In a message dated 1/23/2007 5:02:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Same here.
Dark images with no moire noticed.
Dave
Ditto.
Marnie aka Doe Although I am piping in late.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
the surface.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: 28. januar 2007 07:19
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: DNG conversion challenge (was: aliasing/moire)
I've been working
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 02:09:51PM +0100, Tim ?sleby wrote:
So far, I've decided I'll be using Elements as my backend. The only downside
that is significant is the lack of batch processing capabilities.
Elements has batch processing capabilities. They are somewhat limited
(you can't write
-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: DNG conversion challenge (was: aliasing/moire)
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 02:09:51PM +0100, Tim ?sleby wrote:
So far, I've decided I'll be using Elements as my backend. The only
downside
that is significant is the lack of batch processing capabilities.
Elements has
Godfrey, I am almost ;-) ready to admit that LR RAW processing engine is
*far* superior than that of CS2 ;-).
If LR is priced reasonably, it may be just the sweet spot for me ;-).
Boris
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Challenge? no.
Here are two quickie conversions, one in Lightroom and the
I would not judge based on a quickie conversion effort, Boris. I have
a workflow that is well developed for Photoshop CS2 with Camera Raw
that's quite different from how I'm learning to work in Lightroom.
When I work with ACR, for me, I design the output to be edited to a
finish rendering
I doubt that LR is far superior. In this case, I think Godfrey's LR
conversion is slightly more pleasing, but a few tweaks on the ACR
version would make it identical. Both are very good and illustrate
that there was no problem with the original RAW file.
Paul
On Jan 27, 2007, at 11:30 AM,
Have you tried the CS3 beta?
All of the Develop tools in LR have made it into the new ACR in CS3.
CHeers,
Dave
On 1/28/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would not judge based on a quickie conversion effort, Boris. I have
a workflow that is well developed for Photoshop CS2 with
I've been working with CS3 a bit more lightly than with Lightroom.
Yes, a lot of the features made it into Camera Raw 4, and Camera Raw
4 will share most processing parameters with Lightroom.
But I prefer the organization of features and interface in Lightroom
vs CS3/Bridge/Camera Raw. And
PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: about NiMH batteries (was: aliasing/moire)
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
If I am not mistake, NIMH batteries all have
appox the same internal resistance and its very
low compared to Nicad for example. specifically
what kind
On Jan 25, 2007, at 19:09, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I can't see using NIMH in my D, but I do use them in my flash. The D
sits too long. I'd be charging the batteries every time I used it.
One word - I've said it before and I'll say it again: Eneloop!
-Charles
--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL
On Jan 26, 2007, at 6:33 AM, Charles Robinson wrote:
One word - I've said it before and I'll say it again: Eneloop!
I have three sets of AA NiMH rechargables, two Power2000 and one 'no
name brand, and now that I'm standardizing more and more on the K10D
body I doubt I need many more for
?? Is it only 1.1VDC or not?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cory Papenfuss
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:24 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: about NiMH batteries (was: aliasing/moire)
I dont understand what you are saying
it sounds to me that you are the one a little confused
here not me. i.e. a 2000mAH battery stores twice the
energy of a 1000mH battery when fully charged.( Assuming
same battery voltage - which I did because thats all
were were talking about was one battery ).
I'm not talking nominal
Just FYI the picture is now available for download at
http://www.misenet.sk/Pentax/IMGP0076.dng
I'd be happy to see other people's conversions...
Cheers,
Peter
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
When I go to that URL, I see only code, no download.
Paul
On Jan 26, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Peter Lacus wrote:
Just FYI the picture is now available for download at
http://www.misenet.sk/Pentax/IMGP0076.dng
I'd be happy to see other people's conversions...
Cheers,
Peter
--
PDML
On 27/01/07, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I go to that URL, I see only code, no download.
Firefox and Explorer on my WK2 machine simply ask if I wish to save or
open the link, selecting save lands the intact DNG file on my drive..
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel
I wrapped the URL into a dummy HTML page in an a href.. link and
then told Safari to download the linked file ... there are better
ways but it works.
The file once downloaded will be IMGP0076.dng.txt. Change the file
extension to be IMGP0076.dng, then Photoshop will open it into Camera
I can either click on the link the download window pops up, or right
click on it choosesave link as, and choose the destination.
Firefox is an excellent web browser.
Cheers,
Dave
On 1/27/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrapped the URL into a dummy HTML page in an a href..
Peter asked, so here are my efforts:
Straight .dng conversion (3008x2008pix ~510kb):
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP0076.jpg
Conversion worked in PS (3008x2008pix ~645kb):
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP0076_2.jpg
BW version (3008x2008pix ~660kb):
On Jan 26, 2007, at 6:55 PM, David Savage wrote:
Firefox is an excellent web browser.
I'm sure it is, David, and it does exactly the same thing when I drop
the URL on it on my system.
But it doesn't honor embedded profiles and Safari does. Safari does a
better job of rendering
Challenge? no.
Here are two quickie conversions, one in Lightroom and the other in
ACR with a little bit of CS2 work after the fact.
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/lacus/IMGP0076-LR.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/lacus/IMGP0076-ACR.jpg
G
On Jan 26, 2007, at 7:23 PM, David Savage wrote:
Hi Rob,
Personally I've rather the camera was engineered to minimize the
occurrence however in certain conditions (which you found)
me too. OTOH I can live with it. But it's always good to know
limitations of the system beforehand.
occasionally even a spacial frequency of multiples of the
Hi Cory,
I've got some 2150 NiMH batteries that absolutely suck. I've got
a LaCrosse BC-900 charger that can charge/discharge them and measure the
actual capacity... not too far from advertised.
That said, they rarely last more than 50-100 shots on my -DS. I
think that some
On 26/01/07, Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Rob,
that basically what I did (well, I used a slightly different technique
using a paintbrush in color overlay mode, because it's perhaps faster on
such a small area).
You could always switch to quickmask and paint in the mask using the
Hi Godfrey,
Colorspace settings are only applied to the JPEG output (thumbnails,
embedded previews, full capture format as desired, etc) after RAW
conversion. If you are capturing in JPEG format and need the least
amount of channel clipping for further editing, Adobe RGB is the way
off brand off shore made rechargable batteries are
infamous for overstating the capacity. The usa FTC
cant go after them I guess or just dont care to.
I think the best way is to test your batteries
in a systematic way but dont forget that most of
them take about 10 cycles or so to get up to
off brand off shore made rechargable batteries are
infamous for overstating the capacity. The usa FTC
cant go after them I guess or just dont care to.
I think the best way is to test your batteries
in a systematic way but dont forget that most of
them take about 10 cycles or so to get up to
the
charge is nearly gone regardless of load...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cory Papenfuss
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:26 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: about NiMH batteries (was: aliasing/moire)
off brand off
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
If I am not mistake, NIMH batteries all have
appox the same internal resistance and its very
low compared to Nicad for example. specifically
what kind of load are you draining them at and what
is the output voltage of the cells under that load?
On Jan 25, 2007, at 1:56 PM, Peter Lacus wrote:
then for me it's probably better to choose sRGB, because the only
occasion I might want to shoot JPEGs is the need of printing
immediately
after shooting.
That's what I do. I usually set the colorspace to ProPhoto RGB during
RAW conversion
On 26/01/07, Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bottom line: Cheap cells illustrate a higher internal impedance
than higher quality cells... even at the same mAH rating. That means they
don't last as long before the camera thinks they're dead.
Absolutely and it seems that even
On 26/01/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's what I do ... No battery maintenance required, just replace
when exhausted. For my last trip to the UK, I carried four sets of AA
Lithium disposables and had a fresh set in the body. After 1600
exposures, I had only just replaced
, January 25, 2007 6:50 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: about NiMH batteries (was: aliasing/moire)
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
If I am not mistake, NIMH batteries all have
appox the same internal resistance and its very
low compared to Nicad for example. specifically
On Jan 25, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
A pack of eight Eneloop 2100mAh cells costs me less than a set of
eight AA
Lithium disposables here.
A pack of four 2400 mAh NiMH cells costs about US$11, a pack of four
AA Li disposables about $9, but with the latter ... when
On 26/01/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A pack of four 2400 mAh NiMH cells costs about US$11, a pack of four
AA Li disposables about $9, but with the latter ... when
traveling ... I don't have to carry a charger, plug adapter, or
whatever. Two sets of the AA Li disposable is
I can't see using NIMH in my D, but I do use them in my flash. The D
sits too long. I'd be charging the batteries every time I used it. The
flash, on the other hand, will burn through four batteries of any type
in short order. So the NIMH seem to be a good choice for that. I once
bought a
Hi Rob,
Yes, it's a bit under, I just looked again, no lights on the vehicles,
I should have noticed. However relative to the original question re
aliasing the relevance of exposure is minimal at best.
precisely my opinion as well. However today I did look at these pictures
at work and I
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Peter Lacus wrote:
Few more questions:
1. My camera is set to AdobeRGB color space. Does it matter when
shooting to RAW? I think it shouldn't but...
Colorspace settings are only applied to the JPEG output (thumbnails,
embedded previews, full capture format as
On 25/01/07, Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
precisely my opinion as well. However today I did look at these pictures
at work and I must admit they look considerably darker and muddier on
the Macs (but quite good on the PCs).
Just looking at the image using the levels tool it's plain
Few more questions:
1. My camera is set to AdobeRGB color space. Does it matter when
shooting to RAW? I think it shouldn't but...
No... it doesn't matter.
2. Completely unrelated, but I'd like to hear about your experiences. I
bought ultra fast Uniross AA charger complete with 4x
Well, I noticed strange coloured effects on some of the pictures taken
with my istDs F50/1.7. Apparently anti-aliasing filter is not 100%
effective solution. Take a look at these examples - these are crops from
the following frame:
You might try exposing with about +0.7 to 1.3 EV compensation. These
are very dark and dim on my screen, it's almost impossible to see any
moire amidst the underexposure noise.
G
On Jan 23, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Peter Lacus wrote:
Well, I noticed strange coloured effects on some of the
Hi Godfrey,
You might try exposing with about +0.7 to 1.3 EV compensation. These
are very dark and dim on my screen, it's almost impossible to see any
moire amidst the underexposure noise.
now that's interesting - does anybody else see underexposure noise
instead of the moire? According
Same here.
Dark images with no moire noticed.
Dave
On 1/23/07, Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Godfrey,
You might try exposing with about +0.7 to 1.3 EV compensation. These
are very dark and dim on my screen, it's almost impossible to see any
moire amidst the underexposure noise.
I brought the three images into Photoshop and examined them. The
foreground where your detail clips are from are underexposed by at
least 1 stop. I applied a fairly intense adjustment curve to them,
all three, which brought them up to a reasonable level and revealed
the moire you noticed.
On 24/01/07, Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even ACR with its magical Color Noise Reduction Tool failed to correct
these artifacts completely. What do you do when it occurs to you? Use of
lower quality lens would probably help as such lens will provide
additional anti-aliasing filter on
They appear to be considerably underexposed to me and are a bit noisy.
Paul
On Jan 23, 2007, at 6:30 PM, Peter Lacus wrote:
Hi Godfrey,
You might try exposing with about +0.7 to 1.3 EV compensation. These
are very dark and dim on my screen, it's almost impossible to see any
moire amidst the
On 24/01/07, Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With regards to EV compensation - you are probably right, this was frame
No.76 shot on autopilot (apart from manual focusing). I've never used
matrix metering on my Pentax cameras before (because they didn't offer
any) so the purpose of there
On Jan 23, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
I think that
the image successfully conveys the feel of the light at the time.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't believe this was shot at night. It's
far too dark for a daylight exposure, even on a cloudy day.
Paul
--
PDML
On Jan 23, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I think that
the image successfully conveys the feel of the light at the time.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't believe this was shot at night. It's
far too dark for a daylight exposure, even on a cloudy day.
I agree.
G
--
PDML
On Jan 23, 2007, at 7:04 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't believe this was shot at night. It's
far too dark for a daylight exposure, even on a cloudy day.
Yes, it's a bit under, I just looked again, no lights on the vehicles,
I should have noticed. However
On 24/01/07, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't believe this was shot at night. It's
far too dark for a daylight exposure, even on a cloudy day.
Yes, it's a bit under, I just looked again, no lights on the vehicles,
I should have noticed. However relative to
53 matches
Mail list logo
