RE: PESO - Two from the Concert
Tom, Barring the red streak across the face I rather like the first one. I like it even with the streak though. Cheers, Gautam > -Original Message- > From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:22 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: PESO - Two from the Concert > > > Both of these were taken with the Meade CaptureView 3.2 MP binoculars. > > As I suspected it was quite hard to get a shot in the low light without > introducing quite a bit of shake. But I tried. The aperture is fixed at > f/4.0. > > These fall into the 'nothing to brag about photographically, but what a > memory category'. The first grows on me, though it's hard to take any > credit for a bino shot. > > Here Today > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3920286 > > and > > For Frank > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3920324 > > > Tom C. > > >
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
In a message dated 12/1/2005 8:06:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Basically, it's hard to change the colors of print film after the print is > made. Print film is more flexible than slide film or jpeg format, for both colour compensation and exposure latitude. Camera RAW is most flexible. At least that's how I've found it so far. William Robb --- Right. My previous post said, print film, the color is in the hands of the lab person. JPEG the WB and color depends on the built in camera software. Both have less control by the photographer than slides or RAW. Slides are what you see is what you get -- the lab person doesn't decide. RAW is all the information and not set to some standard by camera software. I was talking about where the control resides. I was not talking about latitude. Big difference. And most photographers do not make their own color prints from negative film. So they don't get to do those adjustments themselves. We disagree again. But nevermind, the analogy makes tons of sense to me. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Ann said: > > >someone said earlier on the list that if you > > >nailed the shot there was essentially no > > >difference. > > That's true if the subject of your shot doesn't demand an extended range. > However, if you're working with bright highlights and deep shadows, you can > achieve more with RAW than you can with a perfectly exposed jpeg. RAW also > enables better fine tuning of color temperature and better upsizing of the > file. > Paul What is occurring to me is that most of the time I shoot for myself, even if Im shooting for someone else. If I had a specific assignment to shoot something that required fiddling alter I could certainly shoot raw. but basically I just dump the shots that don't work. MOst of the time, the shots that don't work are either that they were not of any interest to being with (even though I thought they were!) or the are lousy because of camera shake, motion blur or DOF problems. I'm happier trying to make all necessary adjustments, so to speak, when I'm shooting so I don't have to spend even more time in front the the computer than I do have to spend out of necessity now. ann
Re: Digital file numbering?
keith_w wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/1/2005 9:16:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Google offers Picasa at www.picasa.com. This is free software and is a good inexpensive way to see what this type of software can do to help you out. === I just downloaded that one (before you mentioned it :-)) and am checking it out. Looks interesting. Marnie aka Doe Look before you download! This product is available for Windows and IE only... Windows and IE? Who uses IE nowadays? Yes, IE is sort of built into Windows. But my default browser has been Firefox for at least a year now, and Picasa integrates well. Picasa is a useful package. It's interesting how it lets you do minor touch ups in a way that doesn't alter the original, yet doesn't seem to result in a copy either. It must maintain a list of alterations to apply to each image, and applies them on the fly upon viewing an image. It is mostly useful as a thumbnail and slideshow program, though I also use it for organizing and burning gift slideshow CD's in smaller-than-original image dimension formats. It's good for emailing images too, as it will automatically reduce to some predetermined size as it sends the images, again without altering the originals. Pretty convenient. When you use it to burn slideshow CD's, it puts a copy of its slideshow viewer on the CD too (if desired). The slideshow CD's aren't good for archiving images, but they're great for what they're meant to be; a slideshow on a disk.
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Tom C wrote: > > >From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >I'll continue to shoot jpgs, too - hey, Cotty, > >this is an area we sure do agree on. > >I can shoot raw, but I can't get enough images on > >a card - and I have to take time > >to run it through a coverter to tif and it takes > >too much room on my old computer etc > > > >someone said earlier on the list that if you > >nailed the shot there was essentially no > >difference. glad to see you confirm that. > > In that regard of course, it depends alot on what you want to do with the > image, today, tomorrow, next week, next month. Small size printing or web > display's not a problem. > > I see plenty of .jpgs here and elsewhere that obviously suffer from > artifacts due to repeated saving as a .jpg. The digital binoculars I bought > shoot .jpgs. When bringing an image into PS, I immediately save it as .PSD > and continue working and saving as a .PSD until/if a final .jpg needs to be > produced. > > Tom C. I don't save as jpg until I'm finished working on stuff either, and I never write over the original file from the camera. That either gets burned to a cd or stays on a card and/or my hard drive. ann
Re: srbg to Adobe RGB ?
Glen wrote: > > At 12:00 AM 12/1/2005, William Robb wrote: > > >- Original Message - From: "Ann Sanfedele" Subject: srbg to Adobe > >RGB ? > > > > > > > >>The stock stuff I submit has to be Adobe RGB - am > >>I screwed? or is there > >>a way I can take that tif and translate it into > >>Adobe RGB. I have a sinking feeling that I cant. > > > >Edit/ Convert to Profile. > >The window that opens allows you to covert the image to the new profile. > > > >Hopefully, Elements has that. > > > >William Robb > > Elements 4 has that. I can convert between Adobe and sRGB without problems. > > take care, > Glen Guess I'll move up sometime :) ann
SV: Back Focus!
Thnaks, Dave. I will pass your information on. Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 1. december 2005 08:57 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Back Focus! Jens I have never had a problem with "back focus" with my istD, however in low light situations with my D1 it does happen. Camera tends to focus on an object further that what you really want. The finder in the D1 is very good, and i can usually tell if i'm off,then i just refocus. The only time i really see this is during the two indoor horse shows i do, as the lighting is very poor. Dave > Hello list > What is "back focos"? > Does the camera focus closer to or further away from where it should? > Which lenses are especially prone to back focus on a *ist D? > Only "analog" lenses? > Please > > A friend asked me. I don't know, so I ask where I expect people (you guys) > to knoe the answer :-) > > Regards > Jens
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 1 Dec 2005 at 18:39, Jack Davis wrote: > Can't pass up this opportunity "come out" and reveal the actual > physical repulsion I experienced each time I see a Velvia print > attempting to depict an element of the natural world. > Now, in a PS world of hue and tone sliders, I long for the limits > previously imposed by the availability of a single offending film. > Juicing colors is one thing, but bizarre, bad dream, newly hatched > color images offered as serious straight-up nature scenes is always an > unpleasant experience. > I know, it's art..nuff said. I agree, and add to that the inane use of polarizers and graduated tobacco filters and the hideous picture is complete. There is a solution though, don't use Velvia and educate those you can. I know it's depressing to witness all the non-photogs that ooh and ahh over these departures from reality but hyper- reality tends to sell unfortunately. Next time you get the opportunity to study one of these type of prints just have a look at how much detail is lost in that super-saturation. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On Dec 2, 2005, at 1:04 AM, Christian wrote: My feelings exactly. Now that it's UNIX, I'd like to have one too. Careful... I already have one but I want two more. - Dave
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
On Dec 2, 2005, at 5:21 AM, Pål Jensen wrote: They certainly are reputable and I have dealt with them before but that was over 10 years ago. Does anyone know if they still insist that you fax a copy of your credit card to them before they accept the order? It is an incredible hassle as I have neither a copy machine or a fax at hand. I would have preferred to shop at Amazon though... If you have a flatbed scanner available you can scan your card and email it to them. I'm thinking quite seriously about ordering some printer paper from them now as the price is actually lower than the last roll I bought locally. The local Epson distributors won't bother with the types I'm interested in getting now... - Dave
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
On Dec 2, 2005, at 3:36 AM, Pål Jensen wrote: Too good to be true it seems. Amazon refuse to ship it internationally and B+H wants $200 in shipping costs! What does your local distributor charge? About this time last year I jokingly asked for a quote for the Minolta Multi Pro. The joke was on me as it turned out to be pretty reasonable and I ended up ordering it. - Dave
Re: srbg to Adobe RGB ?
On Dec 2, 2005, at 4:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The srbg and numbers is a profile for your specific monitor. Probably a default one if you have never run Adobe Gamma. I'd say it's more likely to be: sRGB IEC61966-2.1 Which is more commonly known as sRGB :) - Dave
Re: *ist DS Firmware 2.00
On Dec 2, 2005, at 1:13 AM, Brian Dunn wrote: Does anyone spot meter any more? Yes but not so often with 35mm. I want a digi with a centre-weighted match-needle meter and no LCD :) - Dave
Re: OT: Are you all smiling ??
On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I foresee a future where one has to argue with one's camera. I can just imagine it... the Pentax Clippy. "It looks like you're trying to take a photo of a brick wall. Shall I make you want to beat your head against it instead?" - Dave
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched Basically, it's hard to change the colors of print film after the print is made. Print film is more flexible than slide film or jpeg format, for both colour compensation and exposure latitude. Camera RAW is most flexible. At least that's how I've found it so far. William Robb
PESO - Two from the Concert
Both of these were taken with the Meade CaptureView 3.2 MP binoculars. As I suspected it was quite hard to get a shot in the low light without introducing quite a bit of shake. But I tried. The aperture is fixed at f/4.0. These fall into the 'nothing to brag about photographically, but what a memory category'. The first grows on me, though it's hard to take any credit for a bino shot. Here Today http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3920286 and For Frank http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3920324 Tom C.
RE: I gave myself birthday gifts
Way to go, Bill. Cheers, Gautam > -Original Message- > From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 2:24 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: I gave myself birthday gifts > > > Since I was laid up in the hospital on my birthday back in > October, I gave > my self some birthday presents today. Ordered a 1 gab SD card > for the Optio > MX, 4 Gig microdrive and a set of manual extension tubes for the *istD. > > Bill > > >
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
In a message dated 12/1/2005 7:07:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand perfectly what you're talking about. It's just that I believe most view the analogy opposite of the way you're stating it. I did too for a while. Tom C. == Okay. I see it the way I said. Glad we agree. :-) Basically, it's hard to change the colors of print film after the print is made. It's hard to change the WB and color in a JPEG after it is shot. Yes, both can be manipulated (after scanning for a print) later, but it's much more difficult to those make adjustments later. Marnie
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
I understand perfectly what you're talking about. It's just that I believe most view the analogy opposite of the way you're stating it. I did too for a while. Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:51:50 EST In a message dated 12/1/2005 6:31:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did it strike again? :) Raw is comparable to transparency film in that very little interpretation is done to what could be considered the first generation image. After that the analogy between digital files and film qucikly swings to one where Raw is more analagous to negative film than to transparency. I In other words .jpg and .tif formats give you less overall range of control post-shutter release as did transparency film. Raw format and negative film provide a larger range of control post-shutter release. Tom C. === RAW is like slide film in that what-you-see-is-what-you-get. Post processing is up to the photographer, be it scanning, adjusting in PS or whatever. (Don't know about you, but I used to scan my slides and adjust them in Elements.) The control is with the photographer. JPEG is like print film in that the colors are very much up to some lab person's interpretation and/or up to the in-camera software. The control is NOT with the photographer. See? I am talking about control. Marnie
FS Friday
Two great lenses on eBay: 7568098563 SMC Pentax 500/4.5 7568101696 Canon EF 80-200/2.8 L Jim www.jcolwell.ca
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
In a message dated 12/1/2005 6:31:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did it strike again? :) Raw is comparable to transparency film in that very little interpretation is done to what could be considered the first generation image. After that the analogy between digital files and film qucikly swings to one where Raw is more analagous to negative film than to transparency. I In other words .jpg and .tif formats give you less overall range of control post-shutter release as did transparency film. Raw format and negative film provide a larger range of control post-shutter release. Tom C. === RAW is like slide film in that what-you-see-is-what-you-get. Post processing is up to the photographer, be it scanning, adjusting in PS or whatever. (Don't know about you, but I used to scan my slides and adjust them in Elements.) The control is with the photographer. JPEG is like print film in that the colors are very much up to some lab person's interpretation and/or up to the in-camera software. The control is NOT with the photographer. See? I am talking about control. Marnie
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There's no real reason for the player units to cost a lot, of course; I can buy a cheap-ish 400-DVD carousel from a home audio-video store. I did something like this with my CD collection. Two 400-disc Sony carousels, both about half full. It's actually amazing that the CD's used to take up a tremendous amount of shelf space and now they're all contained in the units that play them. They're indexed in Excel so I always know which slot contains which disc. The index can be sorted by slot, genre, or artist. I can see my entire collection at a glance by looking at the Excel printout in the A/V closet and find what I'm looking for in seconds, whereas it used to be craning the neck up and down shelves of CD cases, looking for minutes sometimes, for several CD's. When one got in the wrong box there was hell to pay. Tom C.
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Can't pass up this opportunity "come out" and reveal the actual physical repulsion I experienced each time I see a Velvia print attempting to depict an element of the natural world. Now, in a PS world of hue and tone sliders, I long for the limits previously imposed by the availability of a single offending film. Juicing colors is one thing, but bizarre, bad dream, newly hatched color images offered as serious straight-up nature scenes is always an unpleasant experience. I know, it's art..nuff said. Jack --- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1 Dec 2005 at 15:12, Jack Davis wrote: > > > Rod, > > This is just a "back bench" snipe and not intended as a serious > > exception to your remarks, but it makes me wonder how "color > balance" > > concerned I should have been over my decades of shooting slide > film. > > Guess I didn't know any better, so was blithely unaware and, > generally, > > accidentally pleased. ;-)) > > Extremely strong colors of compositional elements can be > disturbing, > > but an innate sense of "balance," I suppose, can unknowingly allow > for > > them. > > I depends upon the relevance or need for colour accuracy for the > project at > hand guess, some obviously benefit from colour management some can > get away > without it. Simply put direct digital image capture has made colour > management > easier, more accurate and faster. Basically now any Joe Blow shooter > can > produce colour accurate shots using very basic equipment (if they are > given a > few basic tips). > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > __ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
OT: B&H dependability (was Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED)
I ordered two lenses from B&H. They are on the $100 US rebate list. One was in stock, the other was listed 'special order', but both had to be billed as I ordered. The web site explained one would ship now, one later. I did this on the web 11/21, order dated 11/23, and both arrived today! (12/1) This was an unexpected surprise. I'm waiting for them to warm up! ;-) Regards, Bob S. On 12/1/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I buy from B&H almost exclusively. They're very dependable. > Paul > On Dec 1, 2005, at 8:04 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > > > On Dec 1, 2005, at 6:45 AM, Pål Jensen wrote: > > > >> If the B+ H web page says something is in stock can one assume it > >> really is in stock? > >> Reputedly, this scanner is hard to get hold of... > > > > To within the error possible by humans and automated inventory control > > systems, if B&H Photo lists an item as "in stock", it is credible. In > > 10-15 years of doing business with B&H, they've always done me well. > > > > Godfrey > > > > >
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Did it strike again? :) Raw is comparable to transparency film in that very little interpretation is done to what could be considered the first generation image. After that the analogy between digital files and film qucikly swings to one where Raw is more analagous to negative film than to transparency. I In other words .jpg and .tif formats give you less overall range of control post-shutter release as did transparency film. Raw format and negative film provide a larger range of control post-shutter release. Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:19:17 EST In a message dated 12/1/2005 6:12:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think most here would consider it the opposite of what you just said. Tom C. == Dsylexia strikes again. RAW = slides, JPEG = print film. Sheesh. marnie who needs an interpreter
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
In a message dated 12/1/2005 6:12:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think most here would consider it the opposite of what you just said. Tom C. == Dsylexia strikes again. RAW = slides, JPEG = print film. Sheesh. marnie who needs an interpreter
Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS)
In a message dated 12/1/2005 2:12:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Even if Pentax got 100% of the geek market, would that be significant? We see post after post here bemoaning the fact that cameras are being dumbed down to appeal to the masses - it seems unlikely that those masses are found amongst the geek community. == However, word can get around to non geeks. The Canon 300D was basically the Canon 10D (same firmware) but with some software disabled. A rather famous Russian geek hacked the 300D firmware to do most of what the 10D does (some wasn't possible because the hardware didn't support it, but an amazing amount did). And tons and tons and tons and tons of 300D users hacked their firmware (for things like MLU). Since one can download the original firmware, it's a pretty trivial matter to restore it if the camera needs to go in for servicing. Hey, there are whole popular Canon web pages on this stuff. So, yeah, I think it would be neat if Pentax made the *istD hackable (open source). Non geeks do find out. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
I think most here would consider it the opposite of what you just said. Tom C. To me shooting JPEGs is like shooting negative film and shooting RAW is like shooting positive film.
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
I buy from B&H almost exclusively. They're very dependable. Paul On Dec 1, 2005, at 8:04 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Dec 1, 2005, at 6:45 AM, Pål Jensen wrote: If the B+ H web page says something is in stock can one assume it really is in stock? Reputedly, this scanner is hard to get hold of... To within the error possible by humans and automated inventory control systems, if B&H Photo lists an item as "in stock", it is credible. In 10-15 years of doing business with B&H, they've always done me well. Godfrey
Re: Sigma 28-105/2.8-4
On Dec 1, 2005, at 9:38 AM, John Francis wrote: On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:15:49PM +, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Be aware that the difference in field of view between 90 and 105mm is quite small. See http://homepage.mac.com/godders/2zmFoVcomp.jpg for comparison. The real advantages of the 24-90 are much more field of view at the wide and and better performance when wide open at the tele end. Thanks, Godfrey. Can you help me understand your diagram? Is the small, green rectangle the FOV at (more or less) 90? The large green rectangle is the approximate field of view at 24mm vs the larger white rectangle at 28mm. The small green rectangle is the approximate field of view at 90mm vs the smaller white rectangle at 105mm. Here is an exercise I would like to solve: "Assuming a lens at 90mm and another at 105mm, how much closer to the subject should one go so as to get a photograph with the same dimensions on the recording medium". Well, that's easy. You should move forward until you're 90/105 of the distance you started from. As John said... ;-) Two on-line calculators that are useful for FoV ... Gives you field of view at distances: http://www.dudak.baka.com/ fovcalc.html Gives you angular field of view: http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/ angles.html Godfrey
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
In a message dated 12/1/2005 3:34:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>I think digital will *really* make a difference as and when the actual >>media used in the camera becomes so low-cost and reliable that you won't >>have to copy the data at all. (But I've probably mentioned that earlier, >>too.) >> >> > >I think it's insignificant enough now that the vast majority of RAW shooters >here consider it a non-issue. > > Do they? - Toralf === Well, I haven't had a card fail, if that's what you mean. So I don't worry about it. It's very reliable, but, yes, it could be cheaper. But I don't see how what type of file format one shoots, RAW or JPEG, affects storage reliability. Marnie aka Doe ?
Re: srbg to Adobe RGB ?
On Dec 1, 2005, at 5:00 PM, John Francis wrote: On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 03:53:34PM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Dec 1, 2005, at 2:18 PM, John Francis wrote: I don't need ACR 3.2, or whatever the latest version is; 3.1 (or even 2.3) works just fine with images from my D I find that ACR 3.2 improved processing speed and quality over ACR 3.1, and I expect that ACR 3.3 will do the same over v3.2. Why wouldn't you want the most recent version? As has already been mentioned, I can get and run it with Elements 3, should I choose to do so. Were I running CS 2 I probably would get each new update as it came along, but I didn't see anything listed in the changes between 3.1 and 3.2 that would affect me; as far as I could see the new changes weren't in the basic interface available through Elements, but in the advanced processing only available from the CS2 interface. Improved processing speed and quality would be in the ACR conversion code that all modes use, John. It's not a "feature" so much as an developmental enhancement. Most of what they list for the dot-dot releases are new features and capabilities, or bug fixes, but development continues on performance and quality outside of those things. Godfrey
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
In a message dated 12/1/2005 3:09:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I was trying to say was that the way it was presented here, shooting JPEG would be like using old MacOS, and RAW like using a purely command line based Unix system. I want to have the GUI *and* the command line available, like on the current MacOS (or SGI Irix, or modern Linux systems...) - Toralf === To me shooting JPEGs is like shooting negative film and shooting RAW is like shooting positive film. When I shot film I switched to shooting slides because it gave me more control over the colors and how everything turned out. It involved less (or no) interpretation by a some worker at a some photo lab. Some of us like more control -- even with more work. Control freaks are us. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
In a message dated 12/1/2005 2:32:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have several berets... -frank "frenchie" theriault Sorry, frank. Eating a beret is simply not as impressive as eating a Stetson. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
RE: Hi all, any news?
Hi all, Thanks for the responses and comments. The main thing I've noticed with three is how little time there is to do anything other than work, sleep and look after the kids. Someone's always got a blood nose/pooy nappy/thirsty/hungry/etc The list seem just the same, it's a bit like a soap opera, you can leave it for months but when you come back to it you can pick up what's happening in a day or two. Same lovable characters too... Cheers, Simon
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
From: Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Good point. Maybe I shouldn't conclude based on hearing about all the processing these people do, that I have to do all this work. Of course, I have a certain bias towards control myself, but a the same time, I'm probably a lot less enthusiastic about working on computers, in my spare time, that is, than most people on this list. On an image-by-image basis, if time is of the greatest concern, it takes me less time when shooting digital than film. With film I have the additional step of scanning images (limited to 4 at a time). All other steps, whether it's adjusting a raw capture or a scanned .TIF are pretty much equal in the amount of time it takes. Tom C.
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
I'll give it a try. I'm just basing that comment on what adobe has said about interpolation in RAW vs. in a converted file mode. To be honest, I've never shot any jpegs with either of my Ds. I wanted to be totally in synch with working in RAW, so I never even tried it. But I will. Might be fun. Paul On Dec 1, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Cotty wrote: On 1/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: That's true if the subject of your shot doesn't demand an extended range. However, if you're working with bright highlights and deep shadows, you can achieve more with RAW than you can with a perfectly exposed jpeg. RAW also enables better fine tuning of color temperature and better upsizing of the file. I agree with everything there Paulexcept that last bit :-) Promise me you'll do a little test - shoot the same (well lit) scene in both RAW and jpeg. Stick them both through PS and bump them both up to A3. Examine. Report back. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Stetson is a hat company, not a type of hat. While known for their 'cowboy' hats, often referred to by their name they do (or at least used to) make felt hats of all types. I own a very nice grey fedora made by Stetson in the late 40's. -Adam Gonz wrote: LOL. Interesting. That doesnt look like the Stetsons I know. graywolf wrote: Stay away from me, Shel. http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf/meanderings/_images/New-Me.jpg A man who would eat a classic $15 Stetson is dangerous. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Around these parts the photogs I know and the high-end labs use both Mac and Windows machines. Some use both. The days of one platform being superior to another has long passed. People use what they're familiar with and what gets the job done for them. Most platform choices were made years ago, based on what was ideal at the time, the programs one was using, and so on. Most people stick with what's familiar, in part because it's comfortable and in part because it cuts down on the having to spend time learning a new platform and perhaps new software. The day that someone can show me that one platform is inherently better than another is the day I'll eat my Stetson. Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" [Original Message] From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Date: 11/28/2005 6:27:33 PM Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched On Nov 28, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: "I, as well as every full-time career professional photographer I've ever met, just happen to use Mac. It's a given, just as Windows is for engineers and cubicle workers. By "full-time" I mean full-time, not the guy in your office who shoots weddings, portraits, stock or sells photos at fairs on the side. By "career" I mean someone who's been doing photography all along, not someone who dropped out of another job. I don't mean to offend anyone with these definitions and I'll hope to find a more delicate way to explain that people coming from other careers often bring baggage. " Much as I normally dislike Rockwell, I am in full agreement with him on this. I know a lot of high-end professional photographers, and nearly every one of them uses Mac. I'm a strong advocate of Mac for imaging use, and even more so for digital video work. Bob
Re: I gave myself birthday gifts
Well then, happy birthday. I hope you have a great day. Paul On Dec 1, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Bill Owens wrote: Since I was laid up in the hospital on my birthday back in October, I gave my self some birthday presents today. Ordered a 1 gab SD card for the Optio MX, 4 Gig microdrive and a set of manual extension tubes for the *istD. Bill
Re: OT: Are you all smiling ??
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In a message dated 12/1/2005 10:40:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >geez - That's REALLY pathetic. >ann >= >Would make it a tad difficult to take a serious portrait -- ie where the >subject is not smiling. > >I foresee a future where one has to argue with one's camera. You mean you don't argue with yours now??? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
- Original Message - From: "Jack Davis" Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched Rod, This is just a "back bench" snipe and not intended as a serious exception to your remarks, but it makes me wonder how "color balance" concerned I should have been over my decades of shooting slide film. Guess I didn't know any better, so was blithely unaware and, generally, accidentally pleased. ;-)) Depends on the shooting you've been doing. I spent a good portion of the 80s shooting product and fashion photography on slide film. One of the requirements was that the slide had to have colour fidelity with the subject, since it made it that much easier for the press people to get the colour right. If the drafts were screwed up, it was important to me that I had a colour accurate slide to ensure that blame was placed where deserved when a deadline was missed. William Robb
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
On Dec 1, 2005, at 6:45 AM, Pål Jensen wrote: If the B+ H web page says something is in stock can one assume it really is in stock? Reputedly, this scanner is hard to get hold of... To within the error possible by humans and automated inventory control systems, if B&H Photo lists an item as "in stock", it is credible. In 10-15 years of doing business with B&H, they've always done me well. Godfrey
Re: srbg to Adobe RGB ?
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 03:53:34PM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2005, at 2:18 PM, John Francis wrote: > > >I don't need ACR 3.2, or whatever the latest version is; 3.1 (or > >even 2.3) > >works just fine with images from my D > > I find that ACR 3.2 improved processing speed and quality over ACR > 3.1, and I expect that ACR 3.3 will do the same over v3.2. > > Why wouldn't you want the most recent version? As has already been mentioned, I can get and run it with Elements 3, should I choose to do so. Were I running CS 2 I probably would get each new update as it came along, but I didn't see anything listed in the changes between 3.1 and 3.2 that would affect me; as far as I could see the new changes weren't in the basic interface available through Elements, but in the advanced processing only available from the CS2 interface.
Re: *ist DS Firmware 2.00
No, it isn't - it's just that it would be more convenient on the Fn menu. Cheers, Brian + Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Record menu, press the up arrow two times. Really, it's not *that* > > difficult. >
Re: *ist DS Firmware 2.00
Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Record menu, press the up arrow two times. Really, it's not *that* > difficult. Indeed. Never thought of it that way. Mind you, I've never had a camera with menues, before. :-) Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Some PUG comments
Hi Dave, Thanks for the kind comment on the Spring tulip field photo. Here in the wet Pacific Northwest U.S., we really look forward to the ritual of the colors of the flower fields in the Spring. Today we got a rare snowfall, but it's almost gone again. Harald Dave wrote: Harald Rust Celebration of Colour I love how the layers of colours all blend into the landscape of the building and hill. Nice composition and detail. Definite wall hanger there. __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Rob Studdert wrote: On 2 Dec 2005 at 0:32, Toralf Lund wrote: Tapes are the most commonly used media for backups on large computer systems. They have a longer expected shelf lifetime than anything else. In other words a back-up solution not quite equivalent to the cost of DVD burner and 100 quality DVD media. The shelf lifetime for tapes (or any other magnetic media) is likely more limited than read only optical media. The magnetized tape loses it's magnetization over time and oxide binders fail, I've had a lot to do with digital and analogue tape media in the past. I haven't been around for that long, so I obviously can't verify the claim, but I believe that some of the manufacturers of high-quality tapes say that they have a lifetime of at least 50 years. And it's based on someone's experience, I guess - tape technology has been around for rather a long time (so it is at least more well-tested than the optical one.) Also, I think the loss of magnetisation you talk about is in a sense gradual loss of data - rather like with film actually (although an actual bit of data will either be read correctly or not, obviously) - where optical media is perhaps expected to fail more instantaneously (like I said.) I haven't seen it myself, either. But some of the people who use CDs for professional archival will renew them (as in copying the data to new medium) every 5 years. Apparently, they are most concerned about media separation, i.e. that the disc literally falls apart. DVD media is a constructed as sealed polycarbonate sandwich, they should not suffer the potential effects Well, DVDs certainly look more robust... on the data layer that may effect CDs if a poor/faulty lacquer was used. The situation was probably a lot worse than it is today a few years ago, though, when CD writers were young and inexperienced, to put it that way... I've still got discs written on the earliest Philips CD-R burners and they are absolutely fine. I've also got some rather old CDs in a shelf in my office, and I *think* I can read them. However, I probably also threw away two CDs before I got each of them because the burn operation never would work on the first attempt, and probably not the 2nd, either. Or maybe I'm exaggerating now, but I'm quite sure that the failure rate was a lot higher when I started writing CDs than it is today... - T
Re: *ist DS Firmware 2.00
On Dec 1, 2005, at 5:26 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: Does anyone spot meter any more? I started using it with slide film, and you'd think it'd be useful for digital as well. I did so with a Contarex Super and I'd love to have it readily available with the istDS without having to wade through several menu layers. "several menu layers" ?? Record menu, press the up arrow two times. Really, it's not *that* difficult. Godfrey
Re: srbg to Adobe RGB ?
On Dec 1, 2005, at 2:18 PM, John Francis wrote: I don't need ACR 3.2, or whatever the latest version is; 3.1 (or even 2.3) works just fine with images from my D I find that ACR 3.2 improved processing speed and quality over ACR 3.1, and I expect that ACR 3.3 will do the same over v3.2. Why wouldn't you want the most recent version? Godfrey
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 2 Dec 2005 at 0:32, Toralf Lund wrote: > Tapes are the most commonly used media for backups on large computer > systems. They have a longer expected shelf lifetime than anything else. In other words a back-up solution not quite equivalent to the cost of DVD burner and 100 quality DVD media. The shelf lifetime for tapes (or any other magnetic media) is likely more limited than read only optical media. The magnetized tape loses it's magnetization over time and oxide binders fail, I've had a lot to do with digital and analogue tape media in the past. > I haven't seen it myself, either. But some of the people who use CDs for > professional archival will renew them (as in copying the data to new > medium) every 5 years. Apparently, they are most concerned about media > separation, i.e. that the disc literally falls apart. DVD media is a constructed as sealed polycarbonate sandwich, they should not suffer the potential effects on the data layer that may effect CDs if a poor/faulty lacquer was used. I've seen CDs (only mass pressed music discs) that showed signs of corrosion coming in from the edges but I've never seen a delaminated CD and I never expect to see a delaminated single later DVD-R. > What I have seen, are CDs that just can't be read after they were > written (not a big issue except you loose a CD), ones that seem OK, but > have data inconsistency at some point, and also (this is the really > dangerous one) ones that seem all right, but will only work with certain > readers. The situation was probably a lot worse than it is today a few > years ago, though, when CD writers were young and inexperienced, to put > it that way... I've still got discs written on the earliest Philips CD-R burners and they are absolutely fine. What I do when I write my DVD back-ups is write/verify in one unit then transfer to another drive where I let Thumbsplus index the disc, so I have always read the entire disc twice in two readers. > Possibly cheaper, but not costing nothing (far from it). (And you do get > cheap "package" options for film, where the prints definitely don't cost > more than the ones from digital.) Sure they are out there but for large print it's never been less expensive (in Oz) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS)
I see this update was made available yesterday as I was traveling home. Looks pretty nice. I'll install it on one of my DS bodies and then see how it works before applying it to the other. Godfrey On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:06 AM, David Oswald wrote: I don't know if anyone FROM Pentax reads this list, but if so, I wanted to publicly say thanks for the firmware update for the *ist-DS. I installed Version 2.0 tonight. It was just as easy as the previous upgrade, but with seemingly much more benefit. The greyed- out Fn menu options is a helpful addition indeed. No more wondering why auto-flash doesn't work in 'P' mode (hint, in v2.0 that option is grayed out to reflect the fact that it's not really an option). The AF-C and AF-S mode selection is probably the most important and meaningful addition. This actually adds real-shooting functionality that was essentially missing (or severely crippled) in the earlier firmware versions. And putting Auto-ISO on the Fn menu is "where it belongs". The changes to the custom menu are helpful as well. The new artwork for the various pic modes is fluff, but why not I guess. ;) Anyway, thanks for continuing to support us -DS users.
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:59:51 -0500 (GMT-05:00), Kenneth Waller wrote: > B+H is my most trusted source of photographic equip. I stick with B&H, Adorama, Cameta, and Abe's of Maine, personally. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 1 Dec 2005 at 15:12, Jack Davis wrote: > Rod, > This is just a "back bench" snipe and not intended as a serious > exception to your remarks, but it makes me wonder how "color balance" > concerned I should have been over my decades of shooting slide film. > Guess I didn't know any better, so was blithely unaware and, generally, > accidentally pleased. ;-)) > Extremely strong colors of compositional elements can be disturbing, > but an innate sense of "balance," I suppose, can unknowingly allow for > them. I depends upon the relevance or need for colour accuracy for the project at hand guess, some obviously benefit from colour management some can get away without it. Simply put direct digital image capture has made colour management easier, more accurate and faster. Basically now any Joe Blow shooter can produce colour accurate shots using very basic equipment (if they are given a few basic tips). Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
There is also the "cost" of doing the storage job. Moving files around or writing them to DVD takes time - probably more than handling the negs in my experience. Then it is a question of how paranoid you are. Should you trust the DVD media (which does not really have a proven track record)? Do you want redundancy, and how much? At work, we use tape media with quite a bit of overlap, and trust me, this will be a lot more expensive than film. But it's a lot safer, too (I mean, I'd probably trust one negative more than one DVD or tape, but not more than 3 or 4 copies on different tapes stored at different locations) Still, it's the time taken to handle the data that's the main issue, not the media cost. And yes, this increases a lot when you keep data on-line instead of archiving the data directly. Interesting perspective, given my fairly lengthy experience with tape and optical media I'd say that optical media would be an order of magnitude more reliable than tape media. Tapes are the most commonly used media for backups on large computer systems. They have a longer expected shelf lifetime than anything else. Firstly I still haven't heard instances of optical discs (DVD or CD) that have been stored appropriately failing. I haven't seen it myself, either. But some of the people who use CDs for professional archival will renew them (as in copying the data to new medium) every 5 years. Apparently, they are most concerned about media separation, i.e. that the disc literally falls apart. What I have seen, are CDs that just can't be read after they were written (not a big issue except you loose a CD), ones that seem OK, but have data inconsistency at some point, and also (this is the really dangerous one) ones that seem all right, but will only work with certain readers. The situation was probably a lot worse than it is today a few years ago, though, when CD writers were young and inexperienced, to put it that way... I have however seen worn, tangled tapes and shedding and dirty heads and incompatibilities due to head misalignment and firmware/software incompatibilities. I think you are talking about tapes that are worn out due to reuse over a long time (or maybe something different from professional-grade backup solutions.) That's a different issue entirely. Also, one advantage of tape is that even if the tape gets torn, you should still be able to retrieve most of the data. While a CD/DVD (allegedly) is more likely to disintegrate completely, meaning that all the data will be lost. Give me DVD over tape any day. Time, when was the last time you cut and sleeved ten rolls 36 exposure film (roughly equivalent to the number of *ist D RAW files I can fit on a DVD)? I can assure you it would take longer than writing and verifying a main and back- up DVD. No, I don't cut my film... [ ... ] Another thing is that when people talk about how much cheaper digital is, they seem to be comparing with the price of developing *and printing* from film, which does not seem fair... I don't, the cost of (good) film and (professional) developing is significant enough and since prints are cheaper from a digital source so I'm sure it's not fair to include them. Possibly cheaper, but not costing nothing (far from it). (And you do get cheap "package" options for film, where the prints definitely don't cost more than the ones from digital.) We've discussed this before, of course... I think digital will *really* make a difference as and when the actual media used in the camera becomes so low-cost and reliable that you won't have to copy the data at all. (But I've probably mentioned that earlier, too.) I think it's insignificant enough now that the vast majority of RAW shooters here consider it a non-issue. Do they? - Toralf
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 2 Dec 2005 at 0:04, Toralf Lund wrote: > More limited than the one of film, I suspect. Which is the main point, > really. Before I can *really* see digital as an advantage, I think it > has to offer me new options (compared to film) without making me > sacrifice what I get with film. Maybe all it takes is (more) labs that > work from "raw" files... Apart from the obvious ease of contrast/colour control in a RAW work-flow there are plenty of advantages. Just the fact that I can deal with lens CA and vignetting at the stage of RAW conversion I feel is a significant advantage over the film > scan > post process work-flow. I can also now easily modify geometric and perspective distortion in seconds as part of my work-flow which has improved the quality of my images and enabled me to shoot a lot more freely. > Good point. Maybe I shouldn't conclude based on hearing about all the > processing these people do, that I have to do all this work. Of course, > I have a certain bias towards control myself, but a the same time, I'm > probably a lot less enthusiastic about working on computers, in my spare > time, that is, than most people on this list. If your work has burned you out then I appreciate why you might not wish to work on computers in your spare time. But to me when I'm working on images using my computer (call it what you like) to me it is simply a photographic tool at that point. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Rod, This is just a "back bench" snipe and not intended as a serious exception to your remarks, but it makes me wonder how "color balance" concerned I should have been over my decades of shooting slide film. Guess I didn't know any better, so was blithely unaware and, generally, accidentally pleased. ;-)) Extremely strong colors of compositional elements can be disturbing, but an innate sense of "balance," I suppose, can unknowingly allow for them. Jack --- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1 Dec 2005 at 22:41, Toralf Lund wrote: > > > Sounds like the way it should be... I must say that when I express > a > > certain scepticism to digital photography now and then, it's partly > > > because of all the talk about the "workflow" on this list and > elsewhere, > > which gives me the impression that although you also read a lot > about > > how "simple" digital is, it has actually introduced extra work that > *has > > to be done*... > > Not a lot of "extra" work once you have developed a procedure that > suites you. > > > Also, I've never thought a lot about "colour balance" with film, > but > > perhaps that's because the lab has done the job for me? I wonder if > > > there are many labs that will accept "raw" files and do something > > productive with them these days, by the way. Most of the "consumer" > ones > > I've come across seem to know of no other file format than JPEG, if > you > > know what I mean... > > Slide shooters think about colour balance and believe me it's a lot > more work > adjusting for colour balance before the shot than after in a digital > work-flow. > Labs that accept RAW files won't become commonplace until a RAW file > standard > such as DNG is adopted. > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > __ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 1 Dec 2005 at 23:53, Toralf Lund wrote: > Ah, yes, I knew that, really. I haven't shot much slide myself... But is > it fair to say that negative film is actually "better" in this respect? It all depends, if you need absolute colour control it can be an absolute nightmare shooting print film, you have to be dealing with a very well managed lab which will have an associated elevated cost too. > Yes. That's sort of my theory, too. In the mean time, it seems to me > that you have to pay a bit for the advantage of being able to do more of > the work yourself, because that will in a way also be the only option... If it was available I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't use such a service, I'm not at all interested in relinquishing the control I've been bestowed. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
I do too! A blackfelt one, classic Stetson. My other hat is a Resistol, for the summer. rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: Indeed I do picked it up at Stockman's outfitters in Buffalo, Wyoming some years ago. It's a 5X ... not particularly high end, but fun to wear every now and then. Shel [Original Message] From: Gonz Shel Belinkoff wrote: The day that someone can show me that one platform is inherently better than another is the day I'll eat my Stetson. You have a Stetson? :)
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Rob Studdert wrote: On 1 Dec 2005 at 23:03, Toralf Lund wrote: I also got a Mac after MacOS became Unix (I also have a Linux box - no MS software allowed in my home.) A quite liked Macs before that, too, but using the them did feel a bit like wearing a straitjacket at times. But now I always pull out the command line if I feel restricted by the GUI... I'm surprised then that you don't seem to appreciate the value of shooting RAW, it returns absolute control to the photographer, just like opening up a CMD line in a GUI. What I was trying to say was that the way it was presented here, shooting JPEG would be like using old MacOS, and RAW like using a purely command line based Unix system. I want to have the GUI *and* the command line available, like on the current MacOS (or SGI Irix, or modern Linux systems...) - Toralf
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 1 Dec 2005 at 13:57, Toralf Lund wrote: > There is also the "cost" of doing the storage job. Moving files around > or writing them to DVD takes time - probably more than handling the negs > in my experience. Then it is a question of how paranoid you are. Should > you trust the DVD media (which does not really have a proven track > record)? Do you want redundancy, and how much? At work, we use tape > media with quite a bit of overlap, and trust me, this will be a lot more > expensive than film. But it's a lot safer, too (I mean, I'd probably > trust one negative more than one DVD or tape, but not more than 3 or 4 > copies on different tapes stored at different locations) Still, it's > the time taken to handle the data that's the main issue, not the media > cost. And yes, this increases a lot when you keep data on-line instead > of archiving the data directly. Interesting perspective, given my fairly lengthy experience with tape and optical media I'd say that optical media would be an order of magnitude more reliable than tape media. Firstly I still haven't heard instances of optical discs (DVD or CD) that have been stored appropriately failing. I have however seen worn, tangled tapes and shedding and dirty heads and incompatibilities due to head misalignment and firmware/software incompatibilities. Give me DVD over tape any day. Time, when was the last time you cut and sleeved ten rolls 36 exposure film (roughly equivalent to the number of *ist D RAW files I can fit on a DVD)? I can assure you it would take longer than writing and verifying a main and back- up DVD. > Of course, I do some of the same things for a living so it's tempting to > estimate the cost of e.g. writing the files to a DVD from what I get > paid to do the same job at work. Which is probably more than the film > cost of the same images... I don't think it's fair to cost DVD back-ups at you professional rate, a garbage man can write DVDs why not use his rate as a reference over the whole 15 minutes it takes? > Another thing is that when people talk about how much cheaper digital > is, they seem to be comparing with the price of developing *and > printing* from film, which does not seem fair... I don't, the cost of (good) film and (professional) developing is significant enough and since prints are cheaper from a digital source so I'm sure it's not fair to include them. > We've discussed this before, of course... > > I think digital will *really* make a difference as and when the actual > media used in the camera becomes so low-cost and reliable that you won't > have to copy the data at all. (But I've probably mentioned that earlier, > too.) I think it's insignificant enough now that the vast majority of RAW shooters here consider it a non-issue. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Also, I've never thought a lot about "colour balance" with film, but perhaps that's because the lab has done the job for me? I wonder if there are many labs that will accept "raw" files and do something productive with them these days, by the way. Most of the "consumer" ones I've come across seem to know of no other file format than JPEG, if you know what I mean... With digital, the photographer has become the photo lab, to a great extent. If you don't intervene at all, and just hand over autogenerated jpegs that the camera has spat out, you are handing over a processed file that has limited potential for alteration. More limited than the one of film, I suspect. Which is the main point, really. Before I can *really* see digital as an advantage, I think it has to offer me new options (compared to film) without making me sacrifice what I get with film. Maybe all it takes is (more) labs that work from "raw" files... The user can control pretty much every step of the process, from exposure to final print if they want to. The enthusiasts that tend to habituate camera mailing lists such as this tend to be biased towards this sort of control. Good point. Maybe I shouldn't conclude based on hearing about all the processing these people do, that I have to do all this work. Of course, I have a certain bias towards control myself, but a the same time, I'm probably a lot less enthusiastic about working on computers, in my spare time, that is, than most people on this list. - Toralf
Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS)
Rob Studdert wrote: On 1 Dec 2005 at 10:42, Juan Buhler wrote: Some of us had been hoping for something like that for the D in the past. Yes, there's a lot of improvements that they could have done that they didn't, looking at the continued support for less expensive cameras introduced after the *ist D you have to wonder why they dumped it and ran. For consistency? (Think LX, PZ-1p, ZX-5n, MZ-S ... )
Re: srbg to Adobe RGB ?
John Francis wrote: All the above features are already in Elements 3.0 I'm looking for a list of the differences between 3.0 & 4, to see if it offers me anything. I don't need ACR 3.2, or whatever the latest version is; 3.1 (or even 2.3) works just fine with images from my D in any case, if you did want ACR 3.2, you can download it (free) and use it with Elements 3.0 ERNR who has the same question you do, about Elements 3 vs. 4
Re: Histogram question
On 1 Dec 2005 at 17:46, Glen wrote: > Okay, but I've had the histogram fail to show clipping when shooting in > JPEG mode. If the histogram is based on JPEG mode, and the shooting mode is > JPEG > mode, then an "ideal histogram" should always indicate the presence of any > clipping, shouldn't it? No I don't believe so, what you are viewing an aggregate RGB histogram, if there is clipping on any one channel it may not be displayed in the RGB histogram. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Also, I've never thought a lot about "colour balance" with film, but perhaps that's because the lab has done the job for me? I wonder if there are many labs that will accept "raw" files and do something productive with them these days, by the way. Most of the "consumer" ones I've come across seem to know of no other file format than JPEG, if you know what I mean... Slide shooters think about colour balance Ah, yes, I knew that, really. I haven't shot much slide myself... But is it fair to say that negative film is actually "better" in this respect? and believe me it's a lot more work adjusting for colour balance before the shot than after in a digital work-flow. Labs that accept RAW files won't become commonplace until a RAW file standard such as DNG is adopted. Yes. That's sort of my theory, too. In the mean time, it seems to me that you have to pay a bit for the advantage of being able to do more of the work yourself, because that will in a way also be the only option... - Toralf
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 2/12/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: >Shoot the right subject matter and no you'll never see a difference. >Simply put >if the tonal range of the scene fits within the capture range of the camera >then all will be sweet however if the range exceeds that you will either clip >the whites or blacks or both. I've done experiments too and even with my >camera >set on the lowest contrast setting the camera generated jpeg or tiff images >don't hold a candle to a RAW conversion in when shooting a wide latitude >scene. That seems a very sensible paragraph. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 1 Dec 2005 at 23:03, Toralf Lund wrote: > > I also got a Mac after MacOS became Unix (I also have a Linux box - no > MS software allowed in my home.) A quite liked Macs before that, too, > but using the them did feel a bit like wearing a straitjacket at times. > But now I always pull out the command line if I feel restricted by the > GUI... I'm surprised then that you don't seem to appreciate the value of shooting RAW, it returns absolute control to the photographer, just like opening up a CMD line in a GUI. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
LOL. Interesting. That doesnt look like the Stetsons I know. graywolf wrote: Stay away from me, Shel. http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf/meanderings/_images/New-Me.jpg A man who would eat a classic $15 Stetson is dangerous. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Around these parts the photogs I know and the high-end labs use both Mac and Windows machines. Some use both. The days of one platform being superior to another has long passed. People use what they're familiar with and what gets the job done for them. Most platform choices were made years ago, based on what was ideal at the time, the programs one was using, and so on. Most people stick with what's familiar, in part because it's comfortable and in part because it cuts down on the having to spend time learning a new platform and perhaps new software. The day that someone can show me that one platform is inherently better than another is the day I'll eat my Stetson. Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" [Original Message] From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Date: 11/28/2005 6:27:33 PM Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched On Nov 28, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: "I, as well as every full-time career professional photographer I've ever met, just happen to use Mac. It's a given, just as Windows is for engineers and cubicle workers. By "full-time" I mean full-time, not the guy in your office who shoots weddings, portraits, stock or sells photos at fairs on the side. By "career" I mean someone who's been doing photography all along, not someone who dropped out of another job. I don't mean to offend anyone with these definitions and I'll hope to find a more delicate way to explain that people coming from other careers often bring baggage. " Much as I normally dislike Rockwell, I am in full agreement with him on this. I know a lot of high-end professional photographers, and nearly every one of them uses Mac. I'm a strong advocate of Mac for imaging use, and even more so for digital video work. Bob
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
It seems to me that RAW also ought to be able to give you the same output as JPEG without requiring extra work, though. All the information is available, isn't it? I mean, the colour balance settings etc. applied to the JPEG are stored in the tags of the file aren't they? So it should really be possible to get the same print/file view as with the JPEG with no user interaction whatsoever. Maybe the problem is poor software, or perhaps missing RAW support in simple apps due to the lack of a common file format. If something like DNG gets widely adopted, maybe we'll see more software that will display/print directly from files of that format, just applying the default colour transformations? One can do batch conversions using the camera's profile, as they are tagged into the RAW file (at least they seem to be), or any preprogrammed or prechosen profile chosen by the user during conversion to a more usable file format, but there isn't much point in doing that versus shooting jpeg in the first place, and you are still using computer time, which may or may not be an issue. The point would be keeping your options open, obviously... But the post I responded to suggested that raw didn't really give you more options, but rather that you had to choose between using the camera profile and doing the job on your own at the time of shooting... The way I see it, using computer time is a bit of an issue if it also means user time that has to be spent before you can print anything (if a print is what you want) where you could output the file directly with JPEG. I do batch conversions all the time, I have created about a dozen different profiles covering various lighting setups. They get me close enough to show rough proofs to my subjects, but I go back to the RAW file for the files I want to create a finished presentation from. Which to me sounds like the sensible way of doing it. The concept behind shooting RAW is that it takes control of the image processing away from the camera and gives it to the photographer. The other side of having this control is that you must be ready and willing to invest the time into exercsing this control. Of course, but like I said, ideally, investing extra time should be an option that allows you to get even better pictures, not something that's required to get something usable. Software improvements may make this process faster, faster computers will probably play as great a factor, since the amount of data processing going on during RAW conversion is pretty huge. Does it really require *that* much processing? Obviously, you have to do some kind of maths for ever pixel, but I do that all the time... Maybe I should try to get the image processing gurus at work to implement the "bayer pattern" colour space, or have a stab at it myself... - Toralf
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
On Dec 1, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: Word is that the new Hassy is made by Fuji. You mean the actual body? Surely the "digital" bits are by Imacon? They didn't so much desert Zeiss and desert themselves... Lenses and film magazines are from Fuji. Body is assembled by Hasselblad from parts made by Minolta (prism, metering system, focusing screen) and other Asian suppliers. Assembly is being moved from Sweden to Denmark (Imacon). There are so few employees left at the Swedish facility that each one has the square meters of a very large house!! I suspect it won't be too long before the Swedish operation is shut down entirely. End of an era, for sure. Bob
Re: Histogram question
At 06:15 PM 12/1/2005, Rob Studdert wrote: On 1 Dec 2005 at 10:22, Glen wrote: > In general, the histogram is a big help in setting exposure and contrast > settings on the camera, but there are still some cases where I think it > gives misleading information. Some sort of clipping indicator would be a > nice addition to the camera's preview features, or possibly provide a > numerical readout of the very brightest and darkest pixels captured in the > image, as measured on a 0-255 scale. I believe that the histogram display data is extracted from the embedded JPG file which is affected by camera settings. Until the histogram is a function of the RAW data the histogram or a clipping indicator is only going to be a guide not an absolute indicator. Okay, but I've had the histogram fail to show clipping when shooting in JPEG mode. If the histogram is based on JPEG mode, and the shooting mode is JPEG mode, then an "ideal histogram" should always indicate the presence of any clipping, shouldn't it? take care, Glen
Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS)
- Original Message - From: "Juan Buhler" Subject: Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS) On 12/1/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Processing capacity? Unlikely, I think. The main change we were hoping for was a usable Av mode with K/M lenses (by keeping the exposure last measured with the green button and adjusting the shutter speed with the light). This requires no more processing capacity than regular program mode. Doesn't the istD do this? I thought that was the green button exposure mode. I realize we have morphed this thread away from the Ds. William Robb
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
On 2/12/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: >of course they >happily debited the card as soon as I'd placed the order Ma boy, waddya expect from a nice store like that, oy veh! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS)
On 1 Dec 2005 at 16:29, William Robb wrote: > Processing capacity? No I'm talking about shitty little things like losing the image count value when your *ist D batteries die and the camera shuts down. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS)
On 12/1/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Processing capacity? Unlikely, I think. The main change we were hoping for was a usable Av mode with K/M lenses (by keeping the exposure last measured with the green button and adjusting the shutter speed with the light). This requires no more processing capacity than regular program mode. j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS)
I don't know if I'd agree with that. There are a rather large (and growing) number of geeks that have embraced open-source style things. Given the fairly equal technical footing of all the major brands of DSLRs, ones that have geek-appeal will likely sway a large number of them. Even if Pentax got 100% of the geek market, would that be significant? We see post after post here bemoaning the fact that cameras are being dumbed down to appeal to the masses - it seems unlikely that those masses are found amongst the geek community. Yes and no. Pentax is behind both the big boys, so the userbase is already quite a bit smaller. If it were to become *THE* geek model, it might be significant then again maybe not. I'm probably talking out my *ss here. - Standard batteries (friendly with other geektoys) True. BIG plus in my book. - HUGE array of old and cheap lenses with K-mount everything. There are even more Nikon (and Nikon-compatible) lenses out there. ... except that they made the (IMO) inexcusable decision to disable metering on the low-end models. Between that and all the voodoo of which lenses fit/function on which bodies without damaging either, it's a dubious distinction. Only on the DS; this started out discussing the D My bad. Not that CF is big, but it is too big for a lot of devices. Probably others I can't think of right now. If you look at other geek-friendly open projects (e.g. MythTV), hardware that works well with it has a built-in advantage: That still only shows that geek-friendly hardware sells to geeks. It doesn't show that this makes up a significant portion od total sales. I have no actual numbers. With gloom and doom purported everwhere, I'd assume that any marketshare is good marketshare. Personally, I see almost no distinction between any of the non-DSLR cameras as far as brand goes. When someone asks me what to buy I can offer little assistance save for, "Go fondle them and see what you like best." They're all pretty much equivalent... no way to stand out in that realm. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 1 Dec 2005 at 22:41, Toralf Lund wrote: > Sounds like the way it should be... I must say that when I express a > certain scepticism to digital photography now and then, it's partly > because of all the talk about the "workflow" on this list and elsewhere, > which gives me the impression that although you also read a lot about > how "simple" digital is, it has actually introduced extra work that *has > to be done*... Not a lot of "extra" work once you have developed a procedure that suites you. > Also, I've never thought a lot about "colour balance" with film, but > perhaps that's because the lab has done the job for me? I wonder if > there are many labs that will accept "raw" files and do something > productive with them these days, by the way. Most of the "consumer" ones > I've come across seem to know of no other file format than JPEG, if you > know what I mean... Slide shooters think about colour balance and believe me it's a lot more work adjusting for colour balance before the shot than after in a digital work-flow. Labs that accept RAW files won't become commonplace until a RAW file standard such as DNG is adopted. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 11/30/05, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > > The day that someone can show me that one platform is inherently better > > than another is the day I'll eat my Stetson. > > > > > > You have a Stetson? I have several berets... -frank "frenchie" theriault -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 1/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: >That's true if the subject of your shot doesn't demand an extended >range. However, if you're working with bright highlights and deep >shadows, you can achieve more with RAW than you can with a perfectly >exposed jpeg. RAW also enables better fine tuning of color temperature >and better upsizing of the file. I agree with everything there Paulexcept that last bit :-) Promise me you'll do a little test - shoot the same (well lit) scene in both RAW and jpeg. Stick them both through PS and bump them both up to A3. Examine. Report back. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
P. J. Alling wrote: Word is that the new Hassy is made by Fuji. You mean the actual body? Surely the "digital" bits are by Imacon? They didn't so much desert Zeiss and desert themselves...
Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS)
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS) On 1 Dec 2005 at 10:42, Juan Buhler wrote: Some of us had been hoping for something like that for the D in the past. Yes, there's a lot of improvements that they could have done that they didn't, looking at the continued support for less expensive cameras introduced after the *ist D you have to wonder why they dumped it and ran. Processing capacity? William Robb
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 1 Dec 2005 at 19:57, Cotty wrote: > The reason I shoot jpegs is simple. I shot the same scene RAW and large/ > fine jpeg. I put both through PS and printed each at A3. I compared the > prints and there was not a damn bit of difference between them. My end > result is printing, so that was that. Shoot the right subject matter and no you'll never see a difference. Simply put if the tonal range of the scene fits within the capture range of the camera then all will be sweet however if the range exceeds that you will either clip the whites or blacks or both. I've done experiments too and even with my camera set on the lowest contrast setting the camera generated jpeg or tiff images don't hold a candle to a RAW conversion in when shooting a wide latitude scene. I expect it would be a lot more attractive to shoot RAW if you had a faster machine, before I upgraded my computer gear a year or so ago I was working on a 300MHz system, it was painfully slow, impractical really. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
- Original Message - From: "Toralf Lund" Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched I must say that when I express a certain scepticism to digital photography now and then, it's partly because of all the talk about the "workflow" on this list and elsewhere, which gives me the impression that although you also read a lot about how "simple" digital is, it has actually introduced extra work that *has to be done*... In the "old days", most of the workflow was handled by the film manufacturer, paper manufacturer, and the person processing and printing the film. Some people took on extra work flow by having their own darkrooms. Digital has introduced several more layers of processing options, and allows a lot of things to be done easily that are difficult to impossible to emulate in an film based optical printing environment. One doesn't have to take advantage of this control, most of my digital customers are running their cameras on the manufacturers default settings, with many just dump their files in my lap, hoping I can salvage something for them to look at. Also, I've never thought a lot about "colour balance" with film, but perhaps that's because the lab has done the job for me? I wonder if there are many labs that will accept "raw" files and do something productive with them these days, by the way. Most of the "consumer" ones I've come across seem to know of no other file format than JPEG, if you know what I mean... With digital, the photographer has become the photo lab, to a great extent. If you don't intervene at all, and just hand over autogenerated jpegs that the camera has spat out, you are handing over a processed file that has limited potential for alteration. The user can control pretty much every step of the process, from exposure to final print if they want to. The enthusiasts that tend to habituate camera mailing lists such as this tend to be biased towards this sort of control. William Robb
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
- Original Message - From: "Toralf Lund" Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched It seems to me that RAW also ought to be able to give you the same output as JPEG without requiring extra work, though. All the information is available, isn't it? I mean, the colour balance settings etc. applied to the JPEG are stored in the tags of the file aren't they? So it should really be possible to get the same print/file view as with the JPEG with no user interaction whatsoever. Maybe the problem is poor software, or perhaps missing RAW support in simple apps due to the lack of a common file format. If something like DNG gets widely adopted, maybe we'll see more software that will display/print directly from files of that format, just applying the default colour transformations? One can do batch conversions using the camera's profile, as they are tagged into the RAW file (at least they seem to be), or any preprogrammed or prechosen profile chosen by the user during conversion to a more usable file format, but there isn't much point in doing that versus shooting jpeg in the first place, and you are still using computer time, which may or may not be an issue. I do batch conversions all the time, I have created about a dozen different profiles covering various lighting setups. They get me close enough to show rough proofs to my subjects, but I go back to the RAW file for the files I want to create a finished presentation from. The concept behind shooting RAW is that it takes control of the image processing away from the camera and gives it to the photographer. The other side of having this control is that you must be ready and willing to invest the time into exercsing this control. Software improvements may make this process faster, faster computers will probably play as great a factor, since the amount of data processing going on during RAW conversion is pretty huge. William Robb
I gave myself birthday gifts
Since I was laid up in the hospital on my birthday back in October, I gave my self some birthday presents today. Ordered a 1 gab SD card for the Optio MX, 4 Gig microdrive and a set of manual extension tubes for the *istD. Bill
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
On 1 Dec 2005 at 19:05, Cotty wrote: > Yes. If you are purchasing from abroad, they require a 'fax' of your > credit card (both sides) - but only once. They have my Amex card on file > and I have made many orders over the years with it. Incidentally, I > don't have a fax machine but what I did do is photograph the card, made > it look like a photocopy in PS, then popped into our office and faxed it > from there. I didn't want to send it as a jpeg attachment ! They made me supply mine before they would ship the goods but of course they happily debited the card as soon as I'd placed the order. I photographed my card, photoshopped a big red line across the image of my signature, downsized it to about 300 pixels long and sent it off, that seemed good enough to get my goods released. I guess they just want to see if the card is actually a real one not a white clone. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *ist DS Firmware 2.00
Quoting Brian Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I'm wishing that Pentax would add quick access to metering modes. > Possibly a > custom item to swap metering mode onto the Fn keys in place of > flash mode, > which would then be back in the menus. Yeah - Lack of quick access to metering modes remains my only irritation with the DS. Cheers, Brian + Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia
Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS)
On 1 Dec 2005 at 10:42, Juan Buhler wrote: > Some of us had been hoping for something like that for the D in the past. Yes, there's a lot of improvements that they could have done that they didn't, looking at the continued support for less expensive cameras introduced after the *ist D you have to wonder why they dumped it and ran. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: srbg to Adobe RGB ?
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:26:46PM -0500, Glen wrote: > Hi John, > > I was upgrading from Elements 2, when I purchased the online version of the > upgrade direct from Adobe. By the way, that's a very inexpensive way to > upgrade from an older version of Elements or Photoshop LE. I'm not sure > what features were in version 3, since I skipped that one. However, > compared to version 2, version 4 had the following things that had me > hooked: > > It comes with the latest version of the Adobe CameraRAW plugin, which > allows you to open and intelligently process Pentax RAW files. This is the > same plugin that also comes with Photoshop CS2. This single plugin is MUCH > better than the software that came from Pentax! It was also the largest > single motivation for me to purchase Elements 4. > > Handles Adobe and sRGB profiles and does conversions between them. > > Many of the editing operations can be performed on 16-bit images, and you > can convert a 16-bit image to an 8-bit image. (Bits per color channel, I > should have said.) > > There is an elaborate, companion file browsing and cataloging program, > called Elements Organizer. This can also display thumbnails of your Pentax > RAW images, as well as most any other image format. One double-click on a > thumbnail will enlarge the image for detailed viewing. Of course, you can > also launch the editor directly from the browser, and the image/s you have > selected are automatically opened. The browser also displays all the EXIF > information embedded into any of the images you have. You can also add > captions, notes, and tags to images. Later, you can search for an image in > your collection, by searching for a caption or searching the embedded notes > you created. > > Whenever I put my SD card into my SanDisk card reader, Elements > automatically launches the Adobe Photo Downloader program to retrieve my > latest Pentax images, and asks me if I want to clear the card after the > transfer. After they have been transferred to my hard drive, I am presented > with a thumbnail viewing of all the new files, in Elements Organizer. I can > double-click on any image for a large view, or I can easily launch the > Elements editor to edit any file I wish. All the above features are already in Elements 3.0 I'm looking for a list of the differences between 3.0 & 4, to see if it offers me anything. I don't need ACR 3.2, or whatever the latest version is; 3.1 (or even 2.3) works just fine with images from my D > There are lots of new features in Elements 4. I would suggest downloading > the 30-day trial version, as I did. I found that I just couldn't live > without version 4, since I also have the Pentax *istDS. Elements 4 makes it > a breeze to work with my Pentax files, compared to the drudgery of Elements > 2. > > take care, > Glen > > > At 03:29 PM 12/1/2005, John Francis wrote: > > >On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 03:16:26PM -0500, Glen wrote: > >> At 12:00 AM 12/1/2005, William Robb wrote: > >> > >> > >> >- Original Message - From: "Ann Sanfedele" Subject: srbg to > >Adobe > >> >RGB ? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >>The stock stuff I submit has to be Adobe RGB - am > >> >>I screwed? or is there > >> >>a way I can take that tif and translate it into > >> >>Adobe RGB. I have a sinking feeling that I cant. > >> > > >> >Edit/ Convert to Profile. > >> >The window that opens allows you to covert the image to the new profile. > >> > > >> >Hopefully, Elements has that. > >> > > >> >William Robb > >> > >> Elements 4 has that. I can convert between Adobe and sRGB without > >problems. > > > >Aha! That's something that might make me consider an upgrade. > >Any other cool new features? The Adobe website isn't that useful. >
Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS)
This is most probably due to the way English words are spelled using katakana where "aperture" becomes "apaachia" [アパーチャ]. There are rules for this and they are not always easy to understand. A more common example is "apaato" [アパート] - apartment. [Shutter Delay (Nml/Apature) Apature On/Off] "Apature"??
Re: Histogram question
On 1 Dec 2005 at 10:22, Glen wrote: > In general, the histogram is a big help in setting exposure and contrast > settings on the camera, but there are still some cases where I think it > gives misleading information. Some sort of clipping indicator would be a > nice addition to the camera's preview features, or possibly provide a > numerical readout of the very brightest and darkest pixels captured in the > image, as measured on a 0-255 scale. I believe that the histogram display data is extracted from the embedded JPG file which is affected by camera settings. Until the histogram is a function of the RAW data the histogram or a clipping indicator is only going to be a guide not an absolute indicator. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Thanks! (firmware update for -DS)
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:14:42PM -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > >I don't think it would be a significant number. If you're that much > >of a geek, you can probably already find a dis-assembler, etc. > >But, in any case, that's irrelevant. I don't really see the benefit > >to Pentax in doing this - if the camera is already discontinued, > >then it's not going to increase sales. And it *will* increase the > >number of support calls, even if the only answer is "sorry - you > >messed with the firmware, so we aren't going to look at the camera". > > > I don't know if I'd agree with that. There are a rather large > (and growing) number of geeks that have embraced open-source style things. > Given the fairly equal technical footing of all the major brands of DSLRs, > ones that have geek-appeal will likely sway a large number of them. Even if Pentax got 100% of the geek market, would that be significant? We see post after post here bemoaning the fact that cameras are being dumbed down to appeal to the masses - it seems unlikely that those masses are found amongst the geek community. > Geek-friendly features of Pentax as compared to other > brands already include: > > - Standard batteries (friendly with other geektoys) True. > - HUGE array of old and cheap lenses with K-mount everything. There are even more Nikon (and Nikon-compatible) lenses out there. > - SD memory... also friendly with other modern geektoys Only on the DS; this started out discussing the D > - TIFF-format RAW files ... just like Nikon & Canon, amongst others ... > Probably others I can't think of right now. If you look at other > geek-friendly open projects (e.g. MythTV), hardware that works well with > it has a built-in advantage: That still only shows that geek-friendly hardware sells to geeks. It doesn't show that this makes up a significant portion od total sales. > For example: > http://www.pchdtv.com/ > http://www.everythingusb.com/plextor_convertx_linux_sdk.html > > -Cory > > -- > > * > * Cory Papenfuss* > * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * > * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * > *
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Before OS X you could not have given me one. Now that they ahave grown up I would like to have one myself. Someone send me the money. My feelings exactly. Now that it's UNIX, I'd like to have one too. That was the first reason why I started to consider Mac. After using xWindows and Unix in Sun and Wax work stations in 1987-1989 I was never very impressed by MS Windows. It is nice to have Unix again, although I really don't need the old unix commands, like ls -a and biff, any more... DagT Right. Because the Mac, being the Mac, buries the command structure the user shouldn't have to get involved with on an every day basis. They DO provide for opening a command line, just like Sun OS did, so that you MAY use UNIX commands if you want to, but most of it is GUI interface (IOW not text) as always. I used a Sun workstation for a while (maybe 1990?) while doing CAD work. Nice, but the Mac is far less complicated for the operator. Deep down the Mac is pretty powerful, as an interface, and it's easy to understand (intuitive) and use. I also got a Mac after MacOS became Unix (I also have a Linux box - no MS software allowed in my home.) A quite liked Macs before that, too, but using the them did feel a bit like wearing a straitjacket at times. But now I always pull out the command line if I feel restricted by the GUI... BTW, I used SGI workstations a lot 5-10 years ago, and they were rather like the Mac is today back then (only a lot more expensive...) Also a bit like the Suns etc, but SGI had their own desktop that was easier to use (IMO); possibly just as easy as MacOS and quite definitely a lot better than MS Windows at the time... - Toralf
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Ann said: > >someone said earlier on the list that if you > >nailed the shot there was essentially no > >difference. That's true if the subject of your shot doesn't demand an extended range. However, if you're working with bright highlights and deep shadows, you can achieve more with RAW than you can with a perfectly exposed jpeg. RAW also enables better fine tuning of color temperature and better upsizing of the file. Paul
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On 1/12/05, Cory Papenfuss, discombobulated, unleashed: > I disagree on this one. The difference is that with a JPG >workflow, you have to do the tweaking at the time you take the picture. >If you take the time to do white balancing, saturation/sharpness >adjustment, etc at the time of the shot, that constipates workflow too. I don't do a thing in the camera. I used to set the white balance manually, but the auto white balance is so good i have yet to fault it. My sharpening in camera is set to nominal (that is, half-way, and back a bit ;-) everything else is set to between fair and middling. The only real advantage for me is that i can get 346 jpegs on a 2 GB card instead of 188 RAWs (at 320 ISO). Daft, I know ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'll continue to shoot jpgs, too - hey, Cotty, this is an area we sure do agree on. I can shoot raw, but I can't get enough images on a card - and I have to take time to run it through a coverter to tif and it takes too much room on my old computer etc someone said earlier on the list that if you nailed the shot there was essentially no difference. glad to see you confirm that. In that regard of course, it depends alot on what you want to do with the image, today, tomorrow, next week, next month. Small size printing or web display's not a problem. I see plenty of .jpgs here and elsewhere that obviously suffer from artifacts due to repeated saving as a .jpg. The digital binoculars I bought shoot .jpgs. When bringing an image into PS, I immediately save it as .PSD and continue working and saving as a .PSD until/if a final .jpg needs to be produced. Tom C.
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Cory Papenfuss wrote: [ ... ] I've rigged up a "dumpcam" script that slurps down all RAW files, converts to medium-quality JPG using ICC color profile, sharpens, and saves RAWs. It's pretty much set to auto white-balance, auto-exposure compensate... just like the camera would have. Then on the few that you want to put the extra time in, I can do some more tweaking... knowing that I've got the best quality that my current photography skills allow. Sounds like the way it should be... I must say that when I express a certain scepticism to digital photography now and then, it's partly because of all the talk about the "workflow" on this list and elsewhere, which gives me the impression that although you also read a lot about how "simple" digital is, it has actually introduced extra work that *has to be done*... Also, I've never thought a lot about "colour balance" with film, but perhaps that's because the lab has done the job for me? I wonder if there are many labs that will accept "raw" files and do something productive with them these days, by the way. Most of the "consumer" ones I've come across seem to know of no other file format than JPEG, if you know what I mean... The only part of the RAW workflow that is inherently slower is the act of copying larger files, and the RAW conversion itself... takes 10-20 seconds each of unsupervised computer time. Just need to think the workflow through initially to streamline it. -Cory
Re: srbg to Adobe RGB ?
Hi John, I was upgrading from Elements 2, when I purchased the online version of the upgrade direct from Adobe. By the way, that's a very inexpensive way to upgrade from an older version of Elements or Photoshop LE. I'm not sure what features were in version 3, since I skipped that one. However, compared to version 2, version 4 had the following things that had me hooked: It comes with the latest version of the Adobe CameraRAW plugin, which allows you to open and intelligently process Pentax RAW files. This is the same plugin that also comes with Photoshop CS2. This single plugin is MUCH better than the software that came from Pentax! It was also the largest single motivation for me to purchase Elements 4. Handles Adobe and sRGB profiles and does conversions between them. Many of the editing operations can be performed on 16-bit images, and you can convert a 16-bit image to an 8-bit image. (Bits per color channel, I should have said.) There is an elaborate, companion file browsing and cataloging program, called Elements Organizer. This can also display thumbnails of your Pentax RAW images, as well as most any other image format. One double-click on a thumbnail will enlarge the image for detailed viewing. Of course, you can also launch the editor directly from the browser, and the image/s you have selected are automatically opened. The browser also displays all the EXIF information embedded into any of the images you have. You can also add captions, notes, and tags to images. Later, you can search for an image in your collection, by searching for a caption or searching the embedded notes you created. Whenever I put my SD card into my SanDisk card reader, Elements automatically launches the Adobe Photo Downloader program to retrieve my latest Pentax images, and asks me if I want to clear the card after the transfer. After they have been transferred to my hard drive, I am presented with a thumbnail viewing of all the new files, in Elements Organizer. I can double-click on any image for a large view, or I can easily launch the Elements editor to edit any file I wish. There are lots of new features in Elements 4. I would suggest downloading the 30-day trial version, as I did. I found that I just couldn't live without version 4, since I also have the Pentax *istDS. Elements 4 makes it a breeze to work with my Pentax files, compared to the drudgery of Elements 2. take care, Glen At 03:29 PM 12/1/2005, John Francis wrote: On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 03:16:26PM -0500, Glen wrote: > At 12:00 AM 12/1/2005, William Robb wrote: > > > >- Original Message - From: "Ann Sanfedele" Subject: srbg to Adobe > >RGB ? > > > > > > > >>The stock stuff I submit has to be Adobe RGB - am > >>I screwed? or is there > >>a way I can take that tif and translate it into > >>Adobe RGB. I have a sinking feeling that I cant. > > > >Edit/ Convert to Profile. > >The window that opens allows you to covert the image to the new profile. > > > >Hopefully, Elements has that. > > > >William Robb > > Elements 4 has that. I can convert between Adobe and sRGB without problems. Aha! That's something that might make me consider an upgrade. Any other cool new features? The Adobe website isn't that useful.
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
It also has to do with the business you're in doesn't it? I shoot RAW all the time now, and it is very time consuming, as a RAW workflow cannot automatically deliver the best for each individual shot. The learning curve is steep and time consuming with lots of trial and error. Luckily, only a small percentage of my shots are worth bringing into CS2 proper, so it's not too big of a hit. ;-) For a person whose daily job is photojournalism, it's quite easy to see where .jpg has a huge advantage. I disagree on this one. The difference is that with a JPG workflow, you have to do the tweaking at the time you take the picture. If you take the time to do white balancing, saturation/sharpness adjustment, etc at the time of the shot, that constipates workflow too. I've rigged up a "dumpcam" script that slurps down all RAW files, converts to medium-quality JPG using ICC color profile, sharpens, and saves RAWs. It's pretty much set to auto white-balance, auto-exposure compensate... just like the camera would have. Then on the few that you want to put the extra time in, I can do some more tweaking... knowing that I've got the best quality that my current photography skills allow. The only part of the RAW workflow that is inherently slower is the act of copying larger files, and the RAW conversion itself... takes 10-20 seconds each of unsupervised computer time. Just need to think the workflow through initially to streamline it. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Tom C wrote: From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Doubtless if I shot RAW all the time I would have the ability to get the very best out of each and every frame. The truth is I don't have the time to spare sat in front of the Mac. [ ... ] If I were shooting for a magazine I'd undoubtedly shoot RAW. I'm not! The camera does a great job of exposure and if the jpeg is that bad I'll pass. Besides, I like contrasty lighting setups ;-) > >You continue shooting jpegs, I'll continue shooting raw. That way we >will both be happy . It also has to do with the business you're in doesn't it? I shoot RAW all the time now, and it is very time consuming, as a RAW workflow cannot automatically deliver the best for each individual shot. The learning curve is steep and time consuming with lots of trial and error. Luckily, only a small percentage of my shots are worth bringing into CS2 proper, so it's not too big of a hit. ;-) For a person whose daily job is photojournalism, it's quite easy to see where .jpg has a huge advantage. It seems to me that RAW also ought to be able to give you the same output as JPEG without requiring extra work, though. All the information is available, isn't it? I mean, the colour balance settings etc. applied to the JPEG are stored in the tags of the file aren't they? So it should really be possible to get the same print/file view as with the JPEG with no user interaction whatsoever. Maybe the problem is poor software, or perhaps missing RAW support in simple apps due to the lack of a common file format. If something like DNG gets widely adopted, maybe we'll see more software that will display/print directly from files of that format, just applying the default colour transformations? - T
