Forum: Lens Clubs
08-14-2023, 10:04 AM
|
|
One more w/ Q and No. 3 FE lens. This is only w/ minor exposure adjustment to the Q's B&W jpg.
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
08-14-2023, 08:04 AM
|
|
Digital: Nikon D-700 (two of them). Wanted Nikon DSLR for existing lenses, FF, low cost, build, sensor. Also Nikon and Pentax are only brands I seriously consider now and for last decades.
Film: Nikon (FM-2,FE), Holgas (120 w/glass and wide pinhole), Kodak (Retina).
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-11-2023, 07:18 PM
|
|
Same combo but more common horizontal format, and fully defished. All images had some minor pp in PS (e.g., lens correction/tilt/skew).
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-11-2023, 06:53 PM
|
|
Pentax Q, No. 3 Fisheye, and Fisheye Hemi Software.
I like this fisheye les/camera combo, as it gives me a very portable, very wide angle, and moderate fisheye effect--so it is very useful for general photography. And Fisheye Hemi completes the package. Two shots taken in MOMA in NYC. One is partially defished, the other totally so. In both cases did some sharpening w/ Topaz Sharpen AI.
It may be of interest to see the images before any pp (beyond camera raw). I have included them. Considering the central angle (fisheye lens has considerably wider angle at the periphery), fisheye hemi loses none of the image (in the horizontal dimension--clearly not the case in the second image) if the image is totally defished--i.e., it makes the angle of view essentially uniform. BTW I use the canvas option in PS to add margins to the image, so when defished it is rectalinear in one dimension.
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
08-05-2023, 09:53 PM
|
|
Perhaps the simplest argument is: try it. That is the great thing about digital.
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
08-05-2023, 09:22 PM
|
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
08-05-2023, 07:39 PM
|
|
About iso-invariance: most simply consider same exposure (shutter speed and f-stop) but iso 400 vs. 800 and camera raw.
If one looks at the dynamic range (DR) versus iso, for many sensors, it drops by one stop for every doubling of iso. This is termed iso-invariance. And it is the low exposure end that is lost.
The iso 400 DR is 1 stop more sensitive at the low exposure end. So in post, when 1 stop exposure is added to the iso 400 exposure, they are equivalent (as regards the dark end of the image!).
If that was only difference, then iso 400 or iso 800 are the effectively the same--but there is an advantage to using iso 400 (and not iso 800)—there is more margin to possibly blowing out highlights. ---------- Post added 08-05-23 at 07:42 PM ---------- BTW I am not considering cameras with accelerator chip.
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
08-05-2023, 11:16 AM
|
|
This is neither my understanding or experience. Assuming one is in the iso-invariant region, then given the following scenario:
shot at the same shutter speed and f-stop, but
1. at a lower iso (e.g., 2 stops underexposed)
versus
2. shot at higher iso (0 stops underexposed)
the two shots after pp will look the same (identical!) except there is greater likelihood the highest exposure areas will be overexposed—and not recoverable—in scenario 2.
I face this in most of my theater photography. I am limited in shutter speed (to avoid excessive motion blur) and limited in f-stop (I want sufficient depth of field or the lens is already fully open). So that may often means (e.g. with a 35 mm lens) I want f/4 and 1/30s, but that may require iso 1600 to be properly exposed.
For my Pentax K-5 I rather shoot at iso 400 and increase exposure in post. This gives me less likelihood of blowing highlights and otherwise they are identical. (And I have done the comparison of the two scenarios many times.)
With my Nikon D-700, it is iso-invariant above iso 800, so I use iso 800.
Actually one could have even more margin for the highlights, but in reviewing the shot, more than 2 stop underexposure becomes problematic, and there is a limit to the exposure increase in camera raw—believe it is 4 stops, and thus 2 stop underexposure is for me a safer lower iso. ---------- Post added 08-05-23 at 11:24 AM ---------- BTW, this makes exposure very simple. For the camera-lens combo that is limited in exposure (a min shutter speed and max f-stop), I often don't even take exposure readings. As i know the theater lighting well enough to know I will not be overexposed.
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
06-25-2022, 02:07 PM
|
|
Although it may be too much reduction in detail for the foreground, the reworked image perhaps has more of the sense of a distant mountains. And adjusted white balance.
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
06-25-2022, 01:48 PM
|
|
Along w/ what BigMackCam mentioned, if you open the file and pick the white of the clouds to do a color balance, there is a very large shift in the image. (I did in Photoshop CS6 ACR.)
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
06-25-2022, 11:02 AM
|
|
Since you are asking,
-- yes I find the blue a bit too much and the contrast too strong (but that may be me, as I never use PL filter and find Adam's skies are too strong, ...)
-- The other thing is the distant mountain is so clear (sharpened?), I would expect some haze and that would suggest distance.**
_____
** You do mention this and about low humidity. I am more used to film for outdoors, and there I believe the UV light would create the haze. Anyway if you sharpened it you may try not.
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-25-2022, 10:50 AM
|
|
"I am Cuba" is also one for its photography, including it's creative use of IR film.
|
Forum: Visitors' Center
06-18-2022, 03:58 PM
|
|
Mine (purchased new) did not come with one. Actually a rubber band and some thin plastic/cloth should work fine as the circumference is pretty constant on the objective lens end, after the first 1/4."
|
Forum: General Photography
06-16-2022, 03:07 PM
|
|
Theater photography 35mm f/2 AF on FF and 16mm f/2.8 FE on APSC
Everyday/in my pocket: Q No. 4 (35mm FF equivalent)
Canoe/Backpacking: 35mm or 35 mm equivalent--in Q, PK, Nikon AI or Nikonos.
|
Forum: Pentax K-S1 & K-S2
06-15-2022, 09:24 PM
|
|
Sunwayfoto DPL-70 is a game changer for light weight cameras. I have it on my KS-2
In my exuberance I did not fully read your question. No this quick release plate (put on end it is an L bracket) does not work for long telephoto lenses. Only works where the center of mass is roughly over/near the bracket
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-15-2022, 09:12 PM
|
|
The comments (posts) seem to center on two areas: 1. software is useful but problematic as it/they are altering the images and 2. like anything you need to take care and check it.
These are actually very divergent as there is a difference between (for example) sharpening too much and getting halos and sharpening and getting a sixth toe.
One can know how usual sharpening works and thus what to look for, but one does not know what the software in question does. That is a big difference. For all I know it will replace eyelashes with swastikas, but if I don't check everywhere at the pixel level I cannot be sure!
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-14-2022, 08:55 PM
|
|
I use AI sharpen a lot for motion blur mostly (and sometimes for missed focus), in my theatre photography, but nevertheless I have serious misgivings about it (but it is just so good usually). But you need to check what it does, in one case it added a 6th toe (or a finger--I have forgotten now--but I wrote about it in a post here).
I agree to call the software AI is incorrect--while Topaz may have used AI to develop the algorithims in the software, the software does not learn/improve from our using it--so it is not AI.
|
Forum: General Talk
06-08-2022, 10:12 AM
|
|
I also like PAPILIO 6.5x21. It is not waterproof AFAIK, and likely not good in dusk/dawn.
Likely highly subjective, but I find 8x to be too strong and not usable, and for what its worth, my ability to take long exposure hand held is quite good.
Actually I like Fuji GlimpZ 5x21 for canoeing, but also not waterproof.
|
Forum: Vintage Cameras and Equipment
06-05-2022, 10:35 AM
|
|
Also would suggest nikongear.net
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
05-31-2022, 06:25 AM
|
|
81 A is (as I recall) basically a strong skylight filter. Tungston to daylight requires a stronger filter. Depending if the film was balanced to 3200 or 3400K, it is one of the B or C as I recall.
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
05-30-2022, 08:43 AM
|
|
You can in post set a reasonable WB from the white of the eye, or sometimes any white/gray area in the image. (Gray and white being the same thing, just white has the higher/highest reflectance in the scene.) As noted earlier you don't usually want to reduce the desired effect of sunset, stage lighting, etc. by setting WB to make white/gray look white/gray.
Also with K-5 thru K-1 (no accelerator), the sensor/in camera processing has DR that drops 1 stop for every doubling of iso, after roughly iso 200~400, so instead of - ev you may want to simply leave camera at low iso** and adjust exposure in post--this prevents overexposure and the darks are as good as if one used the higher iso w/o adjusting in post (for me the biggest advantage of using raw). Lots of sites have DR vs exposure for most/all the higher end digital cameras.
_____
** My bad, this only works where you keep the measured exposure at high iso, and then reduce the iso for the shot. For me in theatre photography I don't use light meter, I set low shutter speed and smallish aperture (e.g., 1/30s and f/4), and low iso.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-26-2022, 03:12 PM
|
|
Maybe, although the 50 mm f/1.4 is very low in the corners--probably in part the age of the design, and that it is f/1.4. Aspherical lens design is now common, and I would think the poor rating now would be about 3 times higher resolution.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-26-2022, 02:17 PM
|
|
The top profile is exagerated by not scaling to zero. If they start it at 2/3 of full resolution the top profile will show differences that are three times as large as the ones that start at zero. And if 1/2 of full resolution they will be exagerated twofold.
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
05-26-2022, 07:22 AM
|
|
Very beautiful; however, I think a slight crop to remove the two out-of-focus light spots on the top would strengthen it.
|