> On Dec 18, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> JPEGs (for example) have 8 bits (coincidentally a bit and a stop each
> represent a doubling, or power of two), which is a ratio of 1-256. What that
> means is if you map the range of the sensor onto the JPEG, then it takes 16
> times as m
> On Dec 22, 2017, at 12:32 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
> The Fuji shot was at ISO 400 and both Pentax shots were at ISO 3200. The
> fact that one of them looks essentially as good as the Fuji is what's really
> amazing.
Thanks for pointing that out, Peter.
> Though based on that Fuji shot,
The Fuji shot was at ISO 400 and both Pentax shots were at ISO 3200.
The fact that one of them looks essentially as good as the Fuji is
what's really amazing.
Though based on that Fuji shot, I'd say that the 27 f2.8 deserves it's
reputation. It is essentially Fugi's version of the SMC-P FA 4
On 19 December 2017 at 00:16, Eric Weir wrote:
> Pretty good guesses, Eric. They’re instructive. And I agree I’m not being
> fair, though I didn’t know that before the earlier comments on this thread.
> Just one demurrer: not all the Fuji shots were outdoors in the sun.
OK fair enough. I was as
> On Dec 18, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> Eric Weir wrote:
>>> On Dec 17, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that the greater the dynamic range a camera has, the less apparent
>>> contrast there will be in the unedited file.
>>
>> You’re gonna have to explain that
> On Dec 18, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Jan van Wijk wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:21:15 -0500 Eric Weir wrote:
>>
>> A question: Since the RAW file is not changed by edits, is it possible to
>> keep an edit while doing a second one of the same RAW file?
>
> Yes, just create a 'Virtual Copy' of
> On Dec 18, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Eric Featherstone
> wrote:
>
> I'm not an expert but when I looked at "One that was not" my first
> thought was camera shake. I would have thought that a focal length of
> 87mm @ 1/125 second would have been ok but it looks shaky to me.
>
> Oddly the "One that wa
Eric Weir wrote:
On Dec 17, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Note that the greater the dynamic range a camera has, the less apparent
contrast there will be in the unedited file.
You’re gonna have to explain that, Larry. To my naive, uninformed, ignorant
mind it strikes me as counterin
Hi Eric,
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:21:15 -0500 Eric Weir wrote:
>
>A question: Since the RAW file is not changed by edits, is it possible to keep
>an edit while doing a second one of the same RAW file?
Yes, just create a 'Virtual Copy' of the image (you can make several if you
wish)
and work on
On 18 December 2017 at 18:49, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> A few images from the graduation ceremony I spoke about.
>
> One with Pentax K-5/50-200/4-5.6 that was improved by editing:
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/eeweir/38427160774/in/album-72157661729844657/
>
> One that was not:
> https://www.flickr.c
A few images from the graduation ceremony I spoke about.
One with Pentax K-5/50-200/4-5.6 that was improved by editing:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/eeweir/38427160774/in/album-72157661729844657/
One that was not:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/eeweir/38254902955/in/album-72157661729844657/
One
> On Dec 18, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> I’m sure you can do a second edit of your RSE (RAW) file.
I’m checking up on virtual copies in Lightroom, which Larry brought to my
attention in an earlier post in this thread. I think a virtual copy of an edit
gives you a copy of the
RAW, not RSE. Typing on a phone doesn’t work well for we fat fingered fellows,
Paul
> On Dec 18, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> I’m sure you can do a second edit of your RSE file. I don’t use Lightroom; I
> work solely in photoshop and retain all my RAW files. If I want to start
I’m sure you can do a second edit of your RSE file. I don’t use Lightroom; I
work solely in photoshop and retain all my RAW files. If I want to start from
scratch with a second edit, I just open the Raw in ARC and click on default
conversion. That takes me back to step one. I can then do a new c
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> You need to do some homework. You can start here:
> http://www.instructables.com/id/A-Complete-Beginners-Guide-to-Raw-Files-And-Raw-Pr/
Thanks again, Paul, for this and the other site/page you sent links to. Most of
what’s discussed ar
> On Dec 17, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> Note that the greater the dynamic range a camera has, the less apparent
> contrast there will be in the unedited file.
You’re gonna have to explain that, Larry. To my naive, uninformed, ignorant
mind it strikes me as counterintuitive. More
> On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:00 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
> Actually the K-5 isn't that much older. It was introduced in 2010 and
> discontinued officially 2013 about a year after the K-5II and K-5IIs were
> released.
>
> There wasn't a lot of "improvement" in APS-C sensors from the K-5 until the
Actually the K-5 isn't that much older. It was introduced in 2010 and
discontinued officially 2013 about a year after the K-5II and K-5IIs
were released.
There wasn't a lot of "improvement" in APS-C sensors from the K-5 until
the release of 24mp Cameras like the K-3 were released at the end o
Eric Weir wrote:
Finally you don't mention if you're shooting RAW or Jpeg. Pentax out of
camera Jpeg files are not the best. If you're shooting RAW; with a little more
sharpening and contrast adjustment to the Pentax images you shouldn't see any
marked difference between either camera gi
> On Dec 16, 2017, at 10:13 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
> I'm a bit late to this but, there are two things that stand out.
> 1. The K-5 has an AA filter, so the images will require a bit of judicious
> sharpening to equal the sharpness of images from the X-Trans sensor in the
> Fuji as it doesn'
> On Dec 16, 2017, at 10:08 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
> So is the Fuji X-M1, released in 2013 IIRC.
Yes, but it was no longer in production when I bought mine about two years ago.
I was fortunate to find a new one. I see the K-5 is about ten years older.
--
Are you sure about that?
On 12/15/2017 9:03 PM, l...@red4est.com wrote:
It occurs to me that you could also look at the photos other people get with
Pentax gear as an example of what it is capable of. for example, there are at
least a couple of moderately competent photographers on the PDML.
I'm a bit late to this but, there are two things that stand out.
1. The K-5 has an AA filter, so the images will require a bit of
judicious sharpening to equal the sharpness of images from the X-Trans
sensor in the Fuji as it doesn't need an AA filter and doesn't have one
due to it's more or le
So is the Fuji X-M1, released in 2013 IIRC.
On 12/13/2017 7:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
It could be a matter of in camera processing if you were shooting jpegs. Even
when shooting RAW the default settings of your converter can
Make a huge difference. The only fair comparison is between expert
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 12:54:32PM +, Steve Cottrell wrote:
> On 15/12/17, l...@red4est.com, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> > there are at least a couple of moderately competent photographers on
> >the PDML.
>
> MARK.
That's one ...
Who's your vote for the second?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
On 15/12/17, l...@red4est.com, discombobulated, unleashed:
> there are at least a couple of moderately competent photographers on
>the PDML.
MARK.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__UK Shoot / Edit and
|| (O) |Live Broadcast News
--
_
--
PDML Pen
It occurs to me that you could also look at the photos other people get with
Pentax gear as an example of what it is capable of. for example, there are at
least a couple of moderately competent photographers on the PDML.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
> On Dec 15, 2017, at 1:31 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
>
> Eric, if I may add my two cents here.
>
> The 28mm is wider that 50-200, so by projecting more (wider angle of view)
> on the same sensor size (Fuji and Pentax have both sensors of very similar
> size) - you get an impression of sharper p
Eric, if I may add my two cents here.
The 28mm is wider that 50-200, so by projecting more (wider angle of view)
on the same sensor size (Fuji and Pentax have both sensors of very similar
size) - you get an impression of sharper picture. The "livelieness" of the
picture is too subjective a term to
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 15, 2017, at 7:24 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
>>
>> May not be what you're looking for but when i first got my Fuji X30 i
>> shot it in B&W and loved the detail and sharpness of it. Later i
>> started shooting raw+jpg(the B&W's) and fo
> On Dec 15, 2017, at 7:24 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
>
> May not be what you're looking for but when i first got my Fuji X30 i
> shot it in B&W and loved the detail and sharpness of it. Later i
> started shooting raw+jpg(the B&W's) and found the coloured shots to be
> low in saturation like my
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
> Overall, apart from that, I’ll try to work toward a fair comparison of the
> two cameras, e.g., using a lens on the Pentax that’s closer in quality to the
> Fuji lens. Probably my best Pentax lens is the DA 4/16-45. I also have an A
> 2.8/28
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> Eric Weir wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Paul. I skimmed the article and will read it more carefully shortly.
>>
>> Some things I gather from the skim: Since I use Lightroom, I guess the
>> answer to what converter I use is Adobe Camera Raw. And
And the fact that Eric is comparing sharpness of a 28 mm lens with a
50-200. Most cheap telelenses tend to be somewhat soft at the long end.
A combination of the Pentax K5 with the FA28/2.8 AL gives good results
in my experience, even though this lens is not designed for digital.
Henk
Op 2017-
The apparent difference is probably due in part to the lenses. The DA 50-200 is
just okay at best.
Paul
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
>
> Eric Weir wrote:
>>> On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>>
>>> You need to do some homework. You can start her
Eric Weir wrote:
On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
You need to do some homework. You can start here:
http://www.instructables.com/id/A-Complete-Beginners-Guide-to-Raw-Files-And-Raw-Pr/
Thanks, Paul. I skimmed the article and will read it more carefully shortly.
Some thin
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> After completing the basic tutorial, go here:
> http://www.geofflawrence.com/photoshop_raw.html
Thanks again, Paul. Another quick skim suggests this will be instructive, too.
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> You need to do some homework. You can start here:
> http://www.instructables.com/id/A-Complete-Beginners-Guide-to-Raw-Files-And-Raw-Pr/
Thanks, Paul. I skimmed the article and will read it more carefully shortly.
Some things I gather
After completing the basic tutorial, go here:
http://www.geofflawrence.com/photoshop_raw.html
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 7:38 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 13, 2017, at 7:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>> It could be a matter of in camera processing if you were shooting jpegs.
>> Even when
You need to do some homework. You can start here:
http://www.instructables.com/id/A-Complete-Beginners-Guide-to-Raw-Files-And-Raw-Pr/
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 7:38 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 13, 2017, at 7:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>> It could be a matter of in camera processing i
> On Dec 13, 2017, at 7:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> It could be a matter of in camera processing if you were shooting jpegs. Even
> when shooting RAW the default settings of your converter can
> Make a huge difference. The only fair comparison is between expert renderings
> of each.
> O
Eric Weir wrote:
At one time I would not have considered any equipment other than Pentax. A
little over two years ago I bought a Fuji X-Q1 compact to take with me on a
trip to Italy that was going to include a week on bicycles. I was impressed
with the images I got with it. Also never would
And the DA 50-:200, while adequate, is not a stellar performer.
Paul
> On Dec 13, 2017, at 7:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> It could be a matter of in camera processing if you were shooting jpegs. Even
> when shooting RAW the default settings of your converter can
> Make a huge difference.
It could be a matter of in camera processing if you were shooting jpegs. Even
when shooting RAW the default settings of your converter can
Make a huge difference. The only fair comparison is between expert renderings
of each. A half dozen years ago I was shooting for Harris Publications with a
At one time I would not have considered any equipment other than Pentax. A
little over two years ago I bought a Fuji X-Q1 compact to take with me on a
trip to Italy that was going to include a week on bicycles. I was impressed
with the images I got with it. Also never would have considered a ca
45 matches
Mail list logo
