Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-07-2014, 09:10 AM   #181
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,299
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
...what's so bad about HDR? I don't really like the K-r's HDR feature because I must use jpeg, but what if I just shoot RAW -2,0+2 and then merge later?
Like Selective Color, it's become cliche...

Especially if it is overdone.

06-07-2014, 02:08 PM   #182
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 224
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
Right. After a while, you'll start to think that camera bodies hardly do anything, while lenses produce all the magic! And you won't be far off.




This is why most of us think it barely matters which camera body you choose now. You can just pick the cheapest one off the list, if you'd like. Ideally, you'd even chose the brand based on the lenses you're going to want in the future.

But few of us can see that far ahead when we begin this venture. Fortunately, most of us have found that Pentax is not only a good place to start photography, but a great place to stay. And starting is the most important part.


Also, if you choose Pentax, you'll get so spoiled by all the Pentax advantages that you get to start nitpicking about every little place Pentax isn't the best. Since they do so well in the other areas, you'll think it's possible for them to be better in all areas. I've decided, in life, that any time someone has the luxury to complain like this, it means they're pretty well off!
If you're just starting, I'd recommend going cheap with the camera body and spend your real $$ on glass . A used K-x can be found for ~$200. It's a very capable camera. I've had mine for about a year and I'm still learning things about it. As far as your comment about the viewfinders...none of the DSLR viewfinders will ever compare to those old school film SLR cameras.
06-07-2014, 03:19 PM   #183
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
That's some serious high ISO, and I thought me using 1600 at times was high. Can that level of noise even be removed in PP? Though I suppose shooting in the dark, you don't have much options..
Photos don't need to be noise free. But at some point it can ruin the photo. You can decide where that point is. But if it comes down to it, it's better to have noise than unwanted motion blur.
06-09-2014, 10:09 AM   #184
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Like Selective Color, it's become cliche...

Especially if it is overdone.
Okay so if it's overdone...how else do I take landscape photography if I can only get one area in proper exposure? I imagine a flash can counter some situations, but not for landscapes.

---------- Post added 06-09-14 at 01:34 PM ----------

I can't really tell the difference between my two primes (50mm/1.7 & 135/2.5) against my two kit lens (18-55mm & 55-300mm) in terms of quality, aside from the larger aperture. Yet, people can easily tell the difference in terms of IQ and I feel like I'm doing something wrong. The only lack of image quality I find is when a bird is very far away, that my 300mm can't fully reach it so I crop it and well...the bird is very low quality. I notice other people do this with more expensive lens, and don't suffer the same quality I do when cropping. Am I not focusing properly or is that the "limitations" of my lens that I've just discovered?

Additionally I'm not sure what focal length I should be using for when I take photos. Obviously, a telephoto is needed for wildlife generally but for other things such as portraits, candids, landscape I'm always confused on what to select. For instance, the 50mm1.7 I have gets great reviews and I have no issues against but I'm always curious to what I should use it for? It's too long for landscape, but too short for portraits? I know there's distortion, but everyone seems to recommend one focal length or the other and there isn't much of a consensus. I've used my kit lens at 18mm and while that focal length is frowned upon for landscape, it seems to be okay? I don't notice distortion.

Just some confusion I've been having...

Thanks


Last edited by Zealex; 06-09-2014 at 10:37 AM.
06-09-2014, 11:47 AM   #185
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
Okay so if it's overdone...how else do I take landscape photography if I can only get one area in proper exposure? I imagine a flash can counter some situations, but not for landscapes.[COLOR=Silver]

Just some confusion I've been having...

Thanks
Shadow recovery and highlight reduction are the easiest ways, then you can also vary your contrast and even your black and white levels. Or play with the exposure curve, which is really interesting and easy to get very bizarre results (which is what the undo button is for). Capture RAW and you can manipulate the image in Lightroom or other post-processing. There's a lot of data in the underexposed areas, so be careful not to overexpose.

HDR works well, too. We've all seen the heavily manipulated versions but we may not realize how useful it can be if done with subtlety.

I haven't done any stacking but presumably you can do exposure bracketing and combine images yourself, doing the HDR manually.
06-09-2014, 11:48 AM   #186
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,299
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
Okay so if it's overdone...how else do I take landscape photography if I can only get one area in proper exposure? I imagine a flash can counter some situations, but not for landscapes.[COLOR=Silver]
How did people ever do landscapes before HDR...
06-09-2014, 11:51 AM   #187
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote

Additionally I'm not sure what focal length I should be using for when I take photos. Obviously, a telephoto is needed for wildlife generally but for other things such as portraits, candids, landscape I'm always confused on what to select. For instance, the 50mm1.7 I have gets great reviews and I have no issues against but I'm always curious to what I should use it for? It's too long for landscape, but too short for portraits? I know there's distortion, but everyone seems to recommend one focal length or the other and there isn't much of a consensus. I've used my kit lens at 18mm and while that focal length is frowned upon for landscape, it seems to be okay? I don't notice distortion.

Just some confusion I've been having...

Thanks
It's your hobby - do what you want. If you don't have a very wide lens (like 15mm) then you can always stitch images together. There are systems which make massive panoramas doing this automatically - GigaPan is the best known.

The 50mm is a great FL for scenery, flowers, details etc. Just look through the 18-55 at different focal lengths and decide what you really like, then look for more lenses. Not until you have an idea what you want to do, though. For instance, I pretty much missed the boat on good prices for the Sigma 8-16, that is one unique lens. My wife still goes back to share the images taken with it. The center is focused, the edges are distorted but it LOOKS the way your eye captures an image, since your peripheral vision is not as clear.
06-09-2014, 12:33 PM   #188
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
Just take photos with the lenses you have, unless someday you feel the need for a better one. The lenses you have already deliver images at a very good level. You need to work on continuing to get photos you like, and composition.

I'd still encourage you to try the 50/1.7 between f/2 and f/4 for portraits and low light, and the 135 stopped down to the first click (sometimes 2) for flowers and such, to see the effect.

06-09-2014, 07:18 PM   #189
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
I'm using the trail version of lightroom and I like it! One thing I notice is my photos lack proper...color? For example, for this portrait I took it's like I put a dull filter in front of my lens before I fixed it and it's not just portraits, it's most of my photos! Am I depending on PP too much, indicating my exposure isn't correct or is this out of my control/camera limitations? I always view my photos on my LCD but they're not as clear as my computer screen, and I'm trying to learn how to use my histogram as well as enabling "blinkies" for blown/dark areas.

I just realized my camera has a 1.5 crop factor so does that mean my 50mm would produce images as if I were using a 75mm on FF? Then that's technically a short telephoto no? If true maybe that's why I was disappointed because I felt it zoomed in too much to be a "perfect" walk around lens(I'll use it "differently" now)...so now I've got my eye on the 35/2.4 but wish to give it some time to be sure it's what I want (and not develop LBA). Realizing the crop factor just made a bunch of sense towards my focal length confusion... using my kit at 18mm is at the end of WA/border of Normal lens!
06-09-2014, 11:38 PM   #190
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
I'm using the trail version of lightroom and I like it! One thing I notice is my photos lack proper...color? For example, for this portrait I took it's like I put a dull filter in front of my lens before I fixed it and it's not just portraits, it's most of my photos! Am I depending on PP too much, indicating my exposure isn't correct or is this out of my control/camera limitations? I always view my photos on my LCD but they're not as clear as my computer screen, and I'm trying to learn how to use my histogram as well as enabling "blinkies" for blown/dark areas.
This is one of the key problems with LR, and Adobe in general. They used to be even worse about this than they are now. Many (most?) users appear to eventually just accept this as if it's normal, but it's not. The problem is Adobe doesn't make very good camera profiles, so your RAW photos actually look much worse (at least color-wise) until you adjust them. This is not only frustrating for a beginner, it's unnecessary.

Use Capture One or the RAW editing software that came on the CD with your K-r (you may be able to update it online once you install it). The software that came with your camera can be a bit buggy at times (and may even crash), but it does a very good job of reproducing the color and other settings the camera uses. So you can start out with virtually the same look and then improve it from there. Similarly, Phase One (Capture One) makes good profiles, so the image looks good to start with, like it should. While it looks different, it's generally as good as (sometimes better?) than what came out of the camera on the JPEGs.

---------- Post added 06-09-14 at 11:42 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
I just realized my camera has a 1.5 crop factor so does that mean my 50mm would produce images as if I were using a 75mm on FF? Then that's technically a short telephoto no? If true maybe that's why I was disappointed because I felt it zoomed in too much to be a "perfect" walk around lens(I'll use it "differently" now)...so now I've got my eye on the 35/2.4 but wish to give it some time to be sure it's what I want (and not develop LBA). Realizing the crop factor just made a bunch of sense towards my focal length confusion... using my kit at 18mm is at the end of WA/border of Normal lens!
Yes, the DA35/2.4 is the amazingly affordable (for an AF lens) choice for a ~normal Focal Length on APS-C. The performance is also very good - wide open performance is better than anything you have right now. I'm sure you'll eventually want one.
06-10-2014, 05:19 AM   #191
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
This is one of the key problems with LR, and Adobe in general. They used to be even worse about this than they are now. Many (most?) users appear to eventually just accept this as if it's normal, but it's not. The problem is Adobe doesn't make very good camera profiles, so your RAW photos actually look much worse (at least color-wise) until you adjust them. This is not only frustrating for a beginner, it's unnecessary.

Use Capture One or the RAW editing software that came on the CD with your K-r (you may be able to update it online once you install it). The software that came with your camera can be a bit buggy at times (and may even crash), but it does a very good job of reproducing the color and other settings the camera uses. So you can start out with virtually the same look and then improve it from there. Similarly, Phase One (Capture One) makes good profiles, so the image looks good to start with, like it should. While it looks different, it's generally as good as (sometimes better?) than what came out of the camera on the JPEGs.

---------- Post added 06-09-14 at 11:42 PM ----------



Yes, the DA35/2.4 is the amazingly affordable (for an AF lens) choice for a ~normal Focal Length on APS-C. The performance is also very good - wide open performance is better than anything you have right now. I'm sure you'll eventually want one.
Yes, 50mm on FF is a "normal" view lens and on APSC it's short telephoto. The 24-35mm range is "normal" on an APSC. And yes, 18mm is around the cutoff for wide angle.
06-10-2014, 10:17 AM   #192
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
Thanks for the replies guys! Sorry I ask so many questions...

Much appreciation for that info DSims, will play around with it and see what happens. I think when I have the funds I'll consider getting a 8-16 so I can have a wide angle lens. Seems to be the cheapest and decent option for WA lens...I'll do more research later on when ready.

I took all my lens today and did two tests. I compared my 18-55mm at 50mm against my 50mm/1.7 at various apertures and did the same for my 135/2.5, 28-200mm Tamron @ 135mm, and my 55-300mm DA L @ 135mm...

I used an old BMX bike as my test subject and the 50mm/1.7 seems to create a better background, more blurred and it looks less distracting. The IQ on the 50mm is only a tiny bit better than my 18-55mm at 50mm... but I really had to "look". For my telephotos, the 135/2.5 created again the most blurred background. It was also the least sharp. The sharpest was the 55-300mm. Aperture, I did not notice a difference between aperture levels except DoF..

My second test, I used my sister for portraits and used my 3 telephotos at 135/5.6 and my two normal @ 50mm/5.6. The bokeh seems really similar, but the background was really far this time so I didn't notice any difference in blurring. However, the 135/2.5 seemed to be a little dull in color compared to the 55-300mm. The tamrom even worse, and so i guess the DA L won. .the 135/2.5 is really fast though, and I'ved used in indoors for my sister's recital and it was great (aside from the CA I had to remove). I can't tell the different between the two normal lens, though my kit at 50mm max f stop is 5.6..so that's maybe the losing factor right there....

The first image is the DA L @ 50mm/5.6, and the second is the 50mm/f1.7 @ 5.6
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-r  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-r  Photo 

Last edited by Zealex; 06-10-2014 at 03:44 PM.
06-15-2014, 04:34 PM   #193
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 975
i think it has been said, but: what focal length to use for what purpose is mostly bs. who said you can't shoot landscapes with a short tele? or a long tele. you can do whatever you want, experiment, and don't worry about rules so much. (i'm sorry, i no longer have pictures online to show examples)

wide angle: 18mm on apsc is not at the limit, it's "right in the middle", it's a respectable wide angle (like 28mm on 35mm film). a 24mm would be a "mild wide" on aps-c. a 16mm would be in the realm of ultra-wide already. Beware of wide angle lenses, you need to learn how to use them effectively, otherwise the pictures will not be making any sense. i suggest to start with this idea: a wide angle requires a foreground, subject, and background. the foreground is almost always not optional

for instance, two rather boring pictures, taken in the same area (grossglockner hochalpenstrasse -- hey, don't tell me, tell the austrians):

http://www.alpy.net/grossglockner/obr/glo_206.jpg

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/3491/1_K20A9851-watermark.jpg

they both seem to be shot with a wide angle (i guarantee for the second, as i shot it), but in the first you can't quite tell if it's a wide or not, and it has that "meh" look about it. Now mine is not something to make you sit up either, but you can see the foreground gives it some "depth", this is one of the "magic" things about wideangles. Until i figured this out, i hated wideangles with a passion.

the pentax kit lenses are generally very decent, so you will find it hard to compare the iq to old primes, but it is, almost always, better for the primes. add to that the elegance, size and "pleasure to use" of the primes, and you'll see why many people are addicted. however, this does not mean they are for you, you might be fine with the zooms and take great pictures with them.

landscape/dynamic range: i happen to hate the hdr look, what i do (used to*) is to use a little piece of software called "enfuse", it is part of hugin, and it is great (it manages to do exposure blending in a "reasonable" manner, to my eye, without the tone-mapping insanity). hugin is worth having a look at in any case (probably the best software for panorama around these days, and open source)

* used to because, since i switched from k20d to k-5, i ended up taking "one shot" instead, the dynamic range improvement was so dramatic for my needs that i found myself leaving the tripod at home at times, and trying higher iso handheld (yeah, i know, blasphemy, i was having fun though); having said that, in extreme situations, using something like enfuse to bring the dynamic range of the raw into a jpeg might still be worth it.

bmx bike: interesting, i must consider a trip to new york one of these days. everywhere else in the world we call that a wheelbarrow :P
06-15-2014, 05:22 PM   #194
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
How did people ever do landscapes before HDR...
They didn't. Ansel Adams' zone system is the darkroom equivalent of HDR, and photographers were combining multiple exposures to compensate for dynamic range limitations at the dawn of the photographic age.

But, the other HDR, the kind we like to hate is, IMO, a passing fad that we'll have to endure until something else replaces it.

Last edited by OregonJim; 06-15-2014 at 05:32 PM.
06-15-2014, 06:27 PM   #195
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,299
QuoteOriginally posted by OregonJim Quote
They didn't. Ansel Adams' zone system is the darkroom equivalent of HDR, and photographers were combining multiple exposures to compensate for dynamic range limitations at the dawn of the photographic age.

But, the other HDR, the kind we like to hate is, IMO, a passing fad that we'll have to endure until something else replaces it.
Sorry, I should have included the sarcasm smillie...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
battery, bit, bundle, camera, charge, cost, dslr, ebay, films, frame, holder, hood, k mount, lens, lenses, love, pentax, pentax help, photography, photos, post, prices, reason, reviews, shutter, slr, usd
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature the garden's a bit confused Cee Cee Post Your Photos! 5 04-12-2014 06:53 PM
Confused on lenses lennon007 Welcomes and Introductions 9 03-07-2014 01:51 AM
Really confused on Third Party Flash for Pentax K30 rp_dxn Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 12 09-21-2013 08:54 PM
Should i get a 8-bit or 10-bit (wide gamut) monitor? HenrikDK Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 11 08-08-2013 03:51 PM
14 Bit vs 12 Bit Raw Real Life Example cali92rs Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 07-05-2013 01:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:40 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top