Anthony Farr wrote:
My point is that the profile needs to be applied before the data enters the
digital domain, early in the a/d conversion. It needn't matter that the
voltage rise is squared (if that's what you mean) as the brightness rises,
as long as it's a constant and predictable
Oh. I see. Why?
Regards,
Anthony Farr
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Ryan
Brooks
Sent: Friday, 18 August 2006 11:37 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Tonal gradation in shadows - The $67 Question?
Anthony Farr wrote
Anthony Farr wrote:
Oh. I see. Why?
Because, you've obviously figure out something that electrical engineers
and physicists have missed for 20 years. Congrats!
-Ryan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
- The $67 Question?
Anthony Farr wrote:
Oh. I see. Why?
Because, you've obviously figure out something that electrical engineers
and physicists have missed for 20 years. Congrats!
-Ryan
--
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Anthony Farr
Sent: Saturday, 19 August 2006 1:22 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Tonal gradation in shadows - The $67 Question?
Not at all. In fact I don't know the working of an a/d converter beyond
At 10:31 PM 8/17/2006, you wrote:
I definitely agree that tonal gradation is funky on cameras like the
*istDS, when compared to what the human eye sees. Last year, I traveled to
Pittsburgh for their annual Light Up Night festival. (One night a year,
they turn on almost every light in almost
Perhaps this post didn't get through the first time so I'm resending it but
with an altered subject line. I can understand how some of us might be
binning the Ho** Cr** thread out of sheer irritation with its futility.
The $67 Question? refers to my suspicion that the big advantage of 6x7
be
binning the Ho** Cr** thread out of sheer irritation with its
futility.
The $67 Question? refers to my suspicion that the big advantage
of 6x7
that means so much to Aaron may be the creamy smooth tonal
rendition and
ability to render subtle nuances of tone and detail in shadows
Glad it's not just me.
I thought I was being dense.
Dave
On 8/18/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what these grayscales and step wedges are supposed to be
showing me.
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
My takeaway was that it was underexposed. Other than that, I got nothng.
Paul
On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:47 PM, David Savage wrote:
Glad it's not just me.
I thought I was being dense.
Dave
On 8/18/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what these grayscales and step wedges
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Friday, 18 August 2006 12:44 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Tonal gradation in shadows - The $67 Question?
I don't know what these grayscales and step wedges are supposed
On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:31 PM, Anthony Farr wrote:
Perhaps this post didn't get through the first time so I'm resending
it but
with an altered subject line.
I didn't reply because there was no context to what I was looking at,
so it didn't make any sense to me.
-Aaron
--
PDML
Anthony Farr wrote:
You need to click the DETAILS tab under the image to show the caption.
PhotoNet would rather show you an advertisement when the page first loads.
What the scales show is that an unmanipulated linear greyscale produced by a
digital camera has considerably darker shadows
-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Tonal gradation in shadows - The $67 Question?
On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:31 PM, Anthony Farr wrote:
Perhaps this post didn't get through the first time so I'm resending
it but
with an altered subject line.
I didn't reply because there was no context to what I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul
Stenquist
Sent: Friday, 18 August 2006 12:55 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Tonal gradation in shadows - The $67 Question?
My takeaway was that it was underexposed. Other than
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Tonal gradation in shadows - The $67 Question?
Except that the sensor is linear- if it's a CCD anyway. It's a photo
(okay, electron) counter. If you digitize the output in a non-linear
space, you're not getting as much (good) information
It's all about how our eyes see versus how sensors see. The sensor may
technically be correct, but I want to photograph things the way that I see.
Me too. But the data coming from the _physics_ of the CCD is linear.
Nothing you can do about that unless you change the sensor technology.
in shadows - The $67 Question?
Except that the sensor is linear- if it's a CCD anyway. It's a photo
(okay, electron) counter. If you digitize the output in a non-linear
space, you're not getting as much (good) information as if it was a
linear digitization.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML
PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Tonal gradation in shadows - The $67 Question?
It's all about how our eyes see versus how sensors see. The sensor may
technically be correct, but I want to photograph things the way that I
see.
Me too. But the data coming from
List
Subject: Re: Tonal gradation in shadows - The $67 Question?
Except that the sensor is linear- if it's a CCD anyway. It's a photo
(okay, electron) counter. If you digitize the output in a non-linear
space, you're not getting as much (good) information as if it was a
linear digitization
Yet another observation. Every time anyone adjusts curves or tweaks the
levels in Photoshop, what they are really doing is changing their digital
image from a linear rendition to a non-linear rendition.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Regards,
Anthony Farr
--
PDML
Anthony Farr wrote:
Yet another observation. Every time anyone adjusts curves or tweaks the
levels in Photoshop, what they are really doing is changing their digital
image from a linear rendition to a non-linear rendition.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Even before
Subject: Re: Tonal gradation in shadows - The $67 Question?
Anthony Farr wrote:
Another thought. Why would converting the linear CCD output to
non-linear
A/D output have not as much (good) information? I could understand
this
if the CCD was outputting digital information and arbitrarily
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: Re[6]: 67 Question
Based on what the website says, you are correct. Image is
laterally
reversed and the rigid hood has a 1.3x magnification loupe +
diopter
correction. It also says that it is totally shielded from
stray
light
I think that I will look at aquiring the chimney finder also. It
seems like it would serve my purposes better. Wish it was a little
cheaper.
Bruce
Friday, November 22, 2002, 6:01:29 AM, you wrote:
WR - Original Message -
WR From: Bruce Dayton
WR Subject: Re[6]: 67 Question
Chimneys are realy good to work with. I used one on a Blad and prefered it
to a prism finder for everything but flash work.
Len
---
I will get the chimney finder at some point.
William Robb
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN
Leonard,
Thanks for the info. I'm thinking that it would be a well used item
by me. There are times when I use the prism finder for some handheld
work, but much of the rest seems like it would be better with the
other finder.
Bruce
Friday, November 22, 2002, 1:02:54 PM, you wrote:
LP
I'm wondering if anyone has used either the folding focusing hood or
the rigid hood? I can see times when it would be very nice to work
waist level. Has anyone had any experience with either one?
Preferrably both.
Thanks,
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: 67 Question
I'm wondering if anyone has used either the folding focusing
hood or
the rigid hood? I can see times when it would be very nice to
work
waist level. Has anyone had any experience with either one?
Preferrably both.
Hi
I have the folding focusing hood. I sometimes use it when shooting cars
from a low tripod position. It's quite easy to focus and accuracy is
ensured because you're focusing right off the glass rather than through
a prism. Of course the image is flopped.
Paul
Bruce Dayton wrote:
I'm wondering
William Robb wrote:
The really nice thing about the folding hood is there are no
optics in it if the magnifer is down. This means there is 100%
viewfinder accuracy when using it, as the entire screen is
visible. The prism cuts out something like 15% of the screen.
The 6x7 screen is 100%
Does anyone know if the image is flopped with the rigid hood?
Bruce
Thursday, November 21, 2002, 8:45:32 PM, you wrote:
PS I have the folding focusing hood. I sometimes use it when shooting cars
PS from a low tripod position. It's quite easy to focus and accuracy is
PS ensured because you're
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: Re[2]: 67 Question
Does anyone know if the image is flopped with the rigid hood?
Don't take this as gospel, but I am pretty sure the rigid hood
is a bigger version of the chimney finder for the LX (FE-1),
which has the image erect
wrote:
WR - Original Message -
WR From: Bruce Dayton
WR Subject: Re[2]: 67 Question
Does anyone know if the image is flopped with the rigid hood?
WR Don't take this as gospel, but I am pretty sure the rigid hood
WR is a bigger version of the chimney finder for the LX (FE-1),
WR which
I have shot quite a bit of film through the 67II so far (100+ rolls)
and have found that for me, some films/brands seem easier to load than
others. Overall, Fuji seems the easiest to me. I find that spools
that only have a slot rather than a cross seem to seat quicker/easier.
Couple that with
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Bruce Dayton wrote:
I have shot quite a bit of film through the 67II so far (100+ rolls)
and have found that for me, some films/brands seem easier to load than
others.
Ah, Big Brother... still struggling needlessly under the oppression of
awkward equipment. Why not join
Brother Bruce wrote:
Has anyone else found the same as me or is it just my style. I have
found that I can load reasonably fast and without much fumbling at
all. But for shear speed, Fuji wins for me.
I've found the same sort of thing. The differences are minor but Fuji 120
is definitely
David,
See below.
Tuesday, May 28, 2002, 2:00:55 AM, Brother David:
DMeic I've found the same sort of thing. The differences are minor
DMeic but Fuji 120 is definitely far easier to load than Kodak 120.
DMeic Have you noticed that Fuji puts a hole in the paper leader
DMeic which slots into a
Since I'm a BW man, I just love Ilford's 120 film. It has been a while
since I used a 67, but in my horseman/wista backs, nothing beats Ilford.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have shot quite a bit of film through the 67II so far (100+ rolls)
and have
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002, at 05:16 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
I have the same problem. I keep switching between Portra and Reala.
Maybe Aaron can post one more time what each of the Nxx films are
so I can try them. It's almost funny that loading speed plays a role
in choosing film.
NPS
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002, at 12:47 PM, William Robb wrote:
Now there's a good survey: who's
120/220 sealing strips taste the best :)
Forte.
What do they taste like?
I've always thought the Kodak strips tasted suspiciously of dead horse.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds
Subject: Re: 67 Question
Now there's a good survey: who's
120/220 sealing strips taste the best :)
Forte.
What do they taste like?
I thought they tasted like Anisette
I've always thought the Kodak strips tasted suspiciously of
dead
42 matches
Mail list logo
