Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
On May 17, 2004, at 2:16 AM, William Robb wrote: There is really no such thing as a profile in this instance. Really, find out what colour spaces the lab recognizes, and choose the one that is best for you. If they can't tell you, then the default profile to use is sRGB. In the case of my lab, they say to use the sRGB colour space. But that is no use in soft proofing as its only a device-independent colour space so it contains no information about the tonal response and colour gamut of the paper and printing process. That's mostly taken care of within the machine though; supposedly we're able to just throw them anything in sRGB and the machine will handle it. My assumption is that sRGB has a smaller gamut than the paper itself, so that any in-sRGB-gamut colour you send them in your file will be reproduced on the paper. OTOH it would mean that the colour space is the limiting factor, which is not necessarily a good thing. I'm not too worried about this as the results I've had have been quite good despite some gamut clipping (particularly blues and yellows) as my source images exceed the limits of sRGB. If I was looking for fine-art prints I wouldn't be going to a high-volume minilab in the first place. And I don't want to get too carried away by the theory if I don't have any control over the implementation ;) I just had a quick play with one of my notoriously difficult files, soft-proofing to sRGB. The result looks interesting and I might try making appropriate adjustments and having a print made. Another lab here insists on Pro Photo RGB (they have a Lambda machine). I haven't tried this lab yet but that colour space is wide enough to drive a double-decker bus through. I'd be hesitant to send them anything short of a 48-bit file as I like my photos to actually show a bit of tonality. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
DM I'm not too worried about this as the results I've had have been quite DM good despite some gamut clipping (particularly blues and yellows) as my DM source images exceed the limits of sRGB. If I was looking for fine-art There is this webpage which has diagram of the gamut of Frontier and Noritsu printers compared to AdobeRGB and sRGB. I will look for it again, now I don't remember the address. From memory, the sRGB space was deficient in the area of blues. Another interesting link with info on all matters possible of disabling colour correction (and possibility of the frontier not defaulting to sRGB but just pouring in the raw data) is here: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/using_printer_profiles.htm Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
DM I would appreciate that. If there are separate profiles for matte and DM glossy paper I would like to get hold of both. Today I am getting wedding proofs from them, so I will ask. DM My friend uses Profile Prism, which first profiles your scanner then DM uses that to profile your printer. I am wondering if his scanner got a He didn't use the digilab printed profile to first profile his scanner didn't he ;-) DM screenshot of the 3D LAB plot if you like - it has bits sticking out DM all over the place. :) DM I assume that colour photo paper comes in various grades, just like BW DM paper, but I'll take whatever I can get ;) The Fuji Frontier (do you want them sent too? I can give you the link) profiles are just for the two paper types, not grades. What I am not just sure about is how to prepare the file of IT8.7 target for printing. I am not sure if they can take TIFF Lab space files, and if I convert it to RGB, the colours will change I think. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
I would appreciate that. If there are separate profiles for matte WR and glossy paper I would like to get hold of both. WR There is really no such thing as a profile in this instance. WR Really, find out what colour spaces the lab recognizes, and choose WR the one that is best for you. WR If they can't tell you, then the default profile to use is sRGB. Why not? You think an image proofed into sRGB space will look the same when printed on e.g. the Frontier which accepts sRGB? sRGB is afaik made more for monitors and hdtvs. We need a printer profile to softproof our photographs on the computer. Why then Fuji itself provides profiles for Frontier? This colour management makes my head dizzy ;-) Thanks! Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
DM The output profile will be kept internally on the machine and I don't DM know if you'll be likely to get your hands on it. I certainly couldn't DM - I don't even know if Agfa used an ICC workflow in their machine, or I too would think they have CMS of their own design. But at least Fuji released profiles for free to softproof on monitor. Softproofing before sending off a bunch of 11x14 files to print is very useful ;-) I can ask my lab which has very competent staff if their D-LAB has an softproofing (printer) profile for use on my computer. I can send you one too, if they have. Having also downloaded the IT8.7 target in Lab colour space, I will try to have it printed without any corrections and analyse it using the www.coloraid.de freeware CMS software. I should be able to test the resulting softproofing profile on several monitors including some hw calibrated ones. DM I would be curious to know the true gamut of photographic paper and how DM it compares to that of sRGB. sRGB has quite a narrow gamut and my DM opinion is that it is far too limiting to use as a working space for DM high quality prints. From my limited experience, I would agree. However, am not sure how e.g.the Frontier works. If it assumes everything it gets is sRGB. Getting the info is harder. Even the Fuji representatives know little. If you want, I got a very nice test file from Fuji with many range of skintones, gray levels and colours, which they offer together with a print for testing your monitor/computer calibration. I could send it to you. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
WR I can't get any of this info from Noritsu. All they were able to tell WR me is that the machine presumes everything is sRGB. WR They have their own profiling system for monitor balance, it seems to WR very closely match the monitor balance I get from my Pantone Spyder WR thingie. It can much depend on the lab. I just met my lab's operator at an outdoor concert (it was raining :) except to see some photos on the web soon) and he told me to bring pictures in Adobe RGB 1998. So I guess theirs go trough some program first. So far the pictures I sent them came out good. There was a website offering custom profiling of home printers, and they also offered free profiles (from printed IT8.7 targets people snailmailed them) for many US and Canadian digital labs. I don't know if it's still online, but you could have a look. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
On May 15, 2004, at 10:37 PM, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: I can ask my lab which has very competent staff if their D-LAB has an softproofing (printer) profile for use on my computer. I can send you one too, if they have. I would appreciate that. If there are separate profiles for matte and glossy paper I would like to get hold of both. My friend uses Profile Prism, which first profiles your scanner then uses that to profile your printer. I am wondering if his scanner got a little confused by the glossy paper surface. I can show you a screenshot of the 3D LAB plot if you like - it has bits sticking out all over the place. I assume that colour photo paper comes in various grades, just like BW paper, but I'll take whatever I can get ;) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
My lab uses Agfa D-lab 2, I think. It does have a worse scanning unit than Frontier, but that doesn't matter as I bring digital files in, not negatives. And time to time I use another lab with Frontier 350. Maybe the frontier is better, but the lab with Agfa is just more professional. They have better consistency in chemistry, and can do anything. Consistent chemistry and processing is the key to good quality prints even on digital minilab. For printing from negatives, I dislike digital minilabs (fortunately they have great operators for an analogue machine too). The Agfa D prints at 400 dpi, Frontier is 300 dpi, and newer Noritsu models are 400 dpi as well. I have yet to test the difference. Anybody knows which device has the widest gamut (perhaps on which paper as well) ? Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
- Original Message - From: Frantisek Vlcek Subject: Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR) Anybody knows which device has the widest gamut (perhaps on which paper as well) ? They are all 8 bit per colour channel printers. It doesn't matter which paper is being used. I am pretty sure the Noritsus are 320 dpi. William Robb
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
Or we could compare the generic Frontier ICC profiles Fuji provides with profiles from WR Noritsu and others, if any are for download. WR sRGB is the standard profile used by the industry. sRGB is only a working profile, as I understand it. You are right that most digilabs assume the pictures were shot in sRGB. But all of them can (and most have) their output profile depending on machine and paper. This I can use to softproof the image on my monitor. Or am I wrong? Fujifilm itself offers four generic output profiles for 330,340,350 Frontiers and Digital or Supreme papers. Of course much depends on calibration and chemistry, but that should be ok in a high quality lab. We could even create a custom profile for the digilab we use most often, if they are consistent, with the free CMS tools. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
In that case, we're at least half way there, huh? :) Tom C. From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax High End DSLR Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 16:16:54 +0100 I don't think CF is going away unless or until the manufacturers universally agree a change with the sole intention of getting more money out of us!!
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
No problem Tom, I read your last line but chose to ignore it ;-) If you and Shel had read my last line quoted below... However, there is still some loss of quality even with only one jpeg save by the camera. Whethere that is OK to you, only you can decide. Cotty wrote: On 13/5/04, GRAYWOLF, discombobulated, offered: ...you can save the jpeg as a tiff to edit and limit the amount of damage, but there will be some sight amount reguardless. As I understand it Tom, if one shoots in jpeg and then opens it in PS, and saves as PSD, then no loss will result, no matter how many times it is worked on in PS. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re:Using RAW format. (was: Pentax High End DSLR)
Hi Dario, On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:59:07 +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote: I still cannot understand why people keep shooting RAW with the *ist D, as the Pentax RAW converter does a worse job (too evident pixelation on outlines) than the in-camera software. Hard to believe, very hard to justify, but true and repeatedly tested by yours truly. Then don't use the Pentax RAW converter. Don't blame the format, blame the tool! Of course, RAW shooting allows extended image tuning, but can this balance poor outlines and so much reduced storage capacity (= bigger files for smaller prints)? Yes, it does for me. I found I can get very acceptable images from RAW images within a range of 1 stop UNDER-exposure to about half a stop OVER-exposure. When shooting JPG (or TIFF) that margin is much smaller ... Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the same) can you explain your thoughts on this? Yes, I use the Photoshop-CS RAW converter which is really superb. The only disadvantage is that it is expensive (about US$ 700 I think) I am using one 512Mb and two 1Gb cards with the *ISTD at the moment, which gives me a total of about 175 RAW images. This almost always enough for 1 day shooting, after which I transfer the images to a laptop. If I need more, I can always switch to JPG ... Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
On May 13, 2004, at 7:05 AM, Cotty wrote: I use a couple of 512MB cards, shoot jpeg, and load onto a PowerBook. Not been defeated yet. I print onto inkjet. Sounds messy. Most of us print onto paper. g - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
they go out of their way to hide it since it since they don't say anything in their financial statements, which regulates what they must say. Herb - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:51 PM Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR A little closer to the source: http://www.mitsubishi.or.jp/e/monitor/0208/interview.html
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Adobe RAW converter seems to work well. The Pentax RAW converter works just fine, presuming that you are making prints, rather than looking at your images as 4x6 foot murals on a computer screen. My friend with the Canon Digital Rebel sez this complaint comes up all the time on the forums he is on. The bottom line seems to be that the prints come out fine, no matter what artifacts show up on the mural sized screen views. For myself, I shoot to make pictures, not to find problems with the equipment. Quite. Thanks for posting some common sense here :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
JF I tried dcraw - I even went as far as to download the source and take JF a look at it. At least part of my playing around with my own conversion JF code is based on my dissatisfaction with dcraw; quite aprt from the fact JF that the conversion process loses all the EXIF information, I found the JF colour balance to be terrible (and I'm not all that keen on the algorithm JF it uses for the Bayer interpolation). I see. So it was you who did the quick raw converter utility for pentax raw files :) ? JF Many of the programs that now offer Pentax raw file conversion are based JF on the dcraw code, and so they will have all the undesirable artifacts JF of the conversion. The one big exception, from what I hear, is Photoshop JF CS; although it too is based on dcraw, Adobe have done a lot to enhance JF the implementation with code to use some of the other information in the JF file (other than just the raw pixel sensor values). That won't help with JF the Bayer artifacts, but it will help with white balance, sharpening, etc. Interesting. Anybody knows if the CameraRaw function of Photoshop (which was I think first a plugin for PS7) is available for some tryout? Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
You can download a trian of Photoshop CS and then update the RAW convertor to have 30 days of Pentax conversion. Warning though, it will result in some expense later! -Original Message- From: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 May 2004 12:01 To: John Francis Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR JF I tried dcraw - I even went as far as to download the source and JF take a look at it. At least part of my playing around with my own JF conversion code is based on my dissatisfaction with dcraw; quite JF aprt from the fact that the conversion process loses all the EXIF JF information, I found the colour balance to be terrible (and I'm not JF all that keen on the algorithm it uses for the Bayer interpolation). I see. So it was you who did the quick raw converter utility for pentax raw files :) ? JF Many of the programs that now offer Pentax raw file conversion are JF based on the dcraw code, and so they will have all the undesirable JF artifacts of the conversion. The one big exception, from what I JF hear, is Photoshop CS; although it too is based on dcraw, Adobe have JF done a lot to enhance the implementation with code to use some of JF the other information in the file (other than just the raw pixel JF sensor values). That won't help with the Bayer artifacts, but it JF will help with white balance, sharpening, etc. Interesting. Anybody knows if the CameraRaw function of Photoshop (which was I think first a plugin for PS7) is available for some tryout? Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
Which brings up a good question: What are folks printing their *istD images with? I use a Canon S800 with a BJC8200 as a backup. Paper used is Ilfords Classic Gloos/Pearl and Epson Glossy. I recently bought an Olympus P-400 dye-sub.The few test prints i made with the sample ink and paper looked great. I just have to order a full ink cartridge and more paper now. Dave
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
RS I flogged the crap out of my X-Drive after I slapped it together (that roughly RS translates to: I tested it thoroughly with all manner of connections and RS storage cards after assembled and I commissioned it). I am curious, does any maker of the image tanks give important information like the make of the hdd inside (some cheap crap or what?), vibration/impact it can stand (normalised for peak impact and long vibration, both in standby and operation) and number of data it can download before the batteries run out? Most units have internal batteries, which won't last much (for example, one unit in working state has 600mAh (normalised for 7.2V battery voltage from the specified 360mAh @ 12V) consumption but it has only 830mAh battery inside! That's hardly around 1.5 hour time. But how fast it reads the card, then? How much transfers can I make on one battery (and when the internal battery runs out, will the service put another one inside, and for how much?). I would trust an unit with specified hdd maker, impact/vibration resistance values and MBTF, without any exposed circuitry VISIBLE to water and humidity when you look into the CF slot opening (sic!). Most units I saw so far looked like some cheap chinese crap. Unprotected PCB. How about impact protection of the HDD mounting? Or is it mounted only by screws? I know things like MBTF are not as much meaningful, but they help. And there are specs for testing the vibration/impact res. You said you opened the x-drive? How did it look inside? Thanks! Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: I am curious, does any maker of the image tanks give important information like the make of the hdd inside (some cheap crap or what?), vibration/impact it can stand (normalised for peak impact and long vibration, both in standby and operation) and number of data it can download before the batteries run out? Here is all the information that is supplied with the X-drive: http://www.xs-drive.com/ Don't know if you find it sufficient or not. I can't see ant figures for impact/vibration resistance there but I saw some figure elsewhere -- or if it was for another drive. It was ridicuosly high, anyway. Several tens of G:s which I'd never put a HDD through. As for the make of the HDD, if you prefer some special brand, you can always get the empty version and install your own. I got myself one with a 40 GB drive already installed and have not checked out the HDD brand. I can give you a report next week on how the unit have stood up. A friend is using it to unload her pictures during a three week diving trip in South East Asia, and I suspect that she has put it through some rough conditions. I anticipate some good underwater pics too! Most units I saw so far looked like some cheap chinese crap. This one looks like that too. That doesn't mean it isn't usable. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Adobe RAW converter seems to work well. The Pentax RAW converter works just fine, presuming that you are making prints, rather than looking at your images as 4x6 foot murals on a computer screen. My friend with the Canon Digital Rebel sez this complaint comes up all the time on the forums he is on. The bottom line seems to be that the prints come out fine, no matter what artifacts show up on the mural sized screen views. For myself, I shoot to make pictures, not to find problems with the equipment. Quite. Thanks for posting some common sense here :) I'll second that. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR)
In their wisdom, William Robb Co. wrote: The Adobe RAW converter seems to work well. The Pentax RAW converter works just fine, presuming that you are making prints, rather than looking at your images as 4x6 foot murals on a computer screen. My friend with the Canon Digital Rebel sez this complaint comes up all the time on the forums he is on. The bottom line seems to be that the prints come out fine, no matter what artifacts show up on the mural sized screen views. For myself, I shoot to make pictures, not to find problems with the equipment. Quite. Thanks for posting some common sense here :) I'll second that. Should you want to just print up to A4 size prints, a 4Mpix digicam is more than enough, hence don't worry about DSLR, interchangeable lenses, RAW shooting, portable hard disks, terabytes of memory cards and so on. Some more common sense, I suppose. However, we were supposed talking about getting the pro results one could expect (and usually gets) from a DSLR, weren't we? Dario
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
Which brings up a good question: What are folks printing their *istD images with? I use an Epson 2000P. I also have an Olympus P-400 (like Dave). Am seriously considering either the HP 7960 or Epson R800 as well to be a general purpose printer for other documents (I have an HP Deskjet 970C for that at the moment) Wendy P.S. to Dave: I buy the ribbon paper for the Olympus from http://www.cameracanada.com/ P.P.S to list: Camera Canada (above) also have an istD and lens kit for $CDN 1875 wendy beard ottawa, canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
AH As for the make of the HDD, if you prefer some special brand, you can AH always get the empty version and install your own. I got myself one with a AH 40 GB drive already installed and have not checked out the HDD brand. Oh, I haven't seen they sell an empty version! AH I can give you a report next week on how the unit have stood up. A friend AH is using it to unload her pictures during a three week diving trip in Thanks! That would be interesting. AH This one looks like that too. That doesn't mean it isn't usable. Of course not :) And I wouldn't like to offend our Chinese friends, if any are on the list. It's an unfortunate truth however that most of the cheapest goods are produced there, as the labour is cheaper and the laws are more forgiving of environmental and work labour issues. That doesn't mean that all chinese goods are by definition crap. I didn't mean it like that :) I will try to look around the web on some images of these units dissected. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
jwc If you are that concerned about storing large images while out in the field, jwc then buy a small rugged laptop (12 screen) with a cd burner (or even jwc better, a DVD burner). This would be a good alternative or addition to an jwc image tank. One of the disadvantages however is extra weight to carry in jwc the field. If it wasn't for the price issues, one of the ruggedised units with a burner would be ideal. They are built to very tight specs, from what I saw. However, they are also sufficiently expensive :( jwc I personally can't wait until fuel cell powered laptops hit the market. The Interesting... jwc I think I'm ranting now so I'll just get back to work. I am probably as well ;-) sorry Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
Legacy systems create markets for legacy items . . . But truly, the CF card is currently a very small object. Aside from marketing, is there any real advantage to having something smaller? Leave the card the same size and just make it higher capacity. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/12/04 02:24PM There's no way I could justify one at a price MUCH higher than the *istD. I think I would rather invest in a medium format film system first. I don't want to drown in wave after wave of digital camera upgrades/new products like many of us are forced to do with computer hardware/software. I definitely can't justify a new camera every year, or even every other year. I think the price of compact flash is relatively minor (if you don't have $1 then $1 looks like a lot though) because it's reusable. The question is, what if compact flash goes out of vogue two years from now? Then everyone will be stuck with an old 'legacy' digital camera if they want to use compact flash. I bet memory form factor changes as well, and then to buy a new digital SLR one will need new memory also. Tom C. From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax High End DSLR Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:42 -0600 (GMT-06:00) I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
Legacy systems create markets for legacy items . . . But truly, the CF card is currently a very small object. Aside from marketing, is there any real advantage to having something smaller? I don't think so. SD cards are smaller and more delicate. I'd rather deal with a sturdy CF card myself.
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
The only one I can think of is that a smaller lighter object may be less likely to be damaged if dropped. Aside from that, a smaller physical footprint leaves more design 'headroom' for the rest of the device. Many PDA's are moving away from Compact Flash, and I suspect this is partly the reason. I'm not making a case against Compact Flash. I'm just saying that there may be marketing reasons for companies to change the standard occasionally. Tom C. From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax High End DSLR Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:34:11 -0400 Legacy systems create markets for legacy items . . . But truly, the CF card is currently a very small object. Aside from marketing, is there any real advantage to having something smaller? I don't think so. SD cards are smaller and more delicate. I'd rather deal with a sturdy CF card myself.
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
On 13/5/04, GRAYWOLF, discombobulated, offered: Actually the difference is that each time you save a jpeg you lose data. That is the price you pay for the compact file size. If you are going to shoot and print without much editing then jpeg is fine. But if you load your jpeg in photoshop and correct the color then save it. Then come back later load it, and crop it, then save it. And looking at it the next day decide it needs a little sharpening, so load it, sharpen, save. By then you have 4 saves and if it was a high compression jpeg, you only have about 1/2 the data that you had in the first image. A tiff does not lose data when saved. Nor does a raw file, but the raw file has the advantage of being more compact. Supposedly (I personally have never worked with raw files), another advantage of raw is you can determine the color balance and ASA at the editing stage . You can think of tiff and raw images as negatives, you can go and make many different prints from it. Think of a jpeg as a slide that is best used as is. Of course you can save the jpeg as a tiff to edit and limit the amount of damage, but there will be some sight amount reguardless. As I understand it Tom, if one shoots in jpeg and then opens it in PS, and saves as PSD, then no loss will result, no matter how many times it is worked on in PS. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR)
- Original Message - From: Dario Bonazza Subject: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR) Should you want to just print up to A4 size prints, a 4Mpix digicam is more than enough, hence don't worry about DSLR, interchangeable lenses, RAW shooting, portable hard disks, terabytes of memory cards and so on. Some more common sense, I suppose. However, we were supposed talking about getting the pro results one could expect (and usually gets) from a DSLR, weren't we? I have printed as large as 12x18 inches (gotta be around 30x40cm) from istD files, shot RAW and converted using the Pentax software. No problems visible in the prints, and the paying customers were very happy with the work as well. Pro results from a DSLR? You betcha. William Robb
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
--so, you are using canon printer with epson paper ? there is no compatibility problem !! that's an interesting point... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 07:44:46 US/Eastern Which brings up a good question: What are folks printing their *istD images with? I use a Canon S800 with a BJC8200 as a backup. Paper used is Ilfords Classic Gloos/Pearl and Epson Glossy. I recently bought an Olympus P-400 dye-sub.The few test prints i made with the sample ink and paper looked great. I just have to order a full ink cartridge and more paper now. Dave _ Best Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to win $1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp
Re: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR)
I've done a 20x30 (inches) print from a *ist D pef converted to tiff using PhotoLab. WOW! Christian - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:36 PM Subject: Re: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR) - Original Message - From: Dario Bonazza Subject: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR) Should you want to just print up to A4 size prints, a 4Mpix digicam is more than enough, hence don't worry about DSLR, interchangeable lenses, RAW shooting, portable hard disks, terabytes of memory cards and so on. Some more common sense, I suppose. However, we were supposed talking about getting the pro results one could expect (and usually gets) from a DSLR, weren't we? I have printed as large as 12x18 inches (gotta be around 30x40cm) from istD files, shot RAW and converted using the Pentax software. No problems visible in the prints, and the paying customers were very happy with the work as well. Pro results from a DSLR? You betcha. William Robb
RE: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
Me too. Had a job lot from several years back when I had an Epson 740. Kept that printer waaay too long because I never used up the job lots of either ink or paper for it. Had to do a bit of work profiling the paper and saving some settings in the driver for the different types, but no problems now... -Original Message- From: Anand DHUPKAR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 May 2004 22:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR) --so, you are using canon printer with epson paper ? there is no compatibility problem !! that's an interesting point...
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
yes. you lose the benefit of initial conversion in 16-bit/channel mode and the added freedom of making a variety of adjustments during conversion. going from 12-bit/channel to 8 and then to 16 has lost lots of shadow detail. going directly from 12 to 16 retains it. this matters if you spend some time manipulating your images before finalizing them. Herb - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:58 PM Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR As I understand it Tom, if one shoots in jpeg and then opens it in PS, and saves as PSD, then no loss will result, no matter how many times it is worked on in PS.
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
Frontier 375 or Epson 725. Bill - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:43 PM Subject: Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR) - Original Message - From: Timothy Sherburne Subject: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR) Which brings up a good question: What are folks printing their *istD images with? Noritsu 3101 William Robb
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
If you and Shel had read my last line quoted below... However, there is still some loss of quality even with only one jpeg save by the camera. Whethere that is OK to you, only you can decide. Cotty wrote: On 13/5/04, GRAYWOLF, discombobulated, offered: ...you can save the jpeg as a tiff to edit and limit the amount of damage, but there will be some sight amount reguardless. As I understand it Tom, if one shoots in jpeg and then opens it in PS, and saves as PSD, then no loss will result, no matter how many times it is worked on in PS. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
On 13 May 2004 at 20:32, graywolf wrote: If you and Shel had read my last line quoted below... However, there is still some loss of quality even with only one jpeg save by the camera. Whethere that is OK to you, only you can decide. Fortunately the density of the data off cameras such as the *ist D is so smooth pixel to pixel (particularly when sharpening is set to low) that it's impossible to tell the difference between TIFF and minimum JPG out for the camera. This is why you will hear so many people claim that saving TIFF in camera is a waste of time (I agree completely). It's either JPG or RAW for me and RAW offers so much more control of contrast, the camera generated JPG files are surprisingly good. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR)
- Original Message - From: Christian Subject: Re: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR) I've done a 20x30 (inches) print from a *ist D pef converted to tiff using PhotoLab. WOW! That's heartening. William Robb
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
g But if you load your jpeg in photoshop and correct the color then save it. Then g come back later load it, and crop it, then save it. And looking at it the next Hi Tom, I don't think anybody literate in computer imaging would resave an edited jpeg back into jpeg. When I have a source image in jpeg, I save it as a lossless format for all the editing steps. It is, I hope, pretty much common knowledge that resaving jpeg is a no-no. What I see more as a hindrance to using jpeg more, is the grain increase in high iso images and disability to do major colour/exposure corrections (perhaps even local burning/dodging) in the 8bit colour space. For example, when you lighten the shadows of a jpeg much, horrible blocky artifacts (results of the way jpeg works with 8x8pixel blocks) will shop up. Ugly. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
RE: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR)
So have I - regularly, no more grain than your average 35mm 20x30 inch print. In fact, I am constantly amazed at how LITTLE difference interpolation seems to make to my images when they are stretched so large. tan. -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 14 May 2004 8:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR) - Original Message - From: Christian Subject: Re: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR) I've done a 20x30 (inches) print from a *ist D pef converted to tiff using PhotoLab. WOW! That's heartening. William Robb
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fortunately the density of the data off cameras such as the *ist D is so smooth pixel to pixel (particularly when sharpening is set to low) that it's impossible to tell the difference between TIFF and minimum JPG out for the camera. This is why you will hear so many people claim that saving TIFF in camera is a waste of time (I agree completely). This is my experience also: There's no detectable difference between Minimum-compression JPEG and TIFF right out of the camera. It's either JPG or RAW for me and RAW offers so much more control of contrast, the camera generated JPG files are surprisingly good. Yep. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
Frantisek Vlcek wrote: Hi Tom, I don't think anybody literate in computer imaging would resave an edited jpeg back into jpeg. When I have a source image in jpeg, I save it as a lossless format for all the editing steps. It is, I hope, pretty much common knowledge that resaving jpeg is a no-no. Actually, this is a common misconception, that you loose a huge amount of information when you save a image to jpg several times. If you change something small in an image, only that part that changed will loose information. F.ex if you crop a jpg and save it to jpg, recrop it, save it to jpg. That won't do much damage, _especially_ if you have a low compression level. (The bigger the compression level, the more you loose, ofcourse.) To prove this point I took a random pic I have recently taken, cropped the original and saved it to medium-compression jpg. Then I took the original, cropped it, saved it with medium compression, closed, opened, cropped, saved again with medium-compression, repeat step ten times. So after 10 (!) times of recropping and recompressing the image (pretty heavily too, mind you) I have two images. http://www.bicekru.org/~eatfrog/test1.jpg http://www.bicekru.org/~eatfrog/test2.jpg Small pic, not very good detail, not the same size - I know, but it's 03:39 here and I want to get to bed now. ;-) /Henri
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
i think for the next 10-15 years, such a fuel cell will cost 4-5 times as much as a cell of the same capacity with existing technology. Herb - Original Message - From: JA [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:38 PM Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR Herb, The specs I gave for the fuel cell battery were for a battery the size of a cigarette lighter. Imagine the possibilities. Yeah, I think it's amazing.
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
Perhaps so, but for the reduced size and weight, many people will happily pay that. Especially in the ultraslim class of notebooks and subnotebooks. Not to mention high-end PDAs etc. Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 2:30 PM Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR i think for the next 10-15 years, such a fuel cell will cost 4-5 times as much as a cell of the same capacity with existing technology. Herb - Original Message - From: JA [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:38 PM Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR Herb, The specs I gave for the fuel cell battery were for a battery the size of a cigarette lighter. Imagine the possibilities. Yeah, I think it's amazing.
Pentax High End DSLR
I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you considered one of those small, portable storage banks into which you can download your card? Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. An image tank would solve that problem for you.
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
I haven't been there yet, but my planned strategy is to use multiple, smaller CF cards rather than one really large card. Has this worked out for anyone? t On 5/12/04 10:42, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you considered one of those small, portable storage banks into which you can download your card? Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
Joe My answer to the CF storage problem: 1. Invest in a used semi-powerful laptop($600 eBay). 2. Get an extra battery($? eBay) for it. 3. Buy an External 2.5 USB/Firewire storage box(~$50). 4. Buy a 40GB 2.5HD($82*)for the storage box. if 3GB holds 212 RAW, then 30GB(don't fill the HD!) holds 2120 RAW 4b. OR a 60GB($135*) if 30GB holds 2120 RAW, then 50GB holds 3533 RAW! Total cost (40GB HD) for mobile ist support roughly : $800US *Prices from www.pricewatch.com Note: of course if you could afford an ist, then the extras to support the DSLR would not be a problem. ;-) Comments on my solution anyone? /stands back with arms crossed. ;-) ~Alejandro Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
I still cannot understand why people keep shooting RAW with the *ist D, as the Pentax RAW converter does a worse job (too evident pixelation on outlines) than the in-camera software. Hard to believe, very hard to justify, but true and repeatedly tested by yours truly. Of course, RAW shooting allows extended image tuning, but can this balance poor outlines and so much reduced storage capacity (= bigger files for smaller prints)? Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the same) can you explain your thoughts on this? Thanks. Dario Bonazza - Original Message - From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:29 PM Subject: Pentax High End DSLR I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
I have to use multiple smaller capacity cards on my digicam, and, frankly, when making larger files (TIFF in my case) it really stinks! I'd much rather have a larger card, and should I get a newer digital camera, you can bet I'll be using at least some large capacity cards, regardless of camera brand or format. Thing is, the idea of having a few cards with different capacities is appealing as well. But, when shooting inh the field, so to speak, I don't want to have to change cards. Perhaps for the macro/landscape/still life group it's not a problem. But when photographing outside, on the street, in situations that change often,m not a good idea. Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Timothy Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 5/12/2004 10:57:46 AM Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR I haven't been there yet, but my planned strategy is to use multiple, smaller CF cards rather than one really large card. Has this worked out for anyone? t On 5/12/04 10:42, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you considered one of those small, portable storage banks into which you can download your card? Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
My answer to the CF storage problem: 1. Invest in a used semi-powerful laptop($600 eBay). 2. Get an extra battery($? eBay) for it. 3. Buy an External 2.5 USB/Firewire storage box(~$50). 4. Buy a 40GB 2.5HD($82*)for the storage box. if 3GB holds 212 RAW, then 30GB(don't fill the HD!) holds 2120 RAW 4b. OR a 60GB($135*) if 30GB holds 2120 RAW, then 50GB holds 3533 RAW! Total cost (40GB HD) for mobile ist support roughly : $800US *Prices from www.pricewatch.com Note: of course if you could afford an ist, then the extras to support the DSLR would not be a problem. ;-) Comments on my solution anyone? /stands back with arms crossed. ;-) When buying external 2.5 USB/Firewire, why not buying something that has CF slot on it? I am using ImageTank with 20GB HDD (200USD, 2 years ago) and don't need to carry any heavy notebook. With some good 2000mAh battery it runs for hours - enough to fill the whole disk. The only disatvantage of this device is its USB type 1, downloading photos to PC takes ages. Looks like the time to upgrade. Regards Peter Belak
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
There's no way I could justify one at a price MUCH higher than the *istD. I think I would rather invest in a medium format film system first. I don't want to drown in wave after wave of digital camera upgrades/new products like many of us are forced to do with computer hardware/software. I definitely can't justify a new camera every year, or even every other year. I think the price of compact flash is relatively minor (if you don't have $1 then $1 looks like a lot though) because it's reusable. The question is, what if compact flash goes out of vogue two years from now? Then everyone will be stuck with an old 'legacy' digital camera if they want to use compact flash. I bet memory form factor changes as well, and then to buy a new digital SLR one will need new memory also. Tom C. From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax High End DSLR Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:42 -0600 (GMT-06:00) I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
I guess we need to define large and small. For small, I was thinking of a 512 MB card, which will hold around 27 of a *istD's TIFF images, roughly the same as a roll of film. I'm planning on two or three 512MB cards rather than one large 2GB card or drive. That way, I can use different cards for different purposes, or avoid the (admittedly low) possibility of losing images in a card crash or accidental erasure. You're right that changing cards in the field is inconvenient. t On 5/12/04 11:11, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I have to use multiple smaller capacity cards on my digicam, and, frankly, when making larger files (TIFF in my case) it really stinks! I'd much rather have a larger card, and should I get a newer digital camera, you can bet I'll be using at least some large capacity cards, regardless of camera brand or format. Thing is, the idea of having a few cards with different capacities is appealing as well. But, when shooting inh the field, so to speak, I don't want to have to change cards. Perhaps for the macro/landscape/still life group it's not a problem. But when photographing outside, on the street, in situations that change often,m not a good idea. Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Timothy Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 5/12/2004 10:57:46 AM Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR I haven't been there yet, but my planned strategy is to use multiple, smaller CF cards rather than one really large card. Has this worked out for anyone? t On 5/12/04 10:42, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you considered one of those small, portable storage banks into which you can download your card? Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
Shel wrote: I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you considered one of those small, portable storage banks into which you can download your card? Shel Belinkoff Hi, Shel. Yes, and I may eventually get one. They too are pricey, though, especially for the ones that have a built-in viewing screen. Joe
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the same) can you explain your thoughts on this? Thanks. Dario Bonazza * Dario, I recall that others have posted problems with the Pentax RAW converter. Perhaps my eyesight is poor. I do not have problems with it. In fact, I like very much being able quickly to adjust an images' color temperature by experimenting with the white balance settings. Beyond that, my reasoning for not using jpeg is: Why ever would I buy such an expensive camera, good lenses, a computer and printer, invest the time and effort to become a better photographer, then shoot at anything less than the highest resolution? It feels like using cheap film. If not RAW, I would be shooting TIFF, which produces even larger files. Also, Alejandro suggested a portable PC with various appurtenances. I've already decided against that. I am already too burdened with stuff when I travel. My office provides me with laptops. Over the past six years I have had two of them. I have taken them on two trips out of several dozen. Eventually I will probably get an image tank of some kind. Joe
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
On 12/5/04, TIM S, discombobulated, offered: I haven't been there yet, but my planned strategy is to use multiple, smaller CF cards rather than one really large card. Has this worked out for anyone? I use a couple of 512MB cards, shoot jpeg, and load onto a PowerBook. Not been defeated yet. I print onto inkjet. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR I expect the decrease in the price of flash memory will proceed pretty much at a similar pace to the pervasiveness of digital cameras. In other words: By the time full-frame cameras are anywhere near reasonable cost (I'd call that $3000.00), memory will be half the price it is now. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
On 12 May 2004 at 12:24, Tom C wrote: There's no way I could justify one at a price MUCH higher than the *istD. I think I would rather invest in a medium format film system first. A full frame 10-14MP DSLR would likely better a 645 so factor the cost of a 645 system and all that processing and film into your equation. 67 format however will likely never be bettered by cameras with 36x24mm sensors. I think the price of compact flash is relatively minor (if you don't have $1 then $1 looks like a lot though) because it's reusable. The question is, what if compact flash goes out of vogue two years from now? Then everyone will be stuck with an old 'legacy' digital camera if they want to use compact flash. I bet memory form factor changes as well, and then to buy a new digital SLR one will need new memory also. I don't think they'll try to phase out CF too soon (well I hope not), I for one won't be supporting any other media type for serious digital photography. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Poor RAW and scarce storage capacity (was: Pentax High End DSLR)
Joe Tainter wrote: Dario, I recall that others have posted problems with the Pentax RAW converter. Perhaps my eyesight is poor. I do not have problems with it. In fact, I like very much being able quickly to adjust an images' color temperature by experimenting with the white balance settings. That's a good reason, provided that other qualities are good. Unfortunately, when it comes to subject's outlines, roofs, and the like (any line other than perfectly horizontal/vertical) the Pentax Photo Lab gives poorer (less natural) details than in-camera processing. Same result with the Photoshop plugin. I cannot understand the reason for that, but this is the way things are. See my test enlargements at the bottom of this page: http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p7e.htm Beyond that, my reasoning for not using jpeg is: Why ever would I buy such an expensive camera, good lenses, a computer and printer, invest the time and effort to become a better photographer, then shoot at anything less than the highest resolution? It feels like using cheap film. That's good theory. Unfortunately, the damn Pentax RAW converter doesn't work properly. If not RAW, I would be shooting TIFF, which produces even larger files. Also, Alejandro suggested a portable PC with various appurtenances. I've already decided against that. I am already too burdened with stuff when I travel. My office provides me with laptops. Over the past six years I have had two of them. I have taken them on two trips out of several dozen. Eventually I will probably get an image tank of some kind. I shoot highest quality jpeg on a 512MB and a 256MB CF card and I get what I believe to be the best possible combination of quality and storage capability. Dario
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
On 12 May 2004 at 13:12, jtainter wrote: Hi, Shel. Yes, and I may eventually get one. They too are pricey, though, especially for the ones that have a built-in viewing screen. Joe, The key is buy to something that's inexpensive and will hold the biggest drive you can buy. When the other cases (with the integrated screen) get cheap enough toss the old shel and put your drive in the new one. In the interim if you bought an 80GB drive you'll have room to store upwards of 5900 Pentax RAW images so it's not likely you'll need to review and delete images in one session because of space constraints :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
Agfa D-Lab (my local lab) and sometimes my home HP 7350. Once in a while the Sam's Club Fuji Frontier. Bruce Wednesday, May 12, 2004, 2:10:41 PM, you wrote: TS Which brings up a good question: What are folks printing their *istD images TS with? TS Right now I'm using an aging HP 970 Cxi, which is okay for quick snapshots, TS but not so good for finer work. I'm considering the Canon i960 as a TS replacement. My goal is prints for presentation at home and office, as TS gifts, et cetera, not for retail. I'm picky, but not that picky. TS t TS On 5/12/04 12:05, Cotty wrote: On 12/5/04, TIM S, discombobulated, offered: I haven't been there yet, but my planned strategy is to use multiple, smaller CF cards rather than one really large card. Has this worked out for anyone? I use a couple of 512MB cards, shoot jpeg, and load onto a PowerBook. Not been defeated yet. I print onto inkjet. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
CF card prices have come doen - a lot, and continue to do so. Even better if you buy a 4Gb one in a Muvo mp3 player - wow that IS cheap! -Original Message- From: jtainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 May 2004 18:30 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax High End DSLR I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
Try the Photoshop CS convertor. You can download a trial, but WARNING YOU WILL SUBSEQUENTLY SPEND MONEY!!! -Original Message- From: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 May 2004 18:59 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR I still cannot understand why people keep shooting RAW with the *ist D, as the Pentax RAW converter does a worse job (too evident pixelation on outlines) than the in-camera software. Hard to believe, very hard to justify, but true and repeatedly tested by yours truly. Of course, RAW shooting allows extended image tuning, but can this balance poor outlines and so much reduced storage capacity (= bigger files for smaller prints)? Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the same) can you explain your thoughts on this? Thanks. Dario Bonazza - Original Message - From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:29 PM Subject: Pentax High End DSLR I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
I predict that CF and SD are here to stay - both of them. Cpacities will go up, and up, and up... But the size is not prohibitive and there is no real other reason to change the form significantly. -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 May 2004 19:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax High End DSLR There's no way I could justify one at a price MUCH higher than the *istD. I think I would rather invest in a medium format film system first. I don't want to drown in wave after wave of digital camera upgrades/new products like many of us are forced to do with computer hardware/software. I definitely can't justify a new camera every year, or even every other year. I think the price of compact flash is relatively minor (if you don't have $1 then $1 looks like a lot though) because it's reusable. The question is, what if compact flash goes out of vogue two years from now? Then everyone will be stuck with an old 'legacy' digital camera if they want to use compact flash. I bet memory form factor changes as well, and then to buy a new digital SLR one will need new memory also. Tom C. From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax High End DSLR Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:42 -0600 (GMT-06:00) I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
I thought like that, until I met an image wghich the Pentax convertor was soo poor with that I couldn't ignore it. Then I kept seeing it elsewhere too, and suddenly I couldn't work with it any more, much to my cost (and Adobe's gain). If I wasn't using RAW, I would be using jpg. You really cant tell a significant difference unless you need the advantage of 16 bit colour for manipulation. The biggest plus for RAW is not the lack of compression issues but the ability to adjust exposure and white balance etc after the event asnd recover detail which would otherwise be lost in the highlights or shadows. -Original Message- From: jtainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 May 2004 20:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR Dario, I recall that others have posted problems with the Pentax RAW converter. Perhaps my eyesight is poor. I do not have problems with it. In fact, I like very much being able quickly to adjust an images' color temperature by experimenting with the white balance settings. Beyond that, my reasoning for not using jpeg is: Why ever would I buy such an expensive camera, good lenses, a computer and printer, invest the time and effort to become a better photographer, then shoot at anything less than the highest resolution? It feels like using cheap film. If not RAW, I would be shooting TIFF, which produces even larger files. Also, Alejandro suggested a portable PC with various appurtenances. I've already decided against that. I am already too burdened with stuff when I travel. My office provides me with laptops. Over the past six years I have had two of them. I have taken them on two trips out of several dozen. Eventually I will probably get an image tank of some kind. Joe
RE: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
I have the i950 and it is VERY good. I am picky, and I AM that picky - but I love this printer. No idea about longevity, but then it all seems to be largely guesswork these days anyway sadly... -Original Message- From: Timothy Sherburne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 May 2004 22:11 To: Pentax Discussion List Subject: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR) Which brings up a good question: What are folks printing their *istD images with? Right now I'm using an aging HP 970 Cxi, which is okay for quick snapshots, but not so good for finer work. I'm considering the Canon i960 as a replacement. My goal is prints for presentation at home and office, as gifts, et cetera, not for retail. I'm picky, but not that picky. t On 5/12/04 12:05, Cotty wrote: On 12/5/04, TIM S, discombobulated, offered: I haven't been there yet, but my planned strategy is to use multiple, smaller CF cards rather than one really large card. Has this worked out for anyone? I use a couple of 512MB cards, shoot jpeg, and load onto a PowerBook. Not been defeated yet. I print onto inkjet. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Rob Brigham wrote: If I wasn't using RAW, I would be using jpg. You really cant tell a significant difference unless you need the advantage of 16 bit colour for manipulation. The biggest plus for RAW is not the lack of compression issues but the ability to adjust exposure and white balance etc after the event asnd recover detail which would otherwise be lost in the highlights or shadows. That is a huge advantage. I continue to shoot RAW, even though I'm using Pentax Photo Lab for the conversions. At some point there will be a better alternative, and I can go back and reprocess those images which require reprocessing. I'm much happier shooting without worrying about getting the color balance correct. Being able to tweak the exposure has been very helpful in a few cases too. alex
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
Dario - I too, only shoot RAW now, having converted from Jpeg about 5 weddings ago! I use the Photoshop CS plug in and I am loving the results I have never used the Pentax RAW converter, and in fact, my Pentax Laboratory software still hibernates in its original packaging in the box that the *istD came in, and I don't expect him to come out... ever! tan. -Original Message- From: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 3:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR I still cannot understand why people keep shooting RAW with the *ist D, as the Pentax RAW converter does a worse job (too evident pixelation on outlines) than the in-camera software. Hard to believe, very hard to justify, but true and repeatedly tested by yours truly. Of course, RAW shooting allows extended image tuning, but can this balance poor outlines and so much reduced storage capacity (= bigger files for smaller prints)? Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the same) can you explain your thoughts on this? Thanks. Dario Bonazza - Original Message - From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:29 PM Subject: Pentax High End DSLR I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
I was reading on some site several months ago about compact flash memory possibly becoming 'obsolete' in the near future. It seems the trend is to move to smaller physically dimensioned, higher memory capacity cards. I don't know what I'm taking about, it's just something I read. Tom C. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax High End DSLR Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 07:44:02 +1000 On 12 May 2004 at 12:24, Tom C wrote: There's no way I could justify one at a price MUCH higher than the *istD. I think I would rather invest in a medium format film system first. A full frame 10-14MP DSLR would likely better a 645 so factor the cost of a 645 system and all that processing and film into your equation. 67 format however will likely never be bettered by cameras with 36x24mm sensors. I think the price of compact flash is relatively minor (if you don't have $1 then $1 looks like a lot though) because it's reusable. The question is, what if compact flash goes out of vogue two years from now? Then everyone will be stuck with an old 'legacy' digital camera if they want to use compact flash. I bet memory form factor changes as well, and then to buy a new digital SLR one will need new memory also. I don't think they'll try to phase out CF too soon (well I hope not), I for one won't be supporting any other media type for serious digital photography. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
I totally agree with Shel. I have 3 x 512mb cards (one now resides in my MUVO), 2 x 256mb cards, 1 x 1gb card and 1 x 4gb. I don't have any of the problems that a few of you have mentioned (Shel, I believe you were one of them?), in regards to taking the camera out without a card, as quite frankly the 4gb never comes out of the camera. I can completely relate to Rob Studdert when he said about having an artist pose for your camera and pretending to shoot due to having a full card. I have done this a few times at weddings and it sucks majorly as it is almost impossible to recreate a spontaneous moment once it has passed. So now, I have 2 x 512mb, 2 x 256mb and 1 x 1gb who are on a permanent holiday in the film chamber of my camera bag. They come with me in case of emergencies, and I have used them a few times recently, having filled the 4gb with RAW images at a wedding, and then going on to also fill the 1gb and the 2 x 512mb at the same gig. However, I HATE with a passion the fact that I can shoot like 18 photos and then have to change the bloody card! A huge PIA during a fast moving wedding and something I was so glad to see the back of when I stopped shooting film. And I hate even more, the thought of carrying my 4gb microdrive around in my camera bag (in its case, of course), thinking that it is just a matter of time before it is damaged due to its cute little moving parts in his belly. hehe. As for the whole eggs in one basket scenario. Well, thus far it hasn't happened to me, and I am up to 5000 frames now on my *ist D. Touch wood, it will never happen, but I guess if it does, that is the reason that my solicitor had me put the photographer accepts no liability for loss of images or image quality due to equipment or media failure clause in my contract... ;-) tan. -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 4:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR I have to use multiple smaller capacity cards on my digicam, and, frankly, when making larger files (TIFF in my case) it really stinks! I'd much rather have a larger card, and should I get a newer digital camera, you can bet I'll be using at least some large capacity cards, regardless of camera brand or format. Thing is, the idea of having a few cards with different capacities is appealing as well. But, when shooting inh the field, so to speak, I don't want to have to change cards. Perhaps for the macro/landscape/still life group it's not a problem. But when photographing outside, on the street, in situations that change often,m not a good idea. Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Timothy Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 5/12/2004 10:57:46 AM Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR I haven't been there yet, but my planned strategy is to use multiple, smaller CF cards rather than one really large card. Has this worked out for anyone? t On 5/12/04 10:42, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you considered one of those small, portable storage banks into which you can download your card? Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
Thursday, May 13, 2004, 12:34:44 AM, Tom wrote: TC I was reading on some site several months ago about compact flash memory TC possibly becoming 'obsolete' in the near future. It seems the trend is to TC move to smaller physically dimensioned, higher memory capacity cards. I TC don't know what I'm taking about, it's just something I read. Yes, it is the same with all of the consumer computer industry - all standards are cut the moment they need new profits, selling near identical products which use a different standard. Ever tried upgrading your older PC? Even the case and power supply are morally outdated by now, not fitting with the new standard... But I think CF will stay a while. They have the best storage/price ratio, and their physical form is the ideal for most pro cameras. Would you think of saving your pictures which make your living to a card as small as a thumbnail, as some are now? Me certainly not. CF card is the smallest possible for me, with ergonomics in mind. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
The key is buy to something that's inexpensive and will hold the biggest drive you can buy. When the other cases (with the integrated screen) get cheap enough toss the old shel and if he complains, just plant a pretzel in his smacker. LOL Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
Why ever would I buy such an expensive camera, good lenses, a computer and printer, invest the time and effort to become a better photographer, then shoot at anything less than the highest resolution? It feels like using cheap film. If not RAW, I would be shooting TIFF, which produces even larger files. Joe, if I may Because if one is printing out using a current top of the line inkjet printer, there is no way that the difference in resolution between RAW and jpeg can be discerned. As has been pointed out to me, RAW gives better post-production possibilities. Not a good enough reason for me to shoot RAW. More care at the taking stage means no problems later. .02, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
Photoshop CS. Herb - Original Message - From: Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:59 PM Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the same) can you explain your thoughts on this?
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
Please bear in mind that I'm speaking from a place of ignorance, but it would seem to me that the difference between JPEG and RAW may be discerned when making larger prints. Might this not be the case? After all, a puny (by comparison) 8 x 10 print on a home inkjet, regardless of the quality of the printer, is not going to show as much detail or problems as a much larger print made on, perhaps, an even higher quality printer. Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because if one is printing out using a current top of the line inkjet printer, there is no way that the difference in resolution between RAW and jpeg can be discerned. As has been pointed out to me, RAW gives better post-production possibilities. Not a good enough reason for me to shoot RAW. More care at the taking stage means no problems later.
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
i don't know why anyone would shoot TIFF. the image sizes are too large and since it is 8-bit/channel mode anyway, the highest quality JPEG is indistinguishable from the TIFF most of the time. if you are willing to use the space, shoot RAW. Herb - Original Message - From: Timothy Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:02 PM Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR I guess we need to define large and small. For small, I was thinking of a 512 MB card, which will hold around 27 of a *istD's TIFF images, roughly the same as a roll of film. I'm planning on two or three 512MB cards rather than one large 2GB card or drive. That way, I can use different cards for different purposes, or avoid the (admittedly low) possibility of losing images in a card crash or accidental erasure.
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
DB Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also DB allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the DB same) can you explain your thoughts on this? Have you tried dcraw ? It is a command line utility, though (although a GIMP plugin is already for it under Linux, I heard, with live preview and controls). I found it useful for quick conversions with (intentionally) lowered quality, but haven't tried it yet with full conversion. I tried dcraw - I even went as far as to download the source and take a look at it. At least part of my playing around with my own conversion code is based on my dissatisfaction with dcraw; quite aprt from the fact that the conversion process loses all the EXIF information, I found the colour balance to be terrible (and I'm not all that keen on the algorithm it uses for the Bayer interpolation). Many of the programs that now offer Pentax raw file conversion are based on the dcraw code, and so they will have all the undesirable artifacts of the conversion. The one big exception, from what I hear, is Photoshop CS; although it too is based on dcraw, Adobe have done a lot to enhance the implementation with code to use some of the other information in the file (other than just the raw pixel sensor values). That won't help with the Bayer artifacts, but it will help with white balance, sharpening, etc.
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
the low end Epsons have always been trouble. i have never had clogged jets in my 12xx series of printers. Herb... - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:28 PM Subject: Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR) I used to have an Epson (Stylus Photo EX) but when it croaked, the frequent head clogging put me off Epsons.
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
...plant a pretzel in his smacker. OMG! It took that comment to give me my first laugh of the day, Cotty! I'll be chuckling about that for some time! Thanks! keith Cotty wrote: The key is buy to something that's inexpensive and will hold the biggest drive you can buy. When the other cases (with the integrated screen) get cheap enough toss the old shel and if he complains, just plant a pretzel in his smacker. LOL Cheers, Cotty
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
if you make no adjustments, even a large print might not show the difference. once you start doing so, the chances of a difference being apparent even if you make the identical adjustments becomes much higher. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:57 PM Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR Please bear in mind that I'm speaking from a place of ignorance, but it would seem to me that the difference between JPEG and RAW may be discerned when making larger prints. Might this not be the case? After all, a puny (by comparison) 8 x 10 print on a home inkjet, regardless of the quality of the printer, is not going to show as much detail or problems as a much larger print made on, perhaps, an even higher quality printer.
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
Antecedent thread: I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you considered one of those small, portable storage banks into which you can download your card? Shel Belinkoff Hi, Shel. Yes, and I may eventually get one. They too are pricey, though, especially for the ones that have a built-in viewing screen. Joe Is that really necessary for storage? It seems like overkill for what is essentially a transfer point for a bunch of bits ;-)) Shel Belinkoff I would worry a great deal about deleting precious images from the cf card until I see that they have been transferred safely. To me that involves seeing the image, not just counting files. Yes, I'm probably overly nervous about it, but that's how it is. I'm not alone. That's why vendors offer the ones with screens. Joe
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
Omigosh! That is so many Bruce, you must be exhausted by the days end! I am finding myself shooting around 4-500, and delivering around 300-400 proofs to my clients. This compares to around 200 frames shot and 100-130 proofs delivered when shooting film. This is one of the reasons that I love digital for weddings, as I am offering my clients much better bang for their buck since switching. Here are two complete weddings (these are their online proof galleries) that I shot on the last couple of weekends - please do tell me if you feel that I should be shooting more, as I really don't want my clients to me missing out on things that I should be covering. http://www.tanyamayer.com/weddinggalleriesprivate/bean/index.htm http://www.tanyamayer.com/weddinggalleriesprivate/shilvock/shilvock/index.ht m I'd love to see some of yours if you have any online? BTW, are you heading to GFM? tan.x. -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 9:16 AM To: TMP Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR Tanya, I'm curious as to how many frames/average you shoot on a wedding. Care to share? I am in the 600-800 range. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, May 12, 2004, 3:31:57 PM, you wrote: T Dario - I too, only shoot RAW now, having converted from Jpeg about 5 T weddings ago! I use the Photoshop CS plug in and I am loving the T results T I have never used the Pentax RAW converter, and in fact, my Pentax T Laboratory software still hibernates in its original packaging in the box T that the *istD came in, and I don't expect him to come out... ever! T tan. T -Original Message- T From: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] T Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 3:59 AM T To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR T I still cannot understand why people keep shooting RAW with the *ist D, as T the Pentax RAW converter does a worse job (too evident pixelation on T outlines) than the in-camera software. Hard to believe, very hard to T justify, but true and repeatedly tested by yours truly. T Of course, RAW shooting allows extended image tuning, but can this balance T poor outlines and so much reduced storage capacity (= bigger files for T smaller prints)? T Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also T allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the T same) can you explain your thoughts on this? T Thanks. T Dario Bonazza T - Original Message - T From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] T To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:29 PM T Subject: Pentax High End DSLR I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has T higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The T primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When T I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to T California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, T so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came T home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and T two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would T try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we T all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
Ok, so I hit the reply button then, so how the heck did that go to list? :-) tan. -Original Message- From: TMP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 10:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax High End DSLR Omigosh! That is so many Bruce, you must be exhausted by the days end! I am finding myself shooting around 4-500, and delivering around 300-400 proofs to my clients. This compares to around 200 frames shot and 100-130 proofs delivered when shooting film. This is one of the reasons that I love digital for weddings, as I am offering my clients much better bang for their buck since switching. Here are two complete weddings (these are their online proof galleries) that I shot on the last couple of weekends - please do tell me if you feel that I should be shooting more, as I really don't want my clients to me missing out on things that I should be covering. http://www.tanyamayer.com/weddinggalleriesprivate/bean/index.htm http://www.tanyamayer.com/weddinggalleriesprivate/shilvock/shilvock/index.ht m I'd love to see some of yours if you have any online? BTW, are you heading to GFM? tan.x. -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 9:16 AM To: TMP Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR Tanya, I'm curious as to how many frames/average you shoot on a wedding. Care to share? I am in the 600-800 range. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, May 12, 2004, 3:31:57 PM, you wrote: T Dario - I too, only shoot RAW now, having converted from Jpeg about 5 T weddings ago! I use the Photoshop CS plug in and I am loving the T results T I have never used the Pentax RAW converter, and in fact, my Pentax T Laboratory software still hibernates in its original packaging in the box T that the *istD came in, and I don't expect him to come out... ever! T tan. T -Original Message- T From: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] T Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 3:59 AM T To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR T I still cannot understand why people keep shooting RAW with the *ist D, as T the Pentax RAW converter does a worse job (too evident pixelation on T outlines) than the in-camera software. Hard to believe, very hard to T justify, but true and repeatedly tested by yours truly. T Of course, RAW shooting allows extended image tuning, but can this balance T poor outlines and so much reduced storage capacity (= bigger files for T smaller prints)? T Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also T allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the T same) can you explain your thoughts on this? T Thanks. T Dario Bonazza T - Original Message - T From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] T To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:29 PM T Subject: Pentax High End DSLR I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has T higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The T primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When T I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to T California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, T so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came T home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and T two afternoons. Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would T try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we T all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. Joe
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
On 12 May 2004 at 18:30, jtainter wrote: I would worry a great deal about deleting precious images from the cf card until I see that they have been transferred safely. To me that involves seeing the image, not just counting files. Yes, I'm probably overly nervous about it, but that's how it is. I'm not alone. That's why vendors offer the ones with screens. I flogged the crap out of my X-Drive after I slapped it together (that roughly translates to: I tested it thoroughly with all manner of connections and storage cards after assembled and I commissioned it). I trust it as much as I trust my camera and the digital media, if you are were at all serious then you'd end up writing each session to a CD (or two) which has been verified. Nothings going to stop a drive from failing whether you checked the images on a screen or not. The way the X-Drive works is that it creates a new subdirectory for each media copy so if you need some consolation then copy the card twice? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: RE: Pentax High End DSLR I think the price of compact flash is relatively minor (if you don't have $1 then $1 looks like a lot though) because it's reusable. The question is, what if compact flash goes out of vogue two years from now? Then everyone will be stuck with an old 'legacy' digital camera if they want to use compact flash. I bet memory form factor changes as well, and then to buy a new digital SLR one will need new memory also. Canon and I believe Nikon are both committed to CF cards. I think they will be around for a while. William Robb
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
- Original Message - From: Timothy Sherburne Subject: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR) Which brings up a good question: What are folks printing their *istD images with? Noritsu 3101 William Robb
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
- Original Message - From: jtainter Subject: Pentax High End DSLR Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. I've been toying with the idea of a portable hard drive to download to, but have decided that a laptop is the way to go. I just can't see buying another couple of 1 gig cards when I can get a decent used laptop for about the same price. William Robb
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
- Original Message - From: Dario Bonazza Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the same) can you explain your thoughts on this? The Adobe RAW converter seems to work well. The Pentax RAW converter works just fine, presuming that you are making prints, rather than looking at your images as 4x6 foot murals on a computer screen. My friend with the Canon Digital Rebel sez this complaint comes up all the time on the forums he is on. The bottom line seems to be that the prints come out fine, no matter what artifacts show up on the mural sized screen views. For myself, I shoot to make pictures, not to find problems with the equipment. William Robb
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
So one challenged my statement that Nikon was part of Mitsubishi. Here is a link that supports my statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi#Core_members -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Pentax High End DSLR
On 12 May 2004 at 22:18, graywolf wrote: So one challenged my statement that Nikon was part of Mitsubishi. Here is a link that supports my statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi#Core_members A little closer to the source: http://www.mitsubishi.or.jp/e/monitor/0208/interview.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
