All Forum Comments
Nos 1,4,5,6,8,9, and 12 for me. The ones that would seem to have a lot of detail in the original (2,3 and 7) don't work for me - either not enough blur, or a different movement is needed? I love the abstract effect - as far as I am concerned 'keep 'em comin'!'
Comment by alfpics posted on 12 ICMs - Landscapes at 24/05/2015 - 21:20
Well done sir - piccy of you not taken with a Pentax - a bit of shake there
Comment by alfpics posted on Success for Pentax at 22/05/2015 - 22:59
Great to see inside! Seem to have a few dust spots on the sensor though...
Comment by alfpics posted on Autopsy of K10D - not for squeamish :) at 22/05/2015 - 20:36
Here is a very quick attempt using the image posted above; ie not the full size one.
Tweaked in ACDsee Pro7 using its 'lighting' tool applied to the foreground, a slight reign in on the highlight tool and then a small decrease of vibrancy. A mask on the sky to enhance contrast might help a bit too (eg the 'grey grad' filter ACDsee also has
edit; Having posted, looks slightly 'flatter' than in ACDSee
Tweaked in ACDsee Pro7 using its 'lighting' tool applied to the foreground, a slight reign in on the highlight tool and then a small decrease of vibrancy. A mask on the sky to enhance contrast might help a bit too (eg the 'grey grad' filter ACDsee also has
edit; Having posted, looks slightly 'flatter' than in ACDSee
Comment by alfpics posted on That old sunset problem - RAW challenge at 19/05/2015 - 12:37
spinno wrote:
The image produced assuming no cropping is 4928 x 3624... purists reckon at 300pixels per inch you would get top quality print at 16 x 12 inches which is roughly A3. However depending on viewing distance you could go larger... If you print at 150 pixels you would get 32 x 24 which is A1 and but to get A0 you're printing 100 pixels.
Provided your audience aren't nosing up to the print that may be acceptable.
Agreed.The image produced assuming no cropping is 4928 x 3624... purists reckon at 300pixels per inch you would get top quality print at 16 x 12 inches which is roughly A3. However depending on viewing distance you could go larger... If you print at 150 pixels you would get 32 x 24 which is A1 and but to get A0 you're printing 100 pixels.
Provided your audience aren't nosing up to the print that may be acceptable.
I have sometimes gone for 250 pixels per inch which gives you a tad over A3 plus size from my K5ii without having to scale up or interpolate. I have a panoramic crop off a single file from the K10 (10 megapixels) where I scaled it up to make it just over 21inches wide - and to my eye at normal viewing distance it looks sharp and full of detail
Comment by alfpics posted on Print sizes at 19/05/2015 - 08:37
Well done Bill - some great images.
Comment by alfpics posted on Bristol Exhibition at 14/05/2015 - 23:01
A beautiful old machine
Comment by alfpics posted on Henderson M/C at 13/05/2015 - 14:34
That's right - it would require an incrediblay accurate shift mechanism to get each colour exactly re-aligned above each sensor pixel!!
Comment by alfpics posted on K3 II AF... at 12/05/2015 - 16:41
They won't separate the two and it is over the sensor just like the old 'AA' filter. I was corrected by Mattmatic (I think it was). In theory the RGBG could be separated off and above I was just hypothesising an alternative!
Comment by alfpics posted on K3 II AF... at 12/05/2015 - 13:42
Hi Dave
Thank you - yes I had come to that conclusion. However, IF they were to implement it in the way I suggested, it could utilise a much more rapid acting mechanism as you would only need to move the RGBG filter array and not the whole sensor BUT you might have fun and games keeping it very close to the actual sensor to eliminate dust intrusion or other possible optical distortions creeping!
Thank you - yes I had come to that conclusion. However, IF they were to implement it in the way I suggested, it could utilise a much more rapid acting mechanism as you would only need to move the RGBG filter array and not the whole sensor BUT you might have fun and games keeping it very close to the actual sensor to eliminate dust intrusion or other possible optical distortions creeping!
Comment by alfpics posted on K3 II AF... at 12/05/2015 - 11:18
