[gaweidert]

I just went back, and scanned the K3 forum photos thread, and one thing I noticed is how few likes there were in that thread compared to this thread, and how much better photographers the full frame K1 has allowed people to be compared to the APS K3. It is particularly evident in LeRolls' work. His K3 work was very good, his K1 work is great.

Yep. When I first started processing photos from my K1 I noticed it too. I call them delicious for lack of a better term. They just have "It!" The K3 is a great system but for some reason the images seem a bit more sterile? Again just a term I use as I have to call it something.


When the KS-1 came out I noticed that the images from them are different than the K3 also. As are the K-S2 and KP. More like the K1 in some respects.

[WPRESTO]

Hi Walt
Check out 'Patriot Campers " an Aussie company now selling in USA.
They can be seen at the large outdoor show in I think in Arizona about this time of year.
The caravan is your camper trailer.
Our camper trailers are generally smaller than a caravan and have a fold out tent so soft sided and are way easier to tow.
They make 4x4 varieties ( Patriot ) that will go anywhere the 4x4 can go

Dave

Third attempt to get this response posted.
I did go to the Patriot Campers site, but unfortunately it did not pull up fully on this laptop. What I saw were units I would generally call "pop-up campers."

I GOOGLED "camper trailer" and what I got were dealers, manufacturers and campgounds. Among the dealers and manufacturers some were offering or making fold-out units, others were making rigid units (two of the first five sites were for Airstream trailers).

If you click on the various dealers or manufacturers, they themselves may refer to the fold-out style as 1) a pop-up (or "popup," henceforward I will not insert that a hyphen sometimes is, sometimes is not used); 2) pop-up trailer; 3) pop-up camper; 4) pop-up camper trailer.

For rigid units, the dealers and manufacturers may call them 1) campers; 2) camper trailers. BUT NO AMERICAN DEALER OR MANUFACTURER CALLS THESE UNITS A "CARAVAN."

The term "travel trailer" (sometimes hyphenated) could be be used for either fold-out or rigid units.

I GOGGLED "caravan" and I got sites for "caravan tours" (=traveling in several small vehicles rather than one huge bus, but not camping) and "Dodge Caravan" = the mini-van, but at least on the first three pages of sites, not a single dealer or manufacturer of rigid camper trailers.

I GOOGLED "caravan definition" and typically the first definition offered by any site would be akin to this: "British: a trailer designed to be lived in while traveling..." The second definition covered "caravan" in the sense of a group of people traveling together in several conveyances such as several cars, motorcycles or camels.


HOWEVER, if you GOOGLE "caravan images" you get pictures of rigid camper trailers.

So, in the USA, "caravan" is not used for a trailer designed to be lived in while traveling. That is a uniquely British use of the word, and therefore, also Australian (or South African, New Zealand, etc.). Patriot Campers is an Australian import, so... There may be other people in the USA who use "caravan" for a camper trailer, especially if they watch PBS. As I recall, I first heard "caravan" used for a camper trailer many years ago on a TV program that showed videos of vehicular incidents and accidents. The clip was from Britain and showed a "caravan" going out of control as it was being towed, the video taken from a following vehicle. The "caravan" eventually toppled over when the driver tried to exit from the high-speed road. I recall wondering at the time if the narrator had made some vocabulary error or had misread the script.

Enough of what I call "pedantic semantic gobbledygook." We don't want to enter a discussion of whether "hood" or "bonnet" should apply only to headgear and not part of a vehicle.

[longbow]

The one that got away?

.....know the feeling all too well

[acoufap]

FYI: Each of the images originally contained more sky because, sometimes you want sky, and if you nip the top of a peak that's near the central part of an image, it doesn't look right (if a slope goes out of the top right or top left corner, that's OK, but if both slopes of a hill or peak or pinnacle are visible, with sky to right and left, and the peak is cut off at the top of the frame, it doesn't look right). So I always include some extra sky to avoid the cut-off-the-top-of-his-head syndrome. However, in PP I sometimes crop off all but a sliver of the sky, unless of course it's a lovely blue sky with puffy white clouds etc. that contribute to the mood of a beautiful place on a beautiful day. For amusement, when I get onto the other computer where I do all PP, I'll redo both images with no sky and post them just to see how they look and what you think,

This is a dreadfully long response to a simple friendly suggestion.

Thank’s for your kind reply! I’m sure you show what you intended to.

Pictures shown in these forums are wonderful. But sometimes I think people could get a bit more out of them - of course to my perception. That’s pretty much subjective and may not mean anything to the photographer or/and other beholders. It's nice if we can have a little conversation about different ideas. Thanks for your infos about how you consider going this or that way in such an image!

---------- Post added 2018-07-21 at 14:07 ----------

Here are some versions of one image respectively a stack of a scenery taken with K-1 and DFA100WR.

Since yesterday evening it’s been raining. While rain had a break I thought I could do a stack of a flower with a lot of nice rain drops on the blossom. So I used tripod and macro rail to do the job. Here’s one image of the stack …

Hm, working in C1P I selected some pictures of the stack and called Helicon Focus. Rendering Method B was pre set. I was pretty surprised since the result wasn’t what I expected …

Although not very realistic I like it very much. I had not only selected the images I wanted to use but also the ones I had taken at f/8 and f/11. They ought to be something like "control" images. Interesting effect. A second try without the "control" images showed that the main problem was using method B for this scenario. So by this fault I learned how I can get a nice artistic effect. This could be helpful in the future.

Ok. Now the result using Rendering Method A …

This shows what I expected but in my book looks a bit boring compared to the second image. So to tell the truth, my favorite is the „artistical“ version.

P.s. My last try was using Rendering Method C. Result was similar that of Rendering Method A that I preferred in the end.

---

Last edited by acoufap; 07-21-2018 at 06:12 AM. Reason: Added P.s. comment

[fishbones]

Nice photo and location. Just spent a week around Cornwall, Great locations for taking photos

Thanks sas8888 I am lucky to live here and probably take a lot of the surroundings for granted.

[WPRESTO]

Thank’s for your kind reply! I’m sure you show what you intended to.

Pictures shown in these forums are wonderful. But sometimes I think people could get a bit more out of them - of course to my perception. That’s pretty much subjective and may not mean anything to the photographer or/and other beholders. It's nice if we can have a little conversation about different ideas. Thanks for your infos about how you consider going this or that way in such an image!

---------- Post added 2018-07-21 at 14:07 ----------

Here are some versions of one image respectively a stack of a scenery taken with K-1 and DFA100WR.

Since yesterday evening it’s been raining. While rain had a break I thought I could do a stack of a flower with a lot of nice rain drops on the blossom. So I used tripod and macro rail to do the job. Here’s one image of the stack …

Hm, working in C1P I selected some pictures of the stack and called Helicon Focus. Rendering Method B was pre set. I was pretty surprised since the result wasn’t what I expected …


Although not very realistic I like it very much. I had not only selected the images I wanted to use but also the ones I had taken at f/8 and f/11. They ought to be something like "control" images. Interesting effect. A second try without the "control" images showed that the main problem was using method B for this scenario. So by this fault I learned how I can get a nice artistic effect. This could be helpful in the future.

Ok. Now the result using Rendering Method A …


This shows what I expected but in my book looks a bit boring compared to the second image. So to tell the truth, my favorite is the „artistical“ version.

P.s. My last try was using Rendering Method C. Result was similar that of Rendering Method A that I preferred in the end.

My stacking program has occasionally delivered an image with artifacts such as those, but never in an image I wanted to keep.

[normhead]

I just went back, and scanned the K3 forum photos thread, and one thing I noticed is how few likes there were in that thread compared to this thread, and how much better photographers the full frame K1 has allowed people to be compared to the APS K3. It is particularly evident in LeRolls' work. His K3 work was very good, his K1 work is great.

Too bad you didn't book mark some examples. That's the kind of thing people are always interested in.

Personally, I've been unable shooting the way I do to produce a definitive set of examples to clearly show the difference between one and the other, for wildlife, bird , landscapescape work.

And I've several times shot a set of comparison images and gotten confused over which is which. So if someone does come up with a compelling case for this it's probably going to be me.

My personal opinion has been that folks in this thread are a little "like" crazy. But I like that about the thread. People encouraging each other.

---

Last edited by normhead; 07-21-2018 at 06:57 AM.

[acoufap]

My stacking program has occasionally delivered an image with artifacts such as those, but never in an image I wanted to keep.

You don‘t even consider to keep it if you like it ... or didn‘t you ever get one that you liked? What do you think about the one in my post? I‘m not hurt if you don‘t like it.

[Erictator]

smc PENTAX-DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM ƒ/5.0 300.0 mm 1/640 iso100

[acoufap]

smc PENTAX-DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM ƒ/5.0 300.0 mm 1/640 iso100

One more great butterfly picture with very good compositional crop!

[WPRESTO]

You don‘t even consider to keep it if you like it ... or didn‘t you ever get one that you liked? What do you think about the one in my post? I‘m not hurt if you don‘t like it.

I was stacking studio-taken images of dead insects or the like. Such artifacts unwelcome (=the images were not intended to be artistic, and did not become artistic with the artifacts). Your image is meant to be artistic from the outset, so the artifacts potentially give a different artistic rendering that you had not even considered, but came as a pleasant accidental surprise. And it is an interesting image. Is it better than what you intended, as in the last of the three images? I wouldn't call on that, they are both interesting and worth seeing. BTW: I don't know whether you've seen any of them, but sometimes I run an image through the set of filters in PS just to see what comes up, and sometimes I like it. Look on the thread called "The Very Essence - Show me your abstracts" where I posted three different versions of the same image generated by PS filters (posts # 1172, 1173, 1174). Are they beautiful? Well they are at least interesting (IMHO).

[acoufap]

I was stacking studio-taken images of dead insects or the like. Such artifacts unwelcome (=the images were not intended to be artistic, and did not become artistic with the artifacts). Your image is meant to be artistic from the outset, so the artifacts potentially give a different artistic rendering that you had not even considered, but came as a pleasant accidental surprise. And it is an interesting image. Is it better than what you intended, as in the last of the three images? I wouldn't call on that, they are both interesting and worth seeing. BTW: I don't know whether you've seen any of them, but sometimes I run an image through the set of filters in PS just to see what comes up, and sometimes I like it. Look on the thread called "The Very Essence - Show me your abstracts" where I posted three different versions of the same image generated by PS filters (posts # 1172, 1173, 1174). Are they beautiful? Well they are at least interesting (IMHO).

Thanks for this hint! - Until now I didn‘t have a look at this thread. I surely will change that.

I‘m not a PS user. So can‘t try these filters. Last year I bought Affinity Photo to be able to compose pictures and do some special things. But until now I use it very seldom. Maybe it contains similar filters I could give a try. As a Raw Converter C1P is IMO much better than AP.

[WPRESTO]

I'll try to find an appropriate thread to post an original + the PS filter modified version of an image that I think turned out well considering the subject in the original image.

[normhead]

Agreed! My wife is like "why can't you do that?"

My wife will look at her picture and say "You've taken better pictures than that. You know how to do better, you just don't." I don't think you can ever please a wife with less than a maximum effort.

And of course if I try to start "bossing her around" to get her into a better position or pose, well, that's just not acceptable.

She is less cooperative than anyone else, but I'm supposed to take better pictures of her than anyone else.

[acoufap]

When I worked at this picture I immediately remembered the song "Raindrops keep falling on my head ..." you remember this?

I searched youtube and was very touched by the song and the underlying pictures of "Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid". Pictures and Music can recall strong feelings.



Do I feel blue or am I just "In A Sentimental Mood" (Wonderful music by John Coltrane)?