|
Forum: General Photography
10-04-2017, 03:30 PM
|
| |
It worked! Thank you!
I didn't actually find the image, so my friend might be wrong about giving it to me. I pasted a copy in both folders as a test when it failed to find it.
As you are a knower-of-things, I have another question: can it find flipped or rotated versions of the image? Some programs have this option. I didn't see an advanced options (but since I'm having a monitor resolution problem, it could be there).
|
|
Forum: General Photography
10-04-2017, 03:22 AM
|
| |
Thanks for the info. I've tried it, but I haven't yet found a way to specify a single file for comparison. It would be a huge help if you could show me.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
10-03-2017, 08:19 AM
|
| |
Thanks. I use Windows 7. That option would help limit the photos I have to review, even if it's more tedious than being able to search by image.
Someone else took the photos, and a third person gave them to me. I'm trying to build a web site for her and it would be easier if I could just search without asking her for dates and such each time (assuming she would remember). I have a lot of photos from her various phones, cameras, and flash drives.
Even if I find that photo, I would still like to find a way to search by image on my hard drive.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
10-03-2017, 06:33 AM
|
| |
Thanks, everyone.
I was hoping to do it all locally, not by uploading a bunch of photos first, but using Google makes sense.
As for SimilarImages, it seems like one that searches for all duplicates, not a single file, but I'll take a closer look.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
10-03-2017, 04:40 AM
|
| |
I'm looking for a free (or full-featured demo) program to search for a specific image on my hard drive. I don't mean searching for all duplicates or similar images -- I've found a dozen of those programs, and too many of my photos are very similar. I mean what Google Images does on the web if I upload one image and search for others like it. One program offered this as a filter option in the paid version, but I didn't want to buy it unless necessary.
As an example, in case I'm not clear -- I have a poor resolution image from Facebook that I believe I have on my hard drive in the original form. I want to search only for that image.
Thanks for reading this!
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
01-27-2015, 09:09 AM
|
| |
I meant that too. IMG4567 and IMG_4567 are found equally by searching *4567. Thanks for making sure I understood. My comment about using wildcards in the future was separate.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
01-27-2015, 08:34 AM
|
| |
Thanks. You're right about not needing "filename", but I thought I had tried all the combinations. I must have typed something else wrong when I thought I needed it. So, it's just the asterisk. I can live with that. No problem if I get extra files, like 45782 and 14578, since there won't be many, but the single character wildcard might come in handy one day.
It turns out the underscore doesn't make a difference -- putting the asterisk before the number brings up all names containing the number. The default file names saved by the K-50 do not have underscores.
I've read about advanced search options with Win7, but haven't tried them. In XP, the default search method did exactly what I wanted.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
01-27-2015, 07:03 AM
|
| |
ETA: Note: I was mistaken in the original post -- don't need "filename", but I'm leaving it here so the reply makes sense.
--------------------
In Windows 7, is there a way to find files by name using only numbers without having to type "filename: *" first? If I typed a word, it would find the files without having to specify "filename" and including an asterisk. I'm not yet in the habit of doing it and am wondering if there's a setting somewhere to treat numbers as it treats words.
In case it's not clear what I mean: for example, I want to find all of these: IMG4579, winter4579, snow4579v2, snow4579printed -- by typing 4579 instead of filename: *4579.
I realize this isn't a photography question, but I assume we all deal with photo files containing numbers.
Thanks
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-30-2014, 07:27 AM
|
| |
Thanks, both of you.
After downloading CS2 as well as an unrelated photo editor, my old Photoshop started working. Perhaps I somehow restored a missing file. The program in CS2 didn't install or open normally and I deleted most of it for now.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-29-2014, 12:10 PM
|
| |
After working normally for many years, my Photoshop verson 7.0 has stopped being able to open files. I was able to open one file by deleting the preferences file. It would not open a second file or start a new file. I'll probably have to find the software and reload it, but if anyone has another idea, please tell me!
I've used it on Windows XP in the past. I loaded it on Win 7 and used it over the past couple of months. The problem started yesterday. Nothing has changed on the computer, not that I did intentionally.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
06-26-2014, 07:14 PM
|
| |
That's what I did wrong -- hadn't. I've been shooting with a manual lens for so long I didn't think of that.
Thank you!
And thanks, Adam. (Just saw the other reply)
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
06-26-2014, 06:33 PM
|
| |
Just got a new lens today and am new to DSLR.
Should the Pentax-FA lenses show the aperture in the viewfinder and screen when focusing manually? The EXIF shows 2.8 regardless of what I did, even in AF.
So far, I've used Av with MF. The viewfinder and screen show F-- all the time (when not in AF).
Lens: Pentax-FA 50mm f2.8 macro. Camera:K-50.
In a thread about A lenses, someone said a dirty contact could cause this since the A lens is supposed to show the aperture. I thought I'd ask before messing with it.
I downloaded the manual and didn't find anything useful.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-25-2014, 03:40 PM
|
| |
Thanks, both.
Just to be sure that's all I heard, I turned off the SR. That's one item crossed off my list!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
06-25-2014, 03:01 PM
|
| |
I found a few old threads about this, but I don't think I have the answer yet. This is probably normal, but I want to be sure.
When using Live View with the K-50, is it normal to hear things moving around inside the camera when I'm not pressing buttons or doing anything other than moving the camera (tilting slowly, when getting a subject into view)? I know there are a variety of parts that are supposed to move, but it's more sound than I expected for a camera. It's sort of a quiet clunking sound, not a digital sound or something I'd consider a motor.
Thanks
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
06-25-2014, 01:45 PM
|
| |
It worked fine. Thanks, both of you. Was a little scary since I wasn't watching the whole time and didn't know if the screen was blank because it was done. (The K-50 turns itself off.)
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
06-25-2014, 07:59 AM
|
| |
Probably a silly question, but really don't want to kill my new camera. I know the camera must stay on during the update (and therefore needs a fully charged battery). During normal use (taking pictures), the camera (K-50) turns itself off after a minute of non-use. Does the update activity keep the camera on? Or do I need to reset something?
I originally posted this in the thread about the firmware, but it occurred to me I should post in a help section. Here's the link if it's better to keep the answer there. (Sorry about posting twice.)
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/250893-pentax-ds...ml#post2859865 |
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-25-2014, 07:29 AM
|
| |
Helpful, thanks.
My immediate problem is that my photos very rarely look like what I saw in the viewfinder. The spot that seemed clear in the viewfinder rarely turns out to be the best focused, whether several inches or several feet away. The part in focus is very often (but not always) the part closer to the camera, regardless of the lens used (I have 3 AF and 2 MF lenses). I rarely use the live view - if it would help, I could try.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-25-2014, 06:40 AM
|
| |
I know the camera must stay on during the update (and therefore needs a fully charged battery). During normal use (taking pictures), the camera (K-50) turns itself off after a minute of non-use. Does the update activity keep the camera on? Or do I need to reset something?
Edit: I was told the camera will stay on.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-25-2014, 05:12 AM
|
| |
Thanks for all the comments and stunning photos.
When I posted elsewhere on the site to seek help with my focusing problem, I got the impression that it's relatively difficult to get a sharp close-up shot. Here, I'm getting a different message. I realize this isn't a trouble-shooting subforum, but I posted here because it's more of a problem with close-up work.
To be honest, I'm very frustrated with my first DSLR experiences. My primary problem is that the part of the shot that ends up in sharp focus is not where I'm aiming. I spend all my time trying to get my exact subject in focus rather than getting an attractive photo. My kit AF lenses don't handle close-up well, so I've been trying MF with those and other lenses. (By the end of the week, I'll have a Pentax-FA 50mm macro lens to try.) I suspect it's something I'm consistently doing wrong with my technique, or something is wrong with the camera since the problem is similar with all my lenses. (The first camera they sent was actually defective, so I'm suspicious.) I've started doing some testing with printed text and tripod, but so far I haven't recreated the problem completely. The area in focus is usually to the left and below the subject, or the area closer to the camera (which is sometimes the same thing). I can post an example, but this probably isn't the right thread.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-24-2014, 12:43 PM
|
| |
(Note: post was edited after the first few replies)
Specifically for macro (or close-up) MF shots handheld and without flash. I'm sure everyone has a different answer. I'm trying to adjust my expectations and get a sense of the range of experiences. I know it's not easy to get a sharp photo and have been reading many posts and articles about how to go about it.
I mean the part of the subject you want in focus, not the whole thing. I usually get something in focus, but not what I want (for example, the bug's butt instead of its face).
My one question now is: On average, how many of your handheld shots don't have the subject in focus? How many for, let's say, a non-moving subject such as a flower? For a moving subject, like a bee? Or whatever example you have for shots out in the field without the benefit of studio conditions.
If I'm watering the garden and happen to see an awesome spider, I'm unlikely to get out all the equipment. It's just me and my macro lens. I tend to take around 10 shots (often more) of each composition with the hope that one will be in focus. I'm new to SLR and MF photography, and since macro/close-up is what I especially like, I want to develop a realistic set of expectations to go with the techniques I'm learning.
Thanks
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
06-10-2014, 12:42 PM
|
| |
It seems odd to me that in hundreds of shots, the same part of the photo is in or out of focus -- usually the part closer to me (almost always the lower part) is clear when I'm trying focus elsewhere. Is that consistent with what's described in the post above? Also, I think I have the same problem with a tripod, but I haven't yet tested that extensively. I did some tests with a stable set-up, but I had the viewfinder diopter adjustment wrong and plan to do it again.
I appreciate all the comments, but I want to make sure people know what's going on here. This isn't about random or general focusing problem with handheld MF.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
06-10-2014, 11:57 AM
|
| |
Thanks for all the great information.
I discovered that I hadn't reset the diopter adjustment on the viewfinder some of the times when I changed eyeglasses, but even after checking that, it still seems to be focusing on the parts that are closer than my target area. By focusing slightly behind where I want, I'm getting some acceptable shots, at least that's how it seems. I haven't had time to do systematic testing yet.
Just for the fun, I'm posting a recent chive photo that I like, and a spider I like as a subject (even though the lighting and position wasn't ideal). I'm still trying to see if I can get sharp shots with the M 100mm f4 handheld, even if it isn't always exactly where I wanted to focus.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-07-2014, 06:30 AM
|
| |
Here you go... Thanks for the opportunity.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
06-05-2014, 05:49 PM
|
| |
My other main interest is writing erotic fiction. I've had a few short stories published. I also set up erotic scenarios with action figures and photograph them for my blog or for other people.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
06-04-2014, 10:50 AM
|
| |
I have many more examples of this pattern, and I think it's usually the part that is closer to the camera. Because of what the subjects are, this is usually the lower part, often to the left. (I've been trying out all the lenses on a particular plant not shown here.) I had an instance of the upper part being in sharper focus, and it was also the closer part of the subject.
Thank you!
Edited to add two images - cropped example and zoomed in. In an absolute sense and compared to the closer rock above and to the right, I don't think the spider is in focus.
|
