Re: Question About Kit Lenses
Yup.. every zoom I've owned has changed focus slightly from wide to long. I use a simple solution for fixed subjects: focus at the long end and pray that greater DOF as I zoom wider will compensate. I'm pleased with this simple approach using the 3 zooms I still own. But I have never printed larger than 8x10; I do a lot of 5x7s. Your milage may vary. Shel Belinkoff wrote: 'One of the things I've encountered is that some lenses, improperly called zooms, are actually variable focal length lenses, and by that I mean the lens will change focus as the focal length changes, and has to be refocused for accurate results. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Out at 2nd
Bruce, I don't have the pic up in front of me now, but my recollection is that the red blur can mostly be cropped out by using a 5:7 or 4:5 format. The action in the photo is good, as is the OOF kid in the background. As others have said, the framing is too tight top to bottom, but that issue seems to be reduced some with the elimination of the red blur in the LLH corner. If you crop it just so, what little remains is not too intrusive, or can easily be eliminated with any of several tools in PS, of which I'm sure there are equivalents in the program you're using. Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton This one certainly has different elements to it than the dusty mitt. One of the real tricky parts about shooting this stuff is dealing with obstacles (coaches, players) moving into my line of sight while shooting. On this shot, I was near the dugout shooting the runner moving down to second. The red blur in the lower left is the helmet of the runner advancing to first after the hit. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
OT: Xtreme pinhole camera
For your amusement: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2006/06/14/1632281-ap.html Best Regards, Stephen Moore -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: My kludge is broken
Great idea. Unfortunatelyu he doesn't have a battery problem ... On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:57:18AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Mike, I'll second Paul's suggestion and further suggest a set of Energizer Ultimate Lithium (I believe that's what they're called in the UK). They will solve your battery problems simply and effectively. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/energiser/ Shel [Original Message] From: mike wilson Brand new and freshly recharged. Might not be up to full capacity. It's very consistent now. Turn off and on; no stopdown. Half press shutter; works. Between 5 and 10 seconds later; stopped working. Half press; back again. Does everyone else's kludge work as soon as the camera is turned on? Does it stop before the camera sleeps? From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/06/15 Thu AM 10:17:02 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: My kludge is broken Your batteries are bad. Buy some lithiums and be done with it. Paul On Jun 15, 2006, at 4:59 AM, mike wilson wrote: I think ist DL2. I had the batteries out for some time, charging. When I mounted a plain vanilla K lens, the AE-L button would not stop it down for a reading. Tried a couple of different ones, made sure it was in manual; no effect. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Good Night and Good Luck
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:26:39PM +0930, Keith McGuinness wrote: keith_w wrote: Cotty wrote: On 14/6/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: Off for a Shel I hope it was We might never know, will But does anyone Keith McG J -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Concerning RAW converters, I've been fooling around with SilyPix for the last few weeks and am just amazed at its performance. All the normal tweaks, plus superior sharpening, noise reduction, curves, cropping, fine rotation, perspective correction (they call it Digital Shift because it emulates a shift lens) and probably more that I haven't found yet. The full version eliminates the need for an outside editor for the most part. The crippled version is free forever, full version is $140US (ouch), and you can activate a two week trial of the full version in the startup dialog. I'm waiting to see if Pentax allows us to upgrade to Photo Lab 3 when it's released with the SP engine. The screenshots of the interface on the web now seem to show similar controls and functions, but the text is Japanese so I can't tell for sure. You can try the freebie here: http://www.silkypix.com Lou -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: My kludge is broken
- Original Message - From: John Francis Subject: Re: Re: My kludge is broken Great idea. Unfortunatelyu he doesn't have a battery problem ... These cameras display all sorts of weird behaviours if a battery is bad. When I first got my istD, I used NiMH batteries and found the camera was prone to some wonky behaviours. I switched over to Lithium batteries and haven't had a problem since. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: My kludge is broken
So, what's the problem if not batteries? How are you able to determine it's not bats unless you install a known good battery and try the camera? Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis Great idea. Unfortunatelyu he doesn't have a battery problem ... On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:57:18AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Mike, I'll second Paul's suggestion and further suggest a set of Energizer Ultimate Lithium (I believe that's what they're called in the UK). They will solve your battery problems simply and effectively. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Rumpled Jeans #2
Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html Nicely done textural study. There's something a little 'crunchy' about it at this resolution, possibly a hair too much sharpening, but I'm sure it doesnt look that way in the full resolution print rendering. The one button, flat on to the camera, seems a touch flat and should be spruced up just a hair. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
LOL ... That's exactly what I said in the first response to this thread .. :-) Godfrey On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:55 AM, Lon Williamson wrote: Try shooting jpg as if you were shooting slide film. In my experience, they're quite similar. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT? : Nature has a way to put you in your place...
Of course you are crazy, Cesar. But that is what makes life fun. Isn't it? -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Cesar Matamoros II wrote: Please excuse the interruption with the flow of the list, I have been in a bit of a funk lately - when I am not keeping busy. I decided to take in a free concert-in-the-park about a mile from my house tonight. I decided to take my 1983 Bianchi road bicycle with the Optio S6 as my only photographic gear. An interesting combination of old and new... toe clips, friction down tube shifting, ps autofocus digital camera. I did take a few shots, but mostly I visualized shots I could take and how I would meter it to get the true effect I wanted. With the trees, I really needed a monopod. Zen photography? Perhaps. Therapeutic, definitely. As some are aware, tropical storm Alberto has hit Florida, fortunately we barely noticed it here. A little wind and some rain, but not as much as we need since we are in a drought. But, as I headed home I decided to take a slight detour to spend time on the bike. Of course it began raining. I got drenched. I had a blast. Of course I have to overhaul the bottom bracket of the bike to be sure, but well worth it. It seemed to put everything in perspective, how small we are compared to the world as a whole. I am sure people looked at me as if I was crazy as they drove by and the light was waning. I was beaming. I was feeling at peace. I thought of myself, my family, my friends, the list (which in and of itself is a family). I wished to be able to share my feelings as I headed home. I was almost sorry I got home as fast as I did. Who else would understand but the list - I hope? Sorry for the rambling, pics maybe later - I have to look at them first :-) César Panama City, Florida -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Xtreme pinhole camera
Wonder what the Save for Web file size would be. LOL Dave Quoting Stephen Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]: For your amusement: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2006/06/14/1632281-ap.html Best Regards, Stephen Moore -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Silypix and other RAW conversion software (was: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode)
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:35 AM, Lou Billing wrote: http://www.silkypix.com I've seen good work coming out of Silkypix but dislike its user interface, particularly on Mac OS X. I've been experimenting with RAW Developer from Iridient Digital http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper.html and find it to be more to my liking. Whether it outperforms Silkypix or Adobe Camera Raw I'm not really confident to say as yet. Integrating it into my image processing workflow is another question mark ... Bridge+Camera Raw makes for a very powerful setup. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Rumpled Jeans #2
But why can't a photo like this stand alone? To me it has no context, just a shot of somebody's jeans. I suppose someone could go on and write a book about them but for me its just a shot of rumpled jeans in which I have no interest by itself. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PESO - Rumpled Jeans #2 It is ... notice that this is #2 But why can't a photo like this stand alone? Shel [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller Shel, while the image itself is well done photographically, without more context it leaves me cold. If it is part of some larger body of work it would have had more impact. http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax Digital in the 1980s?
John, I took a quick spin thru your site. I liked the no nonsense feel look of it. I think the black background adds to the pro feel. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax Digital in the 1980s? Did you know Pentax made a digital SLR in the mid-'80s? Neither did Pentax. http://cgi.ebay.com/Pantex-P3-Digital-Camera-No-Reserve_W0QQitemZ7626815229 I just can't believe the description! John Celio P.S.: I've done a complete redesign of my website in order to focus more on my photography. I'd love it if someone would give me a critique: http://www.neovenator.com -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
I guess I don't see the advantage of shooting TIFF over highest quality JPEG. What's to be gained? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode I have yet to shoot a single picture in JPG. I've had the camera since last year and started shooting TIFF because I had to learn how to use the camera and hadn't a clue about handling RAW files anyway. I had only one card for months -- a 512 Kingston and it was enough. But I work mainly indoors and can unload a card without trouble. I did venture out with the small card once or twice and didn't have trouble. I now have three cards ) 1/2, 1 and 2 gig) and don't really need so many. But like all electronic things they can fail, so having several is good planning. I shoot only RAW now and am perfectly satisfied with the results. Don W Shel Belinkoff wrote: I really don't see getting more photos on a card as an issue. That would be the least of my concerns. 2GB of space will net about 185 pics in RAW using the DS - that's certainly a fair number of pics for a day. Cards are cheap now - a 1gb card can be purchased for less than the cost of a roll of film and processing with prints. After all, if I'm going to do photography, I'd want the best possible results, and if shooting raw will provide that, then raw it is. If JPEG will provide appropriate quality, then there's nothing wrong with shooting in that format. Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go out to make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because you don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to shoot in a manner that's appropriate to the scene and situation. Why waste your time making photos then? You took the time to learn how to use film cameras appropriately, learned what film choices to make, sought out good labs and processing ... Are you really using up the room on your card? The files get dumped into the computer at some point, and the space is reusable. Of course, if you're using a single card with 512mb or less space, well, maybe your point has merit. Shel And another is that you can get more photos on a card :) I did a bit of RAW shooting but 95% of the time I'm shooting jpg and happily so. IF I don't see what I like in my jpgs I just dump 'em.. I think I'm probably not really understanding the process well enough to make it work for me. But if the light is right, and you could have nailed it with a slide, the extra room you are using up on your card shooting raw doesnt seem worth it. -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PAW - Canal
Very nice Dave. I wouldn't change a thing. Exposure, focus composition appear spot on. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW - Canal http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/photodb/view.php?p=434t=1 This canal is part of the Upper Waitaki power scheme, which links about four lakes along the Waitaki River in the central South Island. This one runs between Lake Tekapo and Lake Pukaki, the first and second lakes in the system. The scheme is one of the largest engineering projects ever undertaken in this country. A recent attempt to expand it was canned due to a number of issues (some political, some technical, some geological). The power company owns the road that runs next to this canal, and allows public access. It's a longer drive than the publically-owned road, but is more scenic. Further along the canal there is the Mount Cook Salmon Farm, which is apparently the worlds highest. If your wallet is weighing you down, you can take a scenic helicopter tour from there. http://www.tekapohelicopters.co.nz/Flight.htm - Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Good Night and Good Luck
- Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Good Night and Good Luck On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:26:39PM +0930, Keith McGuinness wrote: keith_w wrote: Cotty wrote: On 14/6/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: Off for a Shel I hope it was We might never know, will But does anyone The Shadow know Kenneth Waller -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
And to think I could have used RAW. Or you could have hired a pro to get it right! ;-} Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:02 AM Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode On 14/6/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go out to make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because you don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to shoot in a manner that's appropriate to the scene and situation. Why waste your time making photos then? You took the time to learn how to use film cameras appropriately, learned what film choices to make, sought out good labs and processing ... Shel's absolutely right. I mean, look at this terrible example of a jpeg shot with burned out highlights and clogged up blacks. What a mess! Warning - no Pentax content in photo: http://www.cottysnaps.com/ And to think I could have used RAW. ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Music and Noise
What do ya think of the noise (3200 ISO)? Seems unacceptable to me unless you have a particular usage for that image. I guess a question to be asked is would you take the shot at 3200 live with the results or simply not take the shot given the results? I'd probably take the shot. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PESO: Music and Noise Very noisy. Was it a bit underexposed as well? If you're using PSCS RAW converter, you could eliminate some noise with luminosity smoothing, but it will also become softer. Paul On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:57 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: Goty this at a school play at my sons school: What do ya think of the noise (3200 ISO)? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/167521736/ Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.4/363 - Release Date: 06/13/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Rumpled Jeans #2
Because Jeans can't stand without something in them, obviously. (There are exceptions, but we really don't want to go there...) Shel Belinkoff wrote: It is ... notice that this is #2 But why can't a photo like this stand alone? Shel [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller Shel, while the image itself is well done photographically, without more context it leaves me cold. If it is part of some larger body of work it would have had more impact. http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Everyone shoots under controlled lighting - you control it by pressing or not pressing the shutter release, no? Sorry - Couldn't resist :) Someone made a point about what equipment you are using having a lot to do with these choices - Basically, the quality of light that I see without the camera is at least 50% of what makes me bring the camera to my face to shoot. I definitely shoot digital as if I were shooting with a film camera for anything beyond product photography - stuff I shoot for my ebay sales - shooting stuff just for information. The raw convert I have came with the Canon powershot pro-1 (which is still, alas, at Canon being repaired for it's drowning) I made sure when I bought it last year that it was a camera that shot raw... I really thought I needed it. So far all Ive done is convert the raw file to Tiff and then put the tiff in Photoshop Elements, which doesn't accept raw. I really do have to watch every penny, and the cards were expensive - I have a 1 gb a 512 gb and a 256 gb the last of which I bought on the road last year because even my tightly edited cards were running low on space. And then there is a space consideration on my hard drive I know when it comes to the technology for all this stuff I'm way behind practically everyone on the list - I don't even understand the buzzwords - can't wrap my brain around curves for instance. I'm babbling - ignore me - But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. Ann Shel Belinkoff wrote: Aaron, I don't shoot under controlled lighting. Yes, indeed, exposure on the high side definitely quiets down those images shot at 1600 and 3200. Shel [Original Message] From: Aaron Reynolds Most of what I shoot is under controlled lighting conditions, and my way of making an exposure reflect that. Starting with the meter reading that the camera gives me, I shoot, check histogram, alter contrast settings, re-shoot, re-check histogram, repeat until I have what I'm looking for -- a nice lookin' histogram and the whitest whites just peaking the teeniest bit. Then I lock that in and run with it. Under artificial light at the stadium, that seems to be with the contrast up one point above the medium setting and with the exposure 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop over what the meter tells me. That gives me a bright, crisp white that still has detail (if you've seen my baseball pictures, the whites that are peaking so that they've lost detail are generally the buttons on the jersey and the highlight at the top of the shoulder). Unless your lighting conditions are changing, I suggest fooling around with this method. One benefit I noticed was that the over-exposure yielded a reduction in visible noise at ISO 1600. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: The terror of the mountain
On 6/15/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed. As a matter of fact, I think Eugene Levy deliberately *cultivates* the Frank Theriault look. Is he rather blurry? -knarf -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Intro Greetings from the north
qanuippit? Same to you fella... VBG Welcome to the list. A nice set of images you've posted. Certainly different than the usual we see here. Lets hold the next annual International PDML meeting in Iqaluit ! Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Edson Maruyama [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Intro Greetings from the north Hey folks... how's it going? qanuippit? Just a quick email introducing myself... :) I've been lurking for a lil bit... WOW... pretty sure I'll be able to learn a lot... as I have already seen a whole bunch of amazing photos... and hopefully share a bit of my knowledge as well... :) Anyways, I'm originally from Brazil... with a japanese background... but I've been living in the north for 3 years now... Yup... wy north, as I'm in Iqaluit - Nunavut - Canada... pretty close to the Arctic Circle... :) You'll be able to find some of my pics here: www.flickr.com/photos/edmaruyama It'd be awesome to hear from you... I've been shooting basically digital with a *istD, got a couple of lenses, most of them Pentax/Takumar. Well... have a good day! happy shooting! :) Ed BTW: Qanuippit? means how's it going? in inuktitut, the local language here in Nunavut Ed Maruyama [EMAIL PROTECTED]ICQ# 2590107 http://www.flickr.com/photos/edmaruyama Iqaluit - Nunavut Canada All in all it's been a rocky road, twists and turns along the way... But, I still pray for tomorrow, all my hopes, my dreams... don't fade away... Don't fade away... David Coverdale __ Do You Yahoo!? En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Courriel vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non nollicités http://mail.yahoo.ca Yahoo! Courriel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Bingo! I think this should be etched in electrons someplace prominently. PDML is a gear list, so the discussions focus on equipment, but this is exactly what I've noticed in the time I've followed the list (and every other photo discussion group). I have seen no correlation between equipment and image quality -- virtually every camera and lens, old and new, has produced both wonderful and terrible photographs. I am preaching to myself here, since I have to remind myself all the time that it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. *Unca Mikey --- Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. Ann __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: My kludge is broken
The Kludge doesn't work unless the meter is already active. He needed to activate the meter before hitting AE-Lock. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, what's the problem if not batteries? How are you able to determine it's not bats unless you install a known good battery and try the camera? Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis Great idea. Unfortunatelyu he doesn't have a battery problem ... On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:57:18AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Mike, I'll second Paul's suggestion and further suggest a set of Energizer Ultimate Lithium (I believe that's what they're called in the UK). They will solve your battery problems simply and effectively. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. -Adam Kenneth Waller wrote: I guess I don't see the advantage of shooting TIFF over highest quality JPEG. What's to be gained? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode I have yet to shoot a single picture in JPG. I've had the camera since last year and started shooting TIFF because I had to learn how to use the camera and hadn't a clue about handling RAW files anyway. I had only one card for months -- a 512 Kingston and it was enough. But I work mainly indoors and can unload a card without trouble. I did venture out with the small card once or twice and didn't have trouble. I now have three cards ) 1/2, 1 and 2 gig) and don't really need so many. But like all electronic things they can fail, so having several is good planning. I shoot only RAW now and am perfectly satisfied with the results. Don W Shel Belinkoff wrote: I really don't see getting more photos on a card as an issue. That would be the least of my concerns. 2GB of space will net about 185 pics in RAW using the DS - that's certainly a fair number of pics for a day. Cards are cheap now - a 1gb card can be purchased for less than the cost of a roll of film and processing with prints. After all, if I'm going to do photography, I'd want the best possible results, and if shooting raw will provide that, then raw it is. If JPEG will provide appropriate quality, then there's nothing wrong with shooting in that format. Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go out to make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because you don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to shoot in a manner that's appropriate to the scene and situation. Why waste your time making photos then? You took the time to learn how to use film cameras appropriately, learned what film choices to make, sought out good labs and processing ... Are you really using up the room on your card? The files get dumped into the computer at some point, and the space is reusable. Of course, if you're using a single card with 512mb or less space, well, maybe your point has merit. Shel And another is that you can get more photos on a card :) I did a bit of RAW shooting but 95% of the time I'm shooting jpg and happily so. IF I don't see what I like in my jpgs I just dump 'em.. I think I'm probably not really understanding the process well enough to make it work for me. But if the light is right, and you could have nailed it with a slide, the extra room you are using up on your card shooting raw doesnt seem worth it. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: The terror of the mountain
Is he rather blurry? No. He's lost his focus VBG Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PESO: The terror of the mountain On 6/15/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed. As a matter of fact, I think Eugene Levy deliberately *cultivates* the Frank Theriault look. Is he rather blurry? -knarf -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax Digital in the 1980s?
The site is very slick, and looks very good. Loads fast and the photos are easily up to professional standards. My only niggle is that you should provide a link to the next and previous image in each group and a link to the next highest level. Yes I know the back button works but if you just want to browse a group it would be much more convenient to the viewer, and really that the web is all about. John Celio wrote: Did you know Pentax made a digital SLR in the mid-'80s? Neither did Pentax. http://cgi.ebay.com/Pantex-P3-Digital-Camera-No-Reserve_W0QQitemZ7626815229 I just can't believe the description! John Celio P.S.: I've done a complete redesign of my website in order to focus more on my photography. I'd love it if someone would give me a critique: http://www.neovenator.com -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: My kludge is broken
Because he doesn't have *any* kind of a problem - the camera is functioning correctly. I'd have pointed that out when I saw the first message, but somebody beat me to it. By now, though, the (lack of) problem has been pointed out, and acknowledged by the original poster. Installing a known good battery would reproduce the problem, so presumably your next recommendation would be to send the camera off for repair? On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 08:35:59AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, what's the problem if not batteries? How are you able to determine it's not bats unless you install a known good battery and try the camera? Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis Great idea. Unfortunatelyu he doesn't have a battery problem ... On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:57:18AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Mike, I'll second Paul's suggestion and further suggest a set of Energizer Ultimate Lithium (I believe that's what they're called in the UK). They will solve your battery problems simply and effectively. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: My kludge is broken
Why the meaningless subject line? I had no idea what you were referring to until I understood that you hadn't sussed the distinction between camera power on and metering activated. Glad you've sorted it out now. Yes, it is sometimes an annoyance that you have to power on and then separately activate the meter. However, I normally leave the power on all the time, then a touch of the shutter button awakens the camera and activates the meter simultaneously. (I would have said stupid subject line but that would mean I was being judgmental. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Just think of how much better it would have been if you had shot it in RAW... Cotty wrote: On 14/6/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go out to make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because you don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to shoot in a manner that's appropriate to the scene and situation. Why waste your time making photos then? You took the time to learn how to use film cameras appropriately, learned what film choices to make, sought out good labs and processing ... Shel's absolutely right. I mean, look at this terrible example of a jpeg shot with burned out highlights and clogged up blacks. What a mess! Warning - no Pentax content in photo: http://www.cottysnaps.com/ And to think I could have used RAW. ;-) -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
PESO - You're mine!
Little league pitching. Pentax *istD, Sigma 100-300/4 EX @ 260mm, monopod ISO 200, 1/750 sec @ f/5.6 http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome -- Bruce -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Limited lot
Hello list. Today I have ordred the three limited lenses (used in excelent/like new condition) 31mm, 43mm, and 77mm - silver, I belive as well as an FA 2.0/24mm. And a DL-body. I'm not convinced that I'll keep the DL,.though. I will of course be boasting, sorry - posting an image of the lot, when I receive it next week! Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: My kludge is broken
I'd say the battery needed to maintain long term memory in your camera needed to be replaced but that's only in the *ist-D the later bodies it was replaced with a capacitor. On the other hand does the DOF field preview button still work? If it doesn't you may have a flaky circuit board. mike wilson wrote: I think ist DL2. I had the batteries out for some time, charging. When I mounted a plain vanilla K lens, the AE-L button would not stop it down for a reading. Tried a couple of different ones, made sure it was in manual; no effect. Went into the menu and checked that aperture ring use was allowed; tick. It's the default, anyway. Came out of the menu and it worked. Switch it off and on; doesn't work. Touch the shutter button; works. Leave it five seconds; doesn't work, even though the display is still working. Now, I'm nervous. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
I recently attended a photo outing at Nyhavn (Denmark). I didn't wnat to bother changing cards all the time or loading the stuff into my Flash Trax, so I shot JPEGs exclusivly. Man, that was a mistake. Shooting in the sun in the evening (8-10 PM) provided very harsh ligting conditions. The JPEGs left me with very few options to correct not perfect exposures. What a waste. Most of the images looked like old fifties colour film or film from USSR-occupied countries ;-( From now on I'll go back to shooting RAW - as I did for the past year exclusively - when ever that is possible (small buffer/slow write speed). Regards. Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af UncaMikey Sendt: 15. juni 2006 18:33 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Bingo! I think this should be etched in electrons someplace prominently. PDML is a gear list, so the discussions focus on equipment, but this is exactly what I've noticed in the time I've followed the list (and every other photo discussion group). I have seen no correlation between equipment and image quality -- virtually every camera and lens, old and new, has produced both wonderful and terrible photographs. I am preaching to myself here, since I have to remind myself all the time that it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. *Unca Mikey --- Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. Ann __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. BINGO ! ;-} Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: UncaMikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Bingo! I think this should be etched in electrons someplace prominently. PDML is a gear list, so the discussions focus on equipment, but this is exactly what I've noticed in the time I've followed the list (and every other photo discussion group). I have seen no correlation between equipment and image quality -- virtually every camera and lens, old and new, has produced both wonderful and terrible photographs. I am preaching to myself here, since I have to remind myself all the time that it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. *Unca Mikey --- Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. Ann __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Action/sport program shutter logic?
Cameras with idiot modes were designed for ... - or for the husband/wife/children :-) I find my self using Tv a lot more, since I got the FA* 2.8/80-200mm ;-) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af John Forbes Sendt: 11. juni 2006 19:41 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Action/sport program shutter logic? Why didn't you use Tv in the first place? Idiot modes are designed for John On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:26:22 +0100, Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today I tried shoot extreme sport action and got surprised by the shutter speed *istDL chose for high speed action - 1/13. It's a joke itself and given 75/300mm lense attached it wasnt funny to see all blurry shots. I had to switch to shutter priority, continuous focus to get desired high-speed operation. hats the logic of action/sport mode for that matter. Shouldn't it be like shutter priority with speed chosen based on lense focal length. http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060611182608 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 06/09/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. -Adam Kenneth Waller wrote: I guess I don't see the advantage of shooting TIFF over highest quality JPEG. What's to be gained? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode I have yet to shoot a single picture in JPG. I've had the camera since last year and started shooting TIFF because I had to learn how to use the camera and hadn't a clue about handling RAW files anyway. I had only one card for months -- a 512 Kingston and it was enough. But I work mainly indoors and can unload a card without trouble. I did venture out with the small card once or twice and didn't have trouble. I now have three cards ) 1/2, 1 and 2 gig) and don't really need so many. But like all electronic things they can fail, so having several is good planning. I shoot only RAW now and am perfectly satisfied with the results. Don W Shel Belinkoff wrote: I really don't see getting more photos on a card as an issue. That would be the least of my concerns. 2GB of space will net about 185 pics in RAW using the DS - that's certainly a fair number of pics for a day. Cards are cheap now - a 1gb card can be purchased for less than the cost of a roll of film and processing with prints. After all, if I'm going to do photography, I'd want the best possible results, and if shooting raw will provide that, then raw it is. If JPEG will provide appropriate quality, then there's nothing wrong with shooting in that format. Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go out to make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because you don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to shoot in a manner that's appropriate to the scene and situation. Why waste your time making photos then? You took the time to learn how to use film cameras appropriately, learned what film choices to make, sought out good labs and processing ... Are you really using up the room on your card? The files get dumped into the computer at some point, and the space is reusable. Of course, if you're using a single card with 512mb or less space, well, maybe your point has merit. Shel And another is that you can get more photos on a card :) I did a bit of RAW shooting but 95% of the time I'm shooting jpg and happily so. IF I don't see what I like in my jpgs I just dump 'em.. I think I'm probably not really understanding the process well enough to make it work for me. But if the light is right, and you could have nailed it with a slide, the extra room you are using up on your card shooting raw doesnt seem worth it. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: My kludge is broken
Now that you've described it fully, yes it seems normal, that's exactly how my DS works. It half sleeps and has to be awakened with a kiss to it shutter button before it will respond to the AE lock button. mike wilson wrote: Brand new and freshly recharged. Might not be up to full capacity. It's very consistent now. Turn off and on; no stopdown. Half press shutter; works. Between 5 and 10 seconds later; stopped working. Half press; back again. Does everyone else's kludge work as soon as the camera is turned on? Does it stop before the camera sleeps? From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/06/15 Thu AM 10:17:02 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: My kludge is broken Your batteries are bad. Buy some lithiums and be done with it. Paul On Jun 15, 2006, at 4:59 AM, mike wilson wrote: I think ist DL2. I had the batteries out for some time, charging. When I mounted a plain vanilla K lens, the AE-L button would not stop it down for a reading. Tried a couple of different ones, made sure it was in manual; no effect. Went into the menu and checked that aperture ring use was allowed; tick. It's the default, anyway. Came out of the menu and it worked. Switch it off and on; doesn't work. Touch the shutter button; works. Leave it five seconds; doesn't work, even though the display is still working. Now, I'm nervous. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
Not as good as your other BBall captures. Biggest nit is the confusing/distracting background - yeah I know you have to take what you get but if I would saw that in my viewfinder I would have sought a different vantage point or gone for the least depth of field. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:55 PM Subject: PESO - You're mine! Little league pitching. Pentax *istD, Sigma 100-300/4 EX @ 260mm, monopod ISO 200, 1/750 sec @ f/5.6 http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome -- Bruce -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: The terror of the mountain
When this thread warped into Frank looks like Eugene Levy it was a bit bizarre, now I'm wondering if I bought a ticket to the Twilight Zone, I don't remember buying one. Mark Roberts wrote: David Savage wrote: I have to disagree. Eugene Levy looks like Frank. Indeed. As a matter of fact, I think Eugene Levy deliberately *cultivates* the Frank Theriault look. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax Digital in the 1980s?
Did you notice that the seller also has a couple of Canon Revel Gs John Celio wrote: Did you know Pentax made a digital SLR in the mid-'80s? Neither did Pentax. http://cgi.ebay.com/Pantex-P3-Digital-Camera-No-Reserve_W0QQitemZ7626815229 I just can't believe the description! John Celio P.S.: I've done a complete redesign of my website in order to focus more on my photography. I'd love it if someone would give me a critique: http://www.neovenator.com -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: PESO - You're mine!
Excellent photograph, Bruce. If I made a drawing placeing the kids right arm like that, people would say I'd been dringking roo much ;-) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Bruce Dayton Sendt: 15. juni 2006 18:55 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: PESO - You're mine! Little league pitching. Pentax *istD, Sigma 100-300/4 EX @ 260mm, monopod ISO 200, 1/750 sec @ f/5.6 http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome -- Bruce -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
Very nice. I like the limited DOF. Just like the big guys from SI :-). I might rotate it a few degrees counterclockwise to straighten the fence line. That would necessitate cloning in a bit more dirt at bottom right, but I think it would be worth the effort. You might also burn in some of the highlights on the sunlit leg. But an excellent shot, overall. Paul -- Original message -- From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Little league pitching. Pentax *istD, Sigma 100-300/4 EX @ 260mm, monopod ISO 200, 1/750 sec @ f/5.6 http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome -- Bruce -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Xtreme pinhole camera
85k David J Brooks wrote: Wonder what the Save for Web file size would be. LOL Dave Quoting Stephen Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]: For your amusement: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2006/06/14/1632281-ap.html Best Regards, Stephen Moore -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Equine Photography in York Region -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Limited lot
You've officially become as annoying as Wheatfield, congratulations. Jens Bladt wrote: Hello list. Today I have ordred the three limited lenses (used in excelent/like new condition) 31mm, 43mm, and 77mm - silver, I belive as well as an FA 2.0/24mm. And a DL-body. I'm not convinced that I'll keep the DL,.though. I will of course be boasting, sorry - posting an image of the lot, when I receive it next week! Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Limited lot
Dang! Nice haul. I would love to have all the limiteds, but haven't been able to afford/justify them at this point. I tried the 77 the other day (Shel's) and it is one sweet lens. Something on my shorter list. Congrats! -- Bruce Thursday, June 15, 2006, 9:50:54 AM, you wrote: JB Hello list. Today I have ordred the three limited lenses (used in JB excelent/like new condition) 31mm, 43mm, and 77mm - silver, I belive as JB well as an FA 2.0/24mm. And a DL-body. JB I'm not convinced that I'll keep the DL,.though. I will of course be JB boasting, sorry - posting an image of the lot, when I receive it next week! JB Regards JB Jens JB Jens Bladt JB http://www.jensbladt.dk JB +45 56 63 77 11 JB +45 23 43 85 77 JB Skype: jensbladt248 JB -- JB No virus found in this outgoing message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? I've tested TIFF output against JPEG highest-quality on four different cameras. There are differences, certainly, but insignificant to image quality. I see absolutely no point to saving TIFF files in-camera. They're huge, they are just 8bit RGB rendering (same as JPEG), they take forever to save, and they don't provide anything useful over JPEG highest-quality. When you open JPEG files for editing, immediately save them as .PSD or .TIF for editing purposes. Only resave to JPEG when you're done editing. You will not see any noticeable increase in noise or artifacts that way, even at maximum size prints. I worked with cameras that don't have RAW format capture options quite a bit (Sony F707/717, Panasonic FZ10). I made many thousands of excellent exposures with them and did a lot of editing with them too. The results are very good if you've got the JPEG parameters set up correctly. Making prints from them is not too big a deal, if the scene dynamics fit into the JPEG dynamic range. But it's a heck of a lot easier to work with tricky lighting situations using RAW format capture ... you have more dynamic range to work with and don't have to keep on top of white balance, contrast, saturation parameters to quite the same degree since these are all set in the RAW conversion phase of the workflow rather than in the camera. I don't find this additional step much of an issue, it's basically a matter of setting all the RAW parameters and then batch-converting the files to .PSD 16bit RGB or .JPG 8bit RGB depending upon what I need as output. 100-300 exposures usually takes about 10 minutes to get to that point. I'd rather have the ability to adjust things and the additional dynamic range than have to fiddle so much with the camera and bracket so much. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: PESO - You're mine!
Hi Bruce ... First, it's a great capture - the look on the pitcher's face is great. However, this one loses impact in the details. The slight tilt to the fence can easily be corrected as Paul suggests, and I think it would help the presentation. A little softer OOF area in the background would also help, as would bringing down the brightest area on the trousers and the pitcher's arm. My biggest complaint is that the pic looks washed out - lack of contrast. That's easily corrected, but I'd not necessarily adjust the contrast throughout the frame - work on the main subject a bit so he'll pop a little more. Then you'll have a big league image LOL Here's a QD touchup I just fiddled with a bit. http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/giants_0112_stdadj.jpg Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton Little league pitching. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
The sentiment has been etched in electrons a bazillion times. Technical quality is different from aesthetic quality. Sometimes an aesthetically pleasing result is awful technically. And vice versa. RAW format's added dynamic range and ease of use *while shooting* makes it more likely that I will get the results I want, technically. It's larger size and additional processing requirements puts a burden on storage devices and processing power, but I'm willing to accept those disadvantages for the advantages it offers. None of that affects whether I can see photographs, from an aesthetic standpoint. But if what I see cannot be captured with the dynamic range and settings I have at my disposal using JPEG storage, then it's compromising my ability to render those aesthetic qualities. I do agree with: it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. The capabilities of even the least capable DSLR available today are generally beyond the abilities of most photographers to exploit them all the way, except for specific features targeted at various niche needs (like fast sequences for racing work) or convenience desires. That's why I have no problems using the low end Pentax DS bodies to produce my work. Nobody has complained about the technical quality of the prints I've shown. Godfrey On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:32 AM, UncaMikey wrote: Bingo! I think this should be etched in electrons someplace prominently. PDML is a gear list, so the discussions focus on equipment, but this is exactly what I've noticed in the time I've followed the list (and every other photo discussion group). I have seen no correlation between equipment and image quality -- virtually every camera and lens, old and new, has produced both wonderful and terrible photographs. I am preaching to myself here, since I have to remind myself all the time that it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. *Unca Mikey --- Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Intro Greetings from the north
Hello Ed, Pleased to meet you. Wonderful photos you've posted. The one on arctic warming is resonating with me especially right now, it's on my mind ... but they're all excellent. Far north... Been up near that far north just twice while on land. I rode my motorcycle to the south-western edge of Hudson Bay in 1979 and I was on the glacier in Greenland for a bit during the time I worked for a NASA/JPL research group in 1985. It's severe and beautiful that far north. Hope to see more of your work. :-) best, Godfrey On Jun 14, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Edson Maruyama wrote: Hey folks... how's it going? qanuippit? Just a quick email introducing myself... :) I've been lurking for a lil bit... WOW... pretty sure I'll be able to learn a lot... as I have already seen a whole bunch of amazing photos... and hopefully share a bit of my knowledge as well... :) Anyways, I'm originally from Brazil... with a japanese background... but I've been living in the north for 3 years now... Yup... wy north, as I'm in Iqaluit - Nunavut - Canada... pretty close to the Arctic Circle... :) You'll be able to find some of my pics here: www.flickr.com/photos/ edmaruyama It'd be awesome to hear from you... I've been shooting basically digital with a *istD, got a couple of lenses, most of them Pentax/Takumar. Well... have a good day! happy shooting! :) Ed BTW: Qanuippit? means how's it going? in inuktitut, the local language here in Nunavut -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
Thanks for your candor. It always helps. I am going to do some work on this one based on others suggestions. I will be curious to see if it improves enough. -- Bruce Thursday, June 15, 2006, 10:15:25 AM, you wrote: KW Not as good as your other BBall captures. KW Biggest nit is the confusing/distracting background - yeah I know you have KW to take what you get KW but if I would saw that in my viewfinder I would have sought a different KW vantage point or gone for the least depth of field. KW Kenneth Waller KW - Original Message - KW From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] KW To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net KW Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:55 PM KW Subject: PESO - You're mine! Little league pitching. Pentax *istD, Sigma 100-300/4 EX @ 260mm, monopod ISO 200, 1/750 sec @ f/5.6 http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome -- Bruce -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: PESO - You're mine!
Hi again ... If you use this link http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/bdpitcher.html you'll see the pic on the same background as yours - using the same template that you use - and you may be better able to see the difference between the two photos. Shel [Original Message] From: Shel Belinkoff First, it's a great capture - the look on the pitcher's face is great. However, this one loses impact in the details. The slight tilt to the fence can easily be corrected as Paul suggests, and I think it would help the presentation. A little softer OOF area in the background would also help, as would bringing down the brightest area on the trousers and the pitcher's arm. My biggest complaint is that the pic looks washed out - lack of contrast. That's easily corrected, but I'd not necessarily adjust the contrast throughout the frame - work on the main subject a bit so he'll pop a little more. Then you'll have a big league image LOL Here's a QD touchup I just fiddled with a bit. http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/giants_0112_stdadj.jpg [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton Little league pitching. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
I am looking at this photo in Irfanview and I cannot see any tilt with either the top or the bottom of the fence. The crop tools seems to line up with the fence top perfectly. I agree with Shel that the contrast could use a little work. Sharpness looks very good. On 6/15/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bruce ... First, it's a great capture - the look on the pitcher's face is great. However, this one loses impact in the details. The slight tilt to the fence can easily be corrected as Paul suggests, and I think it would help the presentation. A little softer OOF area in the background would also help, as would bringing down the brightest area on the trousers and the pitcher's arm. My biggest complaint is that the pic looks washed out - lack of contrast. That's easily corrected, but I'd not necessarily adjust the contrast throughout the frame - work on the main subject a bit so he'll pop a little more. Then you'll have a big league image LOL Here's a QD touchup I just fiddled with a bit. http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/giants_0112_stdadj.jpg Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton Little league pitching. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
Hello Shel, Thanks for the tips - I'll take a stab at this and see if I can improve it along the lines you and others have suggested. I appreciate your looking and ideas. -- Bruce Thursday, June 15, 2006, 11:08:16 AM, you wrote: SB Hi Bruce ... SB First, it's a great capture - the look on the pitcher's face is great. SB However, this one loses impact in the details. The slight tilt to the SB fence can easily be corrected as Paul suggests, and I think it would help SB the presentation. A little softer OOF area in the background would also SB help, as would bringing down the brightest area on the trousers and the SB pitcher's arm. My biggest complaint is that the pic looks washed out - SB lack of contrast. That's easily corrected, but I'd not necessarily adjust SB the contrast throughout the frame - work on the main subject a bit so he'll SB pop a little more. Then you'll have a big league image LOL Here's a SB QD touchup I just fiddled with a bit. SB http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/giants_0112_stdadj.jpg SB Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton Little league pitching. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Very eloquently put, Godfrey. You have a way with words. -- Bruce Thursday, June 15, 2006, 11:18:53 AM, you wrote: GD The sentiment has been etched in electrons a bazillion times. GD Technical quality is different from aesthetic quality. Sometimes an GD aesthetically pleasing result is awful technically. And vice versa. GD RAW format's added dynamic range and ease of use *while shooting* GD makes it more likely that I will get the results I want, technically. GD It's larger size and additional processing requirements puts a burden GD on storage devices and processing power, but I'm willing to accept GD those disadvantages for the advantages it offers. GD None of that affects whether I can see photographs, from an aesthetic GD standpoint. But if what I see cannot be captured with the dynamic GD range and settings I have at my disposal using JPEG storage, then GD it's compromising my ability to render those aesthetic qualities. GD I do agree with: it's not the gear that is keeping me from making GD better photos. The capabilities of even the least capable DSLR GD available today are generally beyond the abilities of most GD photographers to exploit them all the way, except for specific GD features targeted at various niche needs (like fast sequences for GD racing work) or convenience desires. That's why I have no problems GD using the low end Pentax DS bodies to produce my work. Nobody has GD complained about the technical quality of the prints I've shown. GD Godfrey GD On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:32 AM, UncaMikey wrote: Bingo! I think this should be etched in electrons someplace prominently. PDML is a gear list, so the discussions focus on equipment, but this is exactly what I've noticed in the time I've followed the list (and every other photo discussion group). I have seen no correlation between equipment and image quality -- virtually every camera and lens, old and new, has produced both wonderful and terrible photographs. I am preaching to myself here, since I have to remind myself all the time that it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. *Unca Mikey --- Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
Sorry, I was commenting on Shel's edit On 6/15/06, Perry Pellechia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking at this photo in Irfanview and I cannot see any tilt with either the top or the bottom of the fence. The crop tools seems to line up with the fence top perfectly. I agree with Shel that the contrast could use a little work. Sharpness looks very good. On 6/15/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bruce ... First, it's a great capture - the look on the pitcher's face is great. However, this one loses impact in the details. The slight tilt to the fence can easily be corrected as Paul suggests, and I think it would help the presentation. A little softer OOF area in the background would also help, as would bringing down the brightest area on the trousers and the pitcher's arm. My biggest complaint is that the pic looks washed out - lack of contrast. That's easily corrected, but I'd not necessarily adjust the contrast throughout the frame - work on the main subject a bit so he'll pop a little more. Then you'll have a big league image LOL Here's a QD touchup I just fiddled with a bit. http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/giants_0112_stdadj.jpg Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton Little league pitching. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
Which pic are you looking at? One has the tilt corrected. Shel [Original Message] From: Perry Pellechia First, it's a great capture - the look on the pitcher's face is great. However, this one loses impact in the details. The slight tilt to the fence can easily be corrected as Paul suggests, and I think it would help the presentation. A little softer OOF area in the background would also help, as would bringing down the brightest area on the trousers and the pitcher's arm. My biggest complaint is that the pic looks washed out - lack of contrast. That's easily corrected, but I'd not necessarily adjust the contrast throughout the frame - work on the main subject a bit so he'll pop a little more. Then you'll have a big league image LOL Here's a QD touchup I just fiddled with a bit. http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/giants_0112_stdadj.jpg Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton Little league pitching. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
SV: PESO: Music and Noise
I too think it is unacceptable - the noice level at ISO 3200. However, the scenery was so badly lit, that I really didn't have other options. But then again, it's for a small slide show. It'll be fine ... Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Kenneth Waller Sendt: 15. juni 2006 18:10 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: PESO: Music and Noise What do ya think of the noise (3200 ISO)? Seems unacceptable to me unless you have a particular usage for that image. I guess a question to be asked is would you take the shot at 3200 live with the results or simply not take the shot given the results? I'd probably take the shot. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PESO: Music and Noise Very noisy. Was it a bit underexposed as well? If you're using PSCS RAW converter, you could eliminate some noise with luminosity smoothing, but it will also become softer. Paul On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:57 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: Goty this at a school play at my sons school: What do ya think of the noise (3200 ISO)? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/167521736/ Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.4/363 - Release Date: 06/13/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
Hi Ken, I don't see the background as all that confusing or distracting. Certainly catching the kid's expression is more important than the fence, which can be adjusted in numerous was within Photoshop or other editing software. Add a little blur, perhaps a saturation or contrast adjustment, and, bada-bing, no more distraction from the fence. Yet you've got the shot. To walk away from such a shot because there's a possibly small distraction seems foolish, IMO. Also, the fence adds a little context to the photo, gives a sense of the field boundary and completes the story idea. My dos centavos ... Shel [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller Biggest nit is the confusing/distracting background - yeah I know you have to take what you get but if I would saw that in my viewfinder I would have sought a different vantage point or gone for the least depth of field. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: PAW - Canal
Lovely shot. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Mann Sent: 15 June 2006 10:50 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: PAW - Canal http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/photodb/view.php?p=434t=1 This canal is part of the Upper Waitaki power scheme, which links about four lakes along the Waitaki River in the central South Island. This one runs between Lake Tekapo and Lake Pukaki, the first and second lakes in the system. The scheme is one of the largest engineering projects ever undertaken in this country. A recent attempt to expand it was canned due to a number of issues (some political, some technical, some geological). The power company owns the road that runs next to this canal, and allows public access. It's a longer drive than the publically-owned road, but is more scenic. Further along the canal there is the Mount Cook Salmon Farm, which is apparently the worlds highest. If your wallet is weighing you down, you can take a scenic helicopter tour from there. http://www.tekapohelicopters.co.nz/Flight.htm - Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
The Finest SLR Ever made
I know we're not supposed to post live auctions, but I love this guy's salesmanship. Anybody want an LX and Z-1p so I can buy this instead http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/THE-ULTIMATE-IN-PENTAX-SLRs-THE-FANTASTIC-SF7-c1990_W0QQitemZ7630088922QQcategoryZ15240QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Peter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:08:06 -0700 On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? I've tested TIFF output against JPEG highest-quality on four different cameras. There are differences, certainly, but insignificant to image quality. I see absolutely no point to saving TIFF files in-camera. They're huge, they are just 8bit RGB rendering (same as JPEG), they take forever to save, and they don't provide anything useful over JPEG highest-quality. There are not losses of data when saving any .jpg? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
I have but it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at. I must admit I saw it really fast when using a Sony Mavica. I preferred .tiffs over .jpgs for this reason and because by their nature .jpgs are lossy compression. I felt I was truly getting a '1st gen' image with .tiffs, where with .jpgs out of camera, I already had an image that may not contain everything that was shot. This may be a little simplistic or a splitting of hairs, but it made sense to me. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:09:28 -0400 No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. -Adam Kenneth Waller wrote: I guess I don't see the advantage of shooting TIFF over highest quality JPEG. What's to be gained? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode I have yet to shoot a single picture in JPG. I've had the camera since last year and started shooting TIFF because I had to learn how to use the camera and hadn't a clue about handling RAW files anyway. I had only one card for months -- a 512 Kingston and it was enough. But I work mainly indoors and can unload a card without trouble. I did venture out with the small card once or twice and didn't have trouble. I now have three cards ) 1/2, 1 and 2 gig) and don't really need so many. But like all electronic things they can fail, so having several is good planning. I shoot only RAW now and am perfectly satisfied with the results. Don W Shel Belinkoff wrote: I really don't see getting more photos on a card as an issue. That would be the least of my concerns. 2GB of space will net about 185 pics in RAW using the DS - that's certainly a fair number of pics for a day. Cards are cheap now - a 1gb card can be purchased for less than the cost of a roll of film and processing with prints. After all, if I'm going to do photography, I'd want the best possible results, and if shooting raw will provide that, then raw it is. If JPEG will provide appropriate quality, then there's nothing wrong with shooting in that format. Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go out to make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because you don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to shoot in a manner that's appropriate to the scene and situation. Why waste your time making photos then? You took the time to learn how to use film cameras appropriately, learned what film choices to make, sought out good labs and processing ... Are you really using up the room on your card? The files get dumped into the computer at some point, and the space is reusable. Of course, if you're using a single card with 512mb or less space, well, maybe your point has merit. Shel And another is that you can get more photos on a card :) I did a bit of RAW shooting but 95% of the time I'm shooting jpg and happily so. IF I don't see what I like in my jpgs I just dump 'em.. I think I'm probably not really understanding the process well enough to make it work for me. But if the light is right, and you could have nailed it with a slide, the extra room you are using up on your card shooting raw doesnt seem worth it. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi - I've tested TIFF output against JPEG highest-quality on four different cameras. There are differences, certainly, but insignificant to image quality Thanks for the input. This has been my understanding but I've never taken the time to quantify. When you open JPEG files for editing, immediately save them as .PSD or .TIF for editing purposes. Only resave to JPEG when you're done editing. You will not see any noticeable increase in noise or artifacts that way, even at maximum size prints. Pretty much my mode with JPEGs, except I very seldom ever resave them to JPEG. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:08 PM Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? I've tested TIFF output against JPEG highest-quality on four different cameras. There are differences, certainly, but insignificant to image quality. I see absolutely no point to saving TIFF files in-camera. They're huge, they are just 8bit RGB rendering (same as JPEG), they take forever to save, and they don't provide anything useful over JPEG highest-quality. When you open JPEG files for editing, immediately save them as .PSD or .TIF for editing purposes. Only resave to JPEG when you're done editing. You will not see any noticeable increase in noise or artifacts that way, even at maximum size prints. I worked with cameras that don't have RAW format capture options quite a bit (Sony F707/717, Panasonic FZ10). I made many thousands of excellent exposures with them and did a lot of editing with them too. The results are very good if you've got the JPEG parameters set up correctly. Making prints from them is not too big a deal, if the scene dynamics fit into the JPEG dynamic range. But it's a heck of a lot easier to work with tricky lighting situations using RAW format capture ... you have more dynamic range to work with and don't have to keep on top of white balance, contrast, saturation parameters to quite the same degree since these are all set in the RAW conversion phase of the workflow rather than in the camera. I don't find this additional step much of an issue, it's basically a matter of setting all the RAW parameters and then batch-converting the files to .PSD 16bit RGB or .JPG 8bit RGB depending upon what I need as output. 100-300 exposures usually takes about 10 minutes to get to that point. I'd rather have the ability to adjust things and the additional dynamic range than have to fiddle so much with the camera and bracket so much. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 11:18:53AM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I do agree with: it's not the gear that is keeping me from making better photos. The capabilities of even the least capable DSLR available today are generally beyond the abilities of most photographers to exploit them all the way . . . I'd agree with that - in a lot of cases the choice of gear is at best a matter of convenience. The one place where I'd disagree is in the selection of lenses - when I switched from my original M 80-200 or later FA 100-300 to an A* 200/f2.8 for some of my motorsports shots the improvement was, sadly, all too visible. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
Hi Shel Certainly catching the kid's expression is more important than the fence, I totally agree! To walk away from such a shot because there's a possibly small distraction seems foolish, IMO. I never said I'd walk away from that shot, but that if I noticed the distracting background, I would have sought a different vantage point or gone for the least depth of field. In the heat of the moment I probably wouldn't have noticed the background until after the capture. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PESO - You're mine! Hi Ken, I don't see the background as all that confusing or distracting. Certainly catching the kid's expression is more important than the fence, which can be adjusted in numerous was within Photoshop or other editing software. Add a little blur, perhaps a saturation or contrast adjustment, and, bada-bing, no more distraction from the fence. Yet you've got the shot. To walk away from such a shot because there's a possibly small distraction seems foolish, IMO. Also, the fence adds a little context to the photo, gives a sense of the field boundary and completes the story idea. My dos centavos ... Shel [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller Biggest nit is the confusing/distracting background - yeah I know you have to take what you get but if I would saw that in my viewfinder I would have sought a different vantage point or gone for the least depth of field. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at. I've never shot JPEG at anything but the highest quality level. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode I have but it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at. I must admit I saw it really fast when using a Sony Mavica. I preferred .tiffs over .jpgs for this reason and because by their nature .jpgs are lossy compression. I felt I was truly getting a '1st gen' image with .tiffs, where with .jpgs out of camera, I already had an image that may not contain everything that was shot. This may be a little simplistic or a splitting of hairs, but it made sense to me. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:09:28 -0400 No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. -Adam Kenneth Waller wrote: I guess I don't see the advantage of shooting TIFF over highest quality JPEG. What's to be gained? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode I have yet to shoot a single picture in JPG. I've had the camera since last year and started shooting TIFF because I had to learn how to use the camera and hadn't a clue about handling RAW files anyway. I had only one card for months -- a 512 Kingston and it was enough. But I work mainly indoors and can unload a card without trouble. I did venture out with the small card once or twice and didn't have trouble. I now have three cards ) 1/2, 1 and 2 gig) and don't really need so many. But like all electronic things they can fail, so having several is good planning. I shoot only RAW now and am perfectly satisfied with the results. Don W Shel Belinkoff wrote: I really don't see getting more photos on a card as an issue. That would be the least of my concerns. 2GB of space will net about 185 pics in RAW using the DS - that's certainly a fair number of pics for a day. Cards are cheap now - a 1gb card can be purchased for less than the cost of a roll of film and processing with prints. After all, if I'm going to do photography, I'd want the best possible results, and if shooting raw will provide that, then raw it is. If JPEG will provide appropriate quality, then there's nothing wrong with shooting in that format. Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go out to make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because you don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to shoot in a manner that's appropriate to the scene and situation. Why waste your time making photos then? You took the time to learn how to use film cameras appropriately, learned what film choices to make, sought out good labs and processing ... Are you really using up the room on your card? The files get dumped into the computer at some point, and the space is reusable. Of course, if you're using a single card with 512mb or less space, well, maybe your point has merit. Shel And another is that you can get more photos on a card :) I did a bit of RAW shooting but 95% of the time I'm shooting jpg and happily so. IF I don't see what I like in my jpgs I just dump 'em.. I think I'm probably not really understanding the process well enough to make it work for me. But if the light is right, and you could have nailed it with a slide, the extra room you are using up on your card shooting raw doesnt seem worth it. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Buy this book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/3791335960/qid=1150400212/sr= 2-1/ref=sr_2_3_1/026-9445807-1146853 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Of course not... :-) I didn't mean to imply the .jpg quality setting in the camera (although that would obviously have a bearing). I meant the color, contrast, lighting, etc., of the subject to be captured. All I'm saying is that assuming all .jpgs are lossy, to any degree, and knowing that I don't necessarialy understand, nor can predict what the algorithm will do, I chose to shoot .tiffs, based on the fact that storage is relatively inexpensive. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:32:17 -0400 it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at. I've never shot JPEG at anything but the highest quality level. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode I have but it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at. I must admit I saw it really fast when using a Sony Mavica. I preferred .tiffs over .jpgs for this reason and because by their nature .jpgs are lossy compression. I felt I was truly getting a '1st gen' image with .tiffs, where with .jpgs out of camera, I already had an image that may not contain everything that was shot. This may be a little simplistic or a splitting of hairs, but it made sense to me. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:09:28 -0400 No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. -Adam Kenneth Waller wrote: I guess I don't see the advantage of shooting TIFF over highest quality JPEG. What's to be gained? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode I have yet to shoot a single picture in JPG. I've had the camera since last year and started shooting TIFF because I had to learn how to use the camera and hadn't a clue about handling RAW files anyway. I had only one card for months -- a 512 Kingston and it was enough. But I work mainly indoors and can unload a card without trouble. I did venture out with the small card once or twice and didn't have trouble. I now have three cards ) 1/2, 1 and 2 gig) and don't really need so many. But like all electronic things they can fail, so having several is good planning. I shoot only RAW now and am perfectly satisfied with the results. Don W Shel Belinkoff wrote: I really don't see getting more photos on a card as an issue. That would be the least of my concerns. 2GB of space will net about 185 pics in RAW using the DS - that's certainly a fair number of pics for a day. Cards are cheap now - a 1gb card can be purchased for less than the cost of a roll of film and processing with prints. After all, if I'm going to do photography, I'd want the best possible results, and if shooting raw will provide that, then raw it is. If JPEG will provide appropriate quality, then there's nothing wrong with shooting in that format. Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go out to make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because you don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to shoot in a manner that's appropriate to the scene and situation. Why waste your time making photos then? You took the time to learn how to use film cameras appropriately, learned what film choices to make, sought out good labs and processing ... Are you really using up the room on your card? The files get dumped into the computer at some point, and the space is reusable. Of course, if you're using a single card with 512mb or less space, well, maybe your point has merit. Shel And another is that you can get more photos on a card :) I did a bit of RAW shooting but 95% of the time I'm shooting jpg and happily so. IF I don't see what I like in my jpgs I just dump 'em.. I think I'm probably not really understanding the process well enough to make it work for me. But if the light is right, and you could have nailed it with a slide, the extra room you are using up on your card shooting raw doesnt seem worth it. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML
Re: Intro Greetings from the north
Hello from York region in Ontario. Welcome to the list, i';m sure you'll get some great knowledge from us, especially on those odd days we talk about something serious. LOL Love your shots. The furthest north i have been is Churchill Manitob, but i quess thats heading south for you.:-) It took Frank and I several years to convince people Canadians didi not live in igloos and tents, now we have to start over again.VBG Dave Brooks - Original Message - From: Edson Maruyama [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Intro Greetings from the north Hey folks... how's it going? qanuippit? Just a quick email introducing myself... :) I've been lurking for a lil bit... WOW... pretty sure I'll be able to learn a lot... as I have already seen a whole bunch of amazing photos... and hopefully share a bit of my knowledge as well... :) Anyways, I'm originally from Brazil... with a japanese background... but I've been living in the north for 3 years now... Yup... wy north, as I'm in Iqaluit - Nunavut - Canada... pretty close to the Arctic Circle... :) You'll be able to find some of my pics here: www.flickr.com/photos/edmaruyama It'd be awesome to hear from you... I've been shooting basically digital with a *istD, got a couple of lenses, most of them Pentax/Takumar. Well... have a good day! happy shooting! :) Ed BTW: Qanuippit? means how's it going? in inuktitut, the local language here in Nunavut Ed Maruyama [EMAIL PROTECTED]ICQ# 2590107 http://www.flickr.com/photos/edmaruyama Iqaluit - Nunavut Canada All in all it's been a rocky road, twists and turns along the way... But, I still pray for tomorrow, all my hopes, my dreams... don't fade away... Don't fad e away... David Coverdale __ Do You Yahoo!? En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Courriel vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non nollicités http://mail.yahoo.ca Yahoo! Courriel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: PESO: Music and Noise
This one is better, I believe ? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/167859241/ Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 15. juni 2006 07:58 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: PESO: Music and Noise Goty this at a school play at my sons school: What do ya think of the noise (3200 ISO)? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/167521736/ Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.4/363 - Release Date: 06/13/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.4/363 - Release Date: 06/13/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Tom, I think you're right that there is a very slight difference between the Tiff and jpg saving for 1st generation. The bigger problem that I see is that both of them are 8 bit while the sensor is 12 bit. So you are throwing a lot more not shooting raw than you are between jpg and Tiff. I guess I'm saying that if you are willing to throw away 4 bits by not using raw, the remaining difference between Tiff and jpg right out of the camera are probably not worth the bother. Tiff is giving you the storage requirements of raw and the clipping of data of jpg. In some ways, the worst of both worlds. Thoughts? -- Bruce Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:48:32 PM, you wrote: TC Of course not... :-) I didn't mean to imply the .jpg quality setting in the TC camera (although that would obviously have a bearing). I meant the color, TC contrast, lighting, etc., of the subject to be captured. TC All I'm saying is that assuming all .jpgs are lossy, to any degree, and TC knowing that I don't necessarialy understand, nor can predict what the TC algorithm will do, I chose to shoot .tiffs, based on the fact that storage TC is relatively inexpensive. TC Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:32:17 -0400 it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at. I've never shot JPEG at anything but the highest quality level. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode I have but it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at. I must admit I saw it really fast when using a Sony Mavica. I preferred .tiffs over .jpgs for this reason and because by their nature .jpgs are lossy compression. I felt I was truly getting a '1st gen' image with .tiffs, where with .jpgs out of camera, I already had an image that may not contain everything that was shot. This may be a little simplistic or a splitting of hairs, but it made sense to me. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:09:28 -0400 No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. -Adam Kenneth Waller wrote: I guess I don't see the advantage of shooting TIFF over highest quality JPEG. What's to be gained? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode I have yet to shoot a single picture in JPG. I've had the camera since last year and started shooting TIFF because I had to learn how to use the camera and hadn't a clue about handling RAW files anyway. I had only one card for months -- a 512 Kingston and it was enough. But I work mainly indoors and can unload a card without trouble. I did venture out with the small card once or twice and didn't have trouble. I now have three cards ) 1/2, 1 and 2 gig) and don't really need so many. But like all electronic things they can fail, so having several is good planning. I shoot only RAW now and am perfectly satisfied with the results. Don W Shel Belinkoff wrote: I really don't see getting more photos on a card as an issue. That would be the least of my concerns. 2GB of space will net about 185 pics in RAW using the DS - that's certainly a fair number of pics for a day. Cards are cheap now - a 1gb card can be purchased for less than the cost of a roll of film and processing with prints. After all, if I'm going to do photography, I'd want the best possible results, and if shooting raw will provide that, then raw it is. If JPEG will provide appropriate quality, then there's nothing wrong with shooting in that format. Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go out to make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because you don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to shoot in a manner that's appropriate to the scene and situation. Why waste your time making photos then? You took the time to learn how to use film cameras appropriately, learned what film choices to make, sought out good labs and processing ... Are you really using up the room on your card? The files get dumped into the computer at some point, and the space is reusable. Of course, if you're using a single card with 512mb or less
IrfanViewer for RAW files
Hi, I discovered today that IrfanView, which is free, supports RAW formats for most cameras. I have just Dled it and indeed it supports the format for my camera. Just thought I'd let people know, in case it isn't common knowledge. It seems like a cheap and pain-free way of doing quickdirty conversions. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Tom C wrote: I've tested TIFF output against JPEG highest-quality on four different cameras. There are differences, certainly, but insignificant to image quality. I see absolutely no point to saving TIFF files in-camera. They're huge, they are just 8bit RGB rendering (same as JPEG), they take forever to save, and they don't provide anything useful over JPEG highest-quality. There are not losses of data when saving any .jpg? As I said, there are differences between the out-of-camera TIFF and JPEG highest quality, in all the cameras I did the comparisons with, but they're not significant. You can see how the JPEG compression changes pixel by pixel values slightly if you examine the pixels individually, but the differences are quite small and not significant. Technically, JPEG-2000 compression algorithms include lossless compression, if desired, but JPEG-2000 has not been broadly adopted. JPEG is, however, a scalable compression standard. Take a JPEG file, make a simple change (like selecting a block and erasing it) to force Photoshop to recompress it, then Save As that file to several JPEG versions from minimum quality to maximum quality. If you then open each of the files and do a calculation against the original (subtraction or difference), you will begin to see artifacts and changes to detail around JPEG quality '4' or lower. Above that, the losses are so small as to be insignificant. I find Photoshop's JPEG output at quality '5' or '6' to be perfectly suitable for high quality photographic rendering in all but the most sensitive areas, like very subtle tonal variations in the sky and clouds. Then I have to bump the quality up to 8 or 10 to eliminate tonal blocking. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
OK, I misunderstood you. Shel [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller I never said I'd walk away from that shot, but that if I noticed the distracting background, I would have sought a different vantage point or gone for the least depth of field. In the heat of the moment I probably wouldn't have noticed the background until after the capture. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Tom Given that something is lost on the initial jpeg capture, everything I been taught tells me that its only after numerous jpeg resavings, that the continued losses become evident. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Of course not... :-) I didn't mean to imply the .jpg quality setting in the camera (although that would obviously have a bearing). I meant the color, contrast, lighting, etc., of the subject to be captured. All I'm saying is that assuming all .jpgs are lossy, to any degree, and knowing that I don't necessarialy understand, nor can predict what the algorithm will do, I chose to shoot .tiffs, based on the fact that storage is relatively inexpensive. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:32:17 -0400 it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at. I've never shot JPEG at anything but the highest quality level. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode I have but it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at. I must admit I saw it really fast when using a Sony Mavica. I preferred .tiffs over .jpgs for this reason and because by their nature .jpgs are lossy compression. I felt I was truly getting a '1st gen' image with .tiffs, where with .jpgs out of camera, I already had an image that may not contain everything that was shot. This may be a little simplistic or a splitting of hairs, but it made sense to me. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:09:28 -0400 No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing. -Adam Kenneth Waller wrote: I guess I don't see the advantage of shooting TIFF over highest quality JPEG. What's to be gained? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode I have yet to shoot a single picture in JPG. I've had the camera since last year and started shooting TIFF because I had to learn how to use the camera and hadn't a clue about handling RAW files anyway. I had only one card for months -- a 512 Kingston and it was enough. But I work mainly indoors and can unload a card without trouble. I did venture out with the small card once or twice and didn't have trouble. I now have three cards ) 1/2, 1 and 2 gig) and don't really need so many. But like all electronic things they can fail, so having several is good planning. I shoot only RAW now and am perfectly satisfied with the results. Don W Shel Belinkoff wrote: I really don't see getting more photos on a card as an issue. That would be the least of my concerns. 2GB of space will net about 185 pics in RAW using the DS - that's certainly a fair number of pics for a day. Cards are cheap now - a 1gb card can be purchased for less than the cost of a roll of film and processing with prints. After all, if I'm going to do photography, I'd want the best possible results, and if shooting raw will provide that, then raw it is. If JPEG will provide appropriate quality, then there's nothing wrong with shooting in that format. Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go out to make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because you don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to shoot in a manner that's appropriate to the scene and situation. Why waste your time making photos then? You took the time to learn how to use film cameras appropriately, learned what film choices to make, sought out good labs and processing ... Are you really using up the room on your card? The files get dumped into the computer at some point, and the space is reusable. Of course, if you're using a single card with 512mb or less space, well, maybe your point has merit. Shel And another is that you can get more photos on a card :) I did a bit of RAW shooting but 95% of the time I'm shooting jpg and happily so. IF I don't see what I like in my jpgs I just dump 'em.. I think I'm probably not really understanding the process well enough to make it work for me. But if
RE: IrfanViewer for RAW files
Hi Bob, I tried using Irfan some time ago for conversions, and while it will work, my feeling was it was slow to load files and that there are better free alternatives out there. I love Irfanview, but not for this process. Have you looked at RSE ... a number of people here use it and I've read positive comments about the program in various venues. I've not yet tried it myself, although it's been sitting in my download folder for a while. http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W I discovered today that IrfanView, which is free, supports RAW formats for most cameras. I have just Dled it and indeed it supports the format for my camera. Just thought I'd let people know, in case it isn't common knowledge. It seems like a cheap and pain-free way of doing quickdirty conversions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: PESO: Music and Noise
Much better. Very nice. Is it 3200? Looks relatively noise free at this small size. Paul -- Original message -- From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] This one is better, I believe ? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/167859241/ Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 15. juni 2006 07:58 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: PESO: Music and Noise Goty this at a school play at my sons school: What do ya think of the noise (3200 ISO)? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/167521736/ Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.4/363 - Release Date: 06/13/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.4/363 - Release Date: 06/13/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: My kludge is broken
As far as I can tell, metering on a ist D body with pre-A series lenses is commonly referred to as the green button kludge around here. I got it immediately (and also recognized the problem, or lack of one), but that's possibly because most of my lenses are pre-A. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why the meaningless subject line? I had no idea what you were referring to until I understood that you hadn't sussed the distinction between camera power on and metering activated. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Limited lot
Jens, you may want to look at trading in the DL for a Samsung GX-1S, a.k.a. a DS2. It's got a much bigger buffer. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Limited lot Date: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:51 pm Size: 672 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Hello list. Today I have ordred the three limited lenses (used in excelent/like new condition) 31mm, 43mm, and 77mm - silver, I belive as well as an FA 2.0/24mm. And a DL-body. I'm not convinced that I'll keep the DL,.though. I will of course be boasting, sorry - posting an image of the lot, when I receive it next week! Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Kenneth Waller wrote: Tom Given that something is lost on the initial jpeg capture, You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, per se, on initial capture of a jpeg image. What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers it to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format. Whatever the sensor passes along by way of the camera's internal software, which apparently identifies it as a jpeg, or tiff or raw image, is what it is. How can any of that be classified as a loss? The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's internal firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW. Any losses that occur to any image captured and saved happen after the photog grabs hold of the image and messes around with it! ...everything I been taught tells me that its only after numerous jpeg re-savings, that the continued losses become evident. Kenneth Waller That's as I understand it. However, as *I* understand it, just opening it and viewing it, and closing it again does NOT bring about a deterioration. You have to save it time after time for the degradation to take place. keith whaley -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Tom, I think you're right that there is a very slight difference between the Tiff and jpg saving for 1st generation. The bigger problem that I see is that both of them are 8 bit while the sensor is 12 bit. So you are throwing a lot more not shooting raw than you are between jpg and Tiff. I guess I'm saying that if you are willing to throw away 4 bits by not using raw, the remaining difference between Tiff and jpg right out of the camera are probably not worth the bother. Tiff is giving you the storage requirements of raw and the clipping of data of jpg. In some ways, the worst of both worlds. Thoughts? -- Bruce Of course you're correct regarding the 8 and 12 bit. To tell the truth though, I haven't perceived a visual difference in image quality when converting a 16(12)-bit image to 8-bit for saving as a .jpg. I was always pretty satisfied with my 8-bit Minolta Dimage Scan Dual with transparency film. The 16-bit IV version of the scanner is better, however. BTW, I am shooting raw. JPG is doing more than compressing a 12-bit image to 8-bit. It's losing other image data, as well (which of course you know). I readily accept that this loss may, in most if not all cases, be imperceptible, just as the loss of the 4 bits may not be readily visible. It seems akin to having a duplicate transparency made. The duplicate will never be as good as the original, though it may not be readily apparent except under very excting scrutiny. As usual with things of a digital/technical nature, so much a splitting of hairs. I would never throw away an original slide in favor of it's duplicate, which to me at least seems what shooting .jpg is like. The same can be said of .tifs, as you point out, because of the loss of the 4 bits, assuming a 12-bit sensor. A complicated world in which we live. Oh for the days of film, projectors. viewers, and albums. :-) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: IrfanViewer for RAW files
Hi Shel, yes - I downloaded RSE, or the free version at least, recently. I didn't spend much time with it because it didn't seem to have many benefits over the Olympus RAW program. Irfan is definitely slow for this, and not ideal for dragging the stuff off the camera. I've just been using Windows Explorer to do that. It seems as simple as anything is likely to be. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: 15 June 2006 21:48 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: IrfanViewer for RAW files Hi Bob, I tried using Irfan some time ago for conversions, and while it will work, my feeling was it was slow to load files and that there are better free alternatives out there. I love Irfanview, but not for this process. Have you looked at RSE ... a number of people here use it and I've read positive comments about the program in various venues. I've not yet tried it myself, although it's been sitting in my download folder for a while. http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W I discovered today that IrfanView, which is free, supports RAW formats for most cameras. I have just Dled it and indeed it supports the format for my camera. Just thought I'd let people know, in case it isn't common knowledge. It seems like a cheap and pain-free way of doing quickdirty conversions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, per se, on initial capture of a jpeg image. What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers it to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format Not my understanding. LOST as compared to some non lossy capture modes. JPEG compresses file size by selectively discarding data.. The file is compressed relative to other possible file formats. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: keith_w [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Kenneth Waller wrote: Tom Given that something is lost on the initial jpeg capture, You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, per se, on initial capture of a jpeg image. What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers it to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format. Whatever the sensor passes along by way of the camera's internal software, which apparently identifies it as a jpeg, or tiff or raw image, is what it is. How can any of that be classified as a loss? The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's internal firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW. Any losses that occur to any image captured and saved happen after the photog grabs hold of the image and messes around with it! ...everything I been taught tells me that its only after numerous jpeg re-savings, that the continued losses become evident. Kenneth Waller That's as I understand it. However, as *I* understand it, just opening it and viewing it, and closing it again does NOT bring about a deterioration. You have to save it time after time for the degradation to take place. keith whaley -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Music and Noise
Yes, that is much, much better. Very nice shot! -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, June 15, 2006, 1:03:26 PM, you wrote: JB This one is better, I believe ? JB http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/167859241/ JB Regards JB Jens JB Jens Bladt JB http://www.jensbladt.dk JB +45 56 63 77 11 JB +45 23 43 85 77 JB Skype: jensbladt248 JB -Oprindelig meddelelse- JB Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens JB Bladt JB Sendt: 15. juni 2006 07:58 JB Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB Emne: PESO: Music and Noise JB Goty this at a school play at my sons school: JB What do ya think of the noise (3200 ISO)? JB http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/167521736/ JB Regards JB Jens Bladt JB http://www.jensbladt.dk JB +45 56 63 77 11 JB +45 23 43 85 77 JB Skype: jensbladt248 JB -- JB No virus found in this outgoing message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.4/363 - Release Date: 06/13/2006 JB -- JB PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB PDML@pdml.net JB http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net JB -- JB No virus found in this incoming message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.4/363 - Release Date: 06/13/2006 JB -- JB No virus found in this outgoing message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
For those who took the time to look and comment, I have done some work on the photo based on your input. Here it is: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112d.htm Here is the original: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm -- Bruce Thursday, June 15, 2006, 11:28:03 AM, you wrote: BD Hello Shel, BD Thanks for the tips - I'll take a stab at this and see if I can BD improve it along the lines you and others have suggested. I BD appreciate your looking and ideas. BD -- BD Bruce BD Thursday, June 15, 2006, 11:08:16 AM, you wrote: SB Hi Bruce ... SB First, it's a great capture - the look on the pitcher's face is great. SB However, this one loses impact in the details. The slight tilt to the SB fence can easily be corrected as Paul suggests, and I think it would help SB the presentation. A little softer OOF area in the background would also SB help, as would bringing down the brightest area on the trousers and the SB pitcher's arm. My biggest complaint is that the pic looks washed out - SB lack of contrast. That's easily corrected, but I'd not necessarily adjust SB the contrast throughout the frame - work on the main subject a bit so he'll SB pop a little more. Then you'll have a big league image LOL Here's a SB QD touchup I just fiddled with a bit. SB http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/giants_0112_stdadj.jpg SB Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton Little league pitching. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: IrfanViewer for RAW files
Hi Bob ... One thing your post did was to send me back to Irfanview again to look at the features. I discovered that an image can be open in Irfan, and then sent to the editor/viewer of your choice. There are many times I want to open a JPEG or a TIFF quickly, and then dump it into Photoshop if desirous. Opening PS can be slow and clunky by comparison to opening Irfan. So, now, thanks to your post, there's a neat, simple solution. Take a look at BreezeBrowser. It's not free, but it's a nice littel program for organizing files and making some simple adjustments. Bruce turned me on to it, and until I tried CS2 with Bridge, it was a nice option for some specific situations. Bridge, however, seems to be much more robust and useful.Still, it never hurts to know what's out there and how or if it might help you. Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W yes - I downloaded RSE, or the free version at least, recently. I didn't spend much time with it because it didn't seem to have many benefits over the Olympus RAW program. Irfan is definitely slow for this, and not ideal for dragging the stuff off the camera. I've just been using Windows Explorer to do that. It seems as simple as anything is likely to be. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
On 6/15/06, Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Little league pitching. Pentax *istD, Sigma 100-300/4 EX @ 260mm, monopod ISO 200, 1/750 sec @ f/5.6 http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm Comments welcome Love the eyes! cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
On 6/15/06, Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For those who took the time to look and comment, I have done some work on the photo based on your input. Here it is: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112d.htm Here is the original: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm I do like the brightness and contrast changes, but (and I know everyone will laugh at me) I rather prefer the tilted version. He's a bit more (how can I put it) askew. The tilted fence doesn't bother me a bit, and I find that the tilt of his body makes for a more dynamic photo. I guess it's just me. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
I hate to be picky too because I readily admit that you could easily show me the results of a raw, .tif, and .jpg out of camera and 99 times out a 100, I probably could not tell the difference. However, given the vast difference in size between the file formats, knowing that .jpg is by nature lossy, I still believe something IS being lost, besides just the bytes saved due to compression. It's just that our eyes may not readily perceive it. I recognize that it's the same number of pixels captured in a raw file vs. a .jpg. I will happily accept being wrong on this issue. With film it was easy. A transparency from the film in camera was a 1st generation image. A negative was too, but to readily view it, it needed to be made positive (usually a print) which was a 2nd generation image. For that matter a print or projection of a slide was second generation as well, as is of course, any photo we view online or in print. So it can get pretty silly. For me it was about having the best 1st gen image to work from. Raw surely must be the best, with .tif coming in second, and .jpg 3rd. The problem I have, in principle only, with shooting .jpgs is that I don't view them as a 1st gen image. One can believe that they are, because that's what the camera spits out, but are they? Tom C. From: keith_w [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:09:02 -0700 Kenneth Waller wrote: Tom Given that something is lost on the initial jpeg capture, You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, per se, on initial capture of a jpeg image. What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers it to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format. Whatever the sensor passes along by way of the camera's internal software, which apparently identifies it as a jpeg, or tiff or raw image, is what it is. How can any of that be classified as a loss? The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's internal firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW. Any losses that occur to any image captured and saved happen after the photog grabs hold of the image and messes around with it! ...everything I been taught tells me that its only after numerous jpeg re-savings, that the continued losses become evident. Kenneth Waller That's as I understand it. However, as *I* understand it, just opening it and viewing it, and closing it again does NOT bring about a deterioration. You have to save it time after time for the degradation to take place. keith whaley -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Tom C wrote: ... As usual with things of a digital/technical nature, so much a splitting of hairs. I would never throw away an original slide in favor of it's duplicate, which to me at least seems what shooting .jpg is like. The same can be said of .tifs, as you point out, because of the loss of the 4 bits, assuming a 12-bit sensor. A complicated world in which we live. Oh for the days of film, projectors. viewers, and albums. :-) I think people trivialize just how complicated film, projectors, viewers and albums are because we are so familiar with them, and find the messy discussions that go on about the differences between RAW and TIFF, TIFF and JPEG complex because they are dealing with new concepts. Film and its processing mechanisms are a very complex thing which took 200 years of development to produce to the current quality standards... Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - You're mine!
Much better, Bruce ... just a couple of things. The kid's face looks a little too red or ruddy, and the yellow blob on the fence in the ULHC might benefit from a reduction in saturation or something. Really minor, and certainly almost more a matter of preference than anything else. Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton For those who took the time to look and comment, I have done some work on the photo based on your input. Here it is: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112d.htm Here is the original: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
I can agree with that, even though I made the statement regarding complication. :-) With film though, we all (I presume to speak for many) had a 'show me the picture mentality'. We turned in our film for developing and waited to get it back. This is aside from those who developed their own film. With digital, raw, scanners, and photo-processing tools readily at hand on home computers, all of the sudden there are a lot more variables involved, a lot more choices, and a lot more power in the hands of the individual. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:43:57 -0700 On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Tom C wrote: ... As usual with things of a digital/technical nature, so much a splitting of hairs. I would never throw away an original slide in favor of it's duplicate, which to me at least seems what shooting .jpg is like. The same can be said of .tifs, as you point out, because of the loss of the 4 bits, assuming a 12-bit sensor. A complicated world in which we live. Oh for the days of film, projectors. viewers, and albums. :-) I think people trivialize just how complicated film, projectors, viewers and albums are because we are so familiar with them, and find the messy discussions that go on about the differences between RAW and TIFF, TIFF and JPEG complex because they are dealing with new concepts. Film and its processing mechanisms are a very complex thing which took 200 years of development to produce to the current quality standards... Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:09 PM, keith_w wrote: Given that something is lost on the initial jpeg capture, You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, per se, on initial capture of a jpeg image. What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers it to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format. Whatever the sensor passes along by way of the camera's internal software, which apparently identifies it as a jpeg, or tiff or raw image, is what it is. How can any of that be classified as a loss? The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's internal firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW. This is incorrect. What the camera captures on the sensor is RAW data, a 12bit deep intensity map in an RGB mosaic with one value for each photosite. When you instruct the camera to save that data as RAW format, it writes it to a file on the camera's storage card, structured with the settings you had made to the camera's rendering engine (sharpness, contrast, saturation, colorspace, etc) as metadata. The camera performs none to little processing on RAW data itself, other than (for some cameras) doing lossless compression. It also renders a thumbnail and a preview image in highly compressed forms and includes that in the structured file. When you tell the camera to save the data in TIFF format, the camera takes the RAW data and applies those settings, performs gamma conversion and chroma interpolation, and then interpolates the resulting RGB intensity map down to 8bits per channel. This is RAW conversion rendering to an 8bit RGB representation. It writes the resulting data out to a file in structured TIFF format. RAW conversion itself loses significant amounts of data through the gamma correction function, then the interpolation to [EMAIL PROTECTED] loses even more data. The result cuts the dynamic range by anywhere from 3-4 stops. When you tell the camera to save the data in JPEG format, it does everything it does for TIFF format and then applies a JPEG compression algorithm afterwards. Depending upon the subject matter, the implementation of the JPEG algorithm, the chosen quality level, and the data itself, this compression can lose very little to quite a bit over the TIFF. In general, comparing TIFF to JPEG highest quality format files, the difference is small and not significant to image quality. Comparing TIFF to highest compression JPEG format, the difference is substantial. A conservative estimate is that the conversion from RAW to TIFF or JPEG high quality in-camera represents between 40-50% data loss over the original RAW sensor capture. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 02:09:02PM -0700, keith_w wrote: The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's internal firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW. Any losses that occur to any image captured and saved happen after the photog grabs hold of the image and messes around with it! Not really. The original capture, as registered on the sensor, has 12-bit data. That level of precision is retained in a RAW file, but in a TIFF or JPEG low-order bits are thrown away. It's not quite as simple as saying the bottom-most four bits are lost, because there are also some non-linear processing steps involved, but there is no way to store twelve bits of information in only eight bits. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: PESO - You're mine!
Here is the original: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/giants_0112.htm I do like the brightness and contrast changes, but (and I know everyone will laugh at me) I rather prefer the tilted version. He's a bit more (how can I put it) askew. The tilted fence doesn't bother me a bit, and I find that the tilt of his body makes for a more dynamic photo. I guess it's just me. I don't think so. Going back to a conversation Shel and I had a short while ago about tilted horizons, I find that when I frame certain relatively dynamic subjects the horizon is not straight. This is because I'm concentrating on the subject and the action, trying to show what that is about. If communicating the action successfully means the horizon has to be tilted, so be it. Ditto for fences. Bob What tilt? ---Gary Winogrand -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
Thanks for that concised rendering of what happens during conversion from senor to file format. I think most of us have a fuzzy to semi-sharp idea of what's going on. In my case I read it and quickly forget the finer details. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] What the camera captures on the sensor is RAW data, a 12bit deep intensity map in an RGB mosaic with one value for each photosite. When you instruct the camera to save that data as RAW format, it writes it to a file on the camera's storage card, structured with the settings you had made to the camera's rendering engine (sharpness, contrast, saturation, colorspace, etc) as metadata. The camera performs none to little processing on RAW data itself, other than (for some cameras) doing lossless compression. It also renders a thumbnail and a preview image in highly compressed forms and includes that in the structured file. When you tell the camera to save the data in TIFF format, the camera takes the RAW data and applies those settings, performs gamma conversion and chroma interpolation, and then interpolates the resulting RGB intensity map down to 8bits per channel. This is RAW conversion rendering to an 8bit RGB representation. It writes the resulting data out to a file in structured TIFF format. RAW conversion itself loses significant amounts of data through the gamma correction function, then the interpolation to [EMAIL PROTECTED] loses even more data. The result cuts the dynamic range by anywhere from 3-4 stops. When you tell the camera to save the data in JPEG format, it does everything it does for TIFF format and then applies a JPEG compression algorithm afterwards. Depending upon the subject matter, the implementation of the JPEG algorithm, the chosen quality level, and the data itself, this compression can lose very little to quite a bit over the TIFF. In general, comparing TIFF to JPEG highest quality format files, the difference is small and not significant to image quality. Comparing TIFF to highest compression JPEG format, the difference is substantial. A conservative estimate is that the conversion from RAW to TIFF or JPEG high quality in-camera represents between 40-50% data loss over the original RAW sensor capture. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:37 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: LOST as compared to some non lossy capture modes. JPEG compresses file size by selectively discarding data.. The file is compressed relative to other possible file formats. Data loss in the context of image processing jargon means a combinaton of two things: - Some of the tonal resolution acquired by the capture device is changed in a non-reversible manner by processing operations. - Some of the spatial resolution acquired by the capture device is changed in a non-reversible manner by processing operations. (Following is a more complete yet still simplistic picture of what's going on when you save exposures in a digital camera with regards to the data representation ...) The sensor is a linear gamma device. Each photosite simply counts how many photons hit it in the exposure time and reports that number. If there were no RGB filter mosaic in front of the sensor, you would have an intensity map in [x,y] coordinates with numbers from 0 to 4096 in discrete integer values. The human eye does not see light in linear terms like this. To correct the data in that map to correspond to what the human eye sees, you need to compress the high values together and spread the low values apart in a curve described by a gamma function. The process of doing this gamma correction function is tonally lossy: it throws away some of the tonal values in the highs and stretches some of the values in the lows to achieve its goal. The result, however, looks normal to the human eye. Spatial resolution is not lost but the map of intensities is irreversibly altered. Now consider the RGB mosaic. Chroma interpolation is a matter of looking at the values of the pixels according to how the R, G and B pixels are deployed and interpolating a chroma value for each pixel position in the three channels based upon the relationships of the values in an [NxN] unit cell. Again, the process is tonally lossy because the values are not exactly what was captured and that which was captured cannot be retrieved exactly. This process can be spatially lossy as well, but generally the spatial losses with current algorithms are very small. The result of this process, without downsampling to 8bit, would be pixel positions in [x,y] space with three numbers, each 0-4096, as values. But TIFF files produced in camera are 8bit per channel output, so the values in 0-4096 space are interpolated to best fit in the scale from 0-256. This process is again tonally lossy and spatially neutral. That's what happens (simplistically) going from RAW to TIFF. Going from TIFF to JPEG applies the scalable JPEG compression algorithm, which sorts and changes representations of values to reduce data size. JPEG compress, depending upon the quality setting, implementation and the data itself, can be lossy both tonally and spatially from virtually nil significance to quite a lot. hope that helps... ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
