Thanks Joakim, I'll stick with Adobe RGB for now.

I came accross this nice example of a flat landscape.
There looks to be very little distance between the fence
and the house.

-

Hi Joakim, I've had the earlier QPCard 201 for a few years now.
It seems a excellent product and I would highly recommend it
or the 203 for more options.

I work mostly in Adobe RGB. Is this better than sRGB for
mostly computer viewed images.

That's correct Canikon don't tell you but they change the iSO
at f1.8 and the Pentax will under expose.

Try to use an f/2.8 or f/3.5/f/4 lens so that all the ISO's
remain the same.

To check light transmission set the lens at f/4 or f/5.6 at
a fixed shutter speed at the correct WB then see if all the
RGB values are the same should be about 118R 118G 118B for
middle grey, although that isn't all that important.

Nice shot Don

Do all dogs in Canada have a flat face
It's nose looks to be in line with it's eye's

You didn't say what aperture and LV anyway will stop the lens
down to make sure the LV picture isn't blown out wide open.
I seem to remember it uses alterenate f stops.

Lenses do vary slightly in transmission.

-

Basically it's very 2D with hardly any information from the
3rd dimension, which is missing because a telephoto lens was
used. Sometimes looking at it from a distance helps, but the
3rd dimension info just isn't there so it never looks right.

You can see it in movies where a person running towards
the camera looks as though their legs are just going up
and down and hardly moving forward.

-

I can't believe that a professional photographer has said that

Flat perspective can't be achieved by lighting perhaps you need
to look here link

or at this video link

Unfortunately fashion photographers seem to have brainwashed people
to believe that longer is better and the flat 2D monitor seems to
have killed off the skill of looking at a print. People probably
do look better through binoculars, but I'm used to seeing them
close up distorions and all.

I've always liked Baileys 60's approach to portraits where he used
mostly a standard lens on a Rollei. One of my favourite Bailey books
is "Goodbye Baby & Amen" which is mostly the standards lens.

Similar shots are here and they all show great depth and 10x8 prints
off any of them would look great. The Terence Stamp and Jean Shrimpton
shot wouldn't look as intimate through a 200mm lens. The Stones and
Beatles shots wouldn't be the same without the depth. The distortion
is part of the picture.

Michel Comte also has great depth to his portraits
and I would think uses mostly a standard lens.

http://www.listal.com/list/portraits-by-michel-comte

Edit: Strange looking through that site a lot of the
pictures chosen seem to be standard lens and very
few extreme telephotos (135mm on 35mm... 90mm APS-C)

Beautiful pictures - b&w edition vol. 2
http://www.listal.com/list/beutiful-pictures-bw-edition

May be people with a good eye for photographs do
still exist

-





Goodbye

If you do prints from a 100mm lens Don, isn't it very flat
looking.

I used to hate using a 135mm on film anything bigger than
a postcard print looked terrible.

A general rule of thumb with prints from 35mm is that they
should be viewed from the same distance that they were
taken to show the proper perspective.... that's about 6ft
for a 10"x8" print.... It would be more for APS-C

I would use a 50mm/55mm.
-

'The real camera shop' aren't cheap. If you want a genuine
converter I can get you one for £25 off another dealer.