All Forum Comments
Comment by MattMatic posted on Pixel Peeping at 07/11/2008 - 17:06
Quote:
The first example, though, I do find a bit cheeky.
Absolutely The first example, though, I do find a bit cheeky.
I'm just showing what can be done Often times you just have an annoying little piece of leaf or debris that is out of character. Rather than painstakingly cloning it out you can often find this color-layer technique works perfectly and takes all of 10 seconds
Thanks for the other comments folks... my head won't get through the door now!
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on A tricky edit at 07/11/2008 - 09:20
Not a bad edit Terry... but there's still some artifacts left
Here's a couple of suggestions:
FIRST METHOD:
1. Create a new layer
2. Change layer blend mode to "Color"
3. Use the brush tool at 50% opacity.
4. Alt-click on the green colour and paint over the branch.
Often this is the quickest way to take the eye away from the distraction
A sample image - although used to an extreme!
SECOND METHOD:
To clone it out properly try:
1) Duplicate the layer (I like to keep the original for comparison)
2) Pick the Stamp tool, 50% opacity and just sample and click over the branches. Go for a reasonable job but not too much. Just aim to reduce the overall impact
3) Now use the Patch tool (or similar) to gradually bring back the real texture.
By mixing the Stamp & Patch/Healing brush you can create a very convincing, artifact free clone
Here's one I prepared earlier
For both image examples, hover over the [ 1 ] and [ 2 ] by the VERSIONS label to see the before and after. Larger 1000 pixel versions are available by clicking on the image. To see the before large-size, click on the [ 2 ] and then click on the image.
Matt
Here's a couple of suggestions:
FIRST METHOD:
1. Create a new layer
2. Change layer blend mode to "Color"
3. Use the brush tool at 50% opacity.
4. Alt-click on the green colour and paint over the branch.
Often this is the quickest way to take the eye away from the distraction
A sample image - although used to an extreme!
SECOND METHOD:
To clone it out properly try:
1) Duplicate the layer (I like to keep the original for comparison)
2) Pick the Stamp tool, 50% opacity and just sample and click over the branches. Go for a reasonable job but not too much. Just aim to reduce the overall impact
3) Now use the Patch tool (or similar) to gradually bring back the real texture.
By mixing the Stamp & Patch/Healing brush you can create a very convincing, artifact free clone
Here's one I prepared earlier
For both image examples, hover over the [ 1 ] and [ 2 ] by the VERSIONS label to see the before and after. Larger 1000 pixel versions are available by clicking on the image. To see the before large-size, click on the [ 2 ] and then click on the image.
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on A tricky edit at 07/11/2008 - 06:51
Quote:
you really shouldn't have to
Granted you really shouldn't have to
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Flash which one. at 06/11/2008 - 14:54
ROFL!!
Careful - you'll be getting Canonikonitis
Matt
Careful - you'll be getting Canonikonitis
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Is 300mm much better that 200mm? at 06/11/2008 - 12:08
Comment by MattMatic posted on Video Tutorial. Where to find. Please Add Yours.... at 06/11/2008 - 12:07
Quote:
What does matter though is that Pentax is a business and therefore will not tolerate falling sales for ever, so will one day decide enoughs enough, and cease dSLR production?
Don't think it's that simple... Pentax has always been low in the stakes when it comes to dSLR. If they took that view, then why bother to make anything?? Why bother to bring out new models?What does matter though is that Pentax is a business and therefore will not tolerate falling sales for ever, so will one day decide enoughs enough, and cease dSLR production?
Quote:
it will soon become out of date and obsolete
Only if you want the latest and greatest (read: most expensive). it will soon become out of date and obsolete
I can still take drop-dead-gorgeous images with my *ist-D. And that is positively ancient on the dSLR run.
And even if Pentax ceased production there'll still be companies who repair and maintain the gear.
Out of date certainly does not mean useless. I use an aging Nokia 6100 for example (that I recently repaired thanks to finding the service manual online ). Does the job perfectly and it's reliable.
But if I absolutely had to switch... might be a Nikon D300... maybe something else. Pretty sure it wouldn't be Canon for me because I just don't get on with the UI. Nikon is close... but Pentax is near perfect for me
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on If not Pentax....What ? at 06/11/2008 - 12:06
The SMC-FA 80-320 is a fine lens and can be had quite cheaply.
However, the SMC-DA 55-300 is apparently sharper, and more compact (because it's for digital).
Just don't get me started on the N word
When comparing against your Panasonic - don't forget that the sensor is minuscule in comparison to a DSLR, and consequently the lenses can be smaller and cheaper Large, bright, fast lenses are very heavy, expensive items... but lovely to use. The 55-300 is a fine lens indeed
Why don't you check out some of the sample images on the web. For example, www.pbase.com has a search facility where you can search by make & lens. (But there's a wide variety of skills on Pbase!)
HTH!
Matt
However, the SMC-DA 55-300 is apparently sharper, and more compact (because it's for digital).
Quote:
and a person who has outsold the Bible knows a thing or two.
Huh?! Estimated Bible distribution to date stands at an estimated 7.5 billion copies. Pretty sure JK hasn't sold quite that many and a person who has outsold the Bible knows a thing or two.
Quote:
Fear of the name only increases fear of the thing itself
Quite agree. I have no problem saying C..., Can.... I mean, aghh, Canon! There! Said it Fear of the name only increases fear of the thing itself
Just don't get me started on the N word
When comparing against your Panasonic - don't forget that the sensor is minuscule in comparison to a DSLR, and consequently the lenses can be smaller and cheaper Large, bright, fast lenses are very heavy, expensive items... but lovely to use. The 55-300 is a fine lens indeed
Why don't you check out some of the sample images on the web. For example, www.pbase.com has a search facility where you can search by make & lens. (But there's a wide variety of skills on Pbase!)
HTH!
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Is 300mm much better that 200mm? at 06/11/2008 - 09:47
Quote:
And they can't get stuck on the hot shoe like the Pentax AF540 sometimes does.
Easily fixed.And they can't get stuck on the hot shoe like the Pentax AF540 sometimes does.
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Flash which one. at 06/11/2008 - 06:35
I use three
And three 2Gb ones as well.
The MicroMate reader is unbelievably fast too
Matt
And three 2Gb ones as well.
The MicroMate reader is unbelievably fast too
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on SD & SDHC Memory Cards at 05/11/2008 - 18:26
It's to do with the bayer matrix in front of the CCD.
That's where RAW conversion software image quality varies - the algorithms they use to rebuild the full colour image are different, and the results can vary wildly! Certainly ACR and LR1 produced images with a lot of impulse noise (which makes them look "sharper" until you pixel peep). LR2 may be different. C1 was better, and SPDS3 better still
The "moan" in the reviews about Pentax being soft was prior to the K20D, and only with regard to in-camera JPGs. In fact, if you check out even Depressing Review's comments on the K10D vs K20D they note how much detail you can pull out in RAW.
As John says, shooting in RAW give you ultimate control, and shooting in JPG - well Pentax take the softly-softly approach (excuse the pun) to allow for better control in post-processing.
HTH!
Matt