Paul Stenquist wrote: > I'm not being sarcastic. I didn't see the RAW images. If they were > underexposed as badly as the jpegs, I wouldn't be surprised to see > color appearing on white. I'm sorry if I wasn't helpful. You may have > a problem. But as I said, it would be easier to tell with correct > exposures and a normal range of tones. Your examples caused my > scepticism. Sorry if I offended you. You may have a problem. Let's > see some more examples. It's certainly not normal for the camera to > produce color bands under standard or even somewhat extreme > conditions. Can you shot a color scale card and a gray scale card in > open shade? That could be revealing. You might also shoot something > of a general neutral tone -- something close to medium gray or light > brown-- in even light. > Paul
I'm sorry Paul, I was wrong in taking exception to what you said. I am sure if we were talking face to face, this would not have happened. I am a bit peeved with the whole situation as I just got the camera back and it seems I might have to send it back again. Never spent so much on one camera. Was just away for 3 weeks and was looking forward to using it. Of course, winter finally struck and that has slowed things down a bit. By the time I get home, it is getting dark during the week. I do understand your comments and will try to get some other examples. I was afraid that if I just showed you image 3 (the one that is about right in terms of exposure) that everyone would say I am imagining the problem or that my monitor is off or something like that. I could be wrong, but it looked to me that around f16 or so, the problem will be evident regardless. I will shoot a gray card, hopefully tomorrow, although I am going to an ENT specialist for a pinched nerve in my face. Well, that can put you on edge too! Maybe I will just shoot the graycard with the flash. Just not having a great week. Sorry again. Dave > On Jan 30, 2007, at 9:32 PM, David Weiss wrote: > >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >>> He's shooting jpegs on bright setting and underexposing by two to >>> three stops. How can you conclude it's not normal? >> Wow, I thought people on this list could curb the sarcasm and help a >> person. Is that beyond everyone these days? >> >> I said this problem showed up on RAW photos as well. >> >> The problem is evident on picture number 3, which is clearly not >> underexposed. >> >> This problem showed up on non-white subjects. >> >> What am I not saying correctly? >> >> I just wanted to know if it is a normal for this camera to do this >> under >> such conditions, that is all I wanted to know. I wasn't calling it >> a bad >> camera or anything else. Geez. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >>> Paul >>> On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:53 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: >>> >>>> On 31/01/07, David Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So, is this just the infamous banding problem magnified a bit? >>>> No it's not banding but neither is it normal nor should it have >>>> to be >>>> tolerated. I would suggest that you pose the question to Pentax and >>>> send links to select images, ask them how to remedy the problem >>>> and if >>>> they can't solve it then have your camera swapped for a new one. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Rob Studdert >>>> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA >>>> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 >>>> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ >>>> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
