I'm with Godders on this one... Maybe something to do with the type of
window. For example, argon gas between the panes or a UV (or some other
insulating filter) on the glass could cause weird colors that may
otherwise not be noticed by your eyes. Better to test outdoors in
real natural
I think its in Italian flag mode, did you get the K10D World cup edition
or something?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Well, the other day I decided to take a look at this k lens
underexposure issue (which appears to be a real problem) and instead
found another problem. Here are the
Mark!
David Weis wrote:
Wow, I thought people on this list could curb the sarcasm and help a
person.
Tom C.
From: David Weiss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Another k10D problem or just an old
Gonz wrote:
I think its in Italian flag mode, did you get the K10D World cup edition
or something?
Mark!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Christian wrote:
I'm with Godders on this one... Maybe something to do with the type of
window. For example, argon gas between the panes or a UV (or some other
insulating filter) on the glass could cause weird colors that may
otherwise not be noticed by your eyes. Better to test
Couldn't find any situations where I could get longer than about .2
seconds exposure at f/22 with the ISO set to 1600. I found that if I
exposed at 3 stops under normal exposure, the camera's sensitivity
ran seriously to the blue channel at that point, but the entire field
went bluish, no
Hello,
Well, the other day I decided to take a look at this k lens
underexposure issue (which appears to be a real problem) and instead
found another problem. Here are the pictures:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
This is a series of pictures of a white piece of tissue used
Don't know what's going on here, but grossly underexposed pictures,
which almost all of these are, will not yield good results. I also
think shooting white with the jpeg bright setting might be somewhat
of a problem. I think it's possible to generate bad results with any
camera if one
BTW, I shoot with K lenses quite frequently. No problem.
A couple of recent examples:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5458250size=lg
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5458281size=lg
On Jan 30, 2007, at 7:00 PM, David Weiss wrote:
Hello,
Well, the other day I decided to
Which lens is that Paul? Very nice ice pictures, btw.
Dave
Paul Stenquist wrote:
BTW, I shoot with K lenses quite frequently. No problem.
A couple of recent examples:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5458250size=lg
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5458281size=lg
On
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Don't know what's going on here, but grossly underexposed pictures,
I know, but once I found the problem to be seen more clearly when
underexposed, I just left it that way. Wouldn't this just mimic shadow
areas in a well exposed photo?
which almost all of these
It's not banding. It seems to be due to a combination of things. Do
you have your jpeg settings at highly saturated as well as bright?
Underexposing white doesn't give you the same thing you would get
shooting normal shadow detail at a correct exposre. How well does
your camera take real
Thanks David. It's the SMC Pentax 85/1.8. I also use the SMC Pentax
135/2.5 quite a bit.
Paul
On Jan 30, 2007, at 7:43 PM, David Weiss wrote:
Which lens is that Paul? Very nice ice pictures, btw.
Dave
Paul Stenquist wrote:
BTW, I shoot with K lenses quite frequently. No problem.
A
On 31/01/07, David Weiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, is this just the infamous banding problem magnified a bit?
No it's not banding but neither is it normal nor should it have to be
tolerated. I would suggest that you pose the question to Pentax and
send links to select images, ask them how to
He's shooting jpegs on bright setting and underexposing by two to
three stops. How can you conclude it's not normal?
Paul
On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:53 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 31/01/07, David Weiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, is this just the infamous banding problem magnified a bit?
Paul Stenquist wrote:
It's not banding. It seems to be due to a combination of things. Do
you have your jpeg settings at highly saturated as well as bright?
No. I saw the same problem on RAW images and the non-bright setting.
The saturation is at normal.
Underexposing white doesn't give
- Original Message -
From: David Weiss
Subject: Another k10D problem or just an old one?
I know that I am not likely to shoot under these conditions, but it
would be nice if the camera worked properly just the same.
You get reciprocity failure with film, why not with digital
Paul Stenquist wrote:
He's shooting jpegs on bright setting and underexposing by two to
three stops. How can you conclude it's not normal?
Wow, I thought people on this list could curb the sarcasm and help a
person. Is that beyond everyone these days?
I said this problem showed up on RAW
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Weiss
Subject: Another k10D problem or just an old one?
I know that I am not likely to shoot under these conditions, but it
would be nice if the camera worked properly just the same.
You get reciprocity failure with film
On Jan 30, 2007, at 4:00 PM, David Weiss wrote:
So, is this just the infamous banding problem magnified a bit?
No.
Is this just my camera? I hope someone can verify for me that this is
just a characteristic of this camera. Not that this would thrill me,
because I expect something to work
I'm not being sarcastic. I didn't see the RAW images. If they were
underexposed as badly as the jpegs, I wouldn't be surprised to see
color appearing on white. I'm sorry if I wasn't helpful. You may have
a problem. But as I said, it would be easier to tell with correct
exposures and a
Godfrey,
As to your questions below:
Light source was sunlight through the window. With the amount of snow
on the ground, a lot of that light was reflected sunlight. I adjusted
the white balance manually and it seemed fine.
I am going to check it again with other light sources and some
- Original Message -
From: David Weiss Subject: Re: Another k10D problem or just an old one?
Paul Stenquist wrote:
He's shooting jpegs on bright setting and underexposing by two to
three stops. How can you conclude it's not normal?
Wow, I thought people on this list could curb
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I'm not being sarcastic. I didn't see the RAW images. If they were
underexposed as badly as the jpegs, I wouldn't be surprised to see
color appearing on white. I'm sorry if I wasn't helpful. You may have
a problem. But as I said, it would be easier to tell with
Hmm. I would be inclined to think that there's some odd refraction
happening through the window which is not visible to the eye. I
understand the captures are well-underexposed, that would exacerbate
the appearance of the rainbow.
Test with other lighting ... particularly one in which there
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Weiss Subject: Re: Another k10D problem or just an old one?
Paul Stenquist wrote:
He's shooting jpegs on bright setting and underexposing by two to
three stops. How can you conclude it's not normal?
Wow, I thought people
On 31/01/07, David Weiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Light source was sunlight through the window. With the amount of snow
on the ground, a lot of that light was reflected sunlight. I adjusted
the white balance manually and it seemed fine.
I am going to check it again with other light sources
On 31/01/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You get reciprocity failure with film, why not with digital?
Almost every time I see a problem with digital, it is the same type of
scene. Someone takes an evenly lit white object, underexposes it 4 or so
stops by stopping the lens way down,
28 matches
Mail list logo
