All Forum Comments
Comment by jules posted on 24-megapixels-the-world-forgot at 08/01/2015 - 16:17
Yup! Bang on as alwas John!
It seems pretty unbiased, which is good also, I seem to remember the author being a really enthusiastic Fuji shooter...
It seems pretty unbiased, which is good also, I seem to remember the author being a really enthusiastic Fuji shooter...
Comment by jules posted on 24-megapixels-the-world-forgot at 08/01/2015 - 10:58
richandfleur wrote:
I like the message but its risky to write a review off dxo scores.
For interests sake this both makes for interesting/thought provoking reading and reassures me that my K-30 can hold its own for a few more years:
DXO link
Totally agree Richard, Tony Northrup on You-Tube seems to be making a living out of qouting DXO (Exaggeration). As you say it's a good message, if a little sloppy, the viewfinder statements bug me a little, i have to say but then I have never looked thru a D750 viewfinder either!I like the message but its risky to write a review off dxo scores.
For interests sake this both makes for interesting/thought provoking reading and reassures me that my K-30 can hold its own for a few more years:
DXO link
There still is not, nor should there ever be percieved to be anything wrong with a K30.
Comment by jules posted on 24-megapixels-the-world-forgot at 08/01/2015 - 10:19
https://fstoplounge.com/2015/01/the-24-megapixels-the-world-forgot/
I forogot but luckily I remembered again!
Enjoy!
There are a few inaccuracies however, none the less a positive article, there needs to be more like this but written by someone who has actually used all the cameras in the comparison, might be a good start???
I don't think this guy has, as always positivity tinged with sarcasm!
My new sig maybe?
I forogot but luckily I remembered again!
Enjoy!
There are a few inaccuracies however, none the less a positive article, there needs to be more like this but written by someone who has actually used all the cameras in the comparison, might be a good start???
I don't think this guy has, as always positivity tinged with sarcasm!
My new sig maybe?
Comment by jules posted on 24-megapixels-the-world-forgot at 08/01/2015 - 08:33
Post Christmas blues strike twice in one day! There are only two bits of optical kit I really want and both are up for sale here at great prices, I really hate being skint, somethings got to give this year, way too much good gear going on here at the moment! It's making me very sore! Anyway back on thread thats a great price for a smashing bit of glass!
Comment by jules posted on FS: Pentax DA 10-17 fish eye at 07/01/2015 - 21:58
Mike-P wrote:
CP+ in Japan next month .. that's the interesting one.
Yeah, where they give this camera a name and thats it! CP+ in Japan next month .. that's the interesting one.
Comment by jules posted on Pentax at CES... at 07/01/2015 - 21:54
McGregNi wrote:
Assuming they're aligned Jules, why not just process them individually in Adobe Camera RAW (I use the free CS2 version of Photoshop), optimise each one for the particular areas that they are exposed for (eg sky, or ground, or shadows etc) .... then save as TIFFs and load into Photoshop as separate layers. Then using masks you can hide or reveal the appropriate bits of each to create a combined (blended) final version.
Very small alignment problems shouldn't matter with this method, depending on the subject matter (eg landscapes are usually fairly easy to 'fudge' if need be).
If you do find an HDR programme, you could load the TIFFs into that and see if can do better. Photomatix will take RAW files directly, but some others may not. And this type of software will most likely have alignment options as its designed to combine multiple files.
Sorry Nigel don't have photoshop, simply can't afford it and frankly thought I'd never need it again, so ditched all my old copies, I'll seek out some software from somewhere, I usually shoot em on a tripod so the aligmment is not a problem, photomatix does sound good, I'm pretty sure I tried it once before, I'll take a look about, I've watched some vids recently on you-tube by a guy from new zealand who shoots pretty much nothing else and some of them are amazing, HDR to me is only any good if it doesn't look HDR...Assuming they're aligned Jules, why not just process them individually in Adobe Camera RAW (I use the free CS2 version of Photoshop), optimise each one for the particular areas that they are exposed for (eg sky, or ground, or shadows etc) .... then save as TIFFs and load into Photoshop as separate layers. Then using masks you can hide or reveal the appropriate bits of each to create a combined (blended) final version.
Very small alignment problems shouldn't matter with this method, depending on the subject matter (eg landscapes are usually fairly easy to 'fudge' if need be).
If you do find an HDR programme, you could load the TIFFs into that and see if can do better. Photomatix will take RAW files directly, but some others may not. And this type of software will most likely have alignment options as its designed to combine multiple files.
Trey Ratcliff, thats him...
Kinda what I thought too really John, so it's not quite a complete feature in reality, the RAW's are fine and dandy but only if you can write all three to a single TIFF/RAW in camera or something like that, and your photo editor then reads them as such, theres not much point in using the in camera HDR if Photomatix can do the job on it's own, thought I was missing something, and you could save em to a single TIFF file for editing later but it seems not. Ho hum...
K3 is not perfect any more Bwahhhhh!
K3 is not perfect any more Bwahhhhh!
"The K-3’s HDR (High Dynamic Range) function takes a set of three images at three different exposure levels, then picks properly exposed areas from the original set to synthesize a single, wide-gradation image. Since the K-3 automatically compensates for slight misalignment of the composition among the original images,** you can take advantage of this convenient function even during handheld shooting. You can also save the original images in the RAW format,. Since you can store them as a single RAW-format file, you can easily locate them for subsequent data redevelopments."
Just need to know how to stop my software splitting em back up, or get something that is happy to read em as a single file, just not Photoshop...
Just need to know how to stop my software splitting em back up, or get something that is happy to read em as a single file, just not Photoshop...
Want to have a go at this but will need some software to make it a goer, I think?
From what I can make out the three RAWS in an HDR are written to one file or three with one header?
Lightroom splits em back into three, does DCU work better with these HDR files or is there anything better (And disgustingly cheap!) out there? Can't stretch to the full photoshop package and even though it's only nine quid I cannot even stretch to the adobe subs (Just don't ask!) So is there anything out there that'll save em as one file proper so I can work on em in DXO or Lightroom, afterwards? Now I may have got totally the wrong end of the stick here with this but any help pointing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated! Never really been that fussed with HDR but want to do some experimenting this year with different looks etc, and this will be part of it if I can only get my poor little brain around it...
From what I can make out the three RAWS in an HDR are written to one file or three with one header?
Lightroom splits em back into three, does DCU work better with these HDR files or is there anything better (And disgustingly cheap!) out there? Can't stretch to the full photoshop package and even though it's only nine quid I cannot even stretch to the adobe subs (Just don't ask!) So is there anything out there that'll save em as one file proper so I can work on em in DXO or Lightroom, afterwards? Now I may have got totally the wrong end of the stick here with this but any help pointing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated! Never really been that fussed with HDR but want to do some experimenting this year with different looks etc, and this will be part of it if I can only get my poor little brain around it...
The *istD was never a consumer grade camera Nigel.
I wonder when a professional grade camera becomes consumer grade. After time even the most basic entry cameras overtake the so called "professional" spec bodies, no matter what the make.