Good point, Paul.
I recently ordered a 50x50 cm (20x20) print from at Rolleiflex slide
(scanned).
Man was that disappointing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/288773353/
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig
On 17/11/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
We are subject to language scrutiny these days. Can't afford to get
sloppy.
..ier.
;-)))
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
BTW:
I normally regard A3 (10x17) as the maximum for prints made from 35mm film
or 6 MP cameras.
That's as far as 300ppi (photo realistic quality) goes.
20x20 prints (50x50 cm) normally require Medium Format or 6000x6000 pixel =
36 Megapixel.
Up-rezing is fine but doesn'r really improve the
Yeah, the first time getting back some transparencies
with this camera is fun.
One question, why rate positive ISO 50 film at ISO 40?
I would go the other way and underexpose it slightly
by rating the film at ISO 64 or more.
-Brendan
--- J and K Messervy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few people
Having purchased a pair of LCD panels at the start of this year for a
twinscreen setup, I had to get this question straight for myself.
As I remember it,
8 bit panel - all colours are in direct pixel drive mode - each pixel colour
has 256 possible intensities which gives 256 x 256 x 256 + 16 777
Thanks for posting the link. I took a look at the 1600 ISO shot, and I'm
not particularly impressed with the amount of noise. It seems that the
istDS is, or at least, can be, quieter, if that's the right term.
Admittedly, it's not too bad, although at some point it would be nice to
see more
When reading up about the film, I noticed that it was almost universally
rated at around 40 or so by pros. Judging by the almost flawless exposures
I got, I'm not going to argue with that.
James
- Original Message -
From: Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
I have to say, Peter, that I still don't like what you are doing with
these pictures. Again, this one looks like a bad scan, which is a pity
because the composition is OK.
John
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 05:03:32 -, P. J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess a slice of still life shot,
You rate it at iso 40 but process it normally right --- ie you are
overexposing by approx 1/3 stop correct ?
rgds
Patrick
On 11/18/06, J and K Messervy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When reading up about the film, I noticed that it was almost universally
rated at around 40 or so by pros. Judging
That's right. I rated it at 40 but it was processed normally.
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Genovese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: P67 + Velvia 50 = WOW!
You rate it at iso 40 but process it
Hi,
I use to home-develop bw negative film, scan it, post-process digitally
and then order prints via an online digital photo print service.
Results are good enough for the average digital camera color print, but
my bw's never came out very well. Last time, I uploaded a bw gamma
test-picture,
Good trial to see if you want an f/8 mirror lens?
BTW, I find mirror lenses very difficult to focus.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I sold my 105 some time ago. I could try it with a 90. But I would
never focus any lens at f8. What's the point?
Paul
On Nov 15, 2006, at 7:49 PM, William Robb wrote:
To my mind, Velvia looks better when shot at ISO 40. It's so
oversaturated to begin with, It gets blocky and cartoonish with less
exposure and more density. It also becomes more difficult to scan.
Paul
On Nov 18, 2006, at 3:58 AM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
Yeah, the first time getting back some
Ditto what John said.
Dave
On 11/18/06, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to say, Peter, that I still don't like what you are doing with
these pictures. Again, this one looks like a bad scan, which is a pity
because the composition is OK.
John
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 05:03:32
Hi,
I want to buy a UV filter for my DA zooms. There are 2 options that cost more
or less the same (around 20 EUR). A 'normal B+H (without extra coating) and a
Hoya multicoated (called HMC or something similar).
The 'normal' Hoya costs 10 EUR and it still says that is coated. I have used it
in
True, but I'm glad to offer my response to the question while, at the
same time, keeping in mind all those points you made.
Jack
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are itty-bitty web pics. You'd be hard pressed to tell the
difference between an 8x10 view camera shot and one
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: K10D Looks Like Seattle Get's It First
You will like the 12-24.
BTW, I haven't seen the new battery grip anywhere. I want one.
You call that enablement?
Yer still pissed at me aren't you.
I have the battery grip coming
I've understood for some time that exposing Velvia 50 at 40 helped
bring out a bit of shadow detail. The film's properties of high
contrast and oversaturation create 'special' post processing handling
problems.
It's resolving power is great.
Jack
--- J and K Messervy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just learned this evening that the local camera shop in the Seattle
are that I was thinking of pre-ordering through is the first to
actually receive shipment of the new camera. They received 3 which
were already spoken for and are expecting another shipment next
week. With this news I
Certainly a unique color tone. Gives me the feeling of an 'old' image.
In keeping with a number put up displaying a like hue.
Interesting well assembled array of components and competent DOF.
Jack
--- P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess a slice of still life shot, a little bit of
The DA 16-45 on the *ist D. 16mm, ISOI 400, f4.5 @ 1/60th:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5222820size=lg
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I haven't seen the grip listed at either Amazon or BH. I didn't ask my
dealer about it. I suppose I should.
Paul
On Nov 18, 2006, at 12:27 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: K10D Looks Like Seattle Get's It First
You will like the 12-24.
That's kind of what I was aiming for, an old image feel. I guess I'm
not quite there yet based on some of the other comments I've gotten. Oh
well, more practice.
Jack Davis wrote:
Certainly a unique color tone. Gives me the feeling of an 'old' image.
In keeping with a number put up
Just by coincidence I had earlier pulled out a Velvia transparency to
look at on my lightbox. It's an 8 X 10 transparency. You think 6 X
7 looks great!! I shot it some time ago on my old Eastman 2D camera
with a Voigtländer 300mm f/4.5 Apo-Lanthar. I always rated it
between EI 25 and
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: PESO -- Private Pond
I guess a slice of still life shot, a little bit of pretty countryside.
http://www.mindspring.com/~morephotos/PESO_--_privatepond.html
That brings to mind drinking Sarsparilla and chatting up the ladies
until the
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036message=20919051
Look like 800 is very usable.
I quite like the rendering of the 1600 iso.
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
*ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Yes, they are little bitty web pics. And if there are differences
visible here, don't you think they'd be more obvious at 16x20?
That said, I'd suspect these are pretty much straight from
conversion/scan and could use some manipulation (Except for the Rollei
pic, which seems dead on and
Gives me the feeling that the caffeine has yet to kick in. Very nice
mood, well caught.
Jack
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The DA 16-45 on the *ist D. 16mm, ISOI 400, f4.5 @ 1/60th:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5222820size=lg
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Paul. I've been wondering. What's the reach with the a AF500FTZ (same GN as
Sigma, isn't it?), Kirk and let us say f:5,6?
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Stenquist
Sent: 16. november 2006
I haven't done any real testing, but based on observation, I'd say
about 80 feet at ISO 800. This cardinal was probably that distant.
On Nov 18, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
Paul. I've been wondering. What's the reach with the a AF500FTZ
(same GN as
Sigma, isn't it?), Kirk and let
More noise than the 6MP bodies was essentially guaranteed, as noise is
linked to sensor site size and the 6MP sensors have much larger sensor
sites. But it's very well controlled, and has the more film-like look
that Pentax has maintained on its bodies than the competition (This is
one reason
I think the nearest B+H get to filters is the ones on the end of the
cigarettes they make. Perhaps you mean B+W :o)
In your position I would buy the Hoya for the multicoating. The HMC
filters are perfectly ok. If you were comparing a multicoated B+W with
the HMC I would go with the B+W. They seem
Ok. I've shot maybe two rolls of 120 in Velvia 50.
Interesting. I thought most folks wouldn't want to
overexpose slide film but, then again, rating the film
at ISO 40 is just barely overexposing it anyway.
I'll try it the next time I shoot some.
-Brendan
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's a picture of a friend on my desk, one whom I've not heard from in
quite some time. When I set my coffee cup down I saw this scene:
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/absentfriend.html
I decided to use the K55/1.8 for the relative softness of its rendering and
for the smooth bokeh it
Hi!
It appears as if my trusty F 70-210 cannot focus on the infinity any
longer. The motor would drive the lens to the mark (it does not go past
the mark, like some other lenses do) and blink 'cause focus is not
acquired. In manual focus mode I would confirm that infinity setting
does not
Hm. I'm not an experienced flash shooter. Generally I prefer using fast
lenses. But I do realise that flash can be handy in situations like this, to
avoid blurr.
I'm experiencing overexposure with TTL at 800 ISO. And you have used 1600.
This puzzles me.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain
The light is almost like golden hour, but a little
off. Is your monitor calibrated?
The composition might work better with the fence
cropped out--it is a bit of a distraction.
Generally a nice pic, though.
Rick
--- P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess a slice of still life shot, a
I gather from the viewpoint that this was shot from
the hip (or, perhaps, from the lap!). In any case,
it works. How did you meter it, with the camera in
your lap?
Rick
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The DA 16-45 on the *ist D. 16mm, ISOI 400, f4.5 @
1/60th:
Did I write B+H? What I was thinking about?
I have never been smoker...
Thanks for your response, Bob.
- Mensaje original
De: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Enviado: sábado, 18 de noviembre, 2006 19:06:47
Asunto: RE: Filter: low-end B+H or Hoya HMC?
The large amount of OOF area compared to the cup make my eyes want to
make the picture come into focus. I wonder if it would be more pleasing
to me if:
a) The photo was in focus and the cup OOF, or
b) Both the cup and the photo were in focus.
-P
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
There's a picture of
I'm using high speed synch on these outdoor shots. It seems quite
reliable from a distance of ten feet or more. Up close, it can
overexpose.
Paul
On Nov 18, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
Hm. I'm not an experienced flash shooter. Generally I prefer using
fast
lenses. But I do
How does one know that a compressed RAW file is actually lossless?
Over at dpreview, Steve (apparently the first kid on the block with a
K10D) has posted a DNG file taken at ISO 1600 here:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/zsdg52
It is a 6 mb file. When you open it in CS2, then resave it as a
It's shot from the tabletop. I used matrix metering with plus one
stop of exposure compensation. The autofocus was on selective and was
set for the left middle sensor.
Paul
On Nov 18, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Rick Womer wrote:
I gather from the viewpoint that this was shot from
the hip (or,
Today has been a beautiful, clear, sharp, chilly day, so I went for a
trip round some of the villages on the Hoo Peninsular, a 30-minute
train ride to the East of Greenwich.
This is one of the saddest sights:
http://www.web-options.com/Hoo01-2.jpg
http://www.web-options.com/Hoo01.jpg
They are
Thibouille.
There has already been a short thread on this topic. I don't remember the
title, but it's in archive.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Thibouille
Sent: 18. november 2006 16:19
To:
--- Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are a tough breed of people, these Hooers. They
eschew 4x4s, and
look down their noses at namby-pampy cyclists. Here
is the pub car
park in Lower Higham. Note the blatant disregard for
the No Parking
cones.
http://www.web-options.com/Hoo02b.jpg
Fascinating. I've read Dickens, but I never knew these graves are a
reality. Thanks for posting this.
Paul
On Nov 18, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Bob W wrote:
Today has been a beautiful, clear, sharp, chilly day, so I went for a
trip round some of the villages on the Hoo Peninsular, a 30-minute
train
Bob,
Photographically, the first pic has big flare
problems. The second one is much better. The sign
inside the chuch is way out of focus.
As far as the subject matter is concerned (Warning:
WAY OT), it is very recent (within the last 100 years)
that one's infants are most likely going to
Sure, although I was hoping it might be a little less than the pic shows.
However, it's not particularly objectionable, and upon further viewing,
It's starting to grow on me. Yes, the film like look is, I think, what I
find so attractive. 800 ISO is quite nice, and I can see using that even
I'm with Shel on this. I rarely shoot faster than 800 with the *istD,
and, reassuringly, I see a very nice rendering at 800 with the K10D.
Yet the rendering of noise with the new camera is much more like film
grain one might expect. I might find myself shooting more 1600 BW
with this
Everything in Dickens is true.
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul Stenquist
Sent: 18 November 2006 22:52
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pip's graves
Fascinating. I've read Dickens, but I never knew these
Bob,
Photographically, the first pic has big flare
problems. The second one is much better. The sign
inside the chuch is way out of focus.
Flare is only a problem if you think it's a problem! Personally I
don't think it is in this picture - I think it adds something
dramatic. I think
I don't hate the flare pic, although i think a little less would be
nice. I agree that it's potentially more dramatic than the record
shot. Some Photoshop work could fix some of the flare. the sign is
hopelessly out of focus. I can't read it.
Paul
On Nov 18, 2006, at 6:56 PM, Bob W wrote:
Its kinda nice here:
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/cat/9138/display/7231778
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens
Bladt
Sendt: 17. november
Yeah I myself thought that BW at 800 and 1600 ISO would be interesting to try.
Can't wait to get my hands an a K10D :)
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
*ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Yeahsaw it after I posted. Didn't give it the attention it needed
bevcause the subject line didn't catch my eyes ;)
2006/11/18, Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thibouille.
There has already been a short thread on this topic. I don't remember the
title, but it's in archive.
Tim
Mostly
In theory:
Take a PEF file out of a K10D and DNG as well.
convert to JPEG using *exactly* the same settings. Compare output. If
outputs are the same then it is lossless.
IMO, there 's no point in lossy compression. Zip archives are
compressed and are lossless. Compression does NOT necessarily
HUH? jpegs and mp3s are lossy compression, although I
must say that each at their highest possible settings
( minimum compression ) are pretty good.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Thibouille
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 8:06 PM
Can I use B+W filters for colour photography?
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 11:46:49AM -0800, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
Did I write B+H? What I was thinking about?
I have never been smoker...
Thanks for your response, Bob.
- Mensaje original
De: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Para:
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 01:11:05PM -0700, Joseph Tainter wrote:
How does one know that a compressed RAW file is actually lossless?
Over at dpreview, Steve (apparently the first kid on the block with a
K10D) has posted a DNG file taken at ISO 1600 here:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/zsdg52
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 01:11:05PM -0700, Joseph Tainter wrote:
How does one know that a compressed RAW file is actually lossless?
Over at dpreview, Steve (apparently the first kid on the block with a
K10D) has posted a DNG file taken at ISO 1600 here:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/zsdg52
One further point - at present I believe the only way to get a
compressed DNG is using software on your computer; the in-camera DNG is
uncompressed.
Well, that's interesting. It really was a 6 mb DNG file. I double check
such things considering the speed of my dial-up connection.
Thanks for
One thing to remember is that a RAW file only has 16 (*istD with the
padded RAW format) or 12 bits per pixel, while the subsequent TIFF will
have 48 bits per pixel (16 bits per channel). The D's TIFF output is
only 8 bits per channel (24 bits per pixel). So a 8 bit TIFF should be
roughly 50$
Joseph Tainter wrote:
One further point - at present I believe the only way to get a
compressed DNG is using software on your computer; the in-camera DNG is
uncompressed.
Well, that's interesting. It really was a 6 mb DNG file. I double check
such things considering the speed of my
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 07:53:05PM -0700, Joseph Tainter wrote:
One further point - at present I believe the only way to get a
compressed DNG is using software on your computer; the in-camera DNG is
uncompressed.
Well, that's interesting. It really was a 6 mb DNG file. I double check
nice one, Paul
I like to mood, the realness of it
ann
Paul Stenquist wrote:
The DA 16-45 on the *ist D. 16mm, ISOI 400, f4.5 @ 1/60th:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5222820size=lg
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Thanks Ann. And thanks to all others who commented.
Paul
On Nov 18, 2006, at 11:39 PM, ann sanfedele wrote:
nice one, Paul
I like to mood, the realness of it
ann
Paul Stenquist wrote:
The DA 16-45 on the *ist D. 16mm, ISOI 400, f4.5 @ 1/60th:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, John Francis wrote:
I'm sure it was. It's just that almost certainly* this isn't exactly
how it came out of the camera - at the very least it's been run through
some piece of software (such as the Adobe DNG converter) which can read
an uncompressed DNG and write out the
The user stated that it was 'straight from the camera' and there was comment
that the DNG compression was one of the reasons for the late appearance of
the firmware.
Seems the camera is producing compressed DNG :)
Rod
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Nov 18, 2006, at 9:26 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
The DA 16-45 on the *ist D. 16mm, ISOI 400, f4.5 @ 1/60th:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5222820size=lg
cool. the guy at the counter is wearing a crown.
Doug Brewer
http://www.drivingtheflies.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
70 matches
Mail list logo
