All Forum Comments
Comment by JAK posted on Rumoured announcement of several new DSLRs at 14/03/2013 - 11:22
Well it was approx 18 months ago that Ricoh took over the helm, and if I remember correctly the thought then was it would take a couple of years for new products to appear from the new regime.
I know we've had some new products in the meantime but nothing truly new and special in the DSLR range, really just some tweaks, perhaps to test the water and the technology. Given the original intention I'd expect the second anniversary to formally make a new range available; so hopefully an announcement is imminent.
*** Purely speculation ***
John K
I know we've had some new products in the meantime but nothing truly new and special in the DSLR range, really just some tweaks, perhaps to test the water and the technology. Given the original intention I'd expect the second anniversary to formally make a new range available; so hopefully an announcement is imminent.
*** Purely speculation ***
John K
Comment by JAK posted on Rumoured announcement of several new DSLRs at 13/03/2013 - 19:47
I'll re-ask a question that I asked a little while ago but do not think it was answered.
I used to belong a Camera Club, some will have heard of it - The Ilford Photographic Society - that's Ilford the place, not the company of the same name even though it did have its HQ in Ilford, Essex!
We used to have both slide and print competitions regularly and an annual open competition which attracted entries from around the world.
Do I presume clubs no longer hold print and slide competitions and now only have a digital class? If that is the case I can see why some who have not embraced digital would certainly feel like they are on the scrap heap as JR describes.
John K
I used to belong a Camera Club, some will have heard of it - The Ilford Photographic Society - that's Ilford the place, not the company of the same name even though it did have its HQ in Ilford, Essex!
We used to have both slide and print competitions regularly and an annual open competition which attracted entries from around the world.
Do I presume clubs no longer hold print and slide competitions and now only have a digital class? If that is the case I can see why some who have not embraced digital would certainly feel like they are on the scrap heap as JR describes.
John K
Comment by JAK posted on Is photoshop ruining photography at 13/03/2013 - 00:31
In that competition they stated the integrity of the subject must be maintained and the making of physical changes to the landscape is not permitted (removing fences, moving trees, stripping in sky from another image etc).
I wonder how they would have considered a fish-eye photo? A fish-eye lens can drastically distort the physical appearance of the landscape, even the non-fisheye, rectilinear Sigma at 8mm does produce some odd effects stretching the edges somewhat. These lenses certainly do physically change the landscape without any PP applied.
John K
I wonder how they would have considered a fish-eye photo? A fish-eye lens can drastically distort the physical appearance of the landscape, even the non-fisheye, rectilinear Sigma at 8mm does produce some odd effects stretching the edges somewhat. These lenses certainly do physically change the landscape without any PP applied.
John K
Comment by JAK posted on Is photoshop ruining photography at 12/03/2013 - 23:29
Quote:
will it happen? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I'm sure they're not going to sit there and do nothing.will it happen? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
John K
Comment by JAK posted on Rumoured announcement of several new DSLRs at 12/03/2013 - 23:18
johnriley wrote:
So when I was in the darkroom and added skies that weren'y there, dodged, burned, combined negatives...was it wrong?
If it was, then that can be consistent with the argument that too much Photoshop is wrong.
If it wasn't, then all Photoshop does is the same. It's even based on darkroom work in its terminology. In this case, it makes no difference.
They're just the things many photographic handbooks taught one to do!So when I was in the darkroom and added skies that weren'y there, dodged, burned, combined negatives...was it wrong?
If it was, then that can be consistent with the argument that too much Photoshop is wrong.
If it wasn't, then all Photoshop does is the same. It's even based on darkroom work in its terminology. In this case, it makes no difference.
Should one be producing, say, a postcard for sale, would it be better to have the image as is, or would it be better to have the scene cleaned up somewhat, ie without the litter and a decent sky to make the place look inviting. Which image would the publisher go for? If to promote the place then the tidied up version. If for a series of photos to show how badly the councils are at dealing with litter then more likely the one as taken, maybe with even some more Photoshopped (or Serifed) in!
John K
Comment by JAK posted on Is photoshop ruining photography at 12/03/2013 - 19:40
wvbarnes wrote:
Possibly.
I can not afford Photoshop so get a bit annoyed when asked if I've 'Photoshopped' my pictures to fake people in them etc. I assume the expression is like getting the 'hoover' out to clean the floor.
I use Serif PhotoPlus and usually crop, correct contrast and somtimes pull shadows if I mess up. Mostly I try to get it right at time which is easier given I have an amazing Pentax DSLR, preview screen, histograms etc that I never had in the film era.#
Actually, Serif PhotoPlus is pretty well a clone of Photoshop Elements, sharing many of the same menu options and function key shortcuts. I have PSE 11 and Serif PP X5 and it is quite easy to use the Serif program instead of PSE as they both work practically the same. Certainly in regards to using layers sand filters.Possibly.
I can not afford Photoshop so get a bit annoyed when asked if I've 'Photoshopped' my pictures to fake people in them etc. I assume the expression is like getting the 'hoover' out to clean the floor.
I use Serif PhotoPlus and usually crop, correct contrast and somtimes pull shadows if I mess up. Mostly I try to get it right at time which is easier given I have an amazing Pentax DSLR, preview screen, histograms etc that I never had in the film era.#
John K
Comment by JAK posted on Is photoshop ruining photography at 12/03/2013 - 19:31
Flat batteries?
Was the mirror up when you found it, if so there may have been an issue with it which caused your uncle to put it in the loft to sort out later, but that never happened. I take it your uncle isn't around to ask?
John K
Was the mirror up when you found it, if so there may have been an issue with it which caused your uncle to put it in the loft to sort out later, but that never happened. I take it your uncle isn't around to ask?
John K
Comment by JAK posted on ME Super stuck. at 12/03/2013 - 19:14
I think this is the official page showing the terms and conditions: link
Quote:
Digital adjustments, including High Dynamic Range (HDR) imaging techniques and the joining together of multiple frames, are allowed in all categories. However, for images entered in Classic view, Living the view and Urban view, the integrity of the subject must be maintained and the making of physical changes to the landscape is not permitted (removing fences, moving trees, stripping in sky from another image etc). The organisers reserve the right to disqualify any image that they feel lacks authenticity due to over-manipulation.
Digital adjustments, including High Dynamic Range (HDR) imaging techniques and the joining together of multiple frames, are allowed in all categories. However, for images entered in Classic view, Living the view and Urban view, the integrity of the subject must be maintained and the making of physical changes to the landscape is not permitted (removing fences, moving trees, stripping in sky from another image etc). The organisers reserve the right to disqualify any image that they feel lacks authenticity due to over-manipulation.
Comment by JAK posted on Is photoshop ruining photography at 12/03/2013 - 14:13
Yes, they would be optically similar.
Comment by JAK posted on Opinions Please Pentax A 24mm f2.8 at 12/03/2013 - 11:30
John K