All Forum Comments
Comment by Anvh posted on at the end of my street at 13/04/2009 - 10:11
Gwyn wrote:
Bo-kay. My son's Japanese (ex)girlfriend pronounced it that way so I'm guessing it's right. Even though in Japanese vowels are normally short for some reason, I assume because it isn't a proper Japanese word she the vowels are long.
It trully is, so far as I know it means unsharpness (onscherpte).Bo-kay. My son's Japanese (ex)girlfriend pronounced it that way so I'm guessing it's right. Even though in Japanese vowels are normally short for some reason, I assume because it isn't a proper Japanese word she the vowels are long.
You can of course check that with her, it would be nice if you could do that
Comment by Anvh posted on Old Chestnut at 13/04/2009 - 10:05
Gwyn wrote:
Stefan - is this the baby at Blijdorp? If so even the keepers didn't realise it was coming until they saw him/her on Friday! You can be forgiven for not having the "right lens"(not so sure about not having a tripod/monopod with you at a zoo though).
It is a powerful image in spite of it's obvious technical shortcomings - but then often the best images are not the technically perfect ones, but ones conveying real emotion. I like the B/W version!
Maybe you can get back again this week for another try, though the baby won't be so brand new of course and the crowds will be bigger no doubt as news spreads.
Ah thank you Gwyn, it was in blijdorp indeed and I try to find some news but couldn't find it.Stefan - is this the baby at Blijdorp? If so even the keepers didn't realise it was coming until they saw him/her on Friday! You can be forgiven for not having the "right lens"(not so sure about not having a tripod/monopod with you at a zoo though).
It is a powerful image in spite of it's obvious technical shortcomings - but then often the best images are not the technically perfect ones, but ones conveying real emotion. I like the B/W version!
Maybe you can get back again this week for another try, though the baby won't be so brand new of course and the crowds will be bigger no doubt as news spreads.
Do you happen to know the name of the little one?
Yes, I was thinking about the monopod but the weather was quite good outside so didn't really needed it I figure.
Comment by Anvh posted on Have a Little Faith In Me at 13/04/2009 - 10:02
Mike-P wrote:
Pentax cameras do not show the extra stops that the 2x teleconverter adds when attached so you lost 2 stops when using it.
Yes you're right, I was too quick to answer but you still need to have such a lens, all i had was the 18-250 but that comes to f/5.6 also at 200mm so I wouldn't gain a thing. If anyone wants to lend me their FA*300mm f/2.8, I would be very happy Pentax cameras do not show the extra stops that the 2x teleconverter adds when attached so you lost 2 stops when using it.
Amin, yes I know but the little one wasn't allowed to go outside yet.
The one with the silver back was making a big stampee so I was to afraid to ask if they wanted to go outside
mikew wrote:
Call me a miserable old curmudgeon but this photograph is not sharp and never will be. To me this is a fatal flaw and I wouldn't expect any amount of post processing to surmount this difficulty.
The composition seems OK although you can't really see the young gorilla's face.
And while I agree that you don't need technical excellence to convey a moment of emotion in this case you do as the animals are in repose not moving. There is no physical energy in this photograph and hence you expect it to be sharp. Rather like and landscape which I think we would expect to be sharp.
Sorry to rain on your parade - just my feelings.
Mike
Oh no it's okay Mike, I was also curious how many of you would "try" to look past the technical stuff. I also see the image is flawed. Maybe Lightening the face of the baby and throw it through an atristic filter might make something out of it, I really don't expect that trying to keep it a photo will work.Call me a miserable old curmudgeon but this photograph is not sharp and never will be. To me this is a fatal flaw and I wouldn't expect any amount of post processing to surmount this difficulty.
The composition seems OK although you can't really see the young gorilla's face.
And while I agree that you don't need technical excellence to convey a moment of emotion in this case you do as the animals are in repose not moving. There is no physical energy in this photograph and hence you expect it to be sharp. Rather like and landscape which I think we would expect to be sharp.
Sorry to rain on your parade - just my feelings.
Mike
Snappycaz wrote:
HiAnvh, I'm inclined to the agree with Mike. It's a good effort under the circunstances, without a tripod & with such a long. lens. But! this is a shot that cried out for a tripod & a lower ISO. ... The image isn't in focus & that is the main reason why you can't fix it. Could you go back & try the shot again?
Thank you Caz,HiAnvh, I'm inclined to the agree with Mike. It's a good effort under the circunstances, without a tripod & with such a long. lens. But! this is a shot that cried out for a tripod & a lower ISO. ... The image isn't in focus & that is the main reason why you can't fix it. Could you go back & try the shot again?
It's okay
There simply need to be a faster lens, I'm not really into the tele part so there won't come one.
Lowering the ISO wouldn't help much since the gorilla didn't sit still either. A tripod would have helped, this was one of the sharpested of the bunch and also preciesly the one she thouches him all the others had a lot of movement created by me.
Maybe if the young is a bit older and can go outside I will give it another try
Comment by Anvh posted on Have a Little Faith In Me at 13/04/2009 - 09:59
Thordell wrote:
Lost me now, know what bokeh is but still don't understand what you mean Stefan, how can you remove something but leave the background, sure I misunderstand.
Only remove the piece of the branch that goes over the bird and leave the rest for what it is.Lost me now, know what bokeh is but still don't understand what you mean Stefan, how can you remove something but leave the background, sure I misunderstand.
I would have the branch end (that goes over the bird) with the other branch that goes behind the bird. As Dan shows you, it doesn't look pretty the bokeh.
Comment by Anvh posted on Pushing the Bigma and an edit problem. at 13/04/2009 - 09:36
Hythloday wrote:
You are right with your remarks about edges and corners.
To be quite honest I don't care much about tests. If two lenses are tested by two different persons the conclusions will also be different. If we look at a test on the DA16-45mm, for example: ....
I also read them with a pinch of salt and you can of course make one lens look beter in a test then the other one. Although if you look at both graphs you see that they are pretty consistance, thats what I'm looking at and the photos to see the bokeh.You are right with your remarks about edges and corners.
To be quite honest I don't care much about tests. If two lenses are tested by two different persons the conclusions will also be different. If we look at a test on the DA16-45mm, for example: ....
Comment by Anvh posted on Some questions.... (16-50 vs. 16-45 vs. 17-70) at 13/04/2009 - 09:32
I also tried and had some problems with the bokeh as well.
Simply clone the branch away from the bird but not in the bokeh, thats the easiest solution.
Simply clone the branch away from the bird but not in the bokeh, thats the easiest solution.
Comment by Anvh posted on Pushing the Bigma and an edit problem. at 12/04/2009 - 21:55
You also get €10 discount since the other forum members get free delivery in the uk so you get the value of that also.
I'm not sure what the shipping costs would be but will let you know.
I don't have a bigma but I believe it's very big ^^
Maybe a DA*300 with a Kenko 1.5 TC (SDM works with that on) might also be an option.
Or an 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.5 TC, you will lose one stop of light making it somthing like a 100-300 f/4 which also looks very interesting.
All those desicions and options ^^
I'm not sure what the shipping costs would be but will let you know.
I don't have a bigma but I believe it's very big ^^
Maybe a DA*300 with a Kenko 1.5 TC (SDM works with that on) might also be an option.
Or an 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.5 TC, you will lose one stop of light making it somthing like a 100-300 f/4 which also looks very interesting.
All those desicions and options ^^
Comment by Anvh posted on Some questions.... (16-50 vs. 16-45 vs. 17-70) at 12/04/2009 - 21:49
Hythloday wrote:
Yes that's surely true but the DA*16-50 offers this at 16mm f/2.8Anvh wrote:
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 also looks as a very promising lens.
If you look at the charts on photozone, the Tamron 17-50 looks sharper then the Pentax 16-50 and the 17-50 cost the same as the Pentax 16-45, so well worth the price I think.
That depends on the camera. A 10mp sensor can handle 2000LPH, so it is no use to have a lens that can produce more lines.The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 also looks as a very promising lens.
If you look at the charts on photozone, the Tamron 17-50 looks sharper then the Pentax 16-50 and the 17-50 cost the same as the Pentax 16-45, so well worth the price I think.
center 2085,5
border 1403,5
extreme 1326,5
If you set that against the tamron 17-50 at 17mm f/2.8
center 2157
border 1836
extreme 1751,5
I believe you can say that it's usefull sharper in the corners.
Certainly at 50mm the pentax drops in the borders while the tamron stays pretty good across the frame.
Here just look for yourself:
Pentax da*16-50
Tamron 17-50
This all lab tests though and I've no idea how the bokeh and such would be so it doesn't mean everything.
golfdiesel wrote:
Maybe the DA*50-135 will be a nice additon as well since I ocasionally do some stage photography and the 2.8 aperture could be handy there.
There is a DA*50-135 on his way to my home for the same reason, I've order it from SRS since it saved me €150. Maybe the DA*50-135 will be a nice additon as well since I ocasionally do some stage photography and the 2.8 aperture could be handy there.
Comment by Anvh posted on Some questions.... (16-50 vs. 16-45 vs. 17-70) at 12/04/2009 - 20:34
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 also looks as a very promising lens.
If you look at the charts on photozone, the Tamron 17-50 looks sharper then the Pentax 16-50 and the 17-50 cost the same as the Pentax 16-45, so well worth the price I think.
If you look at the charts on photozone, the Tamron 17-50 looks sharper then the Pentax 16-50 and the 17-50 cost the same as the Pentax 16-45, so well worth the price I think.
Comment by Anvh posted on Some questions.... (16-50 vs. 16-45 vs. 17-70) at 12/04/2009 - 19:25
I think the lighting is good enough since you can stil see the textures in the wall.