|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
09-04-2018, 01:53 PM
|
| |
Thanks Mike for the response. In the past when I have seen that lens I thought I would never consider it because of the monstrous size. Now I seem to be reconsidering. It's nice to know that its providing you with satisfying results. I still only have a 645D with no live view, so until an upgrade to the Z (or ZII:)) it would be prudent for me to hold off. Do please keep posting images with it and any thoughts you have about the 600. I should note that I don't go to your Flickr site often enough. I enjoy your often more thorough commentary and stories over there.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-31-2018, 04:33 PM
|
| |
Zero posts to go! Yippi. But..........my reclusive self hasn't hit my 10 minimum yet.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-31-2018, 04:09 PM
|
| |
I'd be happy if a highly functional and capable APS-C flagship were introduced, if just to keep the faithful happy and hopefully compete and be an alternative to the D500. If it adds to Pentax's bottom line, then they could get back to work updating the 645 line.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
08-31-2018, 03:33 PM
|
| |
Mike,
What is your overall impression of this lens. Are you happy with your results? The images you've been posting with it seem great, but its hard to critically assess it by just looking at web photos.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-31-2018, 03:18 PM
|
| |
I'd like to see an update to the 645Z. I think a full frame sensor is unlikely. Pixel shift with 100 MP would be great as well as a new 45-90mm lens and an updated lens roadmap.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
07-31-2018, 12:13 PM
|
| |
What a fantastic story and results Ed. I suppose you could have added as part of your tale the tight exposure and dynamic range limitations of your pre-digital Velvia film. Great job.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
07-13-2018, 05:17 PM
|
| |
Thanks Ed. No, I didn't know that. I'm not sure why, but I never gravitated to Flickr, so never learned how to use its features. Since large files can be protected as you pointed out, I think I will continue to explore and learn how to use the service. I should have a presence there anyway. Thanks again.
---------- Post added 07-13-18 at 07:20 PM ----------
At least I wasn't the only one that felt that way.
---------- Post added 07-13-18 at 07:30 PM ----------
Thanks Unkipunki for your workflow - recipes. I think I will try Flickr first, but I will certainly earmark this and try them out for comparison. I do use an Action to sharpen my photos for the web that works pretty well, but I think working through it as you presented it can only help with my skill level. Thanks.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
07-12-2018, 02:23 PM
|
| |
Thanks Jonathan. The forum mustn't like low res photo attachments. This was from my computer and It must resize it or something which turns it into soft mishy-mush. So I went over to Flickr and set up an account. Uploaded a test image but again only a lower res image. That looks bad also. I'm reluctant to upload full res images so I might be stuck. Thanks for replying.
---------- Post added 07-12-18 at 04:29 PM ----------
Thanks jadeyphoto.....I think. Obsessed with the sea cave photo - good - thank you, or my inability to post a sharp image - my bad.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
07-11-2018, 10:00 PM
|
| |
A two image pano. Pentax 645D, DA 25mm
---------- Post added 07-12-18 at 12:26 AM ----------
I have a question about posting images on Pentax Forums..... How do I do it to make the photos look good? I usually save images at 900 or 1000 pixels on the vertical side and the couple places I have posted on the web they appear correct, but here they turn to mush. I stopped posting photos long ago because they look so bad on this platform. Yet, when I look at others such as Michiel's (Sculptormic) images they are sharp and crisp. Do I need to upload larger files or ????? I'm doing something wrong. Thanks for any advice.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
07-11-2018, 11:31 AM
|
| |
Nice image Ed. One of my favorites of yours. Perhaps partly because its a subject I'm not familiar with and seems newish to me. Good job.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
02-28-2018, 04:14 PM
|
| |
645z $2000 instant savings at B&H. Are we in for a pleasant surprise?
Is this new or has the discount been out for awhile?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
07-16-2016, 11:12 AM
|
| |
Thanks Phil and thanks for looking. Nearly all the photos posted on FB and my website are with some sort of Pentax. 67,67II,645D, and now the K-1.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
07-14-2016, 09:37 PM
|
| |
Tom,
Thanks for looking and your compliments. I've been doing the FB thing for a relatively short time. I'm trying to post something every couple days or so. I have no audience. Its the same few people that see my stuff and do the likes and comments. Its funny. That last photo I posted - of the stars and lighthouse - which is with the K-1, has only two likes. I just joined a Door County Vacationers group and posted that same shot there. In less than a week it has 129 likes and a half page of comments. I didn't use a link back to my page because I didn't know if that would be allowed. Hopefully I can grow an audience of people actually interested in the type of photography I do. I also have a poorly neglected website which showcases the photos much better, but I have yet to finish that….still. Richard Longseth Photography
Rick
---------- Post added 07-14-16 at 11:38 PM ----------
Phil,
I reread your post. I should have mentioned that I also save everything as a flattened TIFF when I'm done in Photoshop. My workflow is to do adjustments to the RAW file in Lightroom. Then I go into Photoshop and nudge things layer after layer after layer. Many layers…..and then save as a Large Document Format .psb master. I flatten that and save as a TIFF. I also make a high quality jpg while I'm at it.
Rick
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
07-14-2016, 07:47 PM
|
| |
Tom,
I think you would really enjoy the K-1. Its a great camera and I think Pentax did a very good job with it. I think you are right in thinking the K-1 is ALMOST the equivalent of the Z. You could put together a kit that is quite a bit smaller and easier to carry around. The 100 macro for instance if a fine lens and very tiny for what I am used to. The 70-200 is a monster though, but also a good lens. Should you sell your D? Probably, since you have the Z, but then you wouldn't have the redundancy if your Z needs to go in for a lengthy repair. I'm not the one to ask about Pixel Shift because I haven't used it enough. Digital Camera Utility may indeed be the best way to process the files. I had poor results with my limited attempts and gave up on it. Should try again.
I have some images up on my Facebook page. I'm not differentiating between the different cameras and gear used. Most are with the 645d and some of the recent ones are with the K-1. There are also a few with either a Pentax 67 or 67II, and I've got a couple of the old 4x5's posted as well. Come take a look, almost no one else has. https://www.facebook.com/richard.longseth.photography/
Rick
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
07-14-2016, 07:01 PM
|
| |
Normhead,
I will have to give it a try again. I could have inadvertently saved as an 8bit file and didn't realize it. I trashed what I had because it wasn't worth keeping so I can't check it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
07-14-2016, 06:51 PM
|
| |
Phil,
I could be doing things wrong, especially in DCU. I stumbled around in the program and haven't spent time to learn it. What I did do though is to do my (aggressive) edits in Lightroom on the RAW DNG that was pixel shifted. The file looked pretty good and ready to go into Photoshop. I took that same file, unprocessed, and used DCU to output a TIFF with no DCU processing other than the Pixel Shift blend. I imported that into Lightroom and then synced that to the Lightroom edited file to get a duplicate. It did not look good. I could have done a number of things wrong to get to the bad result so………..I could very well be wrong in my conclusions.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
07-14-2016, 04:51 PM
|
| |
Tom,
Your dilemma is a nice one to have. For me, I have the 645D and lust for the Z. Never-the-less, I love my D. When the K-1 became available, I decided to go that route as a back-up and compliment to the D as apposed to getting a Z. I went with the D FA 15-30, D FA 70-200, the new weather sealed 100 macro, and two M42 old timey bokeh lenses - a Pentacon something 135, and a night vision 85mm single aperture 1.5? Cyclops (needs extension tube for clearance).
Unfortunately, I have not shot enough with the K-1 to give a full evaluation. My impression so far is that the K-1 is great. Some nice files coming from a smaller package. I'm able to do some night high ISO shots, and can push the ISO up if needed for other shots. The thing is, you have that capability with the Z already, just not the in camera stabilization.
I've used the Pixel Shift mode a few times, but am perplexed with the process. There are discussions about using Digital Camera Utility to get the best results, but it outputs as a TIFF. That's just a deal breaker for me. The TIFFs cannot withstand even slightly aggressive processing if finished up in Lightroom. For some of the night shots I've done, I've purposely under-exposed two stops or so to preserve the highlights with the intention of recovering that in processing. That works great with a RAW file, not so much with a TIFF. I shoot DNG's and will continue with Pixel Shift and just settle with the in camera processed files. What I wish, is that I could use one - say the first - Pixel Shift image and layer that in Photoshop with the completed camera generated PS image and simply mask out any movement artifacts. I'm sure there is a lot that I don't understand about Pixel Shift. As it is, I don't think a K-1, even with Pixel Shift, can come close to the quality of your Z. The files I'm getting with my D at base ISO are better than the K-1, although the K-1 is very close.
If you get a K-1, you will have more of a dilemma of what stays home when you go off shooting. With me, I've made some dementia style mistakes of not having a lens, or filters, or other essentials, and only finding out after hiking in to a spot, and not having the right gear with me.
I just got it and like the 15-30 a lot. It enables a wider coverage than than the 25mm on the D. There has been a lot made of its size and weight, but I actually think its quite reasonable. It's a bit bigger but less weighty than the 645 25mm I think.
I've picked up both the K to 67 and K to 645 adapters. I haven't used them yet, so don't know how well or practical they will be.
Good luck with your decision. Having the Z already is great. You will need to define the things you can't do as well with the Z that a K-1 would be better for. I think the K-1 would be a great compliment for doing your flower shots. It would also work well with a longer lens for your birding, but something from Canon or Nikon would probably be better for the wildlife if it was dedicated mostly for that.
This got a bit long.
Rick
I had some images from the D and K-1, but for some reason they looked like cr…p, so deleted them.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
05-08-2015, 07:18 PM
|
| |
Another couple photos using stacking. The first photo is one that Helicon Focus did a poor job with and misaligned the stack to give a funky result. Zerene Stacker did a much better job with it. 19 images at f/16 with the 67 300mm*. The second photo is a 4 image stack with the 25mm at f/13. I'm pretty sure I used Helicon Focus for it.
Rick
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
05-07-2015, 08:00 PM
|
| |
Here's one I just did in Zerene Stacker. A total of 18 images taken with my 645D, but only about 13 or so used. It was shot wide open for the Bokeh. There were enough slices to keep the closest portions of the image in focus, and also a little deeper than how the final image appears. I decided to use less captures for a couple of reasons. Retouching can be a pain. Strange banding and halos seem to happen more on images that have overlapping areas. Also, for this image I thought that having some of the closer needles out of focus might make the image appear more three dimensional. Not sure that it works and was worth the effort, but at least now its done.
I also have Helicon Focus, and have also done stacks in photoshop. What I like about Helicon, is that it allows you to see the mask when retouching. There are always areas that the software gets wrong, and it's much easier to see where those areas are with the mask showing. With Helicon, you can use DNG's which is very nice. With Zerene Stacker I save files that I've worked up in Lightroom to TIFF's and then do the stacking. I think Zerene does a better overall job. I've had some images that Helicon just makes a mess of. Stacking software has to resize the images in order to stack them on top of each other. That resizing interpolation is done better I think in Zerene Stacker. The resizing does make for a bit softer image. I think that for scenes that can hold focus at f/16 to f/22 its better to just shoot it that way even with a bit of diffraction, than to use f/11 and stack two or three to get the image. Photoshop doesn't do as well of a job, but its nice to see the masks that are produced. I'm doing this on a Mac Mini with only 16 g of RAM. Somehow it works.
Rick
Pentax 645D, 67 55-100mm, f/4.5
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-12-2015, 02:13 PM
|
| |
Thanks mikeSF. Inspiration from your wonderful bridge photos is building within me to shoot an iconic bridge near where I live. If I ever get something I'll sure to post it.
Rick
---------- Post added 03-12-15 at 04:14 PM ----------
Thanks LeRolls. Someone was inquiring about the 75mm not long ago, which was the motivation for me to try mine at 2.8.
Rick
---------- Post added 03-12-15 at 04:22 PM ----------
Mike,
A nice set of photos. I particularly like the first one.
Rick
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-11-2015, 07:15 PM
|
| |
Fantastic bird shots with the 400mm vcollerp.
Playing around with the FA 645 75mm 2.8 not long ago. Taken at 2.8.
Rick
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
01-30-2015, 01:18 PM
|
| |
The 645 55-110 was one of the first lenses I got when I began my lens hoarding acquisitions. I used it on a trip to Utah and did a direct comparison with the 67 55mm and also on its own at 90mm and again at 100mm. That trip was several years ago, and I haven't used it since. The 67 55mm had more contrast, and was significantly sharper in the corners. The photos at the longer end were softer than I cared for. I would say to stay away from this one. Of course I could have a bad copy. I bought it used, but I would guess that my findings are similar to others. I am intrigued with the 67 55-110 and have almost pulled the trigger on one a couple of times, but I'm leery of its weight and its huge front filter size.
Rick
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
01-24-2015, 02:39 PM
|
| |
Thanks Docrwm. I like the Dodge too. It really surprised me actually, because it's not something I normally photograph. It had started snowing, and I wasn't dressed for it so I gave up way too early shooting it. Wish I would have stuck with it more. Its close by so I can always try again.
Steadfast was somewhat of a mistake. It was the last images of the day after the sun had gone down and it was getting dark. It's lit with what I refer to as "after glow". Although its very dim, there's directional warm light coming from the western horizon and a soft blue light coming from above. Its shot at ISO 100 at f/11 with the 645 200 FA on my D. One capture held the focus on the rocks at f/11 and I didn't have to focus stack. It was a 30 second second exposure shot with the AV mode. If I would have recognized it's potential, I would have worked with this some more and either up the ISO to 200 or use the Bulb setting for a longer exposure. What happens with long exposures at this time is the light is continuing to dim thru out the exposure and if it isn't properly accounted for the exposure will be off. As it was, the image was nearly a stop underexposed because of the 30 second limitation with the AV setting. The waves were large and crashing into the shoreline rocks, and that rendered a nice creamy effect because of the long exposure.
I did initial editing in Lightroom. There was a line of cliffs in the background that I cropped out to simplify and strengthen the composition. The white balance was adjusted slightly to take out some magenta, and I'm guilty of adding saturation to both the blues and warm tones. Because of the long exposure and also underexposing it, I processed two copies for noise reduction that was later blended together in Photoshop. The water has quite a bit more NR added to it and in the rocks the noise wasn't as apparent, so less NR was used for that copy.
In Photoshop the two NR copies were blended together. I use Tony Kuper's Luminosity masks and actions. The Orton Effect action was used on just the highlights of the water to soften the crashing waves even more. I subtly used the triple play action to add a bit of contrast in the rocks. I adjusted the tones a bit in the waves so as not to have hot spots. Thats about it.
I hope that wasn't too confusing and that it helps.
Rick
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
01-23-2015, 08:36 PM
|
| |
Here's a couple more from the 200 FA.
Rick
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
01-23-2015, 08:28 PM
|
| |
I hope you are still trying for the 120. Thats a great lens that won't disappoint. I usually carry both the 120 A and the 200 FA in my pack, and prefer trying to find compositions where I can use the 120. If only the 200 will work, I'm more than happy with the results. I feel the 200 FA is an easy lens to shoot with. I also have the 67 300* and the 645 400 FA which to me are much harder to get good results with. Here are some photos using the 645 200 FA. Its near impossible to judge quality with small web jpg's and also on some of these, I threw the kitchen sink at to get the feel I was after. Some of the processing on a couple of these actually softens parts of the photos. The Old Dodge I took today and I felt a bit lazy. The 200 was on the camera, so I just left it on and got a couple shots with it. Mawikwe Ramparts is a stitch of 5 vertical shots.
Rick
|
