|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
03-15-2013, 04:02 AM
|
| |
I haven't printed a photo in over a year. As I said earlier, sometimes when managing my photos on Flickr I have been pleasantly surprised to find one was taken with the X10 instead of a DSLR, as I thought it must have been on first glance.
I shot an event in 2012 using only the X10, knowing the photos would probably be web-only, and had nothing but positive comments on them. I shot the same event this year with the X10 and the K-5 (JPG and DNG respectively). The X10 did a better job on WB and in general the files were easier to PP than those from the K-5. But it is still a compact camera and has the limitations that go with that. But I very sincerely doubt that any of the people who received the photos or who will view the photos on the group's site will have the slightest idea they came from two very different cameras, nor will they care.
The X10/20 has qualities that I just don't get from a DSLR: easy handheld low-light shots; easy portability - I have the camera, hood, three spare batteries, linear polarizer, ND8, step-up ring, and lens tissues in a small belt pouch.
My only vehicle now is my motorcycle, and carrying a lot of gear is impractical and a pain in the butt and being able to get all the basic camera gear on my belt is a huge plus. I even have my lighting gear pared down to being motorcycle-friendly. A small fanny pack carries an AF200T, grid snoot, GorillaPod, radio trigger/receiver, and spare batteries. A compact Slik travel tripod and a collapsible 5-way reflector/diffuser finish out a kit I can carry in one hand.
And if you like doing outdoor Strobist shots in the daylight, there is NOTHING as liberating as being freed from the tyranny of the 1/180 maximum sync speed. I'll swap a few megapixels and a little peepability for that any day.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
05-04-2012, 12:36 PM
|
| |
Here is the setup for that 500C/M shot with one of the reflectors moved out of the way
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
01-03-2012, 02:43 PM
|
| |
Even for the reactive photographer small assignments can open up your seeing. Sit in one place for an hour. Shoot only from a dog's eye view level, or only at 30 degrees or more above eye level. Shoot only closeups for a day. Shoot only after you've looked at the scene from at least 5 angles. Shoot only black and white, or high key, or with a certain lens for a week. Reacting to situations is how I shoot at least half the time, but that too can be helped by focused practice. And, these assignments are only work if you want them to be. They can also become a game. All games have rules, and you get to make up your own. ;)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
01-02-2012, 08:43 AM
|
| |
Not being particularly "artsy", for me it's focusing on one aspect of the process at a time. Learn a lens and its abilities, limits, etc. Focus on the impact of aperture on the same composition. Vary the lighting while maintaining all other aspects. Isolate one piece and see what varying it does. I get ideas from reading others comments, questions, and thoughts here or in books. In the past month the huge range of options on the K-5 has been a wee bit overwhelming and so I am returning to basics - shoot manual, set all parameters and then vary them one at a time. It takes a while but I find I learn a great deal this way.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
12-27-2011, 02:27 AM
|
| |
I use PS just for few things - I am not very known with it. But I know what I need to know.
But before you start with PS your picture must be near to perfection of your skills and your idea what you want to achieve at the end.
So - best possible shot in RAW.
And then PP.
In PS I use:
layers, clone stamp, curves, color balance, photo filter, sharpening. Adding textures. Black and White conversion via Gradient Map.
That's all. I learned the masks last year, before that I used two layers and the eraser tool. :p
So, about layers and masks in short:
You open underexposed shot - great bokeh, well exposed sky, but skin is dark. So you need lighter version of the skin.
You can open new version with overexposed - but well exposed skin, or to duplicate layer of the darker and to choose Screen blending.
So - drag the lighter one over the darker, or blend the duplicated layer in Screen.
I will proceed with the second example.
When you choose Screen, the whole picture is much, much lighter. But you need only skin to be. So you need to reverse the results for the whole shot and to fix only a small area. That's why - step on the mask, press Ctrl + I, and the mask turns black. Again darker shot. Get the brush tool. Make it white. Choose Opacity 20. Soft brush you need. Paint over the skin. It gets lighter.
Then you can adjust the Opacity through the Layers Blending. For better results Choose Filter - Blur - Gaussian Blur and try the different % of blending.
Than Merge the Layers and you are ready.
Or - when you need to fix the bigger part of the picture, than the mask will be white - no Ctrl+ I, and you will paint with black brush on the areas you want.
For example:
Darker shot. You need much lightening for the whole picture, but you like the dark areas in some parts.
Duplicate Layer. Choose Screen. Choose Opacity on Layers. You get the result you need. But you want some parts to be darker as before. Make Mask. It's white. Choose black brush. Paint over the areas you want - they will be as they were before Screen.
It's harder to be explain than in fact the things are. Try and will understand. Also there are many video lessons in internet about masks. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-18-2011, 09:11 AM
|
| |
A few more from this morning using the same lens. It was foggy and frosty this morning.
I think I'm going to realllllyyyyyyy like this lens!!
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-13-2011, 07:11 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-28-2011, 04:09 PM
|
| |
Sat morning - High tide. My usual routine , shoot before wife wake up. Went to Changi beach again for another round of shoot with shooting buddy . Was thinking to go to the rock area . But the high tide just forbid just from going over. Sunrise very early that day . Miss the 1st light but still manage to get a few shot . Hope you guys like it :)
1# The curve shape of the sky with the curve shape of the sand ripple form a so call Chinese "tai ci" S sharp hence I call it
- The Tai Ci Sunrise - (a friend just pm me in fb say that she say a eagle head with a wing on the sand . Natural just give pp so many imagination . haha)  Changi sunrise 2 by Simon Teo Landscape, on Flickr
2# A group of photographer was already camping there to shoot this tree when our group arrive . A bit pai seh to walk over . Just when I was waiting to find a chance to sneak in to take a shoot or 2 , I found out one of them are actually my school mate . He gave me a perfect excuse to walk over . LOL
-The fallen tree-  Changi sunrise 2 the fallen by Simon Teo Landscape, on Flickr
3# Nothing fancy here . Just a wave, the sun and the sky .
- Changi Wave part 2 -  Changi 3rd wave by Simon Teo Landscape, on Flickr
4# The wave was pretty strong on that day . But the unwanted coconut just stay firmly on the ground . 1 though just enter my mind . Not everything can be wash away through time .....sorrow might fade .... but memories will always stay ....
-Sorrow can be wash away but not the memories ......-  Changi sunrise 2 the coconut by Simon Teo Landscape, on Flickr |
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
12-16-2011, 02:26 PM
|
| |
The Bayer filter on the sensor means half as many red or blue pixels as green ones. Your example is similar to a typical shot, red flower with a background of green foliage. The red pixels are the first to go. If you look at the RGB histogram for these shots, reds are often way to the right of the other colors. The K-7 and K-5 do better because the 77-segment meter is better.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-07-2011, 06:25 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-09-2011, 09:27 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-30-2010, 09:39 AM
|
| |
That's definitely true looked at this narrowly, but there is also the question of WB to consider - does one want the actual color of the scene in the light it was in (what you would get leaving your WB permanently set to "Flash"), or do you want the camera to try to mimic how your brain fools you into see "local" colors despite the color cast of the light?
And for exposure, there is no way to be objective in this same way. An object in a photographic print is as bright as the light shining on the print makes it. Combine that with the fact that the camera cannot reproduce the entire dynamic range we perceive (although what we perceive is helped by some tricks our brain plays, doing essentially multiple-shot HDR for us), and you really cannot measure the accuracy of expose in the same way as color. At best, you can measure *relative* levels of light and dark and see how well they correlate, but that's still going to be misleading because of the DR issues.
No doubt :-)
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
04-28-2010, 05:44 PM
|
| |
They're jealous because he got to drink out of those cool glasses with the elliptical tops.
For the OP:
A modern top-of-the-line flash in some situations is perhaps going to facilitate good photos more quickly and easily than would a less full-featured or obsolete model, but for run-of-the-mill situations flashes got as good as they need to get about 30 years ago. In the final analysis, they all perform the same basic function, which is to provide a measured output of light. No matter what they cost, how many buttons, functions, modes, etc they have.....that's all any of them do. And so long as they do that accurately and reliably they meet the minimum requirements of a flash unit. They're sort of like a pair of eyeglasses, if I may be excused a weak analogy: Upgrading to more expensive frames isn't going to improve how well you can see through them. Once the prescription matches your eyes, the rest is superfluous.
A few examples from a $10 flash and a $15 lens, with setup shots first:
      All
Pentax K20D
SMC Takumar 55/1.8
The flash is a simple AF200T that Pentax put out sometime back in the 1970s or 1980s and which I picked up from an auction for a whopping ten whole bucks. Could I take the same photos with a brand-new 540? Of course I could. But I don't have the money for 540 and I don't shoot any situations that would benefit from the extra capabilities it has. If I needed those capabilities, I would scrape up the cash to get one. So long as I can get a reliable and measured output of light for a lesser amount, I personally see no need for me to pay more.
Remember, the dough is buying improved functionality.....not improved light.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
04-28-2010, 10:22 AM
|
| |
the thing to remember is that a good external flash will get you more bang for your buck than getting faster glass. Basically it adds a stop or two to every lens you have. A good bounce is worth an awful lot, at the same time, it does take a lot of practice to get to the place where you can use it and not have bad shadows and people looking like they are fresh in from a mime convention.
|
