|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
04-10-2024, 10:16 PM
|
| |
Shut. We replaced most of our windows about 10 years ago with modern double-glazed units and they all have child/thief-proof stays. They only open about 150 mm or so. I can get my phone out there for a shot, but not my camera. In any case, this specimen was wary of me having my camera pressed up against the (somewhat dirty) glass. I would expect it would have flown away if I opened the window. It was only a few metres away.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
04-10-2024, 01:09 AM
|
| |
If I see a competition for "indoor photography" I'm gonna submit this. I was in my house when I took it.
 KP240750 by zkarj, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
04-03-2024, 12:37 AM
|
| |
My >350mm collection is easily displayed on the head of a pin. I wanna see the complete collection now.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-25-2024, 11:30 AM
|
| |
You should definitely be able to purchase additional data via the mobile app. I know I've done it in the past, though not lately.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-20-2024, 09:19 PM
|
| |
I recently watched a video (from a reputable source) about contrails and what is being done about minimising them. In that video it was said that it's only the contrails that hang around a long time that create a problem. Every one I've seen since then has been of the short lived variety. Here's another shot of the same pass, but up-sun (there was a real 'glow' to the trail at that angle).
 KP240647 by zkarj, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-20-2024, 12:08 AM
|
| |
I haven't been to an air show since I've owned the PLM, nor even since I've owned the KP. But I have plenty of examples of the earlier 55-300s on K10D and K-5 that suggest the K-3 III should be able to handle the action plenty well enough. But... oof, that sky! My Mum and some rellies went to watch them in Nelson the next day, too. All we got was my brother heard them drone past at 15,000 feet earlier on the Saturday.
That's... interesting. When I saw the image I thought you'd come up with some nifty printing method along the lines of recent posts we've seen (was it Kiwizinho?).
That is a very lovely looking spot! One of these days I must figure out if there are any easily accessible "bush" areas around here that don't involve dirty great hills. I know... Wellington, right? What am I thinking?
Gotta love a plane + moon shot.
Speaking of high flying planes, this was my latest. It wasn't exactly above me, but the ground track was within ~270 m of my house! Qantas Sydney to Santiago.
 KP240650 by zkarj, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-06-2024, 10:34 PM
|
| |
If you use Photoshop, then I understand that. If you only want Lightroom, the inclusion of Photoshop isn't really a bonus.
Personally, I not only prefer Affinity Photo to Photoshop, but it is an extremely rare event that any of my photos end up in there anyway. So Photoshop is a null in my value equation. Yes I played with their new generative AI stuff when it launched (enough to know it has severe limitations), but I find the Photoshop interface to be a mess of cross-platform compromise.
You are not alone in only upgrading to every other version of PhotoLab. I think DxO understand this is kind of a default position, as their upgrade policy is exactly that — you can upgrade from n-1 and n-2 only.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-06-2024, 12:22 AM
|
| |
DxO PureRAW 4 is out, introducing some key new features:
* You can now control the amount of noise reduction and sharpness.
* You can see the results immediately.
* DeepPRIME XD2 has arrived.
I have had some stunning results from XD2, even at the default settings.
DeepPRIME XD (DPXD) has been in PhotoLab for 2 releases now and it has its uses, but needs to be treated with care, as it can often introduce false textures, and not in a believable way. My default in PhotoLab is to use DeepPRIME (DP) unless a photo needs something more — typically when a heavy crop is made.
DeepPRIME XD2 (DPXD2) has, in my testing, yielded consistently fantastic results with the default settings. In the below comparison, DPXD (which has been replaced in PureRAW by DPXD2) has been left at default noise reduction, but needed the "noise model" slider pulled back significantly. That stopped unwanted textures in the OOF area, but also mushed the details somewhat.
This is a real pixel-peep on a very noisy image that, I think, I didn't quite nail focus on. You may judge whether DP was enough, particularly when downscaled for final output, or even just zoomed to a sensible viewing level, but this is a comparison to put the algorithms to the test. For shots that are heavily cropped it can be a real shot saver. My tests on night shots with ISO values in the 800-6400 range have been almost all utterly fantastic with DPXD2. Those that weren't, I think, were showing up the other flaws in the images.
The DP and DPXD2 examples are at default settings. The original is ISO 25600, f/8, 1/750 with the DA 55-300 PLM on KP.
And expect DPXD2 to probably come to PhotoLab 8 later this year. They tend not to add major new capabilities like this in interim releases. They have, however, just released PhotoLab 7.5 with an additional 1080 camera/lens combos.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-03-2024, 10:30 PM
|
| |
Looks like some kind of Mollymawk or perhaps a Royal Albatross. I remember Dad always trying to spot the big birds from the boat. It's a while since I have been on one of the Cook Strait ferries — not this century!
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
02-29-2024, 10:41 PM
|
| |
I wish we had that type of water around here... the flat type. Beautiful shots.
I often apply some de-hazing to backgrounds when they aren't so much layered as just there. If I have a shot of an aircraft at Wellington Airport, often the most prominent part of the background is distant hills, but there is mostly just that lot of hills, not layer upon layer behind. I find the stark difference between the deep colours of the foreground and the washed out colours of the background to look icky, so I de-haze it somewhat.
For landscape shots, I agree it makes a positive difference, as in this one.
 K5111570 by zkarj, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
02-04-2024, 10:29 PM
|
| |
I'm not worried about noise from LV, but about keeping the sensor live longer than it needs to be. If hot pixels are exacerbated (if not caused) by heat, then keeping the sensor live can't help. Also, the higher ISO keeps the sensor live for less time per shot, although that's obviously fractional compared to the live view.
I have now. I think I was vaguely aware this was a thing but had never actually looked into it. I've run the process but there is zero feedback so who knows if it has done anything.
I had actually never seen hot pixels before I embarked on this project.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
02-04-2024, 04:49 PM
|
| |
I was avoiding Live View and upping the ISO as a combined assault on hot pixels. In my original process, I noticed lots of bright pink dots in dark areas of the slide film I had scanned. Extrapolating, I'd say a fully dark frame would have 50 or more 'artefacts' of either single pixels or a very small grouping. Software can deal with them, but I'd rather not have them.
For regular photography, I wouldn't think twice about ISO 200, so thought it wouldn't make a material difference.
I am not convinced of either side of the issue yet, though.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
02-03-2024, 10:30 PM
|
| |
Actually, I misspoke. I was using M mode and had fussed around with the histogram, but the chap who sells the film holder reckons to leave it in aperture priority with +0.75 or so EV and that pans out pretty reliably to the manual settings he was using per frame.
The downside of using Live View is it leaves the sensor powered up 100% of the time which I suspect made my hot pixel problem a lot worse. By using Live View to ensure the MF is set correctly at the start of a session (focus peaking works really well with a suitably contrasty negative), I can then switch to standard shooting, meaning less time the sensor is powered up and less noise from the camera. I have been surprised by how noisy it is in Live View! I had been using the Live View to ensure I had the negative lined up just so, but realised I can just eyeball it centred in the film holder and I'm all good, given I set the camera in the right spot to start with.
There's one more piece of equipment I'm trying to figure out. Working in a darkened room is a requirement and although I can easily ping a light on and off without getting up, it's easier to get all the negative strips out and orient them, ready to feed in one at a time. I want some kind of rack to make this even easier. A wooden dish-drying rack is a great design, but they are rather large. Any woodworkers here keen on knocking something up for me? It's basically a couple of square rails and a bunch of dowels and doesn't need to be perfect, excepting sitting flat on a desk. Happy to pay materials and time for anyone with the skill, rather than cheap out for something that's far too big.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
02-03-2024, 02:59 PM
|
| |
Yeah, I have a bunch of e-waste to get rid of including a couple of monitors. I wanted something purpose made and easily portable in my case, but I understand the re-use approach.
I'm starting to get the hang of the process now, and it's certainly much easier with the copy stand, as I don't have to work around one of the tripod legs. I do struggle with the colour a little (a couple below seem to have a cast, but they are good enough). Slide films are ironically the hardest despite no need to negate.
I have finally found a real use for the User Modes on the KP. Exposure mode (M), metering mode (multi-segment), white balance (5000K to match my light panel), ISO (200), drive mode (2s delay, until I get my next bit of gear — a remote release), EV compensation (+2/3), and shot review time (1s), are all different from how I normally use the camera. For good measure, I also made the display colour different so I will quickly spot when it's not in the right mode. About the only thing it doesn't do for me is flip the focusing to manual (which also requires a lens action for the Tamron 90).
The last full film I 'scanned' using the complete setup (sans the remote) was one Dad took when he and Mum were transiting Vancouver on a UK trip in 1999. I have a feeling by that stage he wasn't toting a Pentax along, so it would have been some kind of compact, but the scan was done with a Pentax, so it counts, right?
Mum standing by the Gastown steam clock.
 Steam clock by zkarj, on Flickr
A busker in Gastown. Incredibly, I was able to confirm the spot this was taken because that restaurant is still there 24.5 years later!
 Busker by zkarj, on Flickr
The historic Fairmont Hotel reflected in the Toronto Dominion Tower.
 Fairmont Hotel reflection by zkarj, on Flickr
I published 10 shots from the film on Flickr (click on one of the above and go left/right if you want to see the rest). I even managed to figure out exactly where each shot was taken. I was helped somewhat by having a little bit of familiarity with the city from my visits there 2 years before these were taken.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
01-27-2024, 02:11 PM
|
| |
In other news I found a spare memory card. Anyone want it? ;)
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
01-27-2024, 02:04 PM
|
| |
That particular photo is not as historic as you might think... it was taken in 2004!
My brother has most of Dad's photos. Here's one he's scanned and published recently. Wigram, 1st April 1987. Dad was involved in the establishment of the museum down there, and my brother was involved in that RNZAF 50th anniversary colour scheme on the Skyhawk.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
01-27-2024, 01:05 AM
|
| |
The photo shows I am using my iPad which, by all accounts, provides pretty decent light for the task. But it's not terribly bright and I was getting 6" exposure times which, in addition to making the task take longer, was causing hot pixels.
So I figured if I was going to buy something, I'd look for the right sort of light. There are a million choices of light source, but for one that can lie flat and is big enough to stand the film holder on, it was proving a mission to find a cheap one. In the end, I went with one recommended by both the film holder seller and the Negative Lab Pro software I am using — the Kaiser 2453 Slimlite Plano. It's set me back $200 but I know I won't have any trouble with it because it's a known brand and it's designed for this job.
I made no such thing :). The whole contraption you can see is a purchased item called The Essential Film Holder. I saw it demonstrated in a couple of YouTube videos and also mentioned on several blog posts. It comes highly recommended, including now from me. It's easy to use and the results speak for themselves. Once I got used to the basics, I shot a 25 frame film from turning the camera on to usable positives in Lightroom in 25 minutes. With the better equipment (chiefly the copy stand) and some practice, I should be able to get it down to well less than that. The whole reason for this approach is speed. My Epson V600 (when it works*) is arguably less work, but takes sooo much longer. The goal now is to digitise all of my negatives and slides, plus some of Dad's.
*The scanner software has an issue with my Mac, or rather some other software present. I cannot scan at the high resolutions without logging into a special extra user account. Given the slow speed of the scans, the inability to do anything else on the computer at the same time is a real drag.
And speaking of results, this has been poked and prodded a little (and cropped to suit the subject) but was fairly quickly arrived at.
 KP240274 by zkarj, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
01-26-2024, 01:57 PM
|
| |
Yes, that's the one.
Here's my main use case.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
01-25-2024, 07:35 PM
|
| |
It will depend on who actually ships your goods, but a package I recently received in an Amazon box (which I think was Amazon-fulfilled items) has a CourierPost label.
Well I got myself a copy stand at a reasonable price. I found a post elsewhere in the forums from a person doing almost exactly what I want to do and they recommended a no-name one that is related to the $300 one I had found, based on examining the pictures. The $300 was the copy stand plus two lights on articulating arms which I didn't need. I was close to clicking buy when I stumbled across the basic version with no lights, which had a very similar model number to the PF poster's one. $99 or $115 shipped!
The company I bought from were excellent. I used their contact form to ask a question and got a straightforward answer back the next day. I ordered it on Wednesday and it arrived on Friday, and along the way there have been just the right number of emails telling me what was happening. The company is called Photogear. I'll be keeping them in mind for any future gear searches.
As for the product itself, it's a little larger than I need, but that just means it's more flexible for future needs. The quality isn't exceptional but is perfectly good and it is sturdy. Some minor assembly is required and it comes with the tool required for that.
The all important alignment is pretty close to perfect, and it's super easy to operate — once you figure out the "quick release" catch. (Hint: there are two parts to it.) It's just as well it is a simple product because the instructions provided are... errr... a challenging read. When else would you attach the ascend-and-descend-pole to the soleplate using a hexangular spanner?
Now I'm trying to find the right light source, which has the opposite issue — so many to choose from and yet none quite right.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
01-20-2024, 08:29 PM
|
| |
Does anyone have a copy stand they no longer need? They seem to be an expensive proposition new with not much to choose from. I can find one that's $300 of unknown provenance. The next one after that is $600, and if I look on places like Photo Warehouse they start at $1600!!
All I need is to sturdily hold ~1.1 kg at 380mm above the bed (mounting screw height). I'm currently using my tripod in inverted configuration, which works, but requires quite the fiddling to adjust for the perfect vertical shoot, not to mention taking quite a lot of room.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
01-18-2024, 12:42 AM
|
| |
I can recreate the problem in the browser, but it works just fine in the mobile app. The browser interface is a recent addition, with the mobile app being the core focus. I did manage to work around it by typing quite quickly and I was always able to click back in the search field and add to what I had already typed. Less than ideal, but not impossible. I'd not actually used search myself, I used the various Explore options. I found a handful of people to follow from that and now it's growing organically for me as with any social graph.
If you go to your profile page, there is a settings icon, top left in the browser, and within there you can find Contact Support. It just launches a new email to hi@glass.photo.
About the camera models — yes it lists Pentax under Ricoh, but that is the current ownership — I assume it's based on photos in the library. Maybe there are no K500 photos uploaded yet.
As I mentioned, the mobile app was the main focus and it is supposed to be "photos to the front" with minimal distraction. It's been a little bit of a learning curve because of this, but there's not a lot to it once you poke around. It's kinda refreshing to be honest.
The only real beef I have with it is the limitations on the categories. I don't mind the limit of three — in fact that's a good idea — and I don't mind that there are a limited number to choose from, but I find some of the ones present over-specific where other areas are quite lacking. For instance, animal, cat, bird, wildlife — seems an odd mix. I'd have thought just wildlife, pet. Considering there is no dog. However, they do have a theme, I think once a month, which is based on a keyword. The current one is lines so maybe cat got there via that route. Meanwhile my aviation photos I generally put under vehicle but some people use aerial. I'll use both if the shot is of one flying.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
01-15-2024, 08:22 PM
|
| |
Anyone here on Glass? I tried it when it was still quite new and it didn't stick for me. (Two or so years ago.) Someone I know gave an impassioned appraisal of it recently which made me decide to give it another go. I've found some really interesting photographers that have a bunch of stuff I like and have some engagement on my stuff, which I am trying to keep varied. Not sure if it will stick this time either, but I have committed to a year to give it a fair shake. Meanwhile I have no intention to ditch Flickr, so I'm not sure it makes financial sense in any case, but let's see.
Allister Jenks on Glass |
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
01-04-2024, 01:57 PM
|
| |
Hmmmm... that looks a little familiar.
I have a case I keep my GPS unit and batteries in...
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
01-02-2024, 09:00 PM
|
| |
First camera-laden outing of the year. I had hoped to find wading birds at the Waikanae River mouth, but found no such thing — I may need to do some more research. Still, it was a nice walk with the missus, and there were a smattering of other birds around. Pied Shags, Variable Oystercatchers, Southern Black-backed Gulls and Red-billed Gulls (of course), a couple of Caspian Terns, and a flocking great number of White-fronted Terns...
 KP240032 by zkarj, on Flickr
 KP240045 by zkarj, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
12-31-2023, 01:48 PM
|
| |
I know it's in the EXIF, but I do find it useful quite often to know by glancing at a filename what year it was taken. While the originals are neatly loaded into Lightroom for any real searching, the files tend to end up in other places from time to time and at least getting the year is useful.
I don't rename on import nor export. If you look at my Flickr, the vast majority of titles are like "KP231234". There are some sets of photos I will give a proper title there, but it's pointless and a chore to name every single aircraft shot! I cover my bases with tags.
I used to do that but having it roll in the middle of a year so KP9999 was taken before KP0001 can be annoying when sorting files by name.
I also know people who religiously rename their files based on the timestamp. I can totally see the point in doing that, and in fact I used to do it back in my compact digital days, but Lightroom puts my Pentax files in YYYY/MM folders automatically which solves that problem (as well as having too many files in one folder).
|
