All Forum Comments
Comment by Anvh posted on Finally... at 07/08/2010 - 11:02
MrCynical wrote:
The DA35, as far as I can tell from review, essentially has no minimum focus distance worthy of the name
I know but since Mike added the length of the 1.7 TC to it and the focus distance stays the same the lens actually get the physical length of the TC closer to the subject. The DA35, as far as I can tell from review, essentially has no minimum focus distance worthy of the name
mecrox wrote:
I suppose I am trying to communicate (and celebrate) the only view of reality I can. I am not trying to play God with the results. The results are what the camera saw, usually not what I saw, and they are what they are.
But what the camera saw isn't reality then for you since you saw something else then the camera did... so if you manipulate what the camera saw to more match the reality you saw then you're playing for god?I suppose I am trying to communicate (and celebrate) the only view of reality I can. I am not trying to play God with the results. The results are what the camera saw, usually not what I saw, and they are what they are.
Sorry it's really confusing, could you enlighten it a bit?
mecrox wrote:
There is a school of photography called Miksang with a group on Flickr which illustrates these ideas quite well, though it is probably too old school because it does not allow any cropping or post-processing at all.
That's not old school, photos always need to be developed and therefore post processed.There is a school of photography called Miksang with a group on Flickr which illustrates these ideas quite well, though it is probably too old school because it does not allow any cropping or post-processing at all.
I believe it's only with digital that you've seen more people calling themselves purists so it's actually very new form of photography and I'm 100% sure they do post processing.
Even if you use the JPG that comes out of the camera then it's already processed since the camera alters what the sensor saw into a image so it's being processed by it.
Comment by Anvh posted on Photography or Graphic Art? at 07/08/2010 - 10:28
Hardgravity wrote:
Just ban all digital prints that have been 'tweaked', that'll reduce entries by 60 per cent as canikony user HAVE to adjust everything and give Pentax users a much better chance.
All photos are banned then, I doubt they would like it if you send a text file with ones and zeros claiming to be an image Just ban all digital prints that have been 'tweaked', that'll reduce entries by 60 per cent as canikony user HAVE to adjust everything and give Pentax users a much better chance.
Comment by Anvh posted on well it amused me... at 07/08/2010 - 10:12
Creating your photo in post processing is as much part off photography as selecting the right aperture and clicking the shutter. How ever you turn it, you need to process what the film capture with chemicals or use software to make from those zeros and ones from the sensor a photo.
Do what needs to be done to get what you want.
Like Tim said, there are no limitation.
Just look at the IPA (International Photography Award) winners to see how far you can go for example http://www.photoawards.com/en/Pages/Gallery/winner.php
Someone went all out with enhancement VS manipulation thread on deviantart that might be interesting. Picked out the things concerning this matter.
In the end about the purists he gets a bit too hard I think but I agree fully with the carpenter statement.
Also don't forget there are limitation what you can alter.
If you didn't capture the information needed, there is no way to recover that, post processing is not a miracle recovery tool.
Do what needs to be done to get what you want.
Like Tim said, there are no limitation.
Just look at the IPA (International Photography Award) winners to see how far you can go for example http://www.photoawards.com/en/Pages/Gallery/winner.php
Someone went all out with enhancement VS manipulation thread on deviantart that might be interesting. Picked out the things concerning this matter.
Quote:
-) There is no line. "Enhancement" is manipulation. To call it anything else is nitpicking of the highest order. Every single photograph that has ever been taken (or that ever will be taken) has been (or will be) manipulated to greater or lesser extents.
-) The second step in the manipulation of an image is selecting the parameters under which it will be captured. You can make those decisions, or you can leave it up to the camera. Either way, the result is a manipulation.
-) Not just a fair number... All the photographic tools in Photoshop mimic processes that were first invented and practiced in the darkroom. Even the text and graphic tools mimic processes carried out by film photographers for decades with dry-transfer sheets and burnishing pens.
-) No digital image (not a from a scanner, not from a camera sensor) looks "great" when captured. All captured images must be manipulated - if for no other reason than to overcome the effects of the antialiasing filters used by all digital imaging devices. The manipulations may be invisible to you (i.e. when your camera is set to capture directly to JPEG), or they may require some interaction on your part (as when you capture to a raw file format). Either way, manipulations must be made...
-) Photography is a bastard craft, a mongrel art form. Because they are involved with factuality certain genres of the craft (most notably journalism, documentary, and technical/scientific) impose ethical limits on manipulation. However, there is not, and never has been, any such thing as cheating in "art" photography.
In my experience, the person most likely to declare themselves a "purist" is:
- male
- between 18 and 25
- has taken one or more photography classes, but has no professional experience
- uses a vintage (or toy) film camera because they "eschew the perfection of modern photography"
- isn't very adept at the craft of photography (which I guess is why they "eschew perfection")
- is a pretentious douche with little or no understanding of the history of photography or the potential of its future
Photoshop is a tool. Tools are tools. It's a poor (and rather ignorant) carpenter who won't use a hammer because he has "philosophical issues" with it.
Lovely isn't it, here is the full thread but isn't really that interesting though link-) There is no line. "Enhancement" is manipulation. To call it anything else is nitpicking of the highest order. Every single photograph that has ever been taken (or that ever will be taken) has been (or will be) manipulated to greater or lesser extents.
-) The second step in the manipulation of an image is selecting the parameters under which it will be captured. You can make those decisions, or you can leave it up to the camera. Either way, the result is a manipulation.
-) Not just a fair number... All the photographic tools in Photoshop mimic processes that were first invented and practiced in the darkroom. Even the text and graphic tools mimic processes carried out by film photographers for decades with dry-transfer sheets and burnishing pens.
-) No digital image (not a from a scanner, not from a camera sensor) looks "great" when captured. All captured images must be manipulated - if for no other reason than to overcome the effects of the antialiasing filters used by all digital imaging devices. The manipulations may be invisible to you (i.e. when your camera is set to capture directly to JPEG), or they may require some interaction on your part (as when you capture to a raw file format). Either way, manipulations must be made...
-) Photography is a bastard craft, a mongrel art form. Because they are involved with factuality certain genres of the craft (most notably journalism, documentary, and technical/scientific) impose ethical limits on manipulation. However, there is not, and never has been, any such thing as cheating in "art" photography.
In my experience, the person most likely to declare themselves a "purist" is:
- male
- between 18 and 25
- has taken one or more photography classes, but has no professional experience
- uses a vintage (or toy) film camera because they "eschew the perfection of modern photography"
- isn't very adept at the craft of photography (which I guess is why they "eschew perfection")
- is a pretentious douche with little or no understanding of the history of photography or the potential of its future
Photoshop is a tool. Tools are tools. It's a poor (and rather ignorant) carpenter who won't use a hammer because he has "philosophical issues" with it.
In the end about the purists he gets a bit too hard I think but I agree fully with the carpenter statement.
Also don't forget there are limitation what you can alter.
If you didn't capture the information needed, there is no way to recover that, post processing is not a miracle recovery tool.
Comment by Anvh posted on Photography or Graphic Art? at 06/08/2010 - 20:46
Dangermouse wrote:
how does aluminium respond to annealing?
I should know that how does aluminium respond to annealing?
Give me a second to get the book.
btw I think you're referring to another process because annealing soften instead off hardens but it does make it tougher.
Precipitation hardening is what you need, trying too look up the index up to see which temperature to warm up to get the right crystal structure... it's already quite some time ago when I needed to learn it and I was never good in it. ^^;
What kind off aluminium is it?
Comment by Anvh posted on Pap Strap, R-strap at 06/08/2010 - 19:49
Weren't some off these also made for another mount as well?
I believe it was for Leica...
Found it, the lens is called the Pentax-L 43mm f1.9
link
I believe it was for Leica...
Found it, the lens is called the Pentax-L 43mm f1.9
link
Comment by Anvh posted on I finally have full basket :) at 06/08/2010 - 17:25
Mike-P wrote:
I have started using the 35mm along with the 1.7x pentax teleconverter,
It's that good I am thinking of selling my Sigma 70mm macro.
I wonder what the magnification is .. seems a fair bit more than 1:1
That's quite easy, it would be 1,7/1I have started using the 35mm along with the 1.7x pentax teleconverter,
It's that good I am thinking of selling my Sigma 70mm macro.
I wonder what the magnification is .. seems a fair bit more than 1:1
The focus distance stays the same but you multiply the focal length with that number so the magnification increase like wise.
How close does the front element gets to the subject, it must be very close I think.
If I remember correctly you bought a Sigma 180 a few months ago, how does that one work with the 1.7 TC?
You mean this sentence?
Upside risks to our target price include: ... 2) decisions earlier than expected and
on better than expected terms for the sale of the Pentax camera operations or
the media operations in the memory disk business
I don't know what to make of that to be honest.
Upside risks to our target price include: ... 2) decisions earlier than expected and
on better than expected terms for the sale of the Pentax camera operations or
the media operations in the memory disk business
I don't know what to make of that to be honest.
Comment by Anvh posted on "Pentax to release a mirrorless camera" at 06/08/2010 - 17:02
Which report would that be Gwyn, couldn't find it in the latest one.
Comment by Anvh posted on "Pentax to release a mirrorless camera" at 06/08/2010 - 15:22
Linear ones are know to cause small exposure errors.
When you say glare up set it you should think it should actually underexpose and not overexpose like it does now.