All Forum Comments
Comment by ChrisA posted on Egret Painting at 13/07/2008 - 21:53
Quote:
Generally, heavy manipulation doesn't work.
Generally, heavy manipulation doesn't work.
Actually, I quite like the heavily edited version.
I agree with her that the intense green of the original isn't all that attractive, and I agree with George that describing it as a painting changes the criteria by which one should consider such a picture.
My feeling is that editing for artistic effect is more legitimate than editing in a way that makes it look real, but conceals fakery which is about adding to or taking away from the scene that was there.
But it's all terribly subjective, which is itself to be celebrated. Life would be very dull if no one did the artistic things we disapprove of.
Comment by ChrisA posted on Egret Painting at 13/07/2008 - 21:41
Quote:
Make that four. It seems there is no PC version of the iPhoto software that is needed, so you need a friend with a Mac to use this facility.
Fortunately my son Mike uses a Mac, so we have been making the books on his machine.
There's no doubt that the Mac has many advantages for imaging.
Strange, though. There's iTunes for Windows, and indeed Safari.Make that four. It seems there is no PC version of the iPhoto software that is needed, so you need a friend with a Mac to use this facility.
Fortunately my son Mike uses a Mac, so we have been making the books on his machine.
There's no doubt that the Mac has many advantages for imaging.
Why not iPhoto? Surely no inveterate Windows users are going to get a Mac just so they can get some nice photo albums - yet if the Apple books are really that good, there's money to be made by offering iPhoto (and indeed the suite it's part of) for the PC.
Comment by ChrisA posted on Making a Wedding album (photo book) who to use? at 13/07/2008 - 22:22
Quote:
Maybe I'm being stupid, but I can't see how to use this without a Mac.
If you are, then I am too.Maybe I'm being stupid, but I can't see how to use this without a Mac.
Comment by ChrisA posted on Making a Wedding album (photo book) who to use? at 13/07/2008 - 21:33
Quote:
Come down and have a look - you can get an picture of me with it, unlike that one you took last time of my less attractive brother(!)
I might be down quite soon... the 55-300 is what I'm after at the moment.Come down and have a look - you can get an picture of me with it, unlike that one you took last time of my less attractive brother(!)
How are your stock levels with that?
Comment by ChrisA posted on Pentax 17-70/4 SDM at 11/07/2008 - 12:55
Quote:
Chris,
I've seen a few threads on the 'net that claim this lens is weather sealed.
I presume it's not, but does have the SP front element coating.
Am I right?
Thanks! Matt
Yes, according to this link.Chris,
I've seen a few threads on the 'net that claim this lens is weather sealed.
I presume it's not, but does have the SP front element coating.
Am I right?
Thanks! Matt
Comment by ChrisA posted on Pentax 17-70/4 SDM at 11/07/2008 - 12:42
Quote:
If anyone has anything to ask, then ask away!
Do you know why it's so expensive?If anyone has anything to ask, then ask away!
Comment by ChrisA posted on Pentax 17-70/4 SDM at 11/07/2008 - 11:58
Quote:
But I don't think this is likely. I wouldn't switch to 135 format even if the camera body were free. I don't need more pixels, I don't need more weight, and I don't want to buy more disk space and a faster computer. AND, I only have one DA lens.
I'm not bothered about more pixels (than the K20D has, anyway), but I quite like the idea of big fat ones that collect lots of photons. Noiseless, high ISO would be fab, although we'd need AF systems that could see in the dark to make sensible use of it.But I don't think this is likely. I wouldn't switch to 135 format even if the camera body were free. I don't need more pixels, I don't need more weight, and I don't want to buy more disk space and a faster computer. AND, I only have one DA lens.
Of course it won't be free, and the funny thing, is that those that want FF will lash out all that money on it, and then they'll discover that their lenses are only 2/3 as long as they were.
And unless having these big fat photosites makes a huge difference to the amount of noise (and Ok, the ISOs that the D3 can go up to does suggest that it might eventually), they'll still want long fast glass.
And then they'll realise that long fast glass is a whole lot more expensive than short fast glass.
I can't see that except for a very few with very deep pockets, there's any point in spending all that money on big sensors and great big tubes with dinner-plate sized front ends.
Quote:
Mind you, Benjikan said it, so it must be true.
Well, it's always fun to read his publicity.Mind you, Benjikan said it, so it must be true.
Comment by ChrisA posted on Full frame DSLR ? at 11/07/2008 - 18:18
Quote:
Don't I know it. Quote:
He's already published a great deal more than the basics for free on his web site.
Oh there's more... much more He's already published a great deal more than the basics for free on his web site.
However, I wouldn't dream of placing a burden on your time until I've mastered the things you've published already...
... any more than I'd fail to read the manual before prevailing upon the good people here for camera help.
Comment by ChrisA posted on Why do people spend money on photoshop? at 10/07/2008 - 15:50
Quote:
you show us the basics with photoshop, we buy you fish and chips with a beer or two?
He's already published a great deal more than the basics for free on his web site.you show us the basics with photoshop, we buy you fish and chips with a beer or two?
Comment by ChrisA posted on Why do people spend money on photoshop? at 10/07/2008 - 15:06
Generally, heavy manipulation doesn't work.