All Forum Comments
Comment by K10D posted on First serious HDR attempt at 18/10/2009 - 03:13
Most welcome and always happy to se new members.
Regards
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on newbie form scotland at 18/10/2009 - 03:07
rlebleu wrote:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
Dick
Yes, that is a good site. I printed the article yesterday afternoon as I was very busy at work....Quote:
I only just heard of ETTR yesterday and even had to google what the acronym stood for.
So lemme get this straight, ETTR is basically exposing as bright as possible ( without clipping ) and then adjusting brightness in post processing ????
This was the first place I learned about ettr, and it is still the best explanation I have encountered:I only just heard of ETTR yesterday and even had to google what the acronym stood for.
So lemme get this straight, ETTR is basically exposing as bright as possible ( without clipping ) and then adjusting brightness in post processing ????
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
Dick
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Yet more on ETTR with a Pentax K20 at 18/10/2009 - 03:05
Mike-P wrote:
A fellow Mk1 Sigma 70-200mm user.....I'm impressed.Greytop wrote:
Was the 100-300mm DG EX f4 new Mike? I can see why your bank balance is taking a hit
Mind you everything I have read about this lens seems very positive. Shame it's not weather sealed... having said that I might be temped to pull the trigger on one at some point
Nope, £580 off Ebay ... immaculate condition and came boxed with a Hoya Pro UV filter. I have been after one ever since I got the MKI Sigma 70-200mm APO EX f2.8 which is a fabulous lens. The idea is that if the 100-300mm works well with the Sigma 1.4x DG EX teleconverter then I can sell the Bigma, the Pentax F* 300mm f4.5 and possibly (although I doubt it) the Pentax DA* 60-250mm f4Was the 100-300mm DG EX f4 new Mike? I can see why your bank balance is taking a hit
Mind you everything I have read about this lens seems very positive. Shame it's not weather sealed... having said that I might be temped to pull the trigger on one at some point
Mine is soldered in place.
Wax Oil works a treat against weather. If its good enough for Lada's, it OK by me.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Sigma 50-150mm HSM II DC EX f2.8 at 17/10/2009 - 18:08
When it says gas mark five for 45 mins, do I half that time for a small tin of beans?
Comment by K10D posted on Useless topic at 17/10/2009 - 14:19
George Lazarette wrote:
APS-C has certainly come on a long way since earnest experts were saying on DPReview that sensors larger than 6MP were not technically feasible.
G
I think as usual, the consumer is at the bottom of the list. Satellite imaging sensors are considerably larger (huge) compared to our "off cut" sizes. The limiting factor for us is cost. Military budgets are open ended.APS-C has certainly come on a long way since earnest experts were saying on DPReview that sensors larger than 6MP were not technically feasible.
G
My wife thinks my "kit" budget is open ended!!
I have a code of practise, I spend X, wife can spend X + brownie points percentage.
Seems to worked to date..
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Even the 31mm Ltd may not be up to the optical challenge? at 17/10/2009 - 13:44
The US was intended to mean those Pentax users that were hoping for a FF DSLR. It looks more and more like it will not materialise.
Agree over the lens issue, but had a Pentax FF been available and "new" glass to match, I would invest.
My 35mm glass was all bought for film bodies. I never bought 35mm glass for Pentax digital bodies so I have no complaint in that area. That said, I bought the 10-17mm and the 16-50mm.
I still think its a pity that we won't get FF. If the APS C is good enough,why bother with 645? I'll answer that.
The rule still stands that bigger native images, film or digital, capture more information and detail. I read that larger sensors also produce less noise.
Agree with Richard about fewer new lenses as well, there will also be a lot fewer users of the 645D if the original lenses don't cut it.
I think it's a more risky move getting back into medium format with digital for Pentax, as an aweful lot of 645 film users have already migrated to other brands with digital, medium format.
I have to assume that most medium format users want nothing but total quality at the prices they pay.
With reference to the link and the 31mm, it is a probable that although it is said to be one of Pentax's finest lenses, it may still not be up to the task of FF digital.
So no more wishfull thinking of Pentax FF from me or rants/raves, I'll keep using my APS C bodies.
Regards
Agree over the lens issue, but had a Pentax FF been available and "new" glass to match, I would invest.
My 35mm glass was all bought for film bodies. I never bought 35mm glass for Pentax digital bodies so I have no complaint in that area. That said, I bought the 10-17mm and the 16-50mm.
I still think its a pity that we won't get FF. If the APS C is good enough,why bother with 645? I'll answer that.
The rule still stands that bigger native images, film or digital, capture more information and detail. I read that larger sensors also produce less noise.
Agree with Richard about fewer new lenses as well, there will also be a lot fewer users of the 645D if the original lenses don't cut it.
I think it's a more risky move getting back into medium format with digital for Pentax, as an aweful lot of 645 film users have already migrated to other brands with digital, medium format.
I have to assume that most medium format users want nothing but total quality at the prices they pay.
With reference to the link and the 31mm, it is a probable that although it is said to be one of Pentax's finest lenses, it may still not be up to the task of FF digital.
So no more wishfull thinking of Pentax FF from me or rants/raves, I'll keep using my APS C bodies.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Even the 31mm Ltd may not be up to the optical challenge? at 17/10/2009 - 12:14
George Lazarette wrote:
I may be missing something (again), but surely all this chap is saying is that the meter tends to under-expose, so it's best to use some exposure compensation.
Making sure you capture the bright parts properly is surely pretty blooming obvious.
My camera is almost permanently set to Plus 0.7, though I may alter it depending on the scene.
G
George, I agree. I only heard of ETTR a little while back and it sort of made less sense to me as I shoot JPG's.I may be missing something (again), but surely all this chap is saying is that the meter tends to under-expose, so it's best to use some exposure compensation.
Making sure you capture the bright parts properly is surely pretty blooming obvious.
My camera is almost permanently set to Plus 0.7, though I may alter it depending on the scene.
G
I will shoot 500 to 1500 shots at a golf match. So if they were shot in RAW I would still be processing images from last year. Speed and less desk time is for me else I won't do it.
Just before some one jumps in to say better quality is available from RAW. I agree, but only have whats left of this lifetime and to date I have never yet had some one technically criticise an image.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Yet more on ETTR with a Pentax K20 at 17/10/2009 - 11:18
Reading some comments which are relative to us wanting a FF Pentax and why it probably will never be. Bit off really as Pentax will make new glass for the 645D or will they?
link
I am beginning to think that wishful thinking and procrastination has no part in photography.
Regards
link
I am beginning to think that wishful thinking and procrastination has no part in photography.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Even the 31mm Ltd may not be up to the optical challenge? at 17/10/2009 - 11:08
Comment by K10D posted on Yet more on ETTR with a Pentax K20 at 17/10/2009 - 09:25
link
This one is Russian.
link
Regards