|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-08-2011, 12:24 PM
|
| |
Great shots, Nesster. But I have to disagree - there's no such thing as a lens that's too sharp. :D
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-05-2011, 09:22 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-27-2011, 06:25 PM
|
| |
I've got one of those. Does that mean I can join the Pixie Dust Lens Club, or do I have to get "jumped in" or something? :D
Peony Sunset by jstevewhite, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-17-2011, 05:31 PM
|
| |
That's the built-in flash; it works very well for close-up if you can just get the light to the subject. I used my fiber-optic rig with it for a while and it worked well. I may revisit that solution at some point. I've also considered making a foil-lined tube that would attach to it and pipe the flash to a diffuser just above the lens. I'll report back if anything comes of that.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-22-2011, 02:38 PM
|
| |
Here's a mildy tone-mapped image from RR Canyon with the Sigma 10-20 at 10. I didn't do the detail enhancement or glow stuff; if it were just a little less saturated, it would look very much like the scene did to the naked eye. The blue is the part that's hotter than it was - the red/gold color was that intense, and the greens were poppin; things weren't quite so blue, though.
Red Rock Canyon HDR by jstevewhite, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
04-29-2011, 10:18 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-16-2011, 10:25 PM
|
| |
I would be MUCH happier with the Tamron 28-75 if autofocus worked properly on my K-5. I can set my AF fine adjust for a single focal length, and it's dead on there, but off at any other setting. Meh.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-11-2011, 11:05 PM
|
| |
I can't imagine what you'd have to do to get the K-5's sensor to 'band'; I've pushed shadows 5 stops without seeing any banding - that's a new one on me.The K-5 will lock up/crash/etc (including shutter firing on its own) when batteries get low - even if it doesn't *look* low. I've experienced this three times now, where pulling/replacing the battery didn't fix it, but puttin in a new, fully charged one did. The manual even says that lockups can be a problem with low batteries.
I've experienced focus issues with certain lenses; non-Pentax zooms that go from wide to tele. All my other lenses focus fine.
Just get off the dime and buy one. Even if I had to return mine under warranty, it would be worth it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Compact Cameras
06-28-2011, 06:57 PM
|
| |
ONLY for DOF purposes. It's still going to have the FOV of a 105mm, and your exposure is going to be f2.4, but with the DOF of a 105mm FF at f3.4.
Again, if you use a meter this way, you'll overexpose. Massively. Equivalence is bull anyway - it's an analogy, not a 'fact'. It's like me saying all of your FA LTD are slow glass because my 200mm f5.6 Rodenstock for 4x5" makes the FA43 a 172mm f7.6., or my 12 inch f8 Dagor makes it a 400mm f16. It's a nonsensical statement. "FAST" is about how much light it lets in; it so happens that in larger formats, fast glass also means near-zero DOF, but this factor increases beyond APS-c or 35mm too; it's *silly* to use it that way.
 Quote: Smaller sensors do not have a high ISO disadvantage. APS-C does not lose a stop of high ISO performance against FF. FF sensors have a larger area to collect light, but the need to spread the light out to this larger area reduces its intensity per sq. mm, cancelling out the larger area advantage. Please see the " Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero" thread. No, "smaller sensors" don't, but smaller pixels *do*, and since putting the same number of pixels on a smaller sensor means smaller pixels, in this case, it does. I didn't read that thread - I don't need to. I've read the physics. With the same technology, larger pixels have higher DR, and lower noise than smaller pixels, period. I'm well aware that much of the magic of the D700 comes from clever noise reduction, but that doesn't negate the PHYSICS. That thread might debate the real-world relevance of the differences, but the *fact* is that, all other things being equal, smaller pixels mean less signal-to-noise ratio. Now different sensor technologies may have different sensitivities to start (iso 50/100/200), but in the same technology, it remains true that smaller pixels mean less signal-to-noise.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-27-2011, 11:30 PM
|
| |
If you look at that auction, it's got FOUR DAYS LEFT, and already two bids. It's going to close at a thousand dollars or more. If you search ebay for "Canon 5d body" and check the "completed listings" box, you'll see that they actually sell for ~$1200. I'm looking at a list where a couple closed at less than a thousand, with the lowest price one sold for recently being $933 (except a parts-only that closed for $499); the MkII are in the $2100 range.
Ebay is an auction site; if it doesn't say "buy it now", you probably won't get it for the price you find there. You bid, other folks bid, the price goes up, until time runs out. Just so you know why that price doesn't mean anything, and no, we aren't looking at MkIIs. :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
06-26-2011, 11:18 PM
|
| |
Just bought a new FA50 f1.4 to replace the one I sold a month ago. I missed it too much:
Floral by jstevewhite, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-20-2011, 03:10 PM
|
| |
That's a very nice shot, indeed.
My only argument has been that there's no valid rationale for calling people that oppose PPing "purists", as there is no purity to be had in the sense expressed, only naiveté. The very framing of the concept as "purity" is faulty, and suggests the corollary to your expectation - that is, "If you PP, you SUCK" :D
I know my camera very well; I also learn more about it every day. I know that the vast majority of images I shoot with the K-5 require three essential changes for me to be happy with them; I know that every macro image I shoot will get certain PP. It's a part of the SYSTEM, front-to-back. When I shoot a butterfly in open shade, it's going to get a punch in exposure, a touch of recovery, a bit of black-level push; then it's going to photoshop where it gets the two-phase unsharp mask treatment. Then back to Lightroom, from where i export to jpg and print. You might ask why I don't increase the exposure some in the field - that's because I lose highlights when I do that. You might ask why I don't lower the exposure in the field to blacken the shadows - but then I lose mid-range tonal length.
I've heard people say things like "If you know what you're doing when you shoot them, you don't need to sharpen your images"; those people are possessed of a lack of understanding of the operation of Bayer sensors and AA filters.
I've merely pointed out that the process that gets you the images you want *is* the right process. Any *other* process is a waste of time. But no such process holds a privileged position of "authenticity" or "purity" or "righteousness" - although, as has been pointed out, moving the Pyramids might certainly be construed as deceptive practice!
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-17-2011, 12:16 PM
|
| |
That's all great, but you should take that last paragraph and replace "you" with "I". Like this:
"To me, that is what I look for, the near perfect photo - these are the ones that give me that sense of accomplishment, the ones that make me feel great about what I went through to capture that photo, the ones that make it worth all the time, effort and money I have put into photography."
Others may get that feeling from the final result, rather than the process they used to get there. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that your artistic vision is best served by these limitations, but to suggest that there is some universal measure of "right" - particularly in art - is unsupportable.
I happen to like images with a little more contrast than the K-5 delivers natively. Does adjusting contrast invalidate the artistic process of taking a picture? Is it somehow less pure? I like to crop to 8x10 aspect ratio. Does this contaminate the image somehow? I like to pull the black slider up ever so slightly because I like the punch and dislike gray shadows with no detail. Does this somehow contaminate the image in a way that makes it less ... artistic? Attractive? Valuable? What?
What constitutes the "Perfect Photo"? Do you reject Adam's work (the Zone system) because he dodged and burnt and adjusted contrast with exposure and development? Do you believe a photographer's sole participation in art is the selection of a moment in time, a direction of view, and an angle of view?
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-17-2011, 01:27 PM
|
| |
Here, IMO, you've nailed the heart and soul of the whole debate. A photo is necessarily surreality; you cannot see the way a camera does, because you don't see with your eyes, you see with your mind. When we hold it in our hand, we see a photograph, not a window. This, IMO, is what makes it art; a literal transliteration of objective reality to another format is copywork, not creation; it's the *distortion* and *surreality* that make it art.
If it gets your creative juices flowing to imagine an unbroken 'chain of artistic custody' between the shutter press and the print, then so be it; My only objection is when someone claims it to be more pure.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-16-2011, 08:24 PM
|
| |
I just sold a copy of that lens. It's a sweet one - I forgot how sweet until I shot some images to make sure I was selling a fully functional lens:
Butterfly by jstevewhite, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-27-2011, 08:01 AM
|
| |
Nice color and selective focus!
Here's an image from my K20D that I had accidentally left on ISO2500 that prints out beautifully at 8x10:
Katy Did It by jstevewhite, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-02-2011, 10:13 AM
|
| |
On eek-bay I frequently see the M100 f4 lenses for $100-$200, and they're (IMO) excellent; exceptional lenses, in fact. For some reason I've never managed to get the same DOF from the D-Xenon, even though it's stopped down to the same aperture. Some of my favorite macros came out of mine:
My favorite (bug) macro of all I've shot:
Fly by jstevewhite, on Flickr
And another:
Beetle by jstevewhite, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-30-2011, 10:23 PM
|
| |
I picked the same ones, Ash. :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-26-2011, 08:19 AM
|
| |
It's a piece of cake in Lightroom (I just check a box labelled "sRGB"); I didn't remember how to change it in photoshop (as I edit images from Lightroom into photoshop, then return them to LR for jpg export), so I looked it up. Here's a page with the information you need:
Preparing Images for the Web: Color Profiles, sRGB and Adobe RGB
It's for CS4, but it should work for you, too. Edit->Change Profile or so.
Give it a shot and lemme know if it works for you!
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-25-2011, 12:40 PM
|
| |
EXACTLY! If you pick up an instrument that you LIKE, that FITS you, you play better; but it's about the relationship between you and the instrument, not some objective, ethereal, intangible characteristic of the instrument. Other people may even think they hear something special about *that* instrument *because* you play better when you're enjoying it. But that doesn't mean, at all, that the final product - the recording, say - is discernible in any way from a similar guitar of similar quality that doesn't fit you as well, nor that anyone else's playing might sound better on that instrument.
That's *exactly* what I'm saying about pixie dust... :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-20-2011, 09:50 AM
|
| |
I think the limited line is a testament to this fact. An enthusiast's camera company. Frankly, you could make "pro quality" images with any current DSLR and a decent lens or two.
"Professional" is a dodgy concept though. I can introduce you to professionals who make good money that will tell you that you can't possibly be a pro if you're not using FF. I can introduce you to one that will tell you you're just playing if you aren't using MEDIUM FORMAT (that was actually quite common back in the film days). Then I can introduce you to two who use APS-c machines and make better images than the MF guy - and make more money with their "cheap" cameras.
I can introduce you to a guy who runs a wedding photography business. He's a businessman, first and foremost. His crews (he has three of 'em, three people per) use Canon 5DmkII exclusively, video and stills; they have five bodies onsite and an anvil case, and they operate like a well-oiled machine. The product they generate is stunning visually, but it *is* a product; they do about three different 'looks', over and over and over. He's the wealthiest "professional photographer" I know.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-18-2011, 11:26 PM
|
| |
DOF test... stitched from six or eight images, ~50mpixels after merge and crop. About nine minutes of PP (stitching and adjusting) in this image. With practice I could get that down to three or four minutes, I'm pretty sure... It's dull but sharp, sharp, sharp - a result of clouds and poor PP adjustment due to lack of practice. I'm pretty sure if I give it a little zing, I could print a 24x24 @ 300 DPI.
Daughter looking hard at me for making her guinea pig for me. :D
This isn't a "rebuttal", so much as a "more than one way to skin a cat".
Obviously, if you're looking for that razor thin DOF with action, you're going to have to go with FF, at least until someone breaks down and makes a 75mm f1.0 for our APS-c machines. :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-17-2011, 06:34 AM
|
| |
The workflow in Photoshop takes too much time; I've started using AutoPano Giga. There's a trial - check it out!
Generally, I import the images in Lightroom. I select the set I want, and export them to 16 bit TIFFs (so as not to lose the RAW dynamic range!), then open the folder in APG; click "detect", and somewhere between a few seconds (~5 images) and a minute (~42 images) a window opens that has them all aligned and masked. You can zoom in, noodle alignment, all kinds of stuff (most of which I don't have to do, and you won't either, if you're careful shooting). Then you click on the gear button and export to 16 bit TIFF.
Then I import THAT image into Photoshop or Lightroom and do post processing.
I did a landscape pano recently as a test with three-shot bracket; I am trying to discover the workflow for HDR->Pano (or Pano->HDR)... Not crazy tone mapping; just to bring out the sky better.
Shooting the stitching set... use manual focus and manual exposure and manual ISO. Make sure there's good overlap. I've ruined whole stitches before by missing a picture in the middle :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-17-2011, 01:59 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
05-16-2011, 01:17 PM
|
| |
I've been in a lot of threads where the discussion turned to the DR and High-ISO performance of the K-5 came up. I knew from working with the RAW images in Lightroom that the K-5 was something special, but I haven't really quantified it. Well, today I was shooting pictures of some pale pink flowers in a pool of sunlight against the dark red bricks of my house, and the shadows fell out black by the time I dropped the exposure enough to retain highlight detail in the flowers. I threw 'em in Lightroom and slid the "fill light" slider a bit, and brought up the detail I wanted. I tend to like darker images, mostly, but still, I knew that with the K20D, I wouldn't be able to make that much adjustment and retain image quality that I found acceptable. Since I still have both cameras, I decided to test.
Before I could get back, the sun had moved, so I picked another (less interesting, but less mercurial, as well, since it's breezy) subject and performed a test. I set the FA 50mm f4 at f5.6 and the camera at ISO 100 and backed down the exposure until I retained highlight detail in the off-white park benches we have in our back yard. I then threw both camera's output into Lightroom and adjusted the fill light slider to matching levels of illumination. This is what I got.
The original images, as shot: (yes, I noticed the unfortunate removal of the space in the name :D )
 Click for large view - Uploaded with Skitch
Now, side by side with fill light:
 Click for large view - Uploaded with Skitch
Now zoomed in to show detail:
 Click for large view - Uploaded with Skitch
I've found this ability extremely valuable, particularly in wildlife images. With the K20D, I had trouble recovering images where the animal or bird was partly in strong sunlight and partly in shadow; the K-5 allows me to ... not just *recover* those images, but make them *strong* images.
Anyone else have real-world situations where high-iso and high DR makes your photography better, or lets you get better images than before? I'm not asking everyone to do this experiment; just drop images here that wouldn't have been as strong without the high-iso or high DR of the K-5.
|
