Hi Matt,

thanks for the explanation. As always, when explained by some one who knows what they're on about, it makes perfect sense. So in reality, it is almost like choosing a film for a particular look.. for instance I used to use Fuji for it's greens, and Kodak Ektar (iso 25) for accurate colour rendition for landscapes etc.

Hi Don,

I'm at work at the moment, but I'll see what I can dig up about it later on. I do remember one of the sourceforge pages (Google that, plus any extra detail to find the open source stuff) mentioning something about a whole film being animated using a GIMPesque app recently. I'll see what I can find out for you.

http://www.cinepaint.org/

is the homepage, but I guess you've seen it already. I had a very quick scan, and I think you may need to download the GTK runtime environment to use it, as with GIMP. This is (IIRC) because it is designed to run on a Linux platform, rather than Windows. Not sure about Mac though. I'll find it all out later for you..

Cheers

Liam

Hi Matt,

good review. Never having had to do any serious workflow with RAW, most of the points are ones I'd never have known I'd need to consider. I've toyed with RAW files of course, and I did do a birthday party shoot in RAW, just to make sure that I'd have a wide margin of error if needed, and for that I used RSE to convert.

So in conclusion, UFRaw is basically a good idea in principal, but not really any use for the pro, or serious amateur. :

I didn't understand this one..

"It's interesting that it supports input and output profiles"

though, (not didn't understand why you made the comment, BTW, just don't know what input/output profiles are exactly).

Re GNU apps, I'm just trying out any that I come across, because I can try for free. That doesn't mean that I'm tight with buying software (no really) , but if I can find a free app that does what it says on the tin, I'll use it.. GIMP being every bit as good as it purports to be, has probably made me see others with rose tinted specs to some extent.

Anyway, better go and earn a crust now.

Cheers

Liam

Hi Matt, and Pygmy,

as you know (probably) I use GIMP for my editing, and although I'm trying out RSE, on the odd occasion that I shoot RAW, I've also used UFRaw, (which uses dcRAW also). There's a new version out now. If either of you have the time, would you like to check it out. It's free, and I don't expect it to compete with Phase One necessarily, but as it is free, it might be useful if someone wanted to get unlimited practice at RAW workflows, before deciding to purchase one of the others, or it may even be good enough as it is???

I find it quite intuitive, and as it's a standalone product, the files can be exported to PS, GIMP (it's a GIMP plugin) or whatever you use for editing.

On the above link there is some technical info and various links to more technical info.. etc. As it's open source, perhaps you may even be able to spot improvements that could be made Matt, as I know you can do that sort of stuff.

There's also GIMPShop, which is a version of GIMP, that is meant to look and "feel more user friendly" to users that have had previous experience of PhotoShop.. again a freebie. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at that as well.. time allowing of course.

Cheers

Liam

Hi niblue,

I seem to remember that most AF TCs really only work accurately below f4, which would explain the problems at the longer zoom ranges.. unless you have a fixed app lens, in which case ignore that..

Cheers

Liam

Hi Niblue,

it is a sombre place indeed, and I think the smaller cemeteries were probably more so. By the time we saw the one at Passchendaele, where I took the upper picture, it seemed less personal somehow, with there being some 12000 headstones. The smaller cemeteries still retained that bit of individuality for the dead.. if you know what I mean.

I'm starting to like the effect of the stark red against the B&W background, the more I see the cross above. I'm not sure of the second one so much. I went there a couple of days ago, so there is some significance for me, but as a picture for a general audience, it lacks something. The first one, I think (IMHO) can stand on it's own two feet as a picture. I'd like some input on whether I could have done a better job of it though, if you'd like to critique it. It comes out darker and more contrasty on the monitor (TFT) at work, and if anything improves it, so I may have another go.. and I need to get a couple more shades of red reintroduced into it, as the poppies don't stand out as much as I would like.

I'll play later.

Cheers

Liam

Hi all,

We had the chance, it being the 90th aniversary of the Battle of the Somme, to visit Ypres in Belgium yesterday. I've taken lots of photos, mainly of the various war graves; and although they aren't that bad, as full colour jpgs, they don't do the mood of either the place or the event justice.

I thought I'd try something a little different to what I've seen here in the past. It's not a new idea by any means, but hopefully these serve to pay homage to the casualties of both sides of the conflict, and convey something greater than just a photo.

With this in mind, as the actual soldiers on all sides were just young men conscripted into battle, I have used an image from both an Allied and a German war cemetary. I hope they convey something of the mood of both the casualties of war, and the tributes still being laid on their graves 90 years on.

The Allied Cemetery: Tyne Cot




The German Cemetery: Langemark




Cheers

Liam

Hi,

Kenko make AF tubes with a Pentax fit, but to be honest, if you are going to be doing any serious macro work, then you will probably find that you'll get more accurate results manually focussing. I've taken shots where the depth of field is less than 1/10 mm, although that's at around 5x magnification.

Autofocus is pretty accurate with the pentax lenses that I've used in the big world, but I doubt you'll be that accurate at any sort of macro scale of magnification.. ie anything greater than 1:1.

You might also want to think about a true AF macro lens. I know there are folks here that swear by the PENTAX FA 100mm f3.5 macro lens, but as you can see here..

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/PENTAX-FA-100mm-f3-5-MACRO-SMC-LENS-PZ-MZ-ist-DL-USED_W0QQ...

you're looking at some serious money, even second hand. No doubt someone will give you more info on the above lens, but as I said, you will probably get more accurate results with manual focussing.

Hope that helps,

Cheers

Liam

Thanks John,

unless I'm doing something specific ie. portraits or macro, I generally only use the 18-55 or the 100-300 myself at the moment. I definitely haven't noticed any of the problems that people have mentioned here before now, so I guess I got a good'un..

Cheers

Liam

Hi all,

I thought I'd see what the 18-55 could do close up, yesterday morning. They're obviously not going to be macro, but these seem to have come out pretty well. I've altered the levels and saturation slightly, and sharpened them up a touch, but all four are uncropped and do what I asked of the lens.

I wish I'd noticed, and removed, the seeded grass to the right of the spider though. Still, something else to file away for the next time.



Pentax ist* DL | 18-55 DA (at 55mm) | Iso 200 | F8 @ 1/125 sec



Pentax ist* DL | 18-55 DA (at 55mm) | Iso 200 | F8 @ 1/60 sec



Pentax ist* DL | 18-55 DA (at 55mm) | Iso 200 | F8 @ 1/125 sec



Pentax ist* DL | 18-55 DA (at 55mm) | Iso 200 | F8 @ 1/125 sec

I'll try it with an extension tube sometime, and see what happens.

Cheers

Liam

You're welcome Ken, post up an image or two once you've been out and about..

Cheers

Liam