Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-16-2007, 07:44 AM   #121
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Kodak, who sells gray cards carefully calibrated to reflect 18 % of incoming light, used to include the following instructions in each package:

Meter readings of the gray card should be adjusted as follows: 1) For subjects of normal reflectance increase the indicated exposure by 1/2 stop. 2) For light subjects use the indicated exposure; for very light subjects decrease exposure by 1/2 stop 3) If the subject is dark to very dark increase the indicated exposure by 1 to 1.5 stops.....by Gisle Hannemyr.
Really? If you use a gray card and put it over an object and meters for it, do you STILL need to adjust exposure like that?? Hasn't the card has already been put OVER the object??? How does a COVERED object's black or white matter and even can affect the light meter and its metered value??

QuoteQuote:
One more time: Your "target" is assumed to be equal to 18%grey. Now from everything I posted re: this issue your figures are all off by an exposure of -.5
Correcting the numbers and doing a minor statistical analysis on your limited sample (discarding "anomolies as in your FAJ lens which clearly was malfunctioning.) As you can see the meter was pretty darn consistent based on the mean and standard deviation.
Argue all you want, your numbers and conclusions are wrong.
Note: chart should say "add .5" This was done fast and a long time ago... not perfect but you (don't) get the picture. Again, as to why I add .5?
You have assumed that 12% reflectance are the value of our cameras are calibrated for. Fine. But 18% is the mid-grey which is somewhere between the white and dark - no doubt here, right? 12% is indeed looking darker, no doubt here again! Right? If you assume our cameras are calibrated for 12% reflectance, that simply means that you and me just have the SAME view: That is, Pentax DSLRs produce darker pictures than quite some other cameras.

So, now you say that calibrated for 12% is correct exposure and if cameras are calibrated for the mid-grey 18% reflectance, they produce overexposure pictures. I say something difference and I regard 18% is the zero set point for correct exposure and 12% as under. So, this is the only dis-agreement.

People will judge if they like a darker (12%) or brighter picture (18%). At least I still like 18% (and 128!) - end of story.

Maybe some days later, another guy who prefer 8% will start to argue with you that 8% is the correct exposure, then!? ;-) (Your "12%" pictures are yet overexposed! LOL..)

09-16-2007, 07:52 AM   #122
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Perth
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 669
What's up Ricehigh? Have you posted any more pics on the canon forum after they ripped apart your last offerings from your vastly superior and way more expensive canon 5D?

some people enjoy photography and some enjoy measurebating - to each his own and enjoy what ever you do. If it doesn't harm others it is fine.

What you really have to consider and ask yourself is "Why do I do what I do; is it right to hurt peoples feelings and criticise them because they can not afford to waste a heap of money on a canon 5d, pretending to be a pro photographer and take poor to mediocre photographs?"

Ricehigh you are insulting and hurtful and to be perfectly honest your measurebating is flawed and amateurish at best - I wont say any more nor will I respond to you again.
09-16-2007, 08:05 AM   #123
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Falcons Quote
What's up Ricehigh? Have you posted any more pics on the canon forum after they ripped apart your last offerings from your vastly superior and way more expensive canon 5D?

some people enjoy photography and some enjoy measurebating - to each his own and enjoy what ever you do. If it doesn't harm others it is fine.

What you really have to consider and ask yourself is "Why do I do what I do; is it right to hurt peoples feelings and criticise them because they can not afford to waste a heap of money on a canon 5d, pretending to be a pro photographer and take poor to mediocre photographs?"

Ricehigh you are insulting and hurtful and to be perfectly honest your measurebating is flawed and amateurish at best - I wont say any more nor will I respond to you again.
You just insult yourself, not I insult you. If your proposition is correct, you actually insult me also (but I know this is not the case indeed). I have also quite some Pentax gear you and other Pentaxians have. And I do still use my K100D and my Pentax lenses to make photos. If your *assumption* is correct, do I insult myself from time to time also??

Don't take criticism on the shortcomings of *my* Pentax DSLRs as insult, which you are just thinking and putting things too seriously as it's supposed to be.

I had an *ist DS as your one. It does have its goodnesses which I have praised for quite a while but then it doesn't mean that it does not have poor things which I could mention. Enough said.
09-16-2007, 08:36 AM   #124
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
Very Disappointing

It really is sad to see that this post has disintegrated into a bashing match that is nothing less than a battle of one opinion against another. Whether RH's analysis is sound or not is not the issue here. What is however, is the manner in which he has been attacked. RH has never gone out of his way to insult anyone on this site. He has always responded politely to vitriolic attacks. I too may have been guilty of being harshly critical of his analysis, but soon realized that his opinions were just that, opinions.

May I suggest that if one wishes to engage him on this forum, we do so with dignity and respect.

Ben

09-16-2007, 08:43 AM   #125
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont, Canada.
Posts: 563
I was kind enough to post a few of my photos for you and all I get is sarcasm?

Alas, you still didn't get my message. Here is the last time I will re-emphasis this.

Shoot more, complain less!

My first post was not meant as an attack nor was it meant as an insult. I just commented at how surprised I was concerning the quality of his photos. I have perused his blog a few times and it is too highly biased, and not methodical enough to make it valid.

It is true that it is his opinion, and as such, I respect it for what it is. However, many less knowledgeable people may take his opinion as gospel because they do not know better, and more importantly, because he writes it as if it is not an opinion piece, but an authoritive piece. The tone and general message can easily mislead many into thinking their gear is defective or sub par. This is why RiceHigh gets to me somewhat. I strongly suspect this is why he isn't much loved on many photographic forums that I am also a member. Benjican, I may not have been gentle and kind with my dealings with him in this thread, but his responses are not as angelic as you believe them to be.

Anyways, I have had enough of this. My main message throughout as been the one posted in red above. If it got more personal then I wanted...my apologies.

Last edited by Chako; 09-16-2007 at 09:17 AM.
09-16-2007, 10:25 AM   #126
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
It really is sad to see that this post has disintegrated into a bashing match that is nothing less than a battle of one opinion against another. Whether RH's analysis is sound or not is not the issue here. What is however, is the manner in which he has been attacked. RH has never gone out of his way to insult anyone on this site. He has always responded politely to vitriolic attacks. I too may have been guilty of being harshly critical of his analysis, but soon realized that his opinions were just that, opinions.

May I suggest that if one wishes to engage him on this forum, we do so with dignity and respect.

Ben
Sorry to disagree Ben but as much as your involvement w/ Pentax has helped, RH involvement has probably hurt. His "authority" pops up too high on Goggle searches. People quote him as an some sort of pentax expert on all matters Pentax. And as you can see not on a positive or even impartial manner. He has a right to his opinion as I do. I've seen his MO since the original release of the D and his arrogance (artists can be forgiven here) and refusal to admit anything he says is nothing short of gospel is infuriating over time. Most have learned to just ignore him, as I suspect the same has occurred to me. Thing is I'm not CLAIMING to be some sort of infallable "guru" (and actually he's more like a "I'm so sad Pentax has failed, since there camera really stinks oh well.. Sigh" type of posturing... 'I REALLY tried to loike it but it sucks, see this obscure, flawed study, I told you so...).... and like to look at life in a balanced manner. I was one of the first people posting about the D exposure issues on dpreview. Unlike RH I have embraced the "philosophy" and even think I understand some of the logic behind the metering BUT I will not assume I am correct and have taken the apparenty unpopular opinion to deal with it instead of insisting its broken.
Maybe atrtists can deal w/ unsound reasoning and data but those that embrace the concept of good science reveals good facts cannot accept this from people that should know better........ Ther have been plenty of time and people who had the chance to tell me I was wrong, if I was, and would gladly accept this and learn from it. I accept a lot from people that can't or don't understand (as in ignorance), but cannot accept those that should no better but refuse (ie. stupid).
He really turned it up a notch after his failure to get any resolve out of his "Hong Kong" customer service and the failure to have the CEO of Pentax respond to his registered letter. "Oh woe is me" Personally I've been hoping for years that he'd find a camera he likes. He did but still just needs to hang on to Pentax. Why I ask you?????? Doesn't that seem strange...to devote so much time to a failed product????? Not sure why but he seems to have abandoned any discourse at the Canon forums. Apparently the 5D is so good that any discussion is unnecessary..... which may be the case for him. So why waste so much time discussing Pentax. He doesn't really even say he uses his K100 anymore except for a brief statement that the Canon was too heavy...
09-16-2007, 10:39 AM   #127
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
Really? If you use a gray card and put it over an object and meters for it, do you STILL need to adjust exposure like that??
According to Kodak yes.
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
Hasn't the card has already been put OVER the object??? How does a COVERED object's black or white matter and even can affect the light meter and its metered value??
Already posted the "meter readings off a grey card and certain recommended corrections for subjects. Maybe Ben can add insight here as someone who really has to deal with these things ona day to day basis.


QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
You have assumed that 12% reflectance are the value of our cameras are calibrated for. Fine. But 18% is the mid-grey which is somewhere between the white and dark - no doubt here, right? 12% is indeed looking darker, no doubt here again! Right? If you assume our cameras are calibrated for 12% reflectance, that simply means that you and me just have the SAME view: That is, Pentax DSLRs produce darker pictures than quite some other cameras.
Actually they are darker than Canon or maybe slightly darker than Nikon, but not near as much as you assume and believe. Think Pentax gamma curve is a bit less than it could be and certainly is different, as is every camera/model.
All you can go by is the average and averages can be equal yet the two images look completey different.
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
So, now you say that calibrated for 12% is correct exposure and if cameras are calibrated for the mid-grey 18% reflectance, they produce overexposure pictures. I say something difference and I regard 18% is the zero set point for correct exposure and 12% as under. So, this is the only dis-agreement.

People will judge if they like a darker (12%) or brighter picture (18%). At least I still like 18% (and 128!) - end of story.
That's the point some like it some don't it's not wrong only different. You are the one that insists it's broken, not me. Stick w/ your fudged iso Canon and just drop your blatent crusade against Pentax.
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
Maybe some days later, another guy who prefer 8% will start to argue with you that 8% is the correct exposure, then!? ;-) (Your "12%" pictures are yet overexposed! LOL..)
No they'd be wrong to. LOL
And again..it's not the camera but the photographer... Here is a quote from the late Bruce Fraser......really sums everything up.....
There’s one more important factor that plays into exposure setting when you shoot digital captures.
The response of a camera set to ISO 100 may really be more like ISO 125 or even ISO 150 (or, for that matter, ISO 75). It’s well worth spending some time determining your camera’s real sensitivity at different speeds, and learning(ed. note: LEARNING not B*tch*ng) just how far you can trust the on-board histogram to show highlight clipping. Once you’ve done so, you can dial in an appropriate exposure compensation
to make sure that you’re making the best use of the available bits
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf
Seems everyone is aware that the camera is never the "end decision maker"........you are.

Last edited by jeffkrol; 09-16-2007 at 01:30 PM.
09-16-2007, 04:50 PM   #128
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 296
What a terrible, terrible waste of band-width.
This has been a most unedifying thread.
RH has once again successfully stirred up a nest of hornets over....what???
Nothing of value, for sure.
Time to get on with a bit of introspection and the making of worthwhile images, methinks.

09-16-2007, 10:31 PM   #129
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Woodinville, WA USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,177
I told you to ignore this thread

I told myself that one post in this thread was enough - but I just have to add this little bit.

The late John Szarkowski, curator of photograhpy at MOMA in NYC said it like this:
"The truth is that anybody can make a photograph.
The trouble is not that photographs are hard to make.
The trouble is that they are hard to make intelligent and interesting”
John Szarkowski 2000 1925-2007

RH appears to understand the first two sentences - and he has admitted that he is not capable of "getting" the third. Therefore he blathers along about his shortcomings by blaming the equipment - just to get attention.

If you ignore it -- it will go away, and this will be a better place.

PDL
09-17-2007, 04:24 AM   #130
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
It really is sad to see that this post has disintegrated into a bashing match that is nothing less than a battle of one opinion against another. Whether RH's analysis is sound or not is not the issue here. What is however, is the manner in which he has been attacked. RH has never gone out of his way to insult anyone on this site. He has always responded politely to vitriolic attacks. I too may have been guilty of being harshly critical of his analysis, but soon realized that his opinions were just that, opinions.

May I suggest that if one wishes to engage him on this forum, we do so with dignity and respect.

Ben
Ben, thanks for your balanced post and objective viewpoints. I treasure and appreciate your kind response as I know that most of the time we do have different opinions.

In fact, my opening post is simple. I think which is similar to your previous post of "what's next Pentax" and "Pro Pentax body" etc. The similarity is that we have the aspirations for an upgraded and enhanced new Pentax DSLR body with added features and improved performance.

I really don't understand why a simple topic could de-generate into such meaningless personal attacks on anything about myself personally, such as the quality or even contents of my photos or the contents of my homepage and blog etc.

So, now let's back to the topic. I must say the new wave of *next* generation of DSLRs from *all* competitors of Pentax, namely, Canon, Nikon and Sony has some common things which Pentax K10D and K100D Super lack, as follows:-

1. Live View! Which IMHO is an useful and handy feature;

2. 3" VGA resolution LCD mon (of course better than those 2.5" ones with lower resolution, this is unarguable). Well, the A700, 40D and D300 all have these but no Pentax DSLR yet has;

3. Better dust removal facilities - the ultrasonic method has been proven to be more effective. Now, D300 has this, the 40D has this also and leaving Sony and Pentax alone with those actually useless DR solution;

4. Not even to mention the other strong features of the new Nikon and Canon, like the new 51-point AF system of D300, 6.5 fps shooting rate of the 40D, new f/2.8 and f/5.6 condensed AF sensors for the A700 and so on..

So, at the end, I still would like to ask: where's Pentax and what's next? Or, I should also ask: when?
09-17-2007, 05:01 AM   #131
Veteran Member
lol101's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Garennes sur Eure France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
So, now let's back to the topic. I must say the new wave of *next* generation of DSLRs from *all* competitors of Pentax, namely, Canon, Nikon and Sony has some common things which Pentax K10D and K100D Super lack, as follows:-

1. Live View! Which IMHO is an useful and handy feature;

2. 3" VGA resolution LCD mon (of course better than those 2.5" ones with lower resolution, this is unarguable). Well, the A700, 40D and D300 all have these but no Pentax DSLR yet has;

3. Better dust removal facilities - the ultrasonic method has been proven to be more effective. Now, D300 has this, the 40D has this also and leaving Sony and Pentax alone with those actually useless DR solution;

4. Not even to mention the other strong features of the new Nikon and Canon, like the new 51-point AF system of D300, 6.5 fps shooting rate of the 40D, new f/2.8 and f/5.6 condensed AF sensors for the A700 and so on..

So, at the end, I still would like to ask: where's Pentax and what's next? Or, I should also ask: when?

Note: the following only reflect my use of the camera and probably doesn't apply to anyone else.

1/ Could be usefull but not that important, depending on the implementation.

2/Also nice but non essential. (BTW, the 40D doesn't have VGA resolution).

3/Useless for me.

4/ I would put this point in #2 place, especially improvements in the AF-C algorithm (otherwise, 5 or 6 fps would be useless), just after cleaner high ISO images.

I think Pentax has an excellent body/ergonomics in the K10 with a host of usefull features and an excellent "user knows best" approach to the whole thing. I really see it as being above competition when it comes to ergonomics.

The only thing keeping me from buying one to replace my Ds is the high ISO IQ which doesn't seem to be better than my Ds.

I use ISO 1600 a lot in shooting available light kids portraits (like the one I use as my avatar) and would greatly appreciate a 1 stop gain.
09-18-2007, 01:30 PM   #132
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 21
I bought one

I looked at all the available cameras out there, including the Sony A700, Nikons, Cannons, and Olympus. All things considered last week I bought a K10. It is not the best one out there, but features, price, performance, feel, ect., I could not find anything I liked better.
09-18-2007, 02:47 PM   #133
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by fredw Quote
I looked at all the available cameras out there, including the Sony A700, Nikons, Cannons, and Olympus. All things considered last week I bought a K10. It is not the best one out there, but features, price, performance, feel, ect., I could not find anything I liked better.
Well, congrats. I tihnk you've summed the problem up pretty nicely. It's not a matter of picking the best camera. That would be hard enough. But most of us can't afford the best camera, so it's always, the best camera, with the best features that matter to us, that we can afford, etc. In other words, it's always a compromise.

Years ago, Andy Hertzfeld, one of the braniacs responsible for the original Apple Macintosh, was asked in an interview what his dream computer would be like. He responded with a question: "What's it going to sell for?" Spoken like a true engineer. Even his dreams involve compromises. We have to think the same way as buyers.
09-19-2007, 05:04 PM   #134
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,330
Your photos

Ricehigh , I have had a look your webpages and can see you have done a lot of tests on equipment.

Can you tell me where the link is so I can see your photographs please.
09-19-2007, 08:05 PM   #135
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: India
Posts: 162
I feel Rice High loves Pentax so much that he wants it to better all other brands. Remember the Heroine of Ayn Rand's 'Fountainhead' novel?
But, the only problem is, if somebody is interested in buying Pentax and he comes to read Rice High, he would think he is safe with other brands rather than Pentax.
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!
camera, dslr, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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