Hi gang ...
A few days ago John and I got together and made a few pics with his istD.
I had time to look at them in PS, and compare them to pics of the same
subjects made from a little Sony PS. John, the JPEGs from the istD that I
have here are the WORST! I have ever encountered.
frank-n-cotty (GRIN)
Robert Gonzalez wrote:
graywolf wrote:
I will admit that when I have not been shooting for awhile I tend to
fiddle myself until I reallize I am doing it and deliberately work to
overcome it.
Yes, fiddling yourself can become a bad habit. Sorry, I couldn't help
it...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave does this for money. The idea is to shoot at latge apertures with
shallow DOF to separate the subject from the background. Zone focusing
means
And that's getting a lot harder to do with all of these small aperture
wide-angle zooms. Ugh!
Ooooh ... Ooooh I got an f4.5 lens. It's 3x better than an f1.4 And I
don't even have to focus it LOL
Seriously, Len, you're right on the money. It's getting more difficult for
the average photographer to get that separation of the main subject from
the background. It's true to an extent even
graywolf wrote:
.Using the close focus portion of
my glasses gives me a crick in the neck (grin). The +2 also allows me to
focus with contacts.
And the nursing home guy can't help you with that?
;)
William Robb wrote:
I'd like to add that now lens designers have another medium to keep in
mind
when they design optics, that being the computer monitor.
Of course, mostly because it's a powerful way of inspecting pictures.
NOT because it can drive to grossly wrong information as recent
: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:16:00 +0100
I wrote to PhaseOne and asked if they had plans to support raw files from
other makes than Canon and Nikon, and Pentax in particular. All
- Original Message -
William Robb wrote:
For me, it was a decision based on looking at pictures, not charts or
spec sheets.
And =THAT'S= what it's ALL about or at least, it's supposed to be
Well thats was the most
Have you talked to your opthalmologist? There seem to be a lot of blind
photographers out there. My eyesight is not very good, never has been, but I can
still focus a camera. Of course I do need to replace my glasses every couple of
years. Also I would think most of your horse shots could be
Graywolf wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how anyone ever took a photograph back in the old days.
I don't know if it's true, but somewhere I heard or read that professional
photographers used to have a limited life span, just like professional athletes.
Had to quit young, thirties, forties.
When
Dave does this for money. The idea is to shoot at latge apertures with
shallow DOF to separate the subject from the background. Zone focusing means
you're a hobbiest that can't afford the right gear.
Sure they took pictures in the old days, but not the ones they take today.
BR
From: graywolf
Dave does this for money. The idea is to shoot at latge apertures with
shallow DOF to separate the subject from the background. Zone focusing means
you're a hobbiest that can't afford the right gear.
Sure they took pictures in the old days, but not the ones they take today.
BR
From: graywolf
True enough Bruce,but the AF and fast glass help here.
I started to worry when i compared prints from 2 years ago,shot on 'shudder' Kodak Max
400, with my
recent stuff shot with Royal Gold or Gold 200 and some of the Portra series. The older
prints were
more crisp'. I have been using the primes
the condiments of my choice, of
course, and a good ale to wash them down. ;-)
Len
---
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
From: Jan van Wijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:40:17
Hi Len,
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:56:30 -0600, Leonard Paris wrote:
I don't hold much hope that Adobe is going to accomodate the .PEF format in
either a plug-in or in their new PhotoShop CS. I fear that there may not be
enough *ist D users to cause Adobe to want to support us. Hopefully,
The new PS is out and it does not support PEF files. Here's a list of PS
supported files:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html
Leonard Paris wrote:
I don't hold much hope that Adobe is going to accomodate the .PEF
format in either a plug-in or in their new PhotoShop CS.
Hi,
graywolf wrote:
I will admit that when I have not been shooting for awhile I tend to fiddle
myself until I reallize I am doing it and deliberately work to overcome it.
Are you trying to make Cotty spill his drink?
mike
really like
Adobe Camera Raw but it's not going to support Pentax RAW.
Len
---
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:52:16 -0800
The new
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
Hi Shel, good to see you back.
I have questions for the eggspurts here, myself.
Given that Pentax's software for manipulating and converting a RAW file is
a
bit lacking in capabilities, what
It's good to see you with us again, Shel.
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: November 11, 2003 1:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D! (And my little Sony PS)
Hi gang ...
I guess it depends on what you choose to not understand.
Lewis
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have never
understood how one could see well enough to take photos and not well enough
to focus the camera at the same time.
-
Lewis Matthew wrote:
I see my opthalmologist annually, but since I wear
On 13/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
I will admit that when I have not been shooting for awhile I tend to fiddle
That at the same time as the mandolin, or instead of?
;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
:56 PM
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
BTW: Anyone know if it's possible to *reduce* the number of file formats
Photoshop shows in the OPEN and SAVE dialogs? I only ever use TIFF,
JEPG, PSD and (occasionally) BMP in Photoshop. GIF and JPEG in Image
Ready.
: Thursday, November 13, 2003 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
I usually don't like to import jpegs into PhotoShop for editing purposes,
but I could and then save them in .psd format after editing. I really
like
Adobe Camera Raw but it's not going to support Pentax RAW.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
i capture in RAW, convert to TIFF, and then save in Photoshop
PSD format.
the TIFF gets deleted. since the rest of my system is adequately color
managed, i get the results that i expect.
Herb
Hi,
John F wrote:
They came out with a firmware upgrade for the MZ-S fairly fast
(to fix the frame-overlapping problem).
To Pentax's credit, they fixed this before retail production started.
Anyone who had this problem had probably been sold a beta tester.
mike
Hi John,
on 12 Nov 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Actually Sony *are* the big brand when it comes to digital cameras and
technology. Not only do they sell a lot under their own name, they also
make the sensors used in a lot of cameras sold under very different, but
well-known brand names.
E.g.
Seems odd. One of mine - bought in the retail channel from BH had
the problem. I seriously doubt that it was a beta tester. It was
packaged and sold as new by a reputable dealer. The problem was
posted on the Pentax website with serial #'s and a way to test if your
camera was affected. This
-
- Original Message -
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
The big question is, with Pentax's track record for releasing anything
Excellent Bill.
I would like to add that all designs are trade offs. To get one thing, you have
to give up something else. Pentax mostly has, since I've been using them (1961),
balanced things to the best look in the final print. Unfortunately, many
manufactures seem to balance things for the
William Robb wrote:
For me, it was a decision based on looking at pictures, not charts or
spec sheets.
And =THAT'S= what it's ALL about or at least, it's supposed to be
--
Later,
Gary
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D! (And my little Sony PS)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800
Hi gang ...
and then continued, talking about Digital stuff that doesn't interest me...
vbg
_
MSN 8 helps
On 12 Nov 2003 at 14:37, Gary L. Murphy wrote:
William Robb wrote:
For me, it was a decision based on looking at pictures, not charts or
spec sheets.
And =THAT'S= what it's ALL about or at least, it's supposed to be
Depends how critical you are, nearly any current digicam
SHEL!
we missed ya!
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
(And my little Sony PS)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800
Hi gang ...
and then continued
You didn't question any claim, you posted a snotty little obtuse comment
that read so: Really? What do you think does the conversion to JPEG,
then? Therein lay the principal instance of nitpicking in this thread.
You're just miffed because you're used to getting away without being called
We've also seen people say that in-camera JPEG seems to be
comparable in quality to JPEGs produced from raw files by Photo
Laboratory.
We have? Where?
Well, there have certainly been posts to this list from people who
have tried both raw and jpeg mode, and decided the differences were
Hi gang ...
A few days ago John and I got together and made a few pics with his istD.
I had time to look at them in PS, and compare them to pics of the same
subjects made from a little Sony PS. John, the JPEGs from the istD that I
have here are the WORST! I have ever encountered. There are so
Photo Laboratory appears to sharpen more. But it also seems to
produce slightly less noisy images than the in-camera JPEG conversion,
even though it also seems to have a slightly higher contrast setting.
I guess I got it backwards about which might be better -- in camera or not.
But in a way, I
Nothing new there, IMHO Pentax has always gone for the best picture quality
rather than the best technical (numbers)quality.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My friend with the 300D and I have compared paper prints from both cameras.
While the picture qualities are different, there is really nothing
Graywolf wrote:
Nothing new there, IMHO Pentax has always gone for the best picture quality
rather than the best technical (numbers) quality.
Yeah, I know you keep saying that. And I am not going to dispute it. They
appear to try to do that, and they may do that in some or all ways.
But you do
On 11 Nov 2003 at 13:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But in a way, I find that encouraging myself.
Firmware can be upgraded.
Encouraging if we assume that the integrated processor isn't being fully
utilized, that there is storage room for more elaborate software, that the
problem is
Marnie aka Doe wrote:
But in a way, I find that encouraging myself.
Firmware can be upgraded.
Rob wrote:
Encouraging if we assume that the integrated processor isn't being fully
utilized, that there is storage room for more elaborate software, that the
problem is recognized by those who
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
Photo Laboratory appears to sharpen more. But it also seems to
produce slightly less noisy images than the in-camera JPEG conversion,
even though it also seems to have a slightly higher
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
Graywolf wrote:
Nothing new there, IMHO Pentax has always gone for the best picture
quality
rather than the best technical (numbers) quality.
Yeah, I know you keep saying that. And I
Well, yes. Picture quality is why I chose Pentax rather than Canon or Nikon
in the first place.
Contax would have been my second choice, but I couldn't afford the lenses.
Most photographers, if they stopped to think about it, are in the enviable
position of being able to choose a camera system
. . . if results from my $400.00 Sony (not even one of the big brands)
Actually Sony *are* the big brand when it comes to digital cameras and
technology. Not only do they sell a lot under their own name, they also
make the sensors used in a lot of cameras sold under very different, but
back and found it to be pretty
unusable, but it does give us a fair amount of hope...
-Original Message-
From: Dario Bonazza 2 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 November 2003 14:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ruediger Neumann
Subject: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
I had
Also, many thanks to Ruediger Neumann for the link to the German page
discussing Genzo RAW utility.
At the end, the main problem with image quality of the *ist D truly looks to
be the bad RAW-JPEG conversion done by the Pentax software. If you do a good
conversion, the pictures have nothing to
But this means the hardware design is sound, software
tweaks can be fixed later, but they better be soon!\
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, many thanks to
Ruediger Neumann for the link
to the German page
discussing Genzo RAW utility.
At the end, the main problem with image quality of
the
I find ***L jpeg to be more than enough for my use, and I don't use the
Pentax software. I import directly into Photoshop via PIM.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs
I would be surprised if new firmware and software is not out soon. Every
review has mentioned the weak software the the inadequate in-camera sharpening
tools, and this list is replete with complaints about the RAW conversion issue
particularly.
Quoting Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be surprised if new firmware and software is not out soon. Every
review has mentioned the weak software the the inadequate in-camera sharpening
tools, and this list is replete with complaints about the RAW conversion issue
particularly.
Michael
The Pentax firmware, of course. What do *you* think does it?
Quoting John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I find ***L jpeg to be more than enough for my use, and I don't use the
Pentax software.
Really? What do you think does the conversion to JPEG, then?
I was referring to the Photo Laboratory software that I don't use.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
I find ***L jpeg to be more than
If you recall there was a lot of speculation that the delay in release was do to
software problems. It seems like they got most of the bugs, but it still needs a
bit of optimizaion. However, since that is a field upgradable area, it will be
just a matter of time before the new firmware is
]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
I find ***L jpeg to be more than enough for my use, and I don't use the
Pentax software.
Really? What do you think does the conversion to JPEG
It certainly *looks* like it uses a different algorithm to me. That's all I
can go by. You apparently know otherwise; care to go into the details?
Sure, firmware is software. And software is nothing but hardware set to a
certain configuration. So what?
Quoting John Francis [EMAIL
It certainly *looks* like it uses a different algorithm to me. That's all I
can go by. You apparently know otherwise; care to go into the details?
Different doesn't necessarily mean better ...
Maybe it has some of the same bugs. Maybe it has different bugs.
But assuming that using the
Perhaps not, but no one was talking about it being a panacea; that was your
idea.
Quoting John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip] assuming that using the in-camera implementations is a panacea is
a leap of faith that I am not prepared to take without seeing evidence.
My friend with the 300D and I have compared paper prints from both cameras.
While the picture qualities are different, there is really nothing to say
that one is better than the other.
It looks like Pentax may be trying to emulate the look of film with the ist
D. Both Brian and I have noted that
I may not have been your claim, but it most certainly is your fabrication.
Mr. Owens wrote is as follows: I find ***L jpeg to be more than enough for
my use, and I don't use the Pentax software. I import directly into
Photoshop via PIM.
I did not understand him to mean, nor is it
.
-Original Message-
From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10-Nov-03 20:02
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
I may not have been your claim, but it most certainly is your fabrication.
Mr. Owens wrote is as follows: I find ***L jpeg
62 matches
Mail list logo
