All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on K5 reaches the end of the road... at 02/03/2012 - 15:26
Photoshop can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. All it can do is give a good photo a final polish.
Pentax's more basic lenses are in fact very good, and if there is anything wrong with your photos at the moment, it is almost certainly down to what is behind the camera, not what is in front of it.
Save your money, and spend time instead. But if you are determined to divest some wonga, like a structured approach, and have more self-discipline than some of us, you could do a course, like this one:
Course
Good luck.
G
Pentax's more basic lenses are in fact very good, and if there is anything wrong with your photos at the moment, it is almost certainly down to what is behind the camera, not what is in front of it.
Save your money, and spend time instead. But if you are determined to divest some wonga, like a structured approach, and have more self-discipline than some of us, you could do a course, like this one:
Course
Good luck.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Lens vs Photoshop at 02/03/2012 - 09:33
I am not sure why people bother with it. The standards are generally low, and very few pictures, even in the premiere section, are masterpieces.
It seems that the main criteria for acceptance are that the picture should be over-saturated, heavily photo-shopped, and competely unnatural.
If we were to collect all the pictures placed first, second, or third in PUF competitions, I reckon we'd have a better gallery.
Yes, there are a few good pictures, but finding them is like wading through deep snow uphill.
G
It seems that the main criteria for acceptance are that the picture should be over-saturated, heavily photo-shopped, and competely unnatural.
If we were to collect all the pictures placed first, second, or third in PUF competitions, I reckon we'd have a better gallery.
Yes, there are a few good pictures, but finding them is like wading through deep snow uphill.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on PPG - yet another thread! at 29/02/2012 - 21:22
I agree with Chunky. They are very nice, but some (the first and second especially) are slightly over-sharpened.
I am very envious of your heron. Superb!
G
I am very envious of your heron. Superb!
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on More British Birds at 29/02/2012 - 21:12
tyronet2000 wrote:
A used Zenit was my first SLR in the mid 80's, it jammed twice so went into a skip. Didn't buy another camera until about 1989, brand new SFXn and two sigma AF lenses 28-70mm and 70-210mm, all hardly used and sold at a give away on ebay last year
I had the same pair of lenses at that time. If you gave them away, you over-priced them. They were truly awful!A used Zenit was my first SLR in the mid 80's, it jammed twice so went into a skip. Didn't buy another camera until about 1989, brand new SFXn and two sigma AF lenses 28-70mm and 70-210mm, all hardly used and sold at a give away on ebay last year
I understand Sigma produces better lenses nowadays.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Another pointless thread at 29/02/2012 - 21:02
The 1:1.4 is MUCH sharper at f1.4.
G
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on WTB: Pentax-FA 50mm f1.7 at 29/02/2012 - 11:42
Certainly check the voltage, but if that's OK, you will also need to check the pin configuration on the hotshoe. It may not be compatible.
If there is just one contact, then you're fine.
G
If there is just one contact, then you're fine.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Cobra Auto 210 at 29/02/2012 - 11:30
The AF-540 is certainly worth getting if you can find the money.
If not, go manual.
You will then have a huge choice of guns available, and will be able to do what is really ideal, and that is to have two flashguns, one on camera and one remote.
The latter can be triggered by wire or slave sensor. Some flashguns have slave sensors built in.
If you can find them, the best manual guns (TTL on earlier Pentax DSLRs) is the Pentax AF-500FTZ. I have three, and paid an average of around £50 for each of them. However, you will have to wait; they don't come up every day.
Yet another alternative is to use one of the old automatic guns, like the AF-400T or the AF-280T. Very simple to use, and worked well.
Good luck.
G
If not, go manual.
You will then have a huge choice of guns available, and will be able to do what is really ideal, and that is to have two flashguns, one on camera and one remote.
The latter can be triggered by wire or slave sensor. Some flashguns have slave sensors built in.
If you can find them, the best manual guns (TTL on earlier Pentax DSLRs) is the Pentax AF-500FTZ. I have three, and paid an average of around £50 for each of them. However, you will have to wait; they don't come up every day.
Yet another alternative is to use one of the old automatic guns, like the AF-400T or the AF-280T. Very simple to use, and worked well.
Good luck.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on my flash choices........but which one? at 29/02/2012 - 11:27
Frogfish wrote:
But I suspect you are playing with exposure during PP. If you DON'T, then I can't see how there can be any difference, bearing in mind that you end up with a JPEG anyway.George Lazarette wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="Frogfish"]
Hmmm. If the picture is properly exposed to start with, and no subsequent adjustment is made to exposure in the computer, then I don't think RAW is going to add any more detail.
But I concur that using RAW is good advice. When you don't get the exposure right first time, then RAW will be very helpful.
G
I have found there is a huge difference in the DR when shooting RAW over even the highest Jpg settings and this becomes critical when shooting e.g. backlit birds or those in bushes (in many cases there is often no choice as the birds won't oblige with their choice of branch !). It's often the difference between a keeper and trashing the shot. Of course I also advise using spot metering for the bird .... in which case RAW is often then critical to recover the background.[quote:3496ace15f="Frogfish"]
Hmmm. If the picture is properly exposed to start with, and no subsequent adjustment is made to exposure in the computer, then I don't think RAW is going to add any more detail.
But I concur that using RAW is good advice. When you don't get the exposure right first time, then RAW will be very helpful.
G
Of course, I fully agree that shooting RAW gives you far more room to manoeuvre, and is much the best way to go.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Finches at Fairburn at 28/02/2012 - 12:46
From what I have seen the K 35 1:2 is so rare that very few people have any experience of it. The 1:3.5 however, is slightly more common, and those who know it love it.
Scarcity value is a more important factor in the price of these lenses than optical quality.
G
Scarcity value is a more important factor in the price of these lenses than optical quality.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Which one should I keep? at 27/02/2012 - 22:04
Ricoh are making a bad mistake in using a non photgraphic lens trained designer(?) to design their lenses.The quality of the lenses will drop off and if Ricoh try to tell him that the lens he is proposing is not possible he will throw his toys out of the pram! Used to see this a lot when I was at work in the car industry.
He will no doubt "improve" the look of it, but so what?
These special editions are for collectors, not photographers.
G