Roberts
postmas...@robertstech.com:
Eric Weir wrote:
Not of interest to me, but I thought the group would at least
reading
what Frye has to say. In any case, Piccure+, a software “cure” for
soft
lenses. Endorsed with reservations and caveats:
http://www.michaelfrye.com/landscape-photography-blog/2015/07
Bruce Walker wrote:
When I started out as a young hardware pup I worked under an engineer
whose university thesis involved deconvolution image processing
algorithms running on a custom instruction set CPU that he built using
2901 ECL bit slice parts. Wire-wrapped across a large array of boards.
. In any case, Piccure+, a software “cure” for soft
lenses. Endorsed with reservations and caveats:
http://www.michaelfrye.com/landscape-photography-blog/2015/07/01/cure-soft-lenses/
Seems to be a deconvolution tool like Focus Fixer and Focus Magic.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail
...@robertstech.com:
Eric Weir wrote:
Not of interest to me, but I thought the group would at least reading
what Frye has to say. In any case, Piccure+, a software cure for soft
lenses. Endorsed with reservations and caveats:
http://www.michaelfrye.com/landscape-photography-blog/2015/07/01/cure
thought the group would at least reading what
Frye has to say. In any case, Piccure+, a software “cure” for soft lenses.
Endorsed with reservations and caveats:
http://www.michaelfrye.com/landscape-photography-blog/2015/07/01/cure-soft-lenses
That's an interesting and well-written article/review. Thanks, Eric!
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Not of interest to me, but I thought the group would at least reading what
Frye has to say. In any case, Piccure+, a software “cure” for soft lenses
Eric Weir wrote:
Not of interest to me, but I thought the group would at least reading what
Frye has to say. In any case, Piccure+, a software cure for soft lenses.
Endorsed with reservations and caveats:
http://www.michaelfrye.com/landscape-photography-blog/2015/07/01/cure-soft-lenses
Not of interest to me, but I thought the group would at least reading what Frye
has to say. In any case, Piccure+, a software “cure” for soft lenses. Endorsed
with reservations and caveats:
http://www.michaelfrye.com/landscape-photography-blog/2015/07/01/cure-soft-lenses
Since 85mm soft lenses were mentioned recently...
And, there are some 3rd-party lenses, too. A couple of interesting
examples: Hoya (Tokina) 85/2.5 and Tamron 70-150/2.8.
Fred
I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
reasonable, don't you think?
- Toralf
Hello Toralf,
Friday, June 3, 2005, 3:31:54 PM, you wrote:
TL I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
TL Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
TL reasonable, don't you think?
TL - Toralf
Thats good price IMHO. I do want to buy
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Toralf Lund wrote:
I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
reasonable, don't you think?
Very. If you find another one, let me know :-)
K
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Toralf,
Friday, June 3, 2005, 3:31:54 PM, you wrote:
TL I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
TL Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
TL reasonable, don't you think?
TL - Toralf
Thats good
Hi!
I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
reasonable, don't you think?
Toralf, I've recently saw F variant being sold on eekBay for $300, so
your should be a steal...
Enjoy this very
Sign me up too!
rg
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Toralf Lund wrote:
I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
reasonable, don't you think?
Very. If you find another
Gonz wrote:
Sign me up too!
rg
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Toralf Lund wrote:
I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
reasonable, don't you think?
Very. If you
Boris
I just got one on e-bay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2914854576ssPageName=ADME:B:EOAB:US:6
Is there any way you can provice more information on how to turn this
lens into one like yours? (maybe if you could send me the contact of
the person who did it, if you
Hi,
Sunday, March 2, 2003, 11:34:28 PM, you wrote:
On 2 Mar 2003 at 10:18, William Robb wrote:
Some thoughts (mine only) on craftsmanship though. A craftsman can
produce something from raw material with skill and little waste. In the
woodshop, that means not making bad cuts that cause you
On March 2, 2003 12:21 am, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 1 Mar 2003 at 22:23, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
soft focus lenses as well as shift lenses are obsolete
due to photoshop IMHO.
Of course in the case of emulating an 11mm shift in photoshop from a full
frame 35mm film scan would mean that a
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Soft Lenses
no, but it's being replaced with the craftsmanship of photoshop
and digital printers.
Ther's craftsmanship in Photoshop?
Theres a hard to swallow concept.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Nick Zentena
Subject: Re: Soft Lenses
On March 2, 2003 12:21 am, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 1 Mar 2003 at 22:23, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
soft focus lenses as well as shift lenses are obsolete
due to photoshop IMHO.
Of course in the case of emulating
soft focus lenses as well as shift lenses are obsolete
due to photoshop IMHO.
Except soft-focus lenses and shift lenses have ALWAYS been obsolete.
Well, actually, soft-focus lenses have only been obsolete since about 1910.
But view cameras have always been better than shift lenses.
--Mike
Soft focus maybe, although you get quite a different quality of
softness from soft lenses or from the magnificent Zeiss Softtar filters
than you do from a Gaussian blur in Photoshop (I have a Zeiss Softar 1
and a Vivitar soft focus filter that fit all my lenses). It does not
hit and spread
On March 2, 2003 09:21 am, William Robb wrote:
You can play with perspective in Photoshop, but it is an extremely
inefficient use of pixels. In Rob's example, an 11mm shift would take a 6x7
image down to about the same area as a 35mm frame. In JCO's example of
But thats not shift
On 2 Mar 2003 at 10:05, Mike Johnston wrote:
Holy cow. I'll wager you've never seen a really good operator working in PS or
Quark! They're bloody ninjas.
Really a pleasure watching some of them work.
I agree, I spent quite a bit of time in pre-press and design houses and some of
the stuff
On 2 Mar 2003 at 8:20, Nick Zentena wrote:
Obviously I'm missing something but I'll ask anyways. How is it possible to
shift after the picture is taken? Isn't that just cropping? Or do people glue
two pictures to make one?
It's re-mapping and cropping, so you have to shoot wider than
On 2 Mar 2003 at 10:18, William Robb wrote:
Some thoughts (mine only) on craftsmanship though. A craftsman can
produce something from raw material with skill and little waste. In the
woodshop, that means not making bad cuts that cause you to waste that piece of
wood and start again. In the
I know that Pentax makes the 85/2.2 and the 85/2.8. How do they
compare? Do I have any other options?
L
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Soft Lenses
soft focus lenses as well as shift lenses are obsolete
due to photoshop IMHO.
I presume that IYHO the craftsmanship of printing is obsolete?
William Robb
no, but it's being replaced with the craftsmanship of photoshop
and digital printers.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 10:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Soft Lenses
- Original Message -
From
On 1 Mar 2003 at 22:23, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
soft focus lenses as well as shift lenses are obsolete
due to photoshop IMHO.
Of course in the case of emulating an 11mm shift in photoshop from a full frame
35mm film scan would mean that a significant portion of the original un-shifted
image
that why i shoot 67 and 4X5! :)
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Soft Lenses
On 1 Mar 2003 at 22:23, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
soft focus lenses as well as shift lenses
Hi!
LLL I know that Pentax makes the 85/2.2 and the 85/2.8. How do they
LLL compare? Do I have any other options?
You seem to. I know that people can do it themselves, I have a friend
who did it for me. Take any old lens, but Helios 44K lenses seem the
best for that. Take out all the elements
On 2 Mar 2003 at 0:26, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
that why i shoot 67 and 4X5! :)
360 degree panos could get mighty expensive in 4x5 :-)
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Hi!
JCOC soft focus lenses as well as shift lenses are obsolete
JCOC due to photoshop IMHO.
You're probably right but... If one wants to study the photography of
the pre-PhotoShop time or simply to excel in minimizing any kind of
retouching of their images, then both are useful.
That would me
35 matches
Mail list logo
