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed:
on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.
Come on JC - that needs all full caps - you wimped out on two words. I'm
gutted!!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
Steve Cottrell wrote:
On 6/2/13, J.C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed:
on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.
Come on JC - that needs all full caps - you wimped out on two words. I'm
gutted!!
NO YOU'RE NOT!
Kenneth Waller wrote:
So from your experience Mark, what has 24MP done for your photography?
Several things.
First of all, the 24MP has given me more options, like making a
panoramic shot by cropping from a single frame rather than stitching
multiple frames together (I usually don't shoot that
From: Darren Addy
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
14-24, 24-70, 70-200, plus their 50 f1.4 85 f1.4).
Earlier upthread I said:
Realistically, you probably need to commit to spending
I had, and still have, an impressive collection of FA, FA* Limiteds.
I didn't jump ship to join the FF bandwagon. I jumped ship because
Pentax's cameras couldn't do what I needed (I had a K20D at the time).
Around the time of the D700's release I had been shooting a lot of
long exposure night
://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com
Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!
Kenneth Waller wrote:
So from your experience Mark, what has 24MP done for your photography?
Several things.
First of all, the 24MP has given me more
On 06/02/2013 2:13 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Bill wrote:
On 06/02/2013 11:07 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.
Whatever. I suppose by the same logic, an 80-200/2.8 is a specialized
On 7 February 2013 16:16, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
I see a lot of people buying FF cameras simply because the sensor is
bigger. They still shoot the same crap they always did don't really
get the full benefits of what the larger sensor can offer.
I saw this effect or worse last
Thanks Dave,
That will give me some real world experience based idea.
Regards, Bob S.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically I've notice that the aperture sweet spot is even more
critical at such a high MP count.
When I migrated to Nikon I bought
The diffraction effects are real, but depending your actual use of the
camera they may or may not make a lot of difference.
By the time you do a little sharpening and downsizing you won't see
anything unless you're looking for it, if at all. Now if you're
making wall size prints it's a different
George,
I hear you.
I just uncovered my FA*28-70/2.8 AL and FA*70-200/2.8 ED [IF].
They are great lenses but kind of heavy. 800 gm and 1510 gm respectively.
The DA*60-250/4 is 'only' 1040 gm, and mighty heavy...don't want to carry more!
We'll need lens 'bearers' on safari. ;-)
Regards, Bob S.
On 05/02/2013 10:17 AM, George Sinos wrote:
On another topic, as much as everyone talks about FF cameras, I wonder
how many are thinking about the size of the lenses. I'm not thinking
of the old manual focus lenses that the residents of this list love so
much. I'm talking about lenses that
Gotta wonder what Jostein is seeing.
His images have looked fantastic and that sensor is mighty big.
Regards, Bob S.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/02/2013 10:17 AM, George Sinos wrote:
On another topic, as much as everyone talks about FF
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with the
17-55/2.8G lens. Combined weight is slightly under two kilos, or just over
four and a quarter pounds, and the combination is massive in size.
Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with
the 17-55/2.8G lens.
I'd invite them to try my A850 with a 70-200/4.0 :)
(BTW: I hope Pentax's full-frame camera is significantly *larger* than
the K-5. The K-5 is at the low end of
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bill
I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with
the 17-55/2.8G lens. Combined weight is slightly under two kilos, or
just over four and a quarter pounds, and the combination is massive in
size. Holding it
On 5/2/13, Bill, discombobulated, unleashed:
I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with
the 17-55/2.8G lens. Combined weight is slightly under two kilos, or
just over four and a quarter pounds, and the combination is massive in
size. Holding it felt more like a
I think you would like the D600. Its bigger than the K5 but not huge. I thought
it felt pretty nice. When they sort out the bugs it will be a sweet camera.
Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea
From: Bob W p...@web-options.com
Nikon always made hulking great cameras that only gorillas could carry. I
couldn't carry a F3+winder for more than about 5 minutes. Pentax and Olympus
stood apart from that by making cameras that were equally good, for smaller
primates. They should do the same
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
Nikon always made hulking great cameras that only gorillas could carry. I
couldn't carry a F3+winder for more than about 5 minutes. Pentax and Olympus
stood apart from that by making cameras that were equally good, for smaller
-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!
On 05/02/2013 10:17 AM, George Sinos wrote:
On another topic, as much as everyone talks about FF cameras, I wonder
how many are thinking about the size of the lenses. I'm not thinking
of the old manual focus lenses that the residents
I think the sweet spot for most photographers in a FF camera would be
24mp with 14bit color depth and at least the same capabilities of the
K-5II in most other respects. I think if Pentax managed to put that into
either a K-5 sized body or a MZ-S style body, and managed to actually
market the
On 5/2/13, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think the sweet spot for most photographers in a FF camera would be
24mp with 14bit color depth and at least the same capabilities of the
K-5II in most other respects. I think if Pentax managed to put that into
either a K-5 sized body or a
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Steve Cottrell co...@seeingeye.tv wrote:
On 5/2/13, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think the sweet spot for most photographers in a FF camera would be
24mp with 14bit color depth and at least the same capabilities of the
K-5II in most other respects.
Pentax's lenses for 35mm in that range were the FAJ 18-35 f4~5.6 or the
FA 20-35 F4. I have the latter it's a sweet lens on film or digital. I
hear that the FAJ is good optically and mechanically made of mouse hair.
According to BOZ the only zoom lens Pentax made with its shortest focal
length
For me the k-5 is about the ideal size. I compared the other day. The k-5 is
quite a bit larger and heavier than my k1000. My zx-7 is a feather in
comparison. Its clear to me that dslrs are going to be larger and heavier than
film cameras for some time. Between my k-5 and the 5dmk2 at my
On Feb 5, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
On 5/2/13, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think the sweet spot for most photographers in a FF camera would be
24mp with 14bit color depth and at least the same capabilities of the
K-5II in most other respects. I think if
Well, the MZ-S which was Pentax's last K-Mount film flagship is quite a
bit larger than the other MZ/ZX series cameras. It was intended to be
the shared frame for the first Pentax DSLR which was going to be a FF
6MP camera. So it should be plenty big enough for a current DSLR. The
reason for
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:29 PM, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not going to be silly and ask who needs 36mp or bigger sensor, but I
will point out that for what most professional photographers do even 24mp is
overkill.
The nice thing about 36 MP is that the APS-C area of
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:29 PM, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not going to be silly and ask who needs 36mp or bigger sensor, but I
will point out that for what most professional photographers do even 24mp
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there should be a little lens that pops-up when APS-C glass is
mounted and spreads the light from it across the entire sensor.
Spoiler: joke.
That's not a joke, it's on the roadmap. And I wish they'd finally
Bruce Walker wrote:
I think there should be a little lens that pops-up when APS-C glass is
mounted and spreads the light from it across the entire sensor.
Spoiler: joke.
No joke. It would be a behind-the-lens wide-angle converter. And
someone's already built one:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Bruce Walker wrote:
I think there should be a little lens that pops-up when APS-C glass is
mounted and spreads the light from it across the entire sensor.
Spoiler: joke.
No joke. It would be a behind-the-lens wide-angle converter. And
someone's already built one:
On 05/02/2013 2:09 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
why a FF 17-55mm F2.8 lens ?? That wouldnt be normal usage on FF.
Because that was what was on the D4 that was being passed around at the
meet up I was at.
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
Dave,
How about giving us some more personal insights on 'diffraction issues
with most lenses.'
I'd like to know so I could get out in front of that issue.
Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM, David
Darren Addy wrote:
Suggested reading:
http://www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm
Particularly the section entitled: Resolution, Diffraction, and To E
or Not to E
His entire article seems to be based on resolution, which is only one
possible reason for buying the camera. I'm much more interested
Basically I've notice that the aperture sweet spot is even more
critical at such a high MP count.
When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
14-24, 24-70, 780-200, ptus their 50 f1.4 85 f1.4).
On the D700 I never really had any image quality issues with them.
Those
Uncompressed raw files on the Nikon D800 can be up to 75 Mbytes. I'm
not sure why anyone would select that option. The lossless
compression option results in a file that's usually around 40 Mbytes.
I convert these to DNG on import to Lightroom and the files are most
often close to 35 Mbytes.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:15 AM, George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com wrote:
Uncompressed raw files on the Nikon D800 can be up to 75 Mbytes. I'm
not sure why anyone would select that option.
Bragging rights.
--
-bmw
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Dave,
How about giving us some more personal insights on 'diffraction issues
with most lenses.'
I'd like to know so I could get out in front of that issue.
Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
And loving it!
...except for the diffraction
Well, of course it is not a horrible problem. After all, extra RAM, some
extra juice to the CPU and few extra TB of storage will make this little
issue hardly noticeable...
In fact, I wasn't being serious at all when I wrote my original comment
to this thread...
Presently I am just fine
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
.. Presently I am just fine with 12 MP files of my Ricoh GXR which are
probably
uncompressed as they all have exactly the same size (up to 1 kb give or
take) of 18 MB. ..
That's right: the Ricoh GXR outputs DNG v1.0
Your dad's? I still have two of my 10 meg drives in the cabinet. Used them on
my Apple II back in the day. I think I also used them on my first Mac.
On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:14 PM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Hah, my dad's first HDD was 10MB. I remember thinking how great it
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:15 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check that outthough when you
import to lightroom you will have to convert to dng if you want them in that
DNGs are recognized by many programs. Its about as close as you can get to a
standard. That my k-7 saved raw in dng was another plus in a long list of
plusses for the system.
David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com
wrote:
We had to do that with punch cards, too. The tough part was sorting the holes
and getting them back in the right place.
-p
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 1, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
Ya, you young wipper-snappers have it easy.
In my day, our mass storage device
From: Larry Colen
On Feb 1, 2013, at 8:49 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Ya, you young wipper-snappers have it easy.
In my day, our mass storage device was paper tape or
a cassette recorder from Radio Shack.
You had Radio Shack? We had to go to Marconi's Wireless Cottage.
Plus, we were so poor
Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some :-).
On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.
Nothing to be done for that, is there? I'm shooting DNG which I believe I
heard is already stored in a
And loving it!
...except for the diffraction issues with most lenses...
On 3 February 2013 12:30, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some :-).
On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
Each RAW file is now larger than
Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.
Nothing to be done for that, is there? I'm shooting DNG which I believe I
heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.
-Charles
--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check that outthough when you
import to lightroom you will have to convert to dng if you want them in that
format ultimately. I just shoot dng and live with it. Its not much larger
than the k-7 files were.
Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com
On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:15 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check that outthough when you
import to lightroom you will have to convert to dng if you want them in that
format ultimately. I just shoot dng and live with it. Its not much
Jpeg is a lot smaller. Its what all the pros use anyways!
Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:15 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check that outthough
when you import to lightroom you will have to convert to dng
On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:30 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Jpeg is a lot smaller. Its what all the pros use anyways!
Where's the darned like button on this list?
-Charles
--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Jpeg is a lot smaller. Its what all the pros use anyways!
Also, I think there's a 6 MP setting.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML,
on 2013-02-01 13:08 Charles Robinson wrote
Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.
Nothing to be done for that, is there? I'm shooting DNG which I believe I
heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.
i use DNG too, but i don't mind the size; i do mind
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013, Charles Robinson wrote:
Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.
How big is that? (Can't seem to find file sizes anywhere obvious.)
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
*
On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:59 , Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013, Charles Robinson wrote:
Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.
How big is that? (Can't seem to find file sizes anywhere obvious.)
The first harddrive I had in my OWN computer
I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
Once you can't recover some bad shots,
you'll stop using JPG's.
It costs almost nothing and gives better results!
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Jpeg is a lot smaller. Its what all the pros use
I think the humor was lost with you. I always use p and jpeg, just like
ken rockwell!
Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
Once you can't recover some bad shots,
you'll stop using JPG's.
It costs almost nothing and gives better results!
Regards,
On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
Once you can't recover some bad shots,
you'll stop using JPG's.
It costs almost nothing and gives better results!
Interesting.. mine are all 20-29Mb.
-Charles
--
Charles Robinson -
On Feb 1, 2013, at 13:03 , Charles Robinson wrote:
The first harddrive I had in my OWN computer (not my dad's) was 20Mb.
Then we upgraded to TWO 20Mb harddrives.
Then I connected them to an RLL controller (I think?) and some games were
played making them each 30Mb in size.
Ugh, what
On Feb 1, 2013, at 13:32 , Charles Robinson wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
Once you can't recover some bad shots,
you'll stop using JPG's.
It costs almost nothing and gives better results!
They climb in size with iso toojust shoot everything on a tripod at 80.
Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 13:32 , Charles Robinson wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
Once you
On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:38 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
They climb in size with iso toojust shoot everything on a tripod at 80.
I'm sure that's so that it can reproduce every little speckle of noise. Make
sense, I guess!
-Charles
--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
My 24 iMac (2008) is now getting pretty long in the tooth.
My 20 2007 iMac is definitely long in the tooth. But I'm about to do
a low cost DIY speed upgrade by installing a 256G SSD into it. I've
got the suction cups
Joseph McAllister wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 13:32 , Charles Robinson wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
Once you can't recover some bad shots,
you'll stop using JPG's.
It costs almost nothing and gives
Joseph McAllister wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 13:32 , Charles Robinson wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
Once you can't recover some bad shots,
you'll stop using JPG's.
It costs almost nothing and gives
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Charles Robinson
On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:30 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Jpeg is a lot smaller. Its what all the pros use anyways!
Where's the darned like button on this list?
right next to the exit
B
--
PDML
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I needed to shoot DNG for an event and found something annoying.
I normally add a digit to the file index using the fourth character of the
name, so 7043 becomes LRC37043.PEF, but if I shoot in DNG I lose the
fourth
on 2013-02-01 14:32 Charles Robinson wrote
On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
Once you can't recover some bad shots,
you'll stop using JPG's.
It costs almost nothing and gives better results!
Interesting.. mine are all
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:23:12PM -0800, Larry Colen wrote:
Joseph McAllister wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 13:32 , Charles Robinson wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
Once you can't recover some bad
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:23:12PM -0800, Larry Colen wrote:
I normally add a digit to the file index using the fourth character of
the
name, so 7043 becomes LRC37043.PEF, but if I shoot in DNG I lose the
fourth character, it becomes _LRC7043.DNG.
It's your own fault for having three
If you shoot pef and convert to dng using LR, the files seem to be
slightly smaller than dng's straight out of the camera.
-p
On 2/1/2013 2:27 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:15 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check that
Here is where I got my numbers from
Regards, Bob S.
18.3 mb DNG @ iso800
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=16852613
18.2 mb DNG @ iso200
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=16852614
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:57 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
on 2013-02-01 14:32 Charles
Oh gawd. Another thread where everyone can rehash how much of a
computer old-timer they are. Oh joy.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
You can buy search-and-replace plug-ins for LR. But even better, you can rename
within LR.
For the new name use [LRC0]+[OriginalFilenumber] or[
DDMM]+[LRC0]+[OriginalFilenumber]
Which doesn't solve your original gripe/puzzlement, but simple renaming would
let you move on and obsess about
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013, Darren Addy wrote:
Oh gawd. Another thread where everyone can rehash how much of a
computer old-timer they are. Oh joy.
Ask and ye shall receive:
Once upon a time (mid-1990s), I was doing tech support for a small
company that sold a search engine for text databases.
Larry, I don't know if it makes a difference with dng files, but
doesn't the camera add the _ when you switch to adobeRGB? gs
George Sinos
gsi...@gmail.com
www.georgesphotos.net
plus.georgesinos.com
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri,
That's right George. I got that leading underscore for a while when I
changed the colour space mistakenly thinking it would be a good idea.
But the colour space setting only affects JPEGs, not RAWs, and if I
ever make in-camera JPEGs I don't edit them, so sRGB makes way more
sense. I switched it
On Feb 1, 2013, at 16:23 , Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I needed to shoot DNG for an event and found something annoying.
I normally add a digit to the file index using the fourth character of the
name, so 7043 becomes LRC37043.PEF, but if I shoot in DNG I lose the
fourth character,
DNG files are RAW. They don't conform to a color space.
Paul via phone
On Feb 1, 2013, at 9:19 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 16:23 , Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I needed to shoot DNG for an event and found something annoying.
I normally add a
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:59 , Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013, Charles Robinson wrote:
Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.
How big is that? (Can't seem to find file
On Feb 1, 2013, at 20:30 , Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
DNG files are RAW. They don't conform to a color space.
You're right.
I was thrown by the fact that the file name page is where you select what the
prefix will be, and it's there you can select what the prefix for
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
