|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-21-2016, 03:16 PM
|
| |
Where did Aldred go wrong? He didn't offer a "review" of the camera, he just evaluated image samples which came straight from Ricoh. Toward that end, what should he have used to inform himself?
---------- Post added 03-21-16 at 07:11 PM ----------
Uh, for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that you're absolutely right: I'm going to accept that Ricoh doesn't have a camera body with final firmware available for their own use before the camera is released for sale to the public. Mind you, that seems strange to me, but I'm going to accept it.
The weaknesses of the sample photos aren't attributable to anything that can be effected by firmware. And, as shocking as it might be to some, "Pixel Shift" technology means next-to-nothing for me. If I decide to buy a K-1, that feature will be used rarely, if ever. I'm not going to evaluate a camera's image quality based on performance in a special operational mode.
I'll leave these accusations unaddressed as they don't apply to me. But those individuals who insists on bringing great shame upon themselves, their families, and their respective nations would seem to have a point: if you are right, and I will accept that you are, and Ricoh's sample images aren't representative of the K1's full capabilities then what purpose do the sample images serve?! Why post them at all?! Why not wait until the camera's firmware is finalized and provide samples which are representative of actual product performance? Exactly what is gained by posting samples that can only be appreciated by people who have to have all of this background knowledge about Pentax's historically poor marketing, about Ricoh's tendencies regarding final firmware, about the existence of this website, about your personal admonitions to critics on this site, all by way of understanding that the samples shouldn't be used as one would normally, logically use samples. A person can be forgiven for thinking that one is entitled to look at image samples from a camera, notice that they suck, and make a statement to that effect in a public forum without bringing shame to one's ancestors.
Again, this is obviously something addressed to people other than me, but this thread is about a blog posting which references official Ricoh K-1 samples. So I don't know what are "these websites" to which you refer.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-21-2016, 11:16 AM
|
| |
I came here several weeks ago to see if anyone was commenting about the quality of the K-1 samples which have been mentioned in this thread, but the only photos being discussed were photos of the camera, not photos taken with the camera.
The K-1's image quality will be just fine, but I know that in spite of Ricoh's official samples, not because of them. The whole point of providing samples is to demonstrate the best of what the camera is capable. If the samples are unimpressive, why is someone like this Aldred person supposed to bend over backwards offering mitigation for the results? Ricoh provides samples; people use those samples for their intended purpose and find themselves unimpressed; some of the good folks at Pentaxforums.com call those people idiots for not accounting for all the many the reasons why Ricoh's official samples shouldn't be taken as examples of the camera's capabilities. If the K-1 sample images aren't meant to be indicators of the camera's capabilities, then what purpose are they supposed to serve?
As you suggested I looked at Sigma's sample photo.
I expect to regret asking, but could you describe what about that photo indicates to you that it was shot by a "good photographer"? If I didn't know the source, my guess would be that it was shot by a novice shooter who had been using a kit lens for several months and had just bought his/her first wide-aperture prime.
And I'd say that the photographer(s) who shot the official K-1 samples bear(s) the least responsibility for those photos being used to promote what is arguably the most important Pentax-branded product of the digital era.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-28-2016, 10:45 PM
|
| |
Thought I'd stop by to read the community's reaction to the Full-Frame samples. Found what would seem to be the right thread, and got about 200 posts in before I gave up on finding any discussion of the photos.
Seriously, what the hell was I thinking?
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
12-08-2015, 04:56 PM
|
| |
Despite what others have offered by way of critique, your photo is not underexposed. All one would need to do to eliminate underexposure as the problem would be to look at the photo's histogram which is, from a purely technical standpoint, perfect. (Whether "perfect" exposure makes a compelling artistic choice is another matter, and one which is completely subjective.) The tonal dullness that some would mistake for underexposure in due to the shot being taken with an overly cool white balance. The remedy for that should not be to try to "warm" the shot by introducing red/orange/yellow tones because the result will be a shot that looks as if someone applied red/orange/yellow tones. The remedy for overly-cool white balance is to correct the white balance.
I Imported your shot into Lightroom and used the white balance eyedropper tool, appropriately enough, on the girl's right eye to hunt for a tone which approximates 18% grey. That one change brings out the natural skin tones which can't be seen in the original's cool rendering.
Your scene provided soft, directional light. I Changed the tone curve slightly to lift the highlights so as to better display the subtle falloff of light in the right of the frame. The key words are "soft" and "subtle". Some people have no eye for subtly, and only think something has merit if it's done with face-slapping obviousness.
Due to the white balance setting in the photo, the girl's rosacea shows up in a violet hue. The way portrait photographers deal with skin conditions is to avoid shooting subjects in such a way that will exaggerate their appearance (such as using hard side-lighting on a subject with acne). But ultimately, the way one deals with a portrait subject's skin condition is with retouching. For this low-res, scaled-down photo, 90 seconds with the Heal tool in Lightroom at 50% opacity eliminates the bumpiness and leaves a rosy hue in the cheeks.
I see nothing wrong with the background, but I suspect that complaints about a "busy" background are actually complaints about the lens' rendering of the out-of-focus foliage, which I happen not to love. Having stated that, there's just too much of that background in the frame: you've put your subject's eyeline about mid frame for some reason. Useful portrait compositional guideline for head-and-shoulder portraiture is for eyes to be around the top third horizontal.
The way this message board system magnifies attached photos always makes them look soft; I'd download any revisions posted here and view them at their native sizes. And it's important to note that my monitor is calibrated at least twice a month with settings of 2.2 Gamma, 6500K White Point, 120 Luminance.
Hope that helps.
-XM
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-25-2015, 11:17 PM
|
| |
I'm not getting the anger being expressed by some people here.
Northrup didn't try to represent full-frame as a superior format to APS-C. He made the video to address the the widely-held belief that there is some advantage to using Full-Frame lenses on cropped-sensor camera bodies. He is completely transparent as to the way he arrives to the conclusion that no such advantage exists.
Furthermore, he specifically states that he himself owns at least one cropped-sensor body, and spent some time heaping praise on an ASP-C formatted lens. And those familiar with Northrup will know that he even shoots with Micro Four-Thirds cameras.
If someone wants to dispute his claims (they would mostly be arguing with DXO's data), that's fine. But people should ask themselves what's making them want to erect a strawman about Northrup's "apparent" belief in the superiority of 36x24mm format. He never stated anything close to that. If anything, his position is one that would serve to *discourage* buying full-frame gear.
It just looks like some people don't like the news and are groping for a justification to kill the messenger. |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
11-08-2014, 02:17 AM
|
| |
*Sigh*
So, should I be accusing people on this site who spread misinformation about Sony gear (such as the false assertion that the a99 is the only FF Sony body with image-stabilization, and the one that Sony just "puts a Zeiss badge" on certain lenses of their own design), or who state as fact that Sony has abandoned A-Mount (despite the release of the a77 MkII as recently as this summer), or who talk about SLT as if it's completely ruinous to image quality, of being paid by Ricoh to write these things (perhaps to discourage the flight of Pentax users to a competing system)? Because it seems that its just fine to discuss Sony here on Pentaxfourm.com just so long as the comments are intended to trash or otherwise misrepresent the capabilities of Sony gear.
How do you define "low light use"? Would you kindly express that in terms of an ISO value that you'd like to be able to use?
Practically speaking, I find that SLT puts noise and detail retention on par with Sony's ASP-C sensors up to and including ISO 6400, after which there is a dramatic falloff in image quality. That's my experience with the a99, (which, as you know, has a similar 24MP sensor to the a7) and that perception is supported by DXO Mark signal-to-noise performance data:
Pentax K-3 versus Sony SLT Alpha 99 versus Pentax K-5 IIs - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark.
Having stated that, I don't have much of any experience shooting at ISO values over ISO 6400; I've done it on occasion simply to see the results. There simply isn't a camera made that gets results at ISO above 6400 that I would consider useful. I'm always curious as to what people intend to shoot, handheld, at high ISO, and what they consider satisfactory image quality under those conditions: people seem not to mind flat tonality, weird color from blended interior light sources, motion blur, chromatic noise, and they'll use photos with these characteristics as examples of good low-light image quality. So I often find myself wondering if these same people would really notice a little more noise or few less tones.
And the great concern over high ISO performance is more odd in light of an apparent lack of concern over low ISO image quality. I was recently rather alarmed by the amount of luminance noise found in some portraits posted on DPR taken with a K-3 and the 77mm Limited at ISO levels under 400. Granted, it was what I consider "good noise," being that there was lots of detail retention and no "mushiness," and little-to-no chromatic noise (it seemed to be about the same noise level and quality of my K-5 at ISO 800, maybe even 1250) but that much noise at a mere ISO 320 doesn't seem to bode well for the preservation of subtle tonal and color transitions at ISO 400-800 which is definitely territory where I often have to go while shooting.
And, by the way, exactly how were you focusing during that low-light shooting that you did with Pentax cameras? The whole point of the SLT that you find so "horrible" is to allow for things like focus-peaking in the EVF which allows the user to check sharpness and to focus manually. Meanwhile there are people on this site complaining about how difficult it is to get sharp shots at f/1.4, or to use manual lenses because ASP-C viewfinders are useless for nailing focus at wide apertures and/or in low-light.
I wouldn't buy the a7 or it's variants with the intention of shooting with A-Mount lenses--exception made for shooting video. (I see no reason not to shoot A-Mount lenses on A-Mount camera bodies which I find perfectly cromulent.) But if I wanted to, by all reports the LA-EA4 adapter works very well on the a7/r/s, and I would take advantage of some of the better lenses. These are shot with an inferior SLT camera and one of three lenses: Zeiss ZA Planar T* 85mm f/1.4, Zeiss ZA Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8, Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/1991-xmachina/albums/8943-misc/picture81308.jpg
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/1991-xmachina/albums/8943-misc/picture81302.jpg
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/1991-xmachina/albums/8943-misc/picture81307.jpg
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/1991-xmachina/albums/8943-misc/picture81306.jpg
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/1991-xmachina/albums/8943-misc/picture81305.jpg
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/1991-xmachina/albums/8943-misc/picture81304.jpg
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/1991-xmachina/albums/8943-misc/picture81303.jpg
And I don't know that you want to send people to YouTube as a means of down-talking the a7. Seems like almost every day one of the sites I visit posts a link to a YouTube video with some professional shooter giving a testimonial about selling CaNikon gear and going all in with the a7/R. You're the only person I've seen with his head down, kicking a tin can down the road, and saying "Aw Shucks!" because he owns an a7. Cheer the hell up! Is it really such a knock against your Sony camera that it doesn't autofocus another system's glass fast enough. Just wondering, how fast does the EF 85mm f/1.2 L autofocus on a Pentax body?
-XM
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
11-02-2014, 07:39 PM
|
| |
Sorry, but no. "SLT" specifically refers to:
"...a Sony proprietary designation for Sony Alpha cameras which employ a pellicle mirror, electronic viewfinder, and phase-detection autofocus system. They employ the same Minolta A-mount as Sony Alpha DSLR cameras."
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_SLT_camera |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
11-02-2014, 06:34 PM
|
| |
Sorry, but no. Years before SLT technology had even been invented, Sony had released the a900 and a850, both of which are image stabilized.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-03-2014, 11:15 PM
|
| |
Who takes the greater risk: the one who puts all the money on one horse, or the one who spreads the money around? I'm well aware of the FUD about Sony's A-Mount, and I find it a peculiar spin to put on a company supporting current technology while it pushes the market forward with innovations. I find nothing mysterious or incomprehensible about Sony's strategy: it seems to me that they perceive this to be a transitional stage in the photographic imaging industry and they want to have matured product lines to cover multiple eventualities; they have product to cover everything from cellphone cameras to a rumored medium-format fixed-lens RX-series model. Pretty straightforward to me: cover all bases; and it inspires no less confidence in this photographer than the paint-ourselves-into-a-corner strategy that Pentax seems to have been committed to for years.
According to the gear list in your signature, you're still shooting with a K-5, and there's no reason why you shouldn't: it's a great camera and nothing I own today comes close to being as much of a pleasure to use as was my K-5. It serves as proof, as if any was needed, that people can keep using a camera body for years. Sony has yet to even develop a Full-Frame sensor that will outresolve my Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4 or Sonnar 135mm f/1.8; If Sony abandoned Alpha-Mount tomorrow, I'd still be using the a900 and a99 with the aforementioned lenses, as well as the 70-200mm f/2.8 G (which isn't stellar but still better than the equivalent K-Mount Sigma I once used), and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART for years to come. And even that "risk factor" is mitigated by the rumors of an A-Mount/E-Mount hybrid body that one hears every now and again.
Had I been too "worried" about the future of A-Mount to buy into the Sony system, I'd have missed two years of shooting with the system that suits my needs. And I'd still be jumping with anticipation at every rumor that Pentax was finally going to release a full-frame body.
I don't get paid to be a market analyst, and market analysis just not something I care to do for recreation. After a while, I was no longer appeased by armchair analysis meant to explain why Pentax can't/won't/mustn't make the products I need, or the ones I want. I stopped wishing that Pentax would make the advanced compact/mirrorless ILC body/full-frame camera I wanted and started choosing among what already existed. So, I found my full-frame needs satisfied elsewhere, and had my desire for compact, lightweight ASP-C format cameras satisfied by Fuji (in the form of the X-E1) and the Ricoh GR. I decided to place the priority on getting what will suit my needs today instead of sitting back and speculating on its eventual obsolescence.
And besides, are you really going to characterize investment in the Sony system as risky when you are [perhaps exclusively] invested in a system made by a company whose parent ownership has changed twice in 5 years and which now exists only as a brand? Pick your cliche: glass houses and stones; pots and kettles...
-XM
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-03-2014, 01:53 PM
|
| |
Is there something about Sony's Full-Frame offering (which is rumored to be refreshed very soon) that doesn't provide a sufficiently "clean" upgrade path for their ASP-C A-Mount users?
-XM
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
11-20-2012, 03:03 AM
|
| |
"There are many reasons to get fast lenses, but DoF should NOT be among them."
Declarative statement concerning what should motivate other people's choices.
"FF has its pros and cons, as does APS-C. DoF is the least important thing."
Declarative statement as to what other people's priorities should be.
"Portraits are more than just the eyes! It is not romantic, it is not sexy, it is not "deep" to take photos with overly-sharp and saturated eyes, with everything else being blurred out."
Declarative statement as to what other people's aesthetic sensibilities should be.
What would you say about the personality of someone who, without any apparent reservation, makes authoritative statements to people in a highly-trafficked public forum about what should motivate them, what should be important to them, what they should like? Whatever you would say about such a person, after having read these and many more similarly imperious statements, I offered no comment whatsoever about the personality of their author. None. Whatsoever. I defy you to show otherwise.
When you wrote, "And notice also that the photo would be better if the DoF were wider, if more stuff would be in focus," you made a declarative, completely unqualified statement about what would be, as if this was an objective truth. "Notice that I'm holding a playing card." "Notice on your left is a stained-glass window." "Notice that sailboat in the harbor." One directs others to "notice" what one knows will be observed by whomever will look. So tell me, how is it a "critique of [your] personality" for me to write: "So it's obvious that you believe that there is an objectively definable method of aesthetically improving the photo; because YOU think it would be 'better,' naturally every one else must as well." You didn't write the equivalent of "Look there, is that a sailboat?" You didn't write: "I think this would be better..." You directed that your reader "notice" that which, ostensibly, could be objectively perceived.
I "researched" your photos?! I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, but it sounds way more involved than what I actually did, which was merely to click on the link in your signature and browse your 500pix gallery. Admittedly, there were moments while I was reading through this thread that I wondered whether you remembered that you had provided that link; your accusation as to my "research" only serves to support the notion that you didn't. Even if it were true that I "researched your photos," exactly why would that be inappropriate to know the qualifications of a self-appointed instructor and arbiter of aesthetics? I'm going to assume that real live people who shoot in the way you're deriding are reading this thread, and if their photographic technique is fair game for criticism, what makes you more worthy of respect than them?
"While I argued against the abstract fetishization of a thin DoF, you actually researched my photos and attacked my personal shooting preferences."
I "attacked [your] personal shooting preferences"?! Show me where I even mentioned your "personal shooting preferences" let alone "attacked" them. There is a part of my post where I list many examples of what is commonly considered bad photographic technique. I did so in the course of suggesting that these would make one vulnerable to the type of criticism you're directing at others. Are you telling me that you believe that my citation of issues such as "overexposure," "cluttered composition," "portraits with subject(s) set against fairly-sharply-rendered background distractions" are meant as specific references to your photos? That would be an interesting confession for you to make, and if that's the case then it's you who examined the shoe and decided it fit you. I'm certainly not the one who made any such assignation.
You logged in to a website, started a thread in a section dedicated to "photographic technique," and prosecuted a case against a style of photography that is popular enough to have motivated what you yourself call a "rant." So am I to believe that you didn't think that your lecture would reach the monitors of any of the real live people guilty of this allegedly offensive use of DOF? Or did you decide that you would lecture people on how misguided, and aesthetically unpleasing it is to [mis]use shallow DOF, knowing full well that it would be taken personally by anyone to whom it applied?
So when you write a whole lecture about bad photographic technique, it's to be regarded as purely academic. You demonstrate not the slightest concern that it might offend someone. But when other concepts of bad photographic technique are merely invoked into the discussion, and these concepts are ones that you find can be applied to you, then you complain that you're being "attacked." Shall I identify that bitter taste for you? That's the flavor of your own medicine.
Notice *ahem* what I've done here. I've just steered you into declaring the offensiveness of your own thread.
Mission complete.
-XM
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
11-19-2012, 12:32 PM
|
| |
Well, you'll be relieved to know that I am responding only after having read your original post, and after having seen the pictures linked within. Let me add that I also looked through your entire 500pix gallery; that action being consistent with my policy of discovering the ability of a photographer who publicly criticizes the way other people choose to shoot.
The photos to which you've linked in the original post are supposed to be examples of photos which would be "better" were the DOF less shallow. As they are your photos you would be the ultimate arbiter as to how they could be improved. However, in the post you wrote, the one which I read, you direct your reader to "notice also that the photo would be better if the DoF were wider, if more stuff would be in focus." So it's obvious that you believe that there is an objectively definable method of aesthetically improving the photo; because YOU think it would be "better," naturally every one else must as well. That's a good thing for a reader of your original post to know. It explains a lot.
But the photos that I, and perhaps others, are looking to see are the ones that would be, in your estimation, ruined by more shallow DOF. Neither you, or the people who've supported you, have supplied any such. And when people writes how they hate this fad of portraits taken with shallow DOF, I expect to be able to look at their photos and see loads of examples of [non-studio] portraits taken in the preferred fashion. If someone writes how much better it is to take portraits against interesting, rather than blurred backgrounds, I expect that if I were to look it that person's photos, that I'll see examples of that.
But, as has often been the case here on Pentaxforums.com there's lots of disdain for the technique used in types of photography that the criticizer doesn't do. It's like that time when a forum member expressed his bemusement over the desire to have better high-ISO performance stating that if better image quality could be achieved at low-ISO if only one gets up at the crack-of-dawn and shoots using a tripod. "Better autofocus?! It's perfect right now! It's the poor workman who blames his tools! POOR WORKMAN!" Look at his pictures: macro and landscape. "You posted that without retouching?! Outrageous!" Look at his pictures: macro and landscape [maybe wildlife too].
In contrast, several members have posted photos in this thread that are meant to illustrate how shallow DOF was vital to those compositions.
I've got to give you and your supporters credit. You've got guts. I could never have so publicly called out other people on their shooting style because I would worry that someone would look at MY pictures, see examples of cluttered compositions, overexposures, shots taken in harsh uneven light, wide-angle shots with no discernible subject in the frame, portraits so soft that focus seems to have been missed altogether, portraits taken with the flat and unflattering light of an on-camera flash, portraits with subject(s) set against fairly-sharply-rendered background distractions. I'd be afraid that someone would see all of this and start a thread about the biggest cliche in photography being bad technique, and how he/she wished people would just stop doing it. I'd worry that someone would call ME out at suggest that there's a lot about my own photography that I should improve before I make keystrokes in a rant about how other people shoot.
But that's just me. I've only been shooting for a little over 5 years, so I'm hoping that with experience I'll get gutsy like you. For now, I'm going to continue to shoot portraits in the field using as wide an aperture as I can without losing sharpness on my subjects' eyes. And if I ever do have your guts, and decide to complain about how macro/landscape/wildlife shooters are doing their thing, I'll for damn sure have loads of examples to show of how to do it the "right" way.
-XM
         |
|
Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive
08-29-2011, 09:56 PM
|
| |
A very irritating person once wrote something in a tread on this site (and no doubt landed himself on dozens [more] ignore lists):*
" Photographic evidence is often considered the ultimate test of veracity--except, apparently, where it concerns discussions of the capabilities of photographic equipment. Ironic, huh?"
It's still true. It's like having a group of race car drivers on a race track, each leaning against his/her car, arguing about which car is fastest. One of them pull out his first-place trophies as evidence that his car is fastest; another produces a spreadsheet with all his lap times; another whips out a graph of his car's torque curve. Each of them is able to show some "proof" to support their claim that he/she has the fastest car. The one thing that this group never does is to just get in their cars and race each other; in fact; that never occurs to them as a way to put the issue to rest.
In four years, I've almost never posted pictures on this site, so I couldn't blame someone else for not doing so. But because I don't post pictures here, and don't intend to [ever again], I've not felt that I've had the right to make claims about what the equipment I own can or can not do. It amazes me how often people on this site make claims over which people argue, but to which no one responds "show me a picture." I don't think that "show me" is supposed to be some sort of ultimate message-board trump card; It's just a reasonable, and obvious response to a claim regarding stuff that's used to take pictures.
But whatever. I don't want to give the impression that I care all that much. Just wanted to go on record.
I can only hope that my over-sharp, overly-contrasty photos won't keep anyone away from the 85mm, cause it's an excellent lens. And during autofocus it doesn't make noise like a little electric drill. Just sayin'.
-XM
*This is not meant to be some sort of emoticon.
 |
|
Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive
08-28-2011, 04:13 PM
|
| |
OK,OK, fine. I can't speak for anyone else, but I consider myself to have been schooled as to the superiority of the FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited, at least where it concerns portraiture.
Now, Sir (or Madame), would you be so kind as to provide at least one sample portrait that showcases the superlative optical qualities of the 77mm--preferably something which hasn't been too heavily post-processed. I checked the thread dedicated to the 77mm and didn't find you among its contributors. I'd be great if you could post something to that thread.
Thanks in advance.
-XM
|
|
Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive
08-26-2011, 02:52 PM
|
| |
The amount of contrast probably has more to do with my post-processing of the RAW file than with the properties of the lens itself. The sharpness, on the other hand, can only be blamed on the lens; you'd really hate to have seen those pictures after having to reduce (to zero) the default sharpening applied by Lightroom during import. Come to think of it, you might have loved to have seen that as if would surely confirm your notion that the 77mm is the superior lens for portraiture.
Maybe you're right. Is it your claim that the same portrait taken with the 77mm would not require retouching? That certainly seems to be your claim.
It's not as if I didn't consider the 77mm, or that I won't still get it, despite that it would be pretty much a redundancy in my lens collection.
By the way, I'm a strong advocate of the "show and prove" policy of photography-related message board participation. I know you're not one of those people who doesn't provide evidence in support of a claim you're making. I just know it. I'd consider it helpful to see a sample of a portrait taken with the 77mm (with the proper amount of contrast) for comparison purposes. Pop4 might consider it off-topic though.
-XM
|
|
Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive
08-26-2011, 12:17 PM
|
| |
No problems whatsoever in the light under which these were shot. It's slower when the light is dimmer.
-XM
|
|
Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive
08-26-2011, 11:14 AM
|
| |
Thanks, JP.
The photo of the cat was shot wide-open. The other two shots are at f/2.8.
-XM
|
|
Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive
08-26-2011, 10:23 AM
|
| |
I agree with you; I don't know how people leave the house with skin all not perfect like that. It's damned inconsiderate is what it is! I also agree with your implication that the 77mm resolves less detail: that, among other reasons, is why I didn't buy one.
Not retouching a photo is an excellent idea if said photo is being used as a sample which shows the optical characteristics of the lens used to take it. Providing samples, at least I believed, was the purpose of this thread. I would add that not retouching a photo is also a good idea if one isn't interested in creating the illusion that one's subject has "perfect" skin.
I mean, there are any number of photos of people--people with imperfect skin--which are posted here on PentaxForums that haven't been retouched. No, really! Don't take my word for it, just look. You might find at least one non-retouched photo of a person shot by someone else in this very thread--shot with a copy of the very same lens. There has to be some reason why your retouching admonition was reserved for me. I suppose it's possible that you're methodically working your way through the threads and I just happen to be next in line for a warning.
But thank you for offering an honest critique, although one of dubious merit given the context in which it was offered.
Wait a minute.
Actually, the more I think about it, you really didn't critique anything I did: basically, you just told me that my lens is too sharp, my subject has bad skin, I was remiss in not retouching a photo I submitted as a sample, the 77mm (which, of course, you own) is a better lens. I hereby withdraw my thanks, and wonder anew as to what your intentions were here.
But I'm sure you were just trying to be helpful and not making an irrelevant, cheap-shot criticism bracketed by the obligatory, passive-aggressive IMOs.
-XM
|
|
Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive
08-24-2011, 10:07 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Sold Items
08-24-2011, 09:08 PM
|
| |
It's still available, so you can make today that day!
Just sayin'.
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
08-20-2011, 08:46 PM
|
| |
PentaxForums.com Marketplace Listing
Item for Sale
SMC FA 50mm f/1.4
Asking Price
$250
Item Location
New York (United States)
Item Description
This lens is in good condition with only minor cosmetic faults caused by normal wear. During my inspection of the lens for this sale I did notice a few dust particles behind the front element, obviously these are not anything that would show up in pictures. The included front-cap is a 52mm cap which fits the aluminum lens hood.
Are you the original owner of the item being sold?
Yes
Are you selling or trading this item?
Selling
Item Condition (Key)
Used
Good
Shipping Destinations
Continental U.S. Only
Shipping Charge
$20
Shipping Services
USPS, UPS
Accepted Payment Types
PayPal
Return Policy & Additional Details
No returns. Sale is Final.
Please send me a private message if interested in the item!
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
08-07-2011, 04:30 PM
|
| |
I’ll start by offering a disclaimer: I’m no expert.
You seem to be laboring under a couple of misconceptions.
First, the fact that your selective photo processing is revealed when your images are viewed on a sufficiently bright monitor is not a defect of the monitor, it’s a flaw in your processing; the brighter monitor is only revealing how the processed area doesn’t match the original image. Here’s the most important thing you’ll read in this post: you must calibrate the monitor(s) on which you process your photos. And by “calibrate” I mean with the use of a colorimeter such as the i1 Display 2.
Secondly, IPS panels do not “have better gamuts”. IPS panels are backlit more evenly an thus produce more accurate color, and they allow accurate display of color at off-center viewing angles. “Color Gamut” is a different, but related, concept. A monitor with an IPS panel could display a color gamut that only encompasses the sRGB colorspace, or it may display the wider Adobe RGB colorspace (or even the wider ProPhoto RGB colorspace). If you choose a monitor that displays a wider color gamut your output, be it print or digital, should be in that gamut. The Internet and most consumer-level print services are using sRGB so it’s likely that’s the gamut that should be displayed by any monitor you use for post-processing.
There is no way to make an image appear the same way on every monitor. What you CAN do is make sure that the monitor you’re using is calibrated the way you want it to be. If your monitor is calibrated, it should print with dark areas, like the one in your example, being sufficiently dark so that your selective processing isn’t visible. But you can’t guarantee that someone with brighter monitor settings won’t be able to see the processed area.
-XM
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
08-07-2011, 11:57 AM
|
| |
NYCC is probably one of the safer environments that one can find in NYC where it concerns theft; assuming you practice a reasonable level of vigilance, you should be fine.
My advice about lenses: take the Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 for the cosplayers roaming about the sunlit-but-dim, ground level of the Javitz center. Of course, the instant that a cosplayer pauses to give you a photo opportunity, other shooters, especially the rude camera-phone wielding variety, will swarm to the spot; if you back up enough to frame your shot even at 70mm, people will jump in-between you and the intended subject.
I'd take the fastest prime(s) I have for the cave-like darkness of the subterranean convention floor—assuming that I didn't intend to use flash. Given the aforementioned swarming behavior and the near-standing-room congestion down the aisles—one usually will need to be even closer to the subject than would be necessary upstairs, so I'd choose my focal length(s) accordingly.
-XM
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
07-17-2011, 04:28 PM
|
| |
PentaxForums.com Marketplace Listing
Item for Sale
Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8 EX DG
Asking Price
$300
Item Location
NYC
Item Description
This lens is in excellent condition with only the most minor cosmetic faults as a result of normal use. It is reasonably sharp wide-open, and sharp at f/4.
Front and rear caps, lens hood, case, manual, and original packaging are included.
Price can be negotiated via the usual marketplace procedure.
I'm also selling the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/151522-sale-s...-dg-conus.html
Thanks for looking.
Are you the original owner of the item being sold?
Yes
Are you selling or trading this item?
Selling
Item Condition (Key)
Used
Excellent
Shipping Destinations
Continental U.S. Only
Shipping Charge
Buyer pays FedEx rate.
Shipping Services
FedEX
Accepted Payment Types
PayPal
Return Policy & Additional Details
No Returns.
Please send me a private message if interested in the item!
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
07-17-2011, 03:51 PM
|
| |
Revised. Expanded. Bumped.
|
