|
Forum: Photographic Technique
12-05-2008, 08:26 AM
|
| |
I usually load evetything into Lightroom, first I make a quick selection, discarding all blured, out-of-focused, or really unacceptable shots, then I pick ones that I'm really satisfied with, and do the post-processing on them only. If I'm doing just basic processing (like contrast, saturation and sharpness), it takes about 1min per photo, it takes longer if I'm playing with masking, filters and stuff becouse it takes time to estimate what looks good, and what doesn't. I guess there's no such thing as too much time in post-processing if shots are good, it's just waste of time if you're trying to get something really good through PP, out of mediocre or bad photo...
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
10-05-2008, 04:11 PM
|
| |
I've been through really a lot of water with k10d, and it worked perfectly... only one little "problem", and that's moist gathering between viewfinder screen and magnifier, but this is easily fixed by removing magnifier or just cleaning ih every now and then...
I had no problems in really heavy rain with 50-135
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
10-05-2008, 04:09 PM
|
| |
I'm not sure you can close your finance option with selling both bodies and buying k20d plus lens... I don't think you'll even cover just cost of k20d.
I'd keep k10d, sell k200d, save something and invest into lenses, 50-135 for example :) or primes if you preffer, let's say that nice 77 1.8 ltd...
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
10-03-2008, 08:51 AM
|
| |
that's usually about JPG look, and overall controls... To get really nice JPG results just bump sharpness up, contrast +1 or even +2 for real black in shots, and there's that vivid option which I find usefull for landscapes, but again, that means constant WhiteBalance checking since colors get a bit off, if WB is to warm...
This ofcourse, doesn't apply for RAW, since it's all user work with it...
controls are whole different story, considering k10d is really detailed and comprehensive about 'em... I spent about a month untill fully setup as I like :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
10-03-2008, 08:46 AM
|
| |
what about viewfinder size? how much difference compared to k10?
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
10-03-2008, 08:38 AM
|
| |
I guess the only question is actually to carry that fifty or not... You'll definitely need wide angle, so you need 18-250, and you can't really argue will you find something to use 50-135 on, since it's opticaly the best, and without any doubt better than 18-250... now, I guess there's no point making portraits with full out of focus background at the scene, since you can do this anywhere, so f/1,4 won't really be needed, and for 50mm, again, you have 50-135... If I'd have to pick one lens only, then 18-250 - soft shot is better than no shot, and I'd miss wide angle...
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-30-2008, 12:06 PM
|
| |
It's simply the best lens I've ever used (and I've been a long time with ZuikoDigital (14-54 f/2,8-3,5 is still best all around lens for my taste) and Canon L)!
Although I had some focusing problems from start, it turned out my focusing screen was really dirty, after cleaning it's just perfect...
Opticaly and mechanicaly it's just great, end results surprise me every time I look at photos after day of shooting.
Compact, light, weathersealed... There's only one thing I can say that's not so great - focusing speed. It's ok for 95% of use, but not for really fast sports, and I mean really fast...
Closest description of this lens would be - pure sex!
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-28-2008, 12:26 PM
|
| |
you know... this isn't very nice thing to post :) now I'm going to have nightmares all week :)
anyway, I'm really sorry for your loss, and hope you'll get as much as you can out of insurance policy
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-25-2008, 02:08 PM
|
| |
funny thing actually... you just start to think they forgot something and you start feeling comfortable, and then - BAM!
she'll remember it, don't worry... just wait 'till shoe-season starts... or whatever they call, you know, that weird looking things with 2 to 3 pointy, sharp ends, they put 'em under the feet or something :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-25-2008, 02:02 PM
|
| |
actually, it's the other way around... you'll see most of the differences while pixel-peeping, on paper it's a lot harder to notice anything really that detail. Ofcourse, I'm not including here objective elements like DoF or direct light contrast, but overall look such as sharpness and tiny amounts of purple fringing...
I've printed a lot of shots(30x20cm and 45x30cm) with my k10d+18-55 and it's way more that acceptable, but when I look at 'em on my cheap LCD display, I wish more, and compared to 50-135 - it's no contest at all... quality is more than obvious. Now, I used PentaxME+Braun 28-70 3,4-4,8 lens for a while, and it gave great results enlarged to 30x20cm or 24x18cm, but - I can tell the difference when compared to Takumar 35-70 f/3,5 prints... Tak is just better, and you can tell it even on paper...
so, is the cheap lens something you should disregard? Not a chance
After all, if the shot is good, who cares how sharp is it, or which brand of butter is that "smooth-butter" look of DoF...
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-24-2008, 01:00 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Camera and Field Accessories
09-17-2008, 10:25 AM
|
| |
Hey... I'm thinking of buying ExtremeIII card instead of my set of Ultra2 cards, and now here's the question - would k10d performance benefit of it at all?
I can't find read/write speed for k10d's buffer, so if anyone has used both card types - please help :)
I know I'll feel the difference while transfering to computer, but I'm primarily interested in camera performance...
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-15-2008, 12:11 PM
|
| |
actually, I do own super carenar 50mm f/1,9 which is quite nice, and pentax m 50 f/1,7 but I find manual focusing without split-screen a major pain in the butt... so, since DoF is next to none at f/1,4 through 2,0 - I'd like an autofocus 50 for portraits...
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-14-2008, 05:55 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-14-2008, 05:44 PM
|
| |
well, I guess that's it - I'm not going to buy 50 1,4... I think I'll use that money either for some more mem. cards or portable hard drive :) 50-135 is just fine for portrait work :)
hm... I think this is the first time for me that I actually decided NOT to buy a new lens :D
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
09-14-2008, 01:10 PM
|
| |
hi... third is just great, and I think first would benefit a lot from some cropping, let's say just above ear-line, so you'll get something like 16:9 aspect ratio, and you won't worry about that chin-cutting... nice work
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
09-14-2008, 01:02 PM
|
| |
maybe you should just turn 'em into BW with a lot of contrast. I hope you won't mind, I took a chance with the first one and here's the result...
 |
|
Forum: General Photography
09-14-2008, 12:42 PM
|
| |
Series "My Name is Earl" - Season 2, in one epised Earl uses k1000 with some flash mounted on
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-14-2008, 12:26 PM
|
| |
hm, this is all true, size is not really that important since I'd be using it mainly for portraits, studio and outdoors, but not street or something that versatile... I was thinking that DoF that shallow like 50 @ f/1,4 is not really usable, so I'd be using it around 2-2,8 anyway, and if I really need more shallow DoF, I can simply zoom towards 135mm end on my 50-135... I guess I'll do some testing with it first... thanx guys
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-14-2008, 11:25 AM
|
| |
I'm thinking of getting this SMC FA 50 f/1,4 - but... as I understand, it's quite soft wide open, so I guess I'll be mostly using it at f/2,8 of f/4 for portraits, and here's my problem - I have 50-135 which is great at 50mm and f/2,8 so - do I need new lens, if I'm going to be using it at same length and aparture as my 50-135...
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-14-2008, 10:23 AM
|
| |
well, I'm sorry that this happened to you, but it's sensor problem, you'll probably get a new through support service, maybe even whole new camera... good luck
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-14-2008, 08:31 AM
|
| |
can you post an example? if it's some hardware problem, I guess it would be through whole image, in exact same place every time, and it's unlikely to be just one line, usually it's all over the image in some repeating manner. This sounds to me like hair or something on sensor, but please post an example...
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-14-2008, 04:18 AM
|
| |
hey everyone, first of all - great shots all around :)
next, why is noise an issue at all? I mean, in my digital begginings, first thing I'd look when reviewing a camera was iso and noise. In time, I learned that there's really no point in judging camera's high iso with 1sec exposure at iso1600 in pitch black night...
Then with my experience, I started to look first at contrast, colors, and things like that, then noise. Then, came time to value noise problems in printed photos, not 1:1 pixel peeping on some crappy LCD display, and now - I don't mind noise at all. If image is really that noisy, for example, if I pushed 2 stops more from RAW at iso1600, I simply switch it to B/W and there's good old grain, as it's supposed to be in BW prints, right?
I have k10d, and I just love that rounded noisy jpg look that comes out, I can't get that "grain" while converting from RAW. I guess that noise really is problem only if you get really messy photo in 30x20cm print, details eaten away and everything in red/yellow cast. As far as internet, forums and uploading images go, we all downsize our shots, and you can easily clean those up without any loss. so, for my money - noise is not an issue
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
09-09-2008, 01:10 PM
|
| |
I don't really see anything so out-of-this-world sharp in those photos. First one is regular shot, with some unsharp mask or something applied in post-processing, and second one is also post-processed quite a bit, plus hair with backlight gives appearence of really sharp images. Then again, all photos with lots of contrast appear sharper.
Most of "it's tack sharp" or "it's quite soft" talk is reserved just for pixel-peeping, and mostly people who complain about their "soft" images just lack experience with processing 'em. Usually after resizeing. So, considering all things mentioned above, after you finish all your post-processing and downsize your images to let's say 1000px, save one as it is, and then save another one with Unsharp mask applied, amount 300-500% and size 0,125-0,2. Then compare results, I guess you'll see improvement no matter which body+lens combination used. Using 18-55 can give really good results, just not in the 18-20mm area, and at 55mm, but you should get really good stuff around 30-45mm, and f/5,6-8...
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-09-2008, 03:36 AM
|
| |
I'm not so sure about this one, Lightroom does process JPGs in same way as it does RAW, but - there is nothing to process in jpg files, so you actually end up with some pretty bad looking results, I'm not reffering to WB or color in general, but for options like "fill light", contrast, or squeezing +1.5EV from jpg, which is perfectly normal with RAW... Range is very, very limited in jpg, I'd say it's like comparing c41 negatives with e6, once e6 is taken - it's taken, you can still play around a bit, but that's it.
|
