Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Showing results 1 to 25 of 300 Search:
Forum: General Photography 04-22-2019, 11:02 AM  
Death Valley extra added attraction - Star Wars Canyon (Top Gun Airshow)
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 19
Views: 1,290
This is pretty cool. Does anyone know if they do this year round, or is it more of a summer activity?

My wife an I were in Death Valley for a week a few years ago and hiked along this canyon a bit with no awareness of this. I would have been quite surprised if I would have seen a jet fly in below us.

On a side note, when I saw the title of this thread I was initially thinking about a few other areas in Death Valley where George Lucas actually shot some parts of Star Wars (mostly a New Hope). A few small scenes from Tatooine actually come from Death Valley (as opposed to Tunisia where I think a lot of scenes were shot).
Forum: General Photography 04-22-2019, 10:48 AM  
How did Pentax Alienate Retailers?
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 146
Views: 5,329
Interesting thread.

This issues discussed are really much wider than Pentax or even cameras. Internet retail can out compete B&M shopping because they don't need to pay for retail workers, they don't need to pay a lease on a physical space, and so on. Who's to blame for this, well the responsibility lies all over the place and is probably rooted back with the suburbanization of everything.

Where I grew up, it was the big chain B&M shopping that put all the local smalltown retailers out of business. Now the internet is putting those big chain B&M's out of business. I am sure there will continue to be an evolution, although I am not sure exactly how, and it will probably depend on the type of product and companies.

For cameras, there certainly would have to be a benefit to allowing people to get their hands on them, but the camera industry is reeling a bit when you consider the role phones play. This is part of why all the companies are in a struggle. There is a retail dilemma brewing because of the challenge of some people wanting physical stores but not sufficiently (or economically enough) to make it work. And there is other nostalgia factors that make all business struggle (books vs ebooks, records vs mp3s, phones vs mirrorless vs slrs, film vs digital, etc). Too many choices and little room for profit margins.

It's a challenge. I've never been able to try a Pentax in person since I've been into dSLRs. I had to go by online reviews and a gut instinct and this community (and my own economic situation at the time). Only once have I seen a Pentax camera on the shelf at a retailer, and the retailer tried to steer me clear. I never understood why since it was on their shelf and any purchase would clear a space, but the broader need to sell lenses with it probably had a factor. Overall, it's just a big uggh.

A last digression, I am a tall guy. Since the internet shopping exploded for clothing retailers, I've not been able to try a piece of clothing on in person. B&M's won't carry my size (shoes, pants, shirts) any more. I'm told to buy online and then have to deal with the whole shipping and return complication of the internet when things don't fit. I mostly despise the current state of business even though I am stuck in it.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 04-22-2019, 09:05 AM  
Slideshow Software
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 22
Views: 1,023
I would second the Pro-show software as it has a lot of features and is dedicated to the task while allowing you to publish to places like YouTube, DVD, etc.

Alternatively, besides the options above, PowerPoint can do well if you already have Microsoft Office (not sure how many people do anymore, but it is standard for my office job) and I would assume that any other Office Alternative could do it through its presentation software.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 04-22-2019, 09:03 AM  
Tips on learning digital processing?
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 15
Views: 1,069
1. Start with the RAW+ as others suggested. There will be less pressure that way.

2. Pick a few different programs to try out. While online videos tend to be heavily geared towards LR (only you can decide if you want to go that route), other software is essentially the same with the complication that nomenclature and work flow will change... For instance, levels, contrast, sharpening, etc are all there in each software and the concepts are the same. It's the how that will vary here and there.

I argue that most software can get to a similar endpoint, it's the steps that slightly change, and the software selection really depends on how your mind sees the process. LR is conceptually one of the easier ones to use, albeit I realized after switching from it that the starting point was quite a few steps from an end point: a. it took a lot of steps to get to an end for each image but b. I completely understood the process and didn't find myself going overboard.

I use DxO now, and the user interface is not as straight forward, although coming from LR, it's easy to figure out, but man, I can get to a finished image in seconds.

Finally, in terms of an exercise, I would actually suggest shooting a bracketed group of images on your camera (say -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 ev) and run them into your software of choice and see if you can get them all to look the same as your 0 (or whatever you find as the ideal image). Understanding how to play with exposure and contrast is probably the most important benefit of shooting raw (well color tone is huge too), and it's those instance in the field when you accidentally make a shot that under or overexposed that you are happiest you have a raw file.

On the color side of it, I usually shoot auto-wb, and I have had instances (shooting in Utah for instance where most rocks are red) where the Auto-WB was quite different from what I intended. Again, the RAW software saved the day.

Have fun. Having the RAW+, makes that easier. It is a lot of work to process RAW files, and if you don't have to for every image, you'll be able to learn at your own pace and when it is most necessary.
Forum: Pentax Lens Articles 04-09-2019, 08:18 AM  
Depth of Field Muddle, muddle, muddle.......
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 17
Views: 2,763
Of course.... it would be silly to not recognize that link up.

The only thing I would argue is whether even an 8 x 10 means much. All our eyes are different, and what is acceptable to you in an 8 x 10 may not be to another. In other words, it is really only in the mind if one person (or perhaps a few people) who looked at some 8 x 10's and agreed.

My point was that the numbers don't mean much because it's subjective. Heck, it's not like I go out with a tape measure anyway. Normhead was hitting a similar nail as I was getting at. If I know I want a narrow depth of field, I go off of my experience and the broad concepts. I don't find it reasonable (and I am sure many of us don't) to worry about the CoC and so forth. I don't even think that hard about exactly where my lenses are sharpest. I was only noting that there was a time I concentrated (perhaps too much) on these concepts because how else can one get to the "ignore the whole issue or don't worry about it", i.e. instinctual without understanding it at some point. The true understanding comes from recognizing the imperfection of the math.

I know most my lenses are sharpest over a range of f5.6 to f8 (maybe a little broader). Of course that, like the 8 x 10 and doF, is subjective (perhaps more forgiving). These days, as a father of a 3 year old and an engineer that works 60+ hours per week, I don't worry about remember anything too specifically. I rarely get to use a tripod except to shoot the family portrait, and I rarely get to ponder over or perfect a shot. When I suspect those subjective issues might come up, I shoot a bracket quickly and move on.

If I am out shooting, it is with the 3 year old, and while she can appreciate a nice view, by necessity, my patience to get the shot can only be about as much as a 3 year old's. Later in life, it will probably hard to adjust back to trying to perfect shots. But, I will say the digital world has given a lot of wiggle room at little cost compared to the film days.

I am not old enough to have the experience of some on this forum. Film for me was something I only had the experience from perhaps when I was 10 (when I was given an SLR) through college (when I moved to a P&S digital camera). Through those ages, money is quite restrictive. I had two lenses a 50 mm and an 85 mm and perhaps enough money to buy one or two rolls of film per month. I shot a scene with one, maybe two shots. I looked at dof charts and always narrowed the aperture a half step down to guarantee I wasn't off. A landscape shot almost always took 5+ minutes of planning, and I never had a good tripod nor the ability to change iso from shot to shot. I also never shot anything more than iso 400. The patience of a 3 year old would have been futile in those days.

-Erik
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 04-08-2019, 04:18 PM  
Question about colour management
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 5
Views: 687
The Spyder or other profiler is more complicated. You are creating an .icm file for your specific monitor, and ideally you would do that regularly (I do it monthly). Every monitor is going to be a bit different and evolve. Changes may happen if you tweak monitor settings, how you have it connected, how long it has been on, and so forth.

It doesn't mean you absolutely need it. It's going to be most useful if you are using your images in ways where what you see on your monitor is not consistent with what you are getting elsewhere (prints, web-pages, others computers, etc). I mostly got it to deal with discrepancies I would get between my images on screen vs what was printed on paper. Ideally I would have soft-proofed with printer profiles, too, but my knowledge gain was very slow, and using the monitor profiling equipment solved my issues.
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 04-08-2019, 08:57 AM  
Fungus/Degradation on rear element of FA-35-80mm F4.0-5.6
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 19
Views: 989
Obviously you've thought about it, but I'll just give you one other thought (I work in risk, albeit for floods and earthquakes and preventing loss, so the risk is a bit different here).

Let's say the risk for fungus in a lens is 0.1% (1/1000); I'm not sure what it really is, but that is probably reasonable and perhaps 1/100 if you live in a more humid environment (and a lot lower if you live in a desert).

So having that lens with mold on it could increase your mold by some factor, and in risk those factors are usually on orders of magnitude. So while perceptually low, the presence of that lens increases the risk by a factor of 10 (e.g. 1%). This isn't saying anything about where the fungus comes from but just the presence. Basing it on some percentage (.1% or 1% accounts for the limited likelihood based on environmental factors like you listed vs. 100% (guaranteed to get it) or 50% (essentially a count flip).

Ok. So let's say the presence of a lens with a fungus in it (regardless of where the fungus comes from) increases the risk to a 1% chance you'll get the fungus in another lens. Well, this would mean that if had 100 lenses you would be all but guaranteed to to get the fungus in one other lens. If you only have 10 lenses, then there is a 10% chance one of them would get it.

All I am getting at is that while risks can be small when considered on an individual basis, they can be significantly higher when you have a large population. A situation occurred where a lens got a fungus, and that automatically increases risk. And while the risk of another individual lens getting the fungus may still be low (but now a bit higher), the odds of another lens getting it increases as you have more lenses. The caveat on risk in general is just how much you are willing to accept the risks. With lenses, this isn't a life, so it really isn't that big of a deal, it is just statistics. The starting risk may be much lower (or higher than I gave) but the relative change in risk is probably correct. Once a lens has gotten a fungus, there is probably a 10 times increase in risk that another will get one, and then it goes up more by a factor based on how many lenses you have.

On a side note, this is a difficult we face in my job. When we design structures for a 1/2500 risk, we still get failures because there are often way more than 2500 structures that face an earthquake. Once we have over 2500 structures, we are all but guaranteed one will fail. Travel is similar (planes vs. cars); The odds of plane crashes are much lower than those of cars, but when you tally up the number of cars vs planes (and the number of flights), both end up happening because there is no such thing as zero risk; there are 32million plane flights per year in the U.S. If even if the risk of a plane crash is 1 in 10million, that says there will be 3 plane crashes per year in the U.S. alone.

Thankfully lenses aren't lives lost, but it's also a lot easier with lenses to lower the risks (or be willing to deal with the consequences if the risks become reality).

Sorry for beating a dead topic but rather just pointing out how even low probability events can become more probable and risky.
Forum: Pentax Lens Articles 04-05-2019, 03:56 PM  
Depth of Field Muddle, muddle, muddle.......
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 17
Views: 2,763
I'm not sure I would say absolutely meaningless, however.

In terms of exact numbers, yes, the numbers may not mean much. But, there is value in understanding how the depth of field would relate, qualitatively across various focal lengths, subject distances, and apertures. The concept is important and is one of the primary reasons I shoot with an SLR.

Now I mostly shoot for fun, and it would drive me crazy to think too exactly about depth of field, but when I was first really trying to grasp all this information, I would use a little wheel I had (BA, before apps) to help give me an idea of depth of field (and hyperfocal distance). It got me in the ballpark, and with a dSLR I would just preview the image to confirm I wasn't too narrow if it mattered. Of course, that's on a 3-in screen, so it is always a grain of salt, but now I rarely bother. I can get in the ballpark on instinct, but it hardly diminishes the value of knowing.
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 04-05-2019, 11:58 AM  
Fungus/Degradation on rear element of FA-35-80mm F4.0-5.6
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 19
Views: 989
My thoughts on all your efforts, is I would probably keep that lens segregated from your other lenses. Mold/Fungii spores can be small and move around. The problem with these lenses is often their ability to be contagious to other lenses. That's not to say it will happen, but it is a risk, especially since you opened the lens up.
Forum: Photo Critique 04-03-2019, 03:23 PM  
Nature Dead plants
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 2
Views: 355
First off, I think both images are nicely composed.

The second image I feel like the focus (more specifically the depth of field) is too narrow and the area that is in focus gets distracted by the parts of the leaf that are out of focus. And then, the branch to the left of the frame grabs attention, so it becomes hard to see what the subject really is. Aside from that, I would probably crop away just a bit to the right and top of the image, but that is a nitpick.

I was going to comment that each image might be good in black and white, but I actually like the way they are colored.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 04-03-2019, 08:51 AM  
K1 in print test
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 84
Views: 3,666
Right, and I don't think it is just CA.

When we start dealing with a lens that is softer, we might need a higher dpi to maintain what appearance of sharpness we can get, or we put a lot more effort into sharpening in PP. But it isn't too straightforward because that need develops because we have more resolution. It is a bit of a chicken and the egg situation.

Ultimately, it's probably best not to think too hard about these things, but it is useful to be aware that we don't need 300 dpi for everything we print (despite what a printer might tell you).
Forum: General Photography 04-03-2019, 08:11 AM  
NYC is dead
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 23
Views: 1,701
It is.

I see it in San Francisco and now even more so in Oakland and the East Bay. I have mixed feelings about it. It revitalizes areas that are obviously on the down at of course the loss of the character that made it what it was. Cities in California aren't really that old, so it is rare to have a piece of history, and the tough part is seeing gentrification overtake what little history we have. Plus, by its nature gentrification (especially at a rapid pace) gets a bit monotonous. Architecture is essentially prefab and of its era. It will all look old together and have a character that probably won't be unlike the population boom of the 1950's and 1960's.

Oh well... this is why photographers should document this history for better or worse.
Forum: General Photography 04-02-2019, 04:27 PM  
NYC is dead
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 23
Views: 1,701
History shows that cities evolve. I look at the degrading cities and I see visions of cities I've seen elsewhere that have degraded and have come around.

I don't doubt that some day Detroit will evolve as the earliest post suggested. Of course the majority here think its crazy, and I certainly wouldn't move there for many reasons the naysayers have suggested. But, the world and the U.S. are full of lots of people, and it only takes a small percentage of them to see a place like that as an opportunity and to have the bit of craziest and willingness to gamble on that.

I live in California, a state that is full of its overpriced real-estate. The worst parts of the state are redeveloping like crazy on account of being relatively affordable. On the negative side, this evolution removes a lot of character and history, but it will create a new history. Then, the redevelopment only further raises the cost-of-living and makes the richer cities less affordable. And it's the affordability that makes people look elsewhere, including businesses. In a place like Detroit, it only takes a the city or state to make incentives for businesses to fall into place that then bring in the money to rebuild.

For photography, it's a lot of opportunity to chronicle change.
Forum: General Photography 04-02-2019, 03:18 PM  
Digital - Do you keep everything
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 58
Views: 1,822
I am much better at deleting shots and culling. If I have a series of similar photos, I try to keep 10% at the most. While historically (I used to keep it all), I've been able to make shots I delete now look good in a raw editor, I find it inefficient to have many of a similar shot. It makes culling harder (later) and it means I'll spend more time in PP of photos.

So for a scene, I may keep 1 to 3 shots. The only exceptions get to be family, but even then I only keep relatively unique shots.

In terms of storing a lot of photos and finding them:

1. I geotag most photos except those taken close to home, which includes tagging the location info (city, state, country, etc)
2. I tag all photos with a minimum of 1 keyword. I have an action that will write the location info into a hierarchical keyword, and often that is satisfactory for me. If there is a person I know, I'll try to include one for the person. And then, maybe I'll add one item significant to the shoot. If one or two photos have something unique, I might add a keyword that way.
3. All my photos are generally in folders by date with the most significant keyword from step #2 in the folder name (usually location).

The above allows me to efficiently find an image while limiting tagging so that I can tag a full day's worth of images on import. I quit going image by image and drilling into multiple keywords long ago. Doing the above on a whole folder is usually enough except maybe the people part, which I try to keep to the images the people are in.

It works, and I can almost always find a photos when I need it.

The caveat, is that my mind and memory is very much location focused. Dates fade away and things often happen a lot longer ago then I think. But if I am thinking of finding a specific photo I'll almost always remember where I shot it, and as long as I can group all the photos from that location together, I can then narrow it down by other items (date and other tags).

I do need to go back and cull photos from the first decade of this century. I didn't always practice what I do now, and I often dread going back to go through all those photos.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 04-02-2019, 02:26 PM  
K1 in print test
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 84
Views: 3,666
Good thread and comments.

I've printed photos down to 150dpi to suite an older K10d photo (that was cropped) onto a large poster sized sheet of paper.

I do generally try to get the most resolution I can get for printing, but I don't fret it too much. If I am printing big, I hope to be standing back to look at the image anyway to see it.

The thing I notice most when printing large images is the quality of the lens, more than anything.

Looking back, I was most happy with the 16MP images from my K5 because they had a nice flexibility in cropping an image and still printing at a decent dpi (150 minimum). Cropping is the only reason I would hesitate to say all one needs is a 3MP or 8MP image. Cropping also allows one to overcome some lower quality lenses (those where the edges aren't good).
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 04-02-2019, 01:59 PM  
HDR photos (to be displayed on HDR displays)
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 12
Views: 746
My thought would be to start with video editing software and see what is out there that can output in an HDR format. I don't think a lot has been done with regard to getting a true HDR image (one that hasn't been tonemapped for your monitor) to an HDR television. But, I would assume there are ways through a capable video editor.

Where you go from there could be hard on the wallet I imagine, but it would probably help give a start.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 03-26-2019, 03:36 PM  
Darktable has auto perspective adjustment
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 19
Views: 964
I would think this could then cause a problem. Hugin tries to take advantage of the specific optics to make adjustments so that you can get a good stiching. If you count on software to automatically do the adjustment, and it is just basing it on interpreted geometry, Hugin will only be able to guess on how to make the adjustment.

This may not be a big deal when you are dealing with panoramas coming from less extreme focal lengths, but if you start getting at very wide angle or fisheye shots, then you could have issues.

Now, Hugin is pretty good, and it may be able to overcome the issue anyway, but I generally eliminate any middle processing as much as possible with regard to lens corrections because I want to let the software that is built for stitching do what it needs to do.
Forum: General Photography 03-26-2019, 10:23 AM  
An interesting fact about 31mm limited!
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 13
Views: 1,218
From my own experiences, I find that the EV can vary within a 1/2 stop on almost any shot if the camera is set in any auto exposure mode (i.e. not M mode).

The only way to probably really see what the differences may be is to actually shoot in M mode and fix all three exposure parameters and then adjust only the aperture and/or shutter speed to see how the histogram and image change. ISO is a wildcard in this, and it is best to make such comparisons with the ISO fixed. As ISO increases, the dynamic range generally goes down and you get less contrast. Of course other settings will impact contrast too, but it is definitely worth not having ISO be a variable (if you haven't already).

By the way, I don't usually worry about the difference by 1/2 or 1/3 of a stop while shooting. I do use the histogram to confirm photos are ok, but I generally find that photos that lightly clip on the histogram are not clipped when brought into my PP software; RAW files have more dynamic range than the JPG files that are shown on the camera's screen, and those JPG files are subject to JPG parameters that I rarely touch because I am shooting RAW to begin with.
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 03-26-2019, 09:42 AM  
K3 + 50-135 focus difference - landscape vs portrait orientation
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 14
Views: 1,007
Have you tried other lenses? I would imagine that would help determine the issue, too. If it's the camera, then the problem should occur on at least one other lens.
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 03-26-2019, 09:38 AM  
need some good fast advice lens for a rainy day at the ball park
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 37
Views: 1,414
I've not read the last few posts, but I've been to quite a few games in San Francisco and I have shot in the rain (in other situations).

If I was going to go today (with my K3), I'd probably just go with an 18-135 and not change lenses. Given what you had the 55-300 might be ok, but I have used the 55-300 often in the past at the ballpark, and I have never been terribly happy with how it performs at focal lengths greater than 200~250. It just isn't sharp, and the players will look fuzzy. Now maybe I don't have a great copy, but perhaps you might give it a try before the game (maybe just take some street photos of a crowd to approximate the situation). An obvious upgrade would be the 70-200, and knowing what I do, I'd probably go with that lens.

Some general notes:

1. HIgh telephoto is ok (~300) but you will generally only get one player in a shot (unless you are way far away), and it can miss something in the broader sense of a ballgame
2. Wide angle shots are ok, and I prefer them. Baseball is an experience, and I love being able to get most the field, the ballpark, etc. It can miss a little in terms of having a great shot though; although, I prefer that to the zoom end.
3. the 50-135 range do a great job of splitting the differences.

If there is rain, I probably wouldn't want to change lenses. I'd rather take my chances with a zoom that is weather sealed than breaking the weather seal that occurs when you swap out lenses. I am a hypocrite, too, however, as I've swapped lenses in the field when on vacation. When I was Iceland shooting in the rain, it was worth chancing lens changes (I had a second backup body with me) to get the shots. I often changed moving the camera and lenses under a coat and umbrella.

You won't want the umbrella at the ballpark, but if you can make it work, you can always move underneath an overhang or concourse area between innings.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 03-26-2019, 09:24 AM  
Upgrade editing software, but to what?
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 29
Views: 1,426
Intuitive is such a subjective term and really depends on your experience and thought process.

LR was about as intuitive as I ever saw, but I've never had a huge problem learning any software if I set my focus on it. As I moved away from LR, I tried and eventually went to DxO. It was mostly intuitive, mostly because I could get to an end point with fewer steps and adjustments than I had to in LR. It allowed me to learn what I needed to patiently, and now I find it intuitive. But, other software are likely more intuitive and going with intuitiveness is just plain performance. LR did not perform very well for me, and poor performance can be such a negative.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 03-26-2019, 08:51 AM  
Darktable has auto perspective adjustment
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 19
Views: 964
The question with regard to using auto perspective is how is the software doing it. Is it taking into account metadata and lens so that an image with a specific lens is adjusted the same way?

I generally do not adjust individual pieces of a panorama for perspective. Hugin does a good job on its own at doing that for me. I would think that if you go the route of adjusting the perspective before going to your software, then you should tell your panorama software not to try and make its own adjustments. That will just depend on how smart your software is at each step of the way.
Forum: Post Your Photos! 03-18-2019, 11:07 AM  
Landscape Death Valley Sand Dunes, California
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 10
Views: 452
NIce photo.

The lake would not be that close to these particular sand dunes, assuming these are the ones that are quite a bit north of Badwater. It would sure be fun to go check it out.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 03-14-2019, 03:02 PM  
Best Noise plugin for Lightroom
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 16
Views: 1,050
I am going to be in the bin of less is more. Now I don't the details of the noise you are getting since you are scanning. Is it noise because of grain in the original film or is it from the scanning process? I would probably work at removing the noise due to scanning and worry less about that from grain.

That being said, it is important to think a bit about what you will be doing with the images. The resolution for images is quite high these days, and noise removal is easiest to perform when you are looking at the image at a 1:1 scale on your monitor. However, unless that 1:1 image represents your usage of the image (I would guess this is rarely the case), then it is probably overboard to try and remove all the noise at the level. Doing so is how you can end up with a lot of blurring and unnatural aspects of an image.

These days I actually perform noise reduction at a different scale and usually just go with a default amount. I got to this point because if I am using an image for the web or screen viewing, I am mostly looking at an image at such a wide scale that even noisy images might not appear noisy. Or, if I am printing, I rarely see the noise at the scale I print at (and I actually did some tests using a noisy image and various scales of noise removal).

All that aside, I also find noise removal is most necessary in parts of an image where things tend to be more uniform (i.e. away from areas of detail). At least that is where our eyes go to. For instance the sky, a smooth wall, a macro type photo where you have a large leaf or flower petal, skin in a portrait.

So when I need more noise removal, I take whatever software I am using and work with Affinity Photo (Photoshop, GIMP, or any other layer enabled software could be used):

1. duplicate the image onto multiple layers (usually 2 is enough)
2. apply noise removal on the top layer with an emphasis on the smooth areas
3. User layer blending and/or masking to reveal/hide the areas of the image so that you don't lose the details you want to keep but you get the most noise removal out of the areas where detail is less important. This is kind of what the mask part of the LR noise reduction does with a bit more science to it. The method here is for more extreme cases such as when I really want to clean up the sky.

Software itself, most noise software these days will work ok. I like the Topaz denoise, and it is what I use when I've gone to Photoshop for the effort. Admittedly, I moved over to DxO Photolab Elite, and their Prime noise reduction is my favorite, but that is part of a RAW converter that usually costs closer to $150 (and I wouldn't pay for it and LR).
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 03-13-2019, 01:49 PM  
lens id question
Posted By emalvick
Replies: 12
Views: 711
Ok that was my memory. I couldn't remember how exactly the A part worked other than it just did. I actually think I only have one A lens but many M lenses.

In my own workflow, I do often forget to change the focal length when attaching M lenses. I've not necessarily noticed any negative impacts or if they are there I just attribute them to user error; I don't turn off shake reduction, so in theory I could see issues. I mostly just edit the Exif record at the end of the day to reflect the lens I've used when using an M or A lens because I rarely use more than one different one in a day. This method obviously doesn't work if you only use M lenses. In that case, I'd probably make a more conscious effort to appropriately set the focal length when I am turning the camera on.

The other consideration when dealing with M lenses is to see what focal length fields are filled with what data (when not using a FF camera). Many image files will show at least 2 focal length fields. One is the actual focal length of the lens, and the other is meant to be a 35-mm equivalent focal length (to obviously be taken with a grain of salt). The exact title for that field may be reported differently as I have mostly quit looking at it. But, if you are using an APS-C camera, it very well may report 50-mm as the actual focal length at 75-mm for that equivalent length. That could be critical if you are either setting the wrong number or looking at the wrong number.

As a final note, I remember being quite fixated on that 35-mm equivalent focal length. It helped because as I transitioned from a simple P&S digital camera to a bridge type camera to a K10d, the 35-mm equivalent helped me figure out what lenses I might need. But, man it also confused a lot of things too as I was a bit ignorant on what an APS-C camera really meant and that it wasn't an FF camera (it was the same size as my old film SLR) and the whole concept of focal length was messed up until I really got a grasp on what was different (i.e. FOV). Now I've been shooting APS-C for nearly 15 years, so I've quit worrying about equivalence of anything except when I pencil out what I might need if I ever buy a K-1 (or any other FF body).
Search took 0.02 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 300

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:32 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top