|
Forum: Pentax Forums Giveaways
12-13-2014, 11:45 PM
|
| |
So what's the post count up to now then?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Forums Giveaways
12-10-2014, 03:34 PM
|
| |
This would be amazing! It would complement my 43mm perfectly :-)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-18-2014, 03:43 PM
|
| |
SOLVED!! At least for me
I had used Windows Movie Maker a few times, but I was never very satisfied with the level of control available and I wanted to use VSDC Video Editor. The clicks were driving me nuts... However, I just discovered that you can use VLC media player to extract audio tracks from video files, and I managed to get it to export a .flac file. I loaded that into Audacity to play around with levels and things, then loaded it back in to VSDC and everything's absolutely fine now :-D
---------- Post added 11-18-2014 at 11:46 PM ----------
In fact, VLC has a host of conversion options - it might be possible to use it to make a video conversion without the clicks. I'll give it a go and report back :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-22-2010, 01:26 PM
|
| |
I have just got hold of a second GX20, and it's in great condition - generally very pleased. I've calibrated most of my lenses, but there simply isn't enough compensation available for my 43! This is a problem, as I do a lot of fairly low-light stuff, wide open, so given the tiny depth of field, I need it to focus right.
So. Looked around and found out about the debug menu and the Pentax Hack website. It seemed very promising, but although I have managed to get into the debug menu no problem, there does not seem to be any AF TEST menu. I've searched around a bit, and found a couple of other posts here and there saying pretty much the same thing, but no answers. Has anybody ever got anywhere with this?
Thank you in advance.
Philip
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-11-2010, 06:39 AM
|
| |
I'm not sure if the K7 is the same as the GX20 in terms of focus options, but I got so annoyed with the camera refusing to take a picture if it didn't think it was in focus until I stopped using the shutter release to focus. With the focus purely controlled by the AF button, it no longer cares if it thinks it's in focus or not, whether it is in AC-S or AF-C. It took a while to get used to using the camera like this, but it's made a huge difference to my enjoyment using it.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-09-2009, 10:01 AM
|
| |
I haven't looked into this for several years, but I seem to remember that you couldn't use ICE for black and white negatives. Is this still the case?
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-09-2009, 08:29 AM
|
| |
Just a note, but Samsung provides a branded version of Silkypix for free (they call it Samsung Raw Converter 2.0). I don't know whether it only works with Samsung cameras, or if it is less up-to-date than the current version of SP available. You can download it from here:
Samsung Digital Camera
From Samsung:
"This application can be downloaded from the "Download Center", this is found by clicking the "Support & Download" link at the top of the homepage. Any of the applications can be found under the "Utility" link.
The applications are not compatible with Windows Vista 64 bit versions."
They ask you for the serial number of your camera, but I heard that it doesn't make any difference what you type in there.
I'd be interested to hear if Pentax users can use this as well.
*Edit*
I just had a look on the Samsung website and they have updated their version to 2.1. No idea what changes the update includes, but it looks like they keep it current.
I've been using this for a while, and I quite like it (for my GX20). I'm having a play with the LR3 beta release now, and I'm not sure which I prefer. Silkypix has a very nice-to-use cropping tool, and I also really like the tool to rotate images by drawing a line along something which is supposed to be vertical/horizontal - very easy!
|
|
Forum: General Talk
10-27-2009, 07:28 AM
|
| |
Thanks for all the comments. I wrote the paper a (friendly) email, asking why they hadn't included my name and whether they could give a retrospective credit. They said (among other things) that the choreographer wasn't explicit, so you hit it on the head Talisker. Lesson learned!
|
|
Forum: General Talk
10-26-2009, 06:05 AM
|
| |
Mike - That's exactly what I was thinking, so it's nice to hear somebody else saying the same thing. Thank you.
Creampuff - thank you for the links - I'll check them out this evening.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
10-26-2009, 02:53 AM
|
| |
I need some advice. I found out on Friday that the local newspaper here published a photograph of mine a couple of weeks ago, without acknowledging my copyright. The photograph was used to illustrate a review of a dance show which I had shot for the choreographer/lead performer, and it was she who had forwarded the photograph to the newspaper. In the email, she very clearly specified that I was the photographer, so it seems clear to me that the newspaper is at fault, but I’m not sure what I should do about it - if anything? This was my first photo to get in print, so I was rather miffed to find out my name wasn't on it!
Any thoughts or suggestions would be very welcome.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
10-08-2009, 10:25 AM
|
| |
Thanks for the comment. I've tried it, and you're right. More important than the saturation though was WB - the sun was very orange, and I hadn't really taken that into account. I tried cropping a bit more off the right hand side, and it does help - I should really have taken a step or two to the left though to get a more uniform surface on the hedge. Oh well. It's all learning!
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
10-04-2009, 03:17 PM
|
| |
I love this one - very nicely balanced composition. I'd love to see it bigger!
|
|
Forum: Pentax Camera and Field Accessories
10-04-2009, 09:57 AM
|
| |
I know, I know, but I like making things - plus I wanted one for the next day. One day I'll learn to plan properly...
|
|
Forum: Pentax Camera and Field Accessories
10-01-2009, 12:01 PM
|
| |
Argh!! I just finished putting one together, only to find that the jack I bought seems to be a tiny bit short. Effectively, the focus button is now the shutter release, meaning there is no focus/bulb at the moment. This is the second time I've had this sort of problem with jacks from Maplins...
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
09-27-2009, 11:43 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-10-2009, 03:15 PM
|
| |
K
Primes - 50
Zooms - 3
M
Primes - 58
Zooms - 1
A
Primes - 38
Zooms - 13
F
Primes - 12
Zooms - 10
FA
Primes - 37
Zooms - 3
FA J
Zooms - 1
D FA
Primes - 2
DA
Primes - 28
Zooms - 63
Takumar (K)
Primes - 2
Zooms - 0
Takumar (M42)
Primes - 101
Zooms - 1
645
Primes - 0
Zooms - 0
6x7 (Takumar or Pentax)
Primes - 4
Zooms - 0
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-04-2009, 02:43 AM
|
| |
Some absolutely beautiful photos on here! As my first entry on this thread, and to continue the run of 50 1.4 shots, here's my quick 'n dirty bathroom-mirror(s) self portrait. Some unkind person said it made me look like a serial killer, but I think that might be a shortcoming of all members of the genre (are there enough bathroom mirror portraits to warrant a genre?)
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-26-2009, 08:55 AM
|
| |
I tried my hand at photographing a gig for the first time this week, and my very tired and tatty 85 1.9 Super Takumar was what I ended up using most.
 |
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
05-27-2009, 08:49 AM
|
| |
Thank you for all the suggestions. I shall have a look at lightzone - it seems pretty reasonable. I'll have a play with UFRaw too.
I have looked for an option in Picasa to get it to use the camera's WB setting, but haven't been able to find one. As for RT, there is an option to use the camera's settings, but it doesn't seem to make any difference - perhaps it can't find that info in the files the GX20 creates?
The comments about F-Spot showing the camera-generated jpeg preview make sense, but the files seem to be very large (take a while to display properly and are able to zoom in to the same size when looking 1:1).
Thank you all again.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
05-26-2009, 09:38 AM
|
| |
To anybody who can help:
I am just starting to use RAW instead of JPEG, but I am having an almighty hard time getting the results I am looking for.
My camera is a Samsung GX20.
I am using (or failing to use) the following software on Linux.
Raw Therapee
Picasa
F-Spot view
When I shoot in RAW, I still usually specify a white balance. I know it's not absolutely necessary, but I find it helps when looking back at the shots on the camera. When I look at the files on my computer, via F-Spot view, the computer seems to take the in-camera white balance settings, and the photographs look the same as they do on the camera's screen. However, if I use Picasa, it automatically re-sets the white balance and makes the colours appear more muted. Even if I try to alter the colour balance manually, I am unable to get back to the starting point. If I use Raw Therapee, I have a similar problem, although the muting effect is less pronounced - even if I specifically ask it to use the camera's WB settings. I am still working through my ignorance in Raw Therapee, and I am sure that I will eventually be able to get the colours as I want them, but why is it so complicated? If F-Spot view doesn't seem to have any conversion capabilities, and seems to be just for looking at what you've got.
Is there any other software which people can suggest (either for Linux or Windows)? I have been using open source software so far, but I might be willing to spend some money to make life easier, although there's no way I can afford Lightroom!
Many thanks for any help.
Philip
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-25-2009, 03:54 PM
|
| |
Hi Vincent,
Thanks for the suggestion, but as Wheatfield, I am unable to get in to the SR menu when I'm using a lens which transmits focal length information. In any case, I'm not sure it'd be workable as the effective focal length changes depending on how close the object in focus is - you'd never know exactly what the focal length was at any given moment, especially since distance scales are so much less detailed now than on older manual lenses.
Thanks Quicksand - I replied to your post on the other thread (the perils of having two similar threads on the go at once!)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-25-2009, 03:44 PM
|
| |
Hi Quicksand,
I had a look further down the EXIF table as you suggested, and I thought you had it. But then it got more confusing...
For the first two pictures, the SR for the Schneider is 204 while the Tamron gives 188. So far so good, but when I looked at the second two, I got 52 for the Pentax 50mm and 84 for the Tamron @ 65mm. Very odd.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-25-2009, 07:06 AM
|
| |
This was a sub-question on a thread I started in the lens forum, but it seems better suited to the DSLR section.
Whilst playing with a new (second-hand) Tamron 28-200, I thought I found that the 200 wasn't in fact 200mm. Turns out this is a well-known issue with internal-focus lenses which only reach their stated focal length when focusing on infinity.
My question relates to using shake reduction with such lenses. If the lens tells the camera that it's at 200mm, when in fact it behaves as a 180mm lens (or whatever), does that mean that the camera will make the *wrong* compensations for movement, or can the body make the necessary adjustments? I've had a look through some threads talking about internal-focus lenses, but haven't managed to find any mention of this.
Many thanks for any thoughts,
Philip
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-24-2009, 04:14 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the link m8o. If I twist my mind enough it sort of makes sense if I think about the mechanics of the lens, and I can actually see the size of objects in the viewfinder change as I sweep from close focus to infinite.
Going back to my other point, does anybody know about the impact of varying effective focal length on image stabilization? Should you only use it with lenses which aren't internal focussing? I noticed that the pictures using the Tamron were significantly more blurred than the ones with the Schneider, even though it was effectively at a shorter focal distance. Could this be because the body was making the wrong corrections? (Unfortunately, the pictures above are much smaller than I was expecting, so you can't tell. I thought I'd linked to larger images from picasa, but that's another thing I'm only really starting with...)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-24-2009, 01:47 PM
|
| |
Thank you Quicksand. I'd never heard of this before - I'm only just starting with zooms really, and I (naively?) just expected to be able to trust the scale.
|
