All Forum Comments
Comment by Don posted on Quick Preflash Question at 09/03/2011 - 22:03
MarkTaylor wrote:
However I also like to play with the digital filters etc. Sometimes they can give really pleasing results straight out of the camera. Hence I shoot in RAW+.
Get to play with in-camera filters/effects + Still have RAW to fall back on = Best of both worlds.
As you mentioned memory is cheap. As far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer. Why choose when you can, quite literally, have your cake AND eat it.
However if you have no desire to play with in-camera effects, just shoot in RAW. As a certain 'meerkat' would say - simples.
you overlooked the previous post where I mention using "In camera raw processing".... my point was it is easier to convert a raw file to jpeg than the other way round which is not possible.... shooting both is ok, but harldy needed and possibly a time waster in post.Don wrote:
hard drives are cheap. Memory cards are cheap. Computers are plenty powerful.
I have no reason to shoot jpegs, Aperture makes a raw workflow completely seamless.
It is simply a moot point to waste time thinking about as far a I am concerned. It only really matters when you got a bad shot (saw one in the forum recently) that needs saving. Raw gives you a little more data to salvage, j-peg...just bin it. So it only matters when you screw up.... now who here has NEVER screwed up?
I'm a beginner, so I constantly screw up. Frankly I find the suggestion which I have encountered in certain Photography magazines etc. that JPEGs are for beginners and RAW for the more advanced photographer quite bizarre. Beginners screw up more so have all the more reason to shoot in RAW!hard drives are cheap. Memory cards are cheap. Computers are plenty powerful.
I have no reason to shoot jpegs, Aperture makes a raw workflow completely seamless.
It is simply a moot point to waste time thinking about as far a I am concerned. It only really matters when you got a bad shot (saw one in the forum recently) that needs saving. Raw gives you a little more data to salvage, j-peg...just bin it. So it only matters when you screw up.... now who here has NEVER screwed up?
However I also like to play with the digital filters etc. Sometimes they can give really pleasing results straight out of the camera. Hence I shoot in RAW+.
Get to play with in-camera filters/effects + Still have RAW to fall back on = Best of both worlds.
As you mentioned memory is cheap. As far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer. Why choose when you can, quite literally, have your cake AND eat it.
However if you have no desire to play with in-camera effects, just shoot in RAW. As a certain 'meerkat' would say - simples.
digital filters is an occasional use item for me, handy when there's no computer handy in the field...
frankly, jpegs are not just for beginners, and never were just for beginners, but since the price drops of storage, and the shift towards digital sharing and home printing, they've become obsolete as far as I'm concerned. Raw to computer to jpeg works as fast and as easy as raw to jpeg in camera to computer, and gives you one more chance to fix if you need it.
Comment by Don posted on K5 and all those digital filters and effects ! at 09/03/2011 - 21:15
hard drives are cheap. Memory cards are cheap. Computers are plenty powerful.
I have no reason to shoot jpegs, Aperture makes a raw workflow completely seamless.
It is simply a moot point to waste time thinking about as far a I am concerned. It only really matters when you got a bad shot (saw one in the forum recently) that needs saving. Raw gives you a little more data to salvage, j-peg...just bin it. So it only matters when you screw up.... now who here has NEVER screwed up?
I have no reason to shoot jpegs, Aperture makes a raw workflow completely seamless.
It is simply a moot point to waste time thinking about as far a I am concerned. It only really matters when you got a bad shot (saw one in the forum recently) that needs saving. Raw gives you a little more data to salvage, j-peg...just bin it. So it only matters when you screw up.... now who here has NEVER screwed up?
Comment by Don posted on K5 and all those digital filters and effects ! at 09/03/2011 - 20:55
shashinka wrote:
thanx... I could've spent a little more time cleaning up dust spots, and maybe cloned out a highlight spot, but really... with the company logo on it, it is useless for any other kind of purpose for me, unless Kaluah calls me up and asks to use it for an advertisment, of course, then I may have to rework it a bit and sell it! lol!Don wrote:
Really good picPentaxophile wrote:
I wouldn't cry... the 35 2.4 is a very nice lens, less than a stop slower than the 31mm (not that I am saying it is on a par with that particular lens!)
my entry for the "Noir" comp was with the 35 2.4...I wouldn't cry... the 35 2.4 is a very nice lens, less than a stop slower than the 31mm (not that I am saying it is on a par with that particular lens!)
Comment by Don posted on What lenses to keep and what to get rid of and what new lens should I buy? at 09/03/2011 - 18:19
MartynUK wrote:
Are they wasted on the majority of users??
I'm still working my way through my new K5 manual and looking forward to the weekend - but I'm suprised at the amount of filter effects etc that have been built into the camera - a camera which, I would guess, most people using it would shoot RAW.
I 'assume' I'm not mistaken in thinking that these only apply to in-camera jpegs and that, somehow or other, the effects could be duplicated in photoshop etc.
Is anyone making/planning to make much use of them?? Re-assessing whether RAW shooting is necessary???
I do like the fit in top pocket size manual though!
Martyn
I've found them useful.Are they wasted on the majority of users??
I'm still working my way through my new K5 manual and looking forward to the weekend - but I'm suprised at the amount of filter effects etc that have been built into the camera - a camera which, I would guess, most people using it would shoot RAW.
I 'assume' I'm not mistaken in thinking that these only apply to in-camera jpegs and that, somehow or other, the effects could be duplicated in photoshop etc.
Is anyone making/planning to make much use of them?? Re-assessing whether RAW shooting is necessary???
I do like the fit in top pocket size manual though!
Martyn
in the field, while shooting, I'll occasionally see an image I think will look good b&w or Sepia or what-have-you... so I'll process the raw into a jpeg in camera, then apply the filter.
I can then show the idea to the model or client in camera, if they or I dislike it, I delete it, and continue shooting.... later when importing the files, I stack them in Aperture, open the raw file and apply the effects (with more control) in aperture or cs2....
It helps me remember which images were shot specifically for conversion in post.
Sometimes the j-peg right out of the camera is fine and I don't have to bother redoing it. Bonus!
Comment by Don posted on K5 and all those digital filters and effects ! at 09/03/2011 - 17:36
Tyr wrote:
/rant
PS. How good is iMovie/iPhoto for slide shows synchronized to music?
da BOMB!Don wrote:
waiting for spring so I can ride my motorcycle?
I don't envy you, been trying to get premiere elements to play nice just to make a bloody slide show. I think I'd be better off with iMovie '11 but I can't find out as I don't have a Mac. Premiere Elements is slow, cumbersome, overly complicated and a memory hog to boot. Also, getting Ken Burns effects is a complete pain in the backside as you cannot highlight your start and end regions and set the transition speed/acceleration/declaration. You have to set up loads of damned key-frames. Argh! Oh and I also got PSE9 to test out the content aware heal. My manual work is a lot better even though it takes hours.gartmore wrote:
Don beat me to it!
been sitting at the computer for days catching up on video editing jobs... what else I got to do between rendering clips?Don beat me to it!
waiting for spring so I can ride my motorcycle?
/rant
PS. How good is iMovie/iPhoto for slide shows synchronized to music?
seriously.. you import your music into imovie (latest version) open up the advanced audio menu, mark all your beat-markers then start dragging in images and video clips from your media box
Aperture has some wicked slideshow abilities itself!
i think you should check out muvee for pc..
link
Comment by Don posted on How to photograph a spoon? at 09/03/2011 - 00:25
gartmore wrote:
Don beat me to it!
been sitting at the computer for days catching up on video editing jobs... what else I got to do between rendering clips?Don beat me to it!
waiting for spring so I can ride my motorcycle?
Comment by Don posted on How to photograph a spoon? at 08/03/2011 - 18:13
thoughton wrote:
Isn't that the biased and anti-Pentax magazine that was discussed recently? Pile 'em up, burn them all, take photo, send to AP
awesome!Isn't that the biased and anti-Pentax magazine that was discussed recently? Pile 'em up, burn them all, take photo, send to AP
Comment by Don posted on Good home wanted at 08/03/2011 - 17:53
review here:
35 2.4
35 2.4
Comment by Don posted on Zooms or Primes at 08/03/2011 - 17:10
shiny objects 101:
you light whatever is reflected in the object, not the object itself...
in practical terms:
use a light tent or box....
you can also use strips of black cardboard to reflect off edges...
you light whatever is reflected in the object, not the object itself...
in practical terms:
use a light tent or box....
you can also use strips of black cardboard to reflect off edges...
Comment by Don posted on How to photograph a spoon? at 08/03/2011 - 16:39
It is a total mystery to me as to why a DSLR comes with a built in flash, anyone who buys one must be striving towards a level of photographic skill which makes such a contrivance a nonsense.
now use the built in (or optional ringflash) as on axis contrast control... you'll knock a few years off her by diminishing wrinkles while maintaining a harder lighting look on him....(due to flash light fall off, even a few inches makes for darker shadows)
or anybody with deep set eyes....
it's there, might as well use it...
as for the op... I guess they don't let you disable preflash 'cause they want you to buy a seperate flash?