All Forum Comments
Comment by MattMatic posted on Image size? at 29/12/2003 - 23:37
Ahhh, now I understand
When you save a JPG, there are two issues: 1) size, 2) compression.
Obviously you have no choice about the size - that's 70x70 pixels.
However, when you save as JPG, there's a quality setting - the higher the number, the larger the file and the fewer "artifacts". So, you need to choose "Baseline standard", and choose a low number (like 4 or 5). As you go for a lower number, the file size decreases, but the image goes a bit "dish watery" (for want of a better expression) - especially when there are areas of high contrast.
You see, a very compressed, small JPG may actually be very large in size, and vice-versa. I have images that are 60 mega bytes in memory that only take up 200k on disk (because they have been compressed highly).
To make life much easier, there is the "Save for Web" option in Photoshop. There you can choose JPG, and choose from default compression options (or choose default ones). Very helpfully, PS shows the preview on the right hand side (so you can see the artifacts), and also the size in bytes That way you can fine-tune the image output, and is definitely the way to get beautiful web images.
Hope that makes some sense!
(These subjects are covered very well in the Adobe Classroom books )
Perhaps if you let me know your PS version, I can point you in the direction of some online tutorials or books...
Matt
When you save a JPG, there are two issues: 1) size, 2) compression.
Obviously you have no choice about the size - that's 70x70 pixels.
However, when you save as JPG, there's a quality setting - the higher the number, the larger the file and the fewer "artifacts". So, you need to choose "Baseline standard", and choose a low number (like 4 or 5). As you go for a lower number, the file size decreases, but the image goes a bit "dish watery" (for want of a better expression) - especially when there are areas of high contrast.
You see, a very compressed, small JPG may actually be very large in size, and vice-versa. I have images that are 60 mega bytes in memory that only take up 200k on disk (because they have been compressed highly).
To make life much easier, there is the "Save for Web" option in Photoshop. There you can choose JPG, and choose from default compression options (or choose default ones). Very helpfully, PS shows the preview on the right hand side (so you can see the artifacts), and also the size in bytes That way you can fine-tune the image output, and is definitely the way to get beautiful web images.
Hope that makes some sense!
(These subjects are covered very well in the Adobe Classroom books )
Perhaps if you let me know your PS version, I can point you in the direction of some online tutorials or books...
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Image size? at 29/12/2003 - 16:22
Ava,
Photoshop can resize your image to any size, even a single pixel square Image size and compression are two completely different factors. You didn't say which version of Photoshop you are using, but here's the general idea...
Load your image in Photoshop. Select "Image", "Image Size" and change the dimensions to pixels. Set the width to, say, 100. Click OK.
(You may need to use the Zoom tool, right click the image, and select "Actual Pixels" to see the result proper.)
Having done this you can add some unsharp mask to sharpen it up a bit - Filter, Sharpen, Unsharp Mask..., select 100%, Radius 0.7, Threshold 2 and click OK.
I think it might be worth your while investing in one the Adobe Classroom books on Photoshop (resizing the image is really basic stuff).
Hope that helps,
Matt
Photoshop can resize your image to any size, even a single pixel square Image size and compression are two completely different factors. You didn't say which version of Photoshop you are using, but here's the general idea...
Load your image in Photoshop. Select "Image", "Image Size" and change the dimensions to pixels. Set the width to, say, 100. Click OK.
(You may need to use the Zoom tool, right click the image, and select "Actual Pixels" to see the result proper.)
Having done this you can add some unsharp mask to sharpen it up a bit - Filter, Sharpen, Unsharp Mask..., select 100%, Radius 0.7, Threshold 2 and click OK.
I think it might be worth your while investing in one the Adobe Classroom books on Photoshop (resizing the image is really basic stuff).
Hope that helps,
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Image size? at 29/12/2003 - 07:38
Kevin,
An update... there's a workaround to get the "A" mode on the AF360FGZ, but I am not sure if rear curtain sync was properly enabled. Give it a try:
1. Power off the *istD and power up the AF360
2. Use the mode button on the AF360 to select "A"
3. Power up the *istD
As long as you don't touch the mode button, the AF360 stays in auto, and does not fire a pre-flash.
Let me know if this works
Matt
An update... there's a workaround to get the "A" mode on the AF360FGZ, but I am not sure if rear curtain sync was properly enabled. Give it a try:
1. Power off the *istD and power up the AF360
2. Use the mode button on the AF360 to select "A"
3. Power up the *istD
As long as you don't touch the mode button, the AF360 stays in auto, and does not fire a pre-flash.
Let me know if this works
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on istD AF-360fgz rear curtain sync at 30/12/2003 - 22:16
Kevin,
I don't have the opportunity to try this out at the moment but...
P-TTL mode will only work when the camera has control of the aperture. On page 93, you see the AF360FGZ can be used in TTL mode - with a note 2: "When a lens used in position other than aperture A" (but remember you will also need to enable the custom function "F-stop other than A" otherwise the shutter will not fire).
Maybe, if you force the aperture with the thumb wheel, or better still, set aperture priority or manual, the P-TTL mode will automatically be disabled.
(If I get the chance, I'll try it out in the next few days and let you know).
Matt
I don't have the opportunity to try this out at the moment but...
P-TTL mode will only work when the camera has control of the aperture. On page 93, you see the AF360FGZ can be used in TTL mode - with a note 2: "When a lens used in position other than aperture A" (but remember you will also need to enable the custom function "F-stop other than A" otherwise the shutter will not fire).
Maybe, if you force the aperture with the thumb wheel, or better still, set aperture priority or manual, the P-TTL mode will automatically be disabled.
(If I get the chance, I'll try it out in the next few days and let you know).
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on istD AF-360fgz rear curtain sync at 30/12/2003 - 07:01
Hi Shotgun,
Wonder no more...
All manuals are available for download here:
http://www.pentaxusa.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6
Enjoy!
Matt
Wonder no more...
All manuals are available for download here:
http://www.pentaxusa.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6
Enjoy!
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on For those who own both AF500FTZ and AF360FGZ at 24/12/2003 - 07:14
Hi CS Ong,
No - no adaptor possible It has to be made for Pentax.
The only "odd" one out is a Tamron lense that always requires a camera adapter, so you could buy a second hand Tamron lense with a Nikon adapter, throw away the adaptor, and buy a Pentax adaptor.
Hope you find something
Matt
No - no adaptor possible It has to be made for Pentax.
The only "odd" one out is a Tamron lense that always requires a camera adapter, so you could buy a second hand Tamron lense with a Nikon adapter, throw away the adaptor, and buy a Pentax adaptor.
Hope you find something
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Super wide angle lens for Pentax Z-1 at 29/12/2003 - 07:47
Hi CS Ong!
I have the Z1, and bought an older Tokina 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 wide angle lense. I bought the older version as it had a 72mm filter to match the other two lenses I already had. It is very solidly built, all metal, and performs very well indeed. Distortion is perfectly acceptable.
Tokina currently do a 19-35mm lense, which I understand is very good too. There is also the Tokina AT-X 20-35mm f2.8 which stands out as a very good lense, but around £350 second hand.
Overall I am very pleased with the Tokinas - they are sharp, have little distortion, are a bit on the "cool" side, and are solidly built for heavy use.
As to what you should get, it depends on your needs and budget. Probably the cheapest lense in that range is the Cosina (but you really do get what you pay for ) Obviously, the Pentax lenses are going to be really good bits of glass, but you'll pay a lot for that angle.
It is worth noting, though, that Sigma have just released a new lense (aimed at the digital market, but a lense that should be fine on film too) - a 12-24mm. Now that's wide The price is quite high though, at £570 srp.
It is worth hunting around the second hand places where you live to see if there is anything. If you are in the UK, I can suggest a number of on-line links for dealers who have been helpful.
Hope that helps
Matt
I have the Z1, and bought an older Tokina 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 wide angle lense. I bought the older version as it had a 72mm filter to match the other two lenses I already had. It is very solidly built, all metal, and performs very well indeed. Distortion is perfectly acceptable.
Tokina currently do a 19-35mm lense, which I understand is very good too. There is also the Tokina AT-X 20-35mm f2.8 which stands out as a very good lense, but around £350 second hand.
Overall I am very pleased with the Tokinas - they are sharp, have little distortion, are a bit on the "cool" side, and are solidly built for heavy use.
As to what you should get, it depends on your needs and budget. Probably the cheapest lense in that range is the Cosina (but you really do get what you pay for ) Obviously, the Pentax lenses are going to be really good bits of glass, but you'll pay a lot for that angle.
It is worth noting, though, that Sigma have just released a new lense (aimed at the digital market, but a lense that should be fine on film too) - a 12-24mm. Now that's wide The price is quite high though, at £570 srp.
It is worth hunting around the second hand places where you live to see if there is anything. If you are in the UK, I can suggest a number of on-line links for dealers who have been helpful.
Hope that helps
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Super wide angle lens for Pentax Z-1 at 23/12/2003 - 07:00
Hi Shotgun!
(It's no problem... info is my business -lol )
Well, as far as quality goes, it is 310dpi. If you want to know what that looks like, just resize you image to around 1900x1200 pixels at 310dpi in PS.
Yes, you lose some detail (going from 6.1 to 2.3Mp), but I have found that by resizing within PS and USM-ing, then printing at 100% (rather than "fit image to media") the results are bang-on what I see on screen.
Colour matching is good. There's an ICM profile shipped with the printer, and the results are highly predictable. The soft-proof option in PS gives a good rendition of the output.
Of course, I would like to see higher resolution, more contrast and detail. However, I am really picky when it comes to these details. The images from the Peter Gabriel concert (especially http://www.pbase.com/image/23620197) just blew me away. The other images I have printed out were for friends - moderate images nothing special. Yes, when a head is only 0.5" round the hair detail goes a bit - but then it's exactly as you see on screen when resized. The overall result, though, it great.
I think it will probably change the way I produce images - just that instant output is superb. HiTi even do a "ruggedised" version that is dust resistant and can be powered from the car!! Amazing or what?!
Dont' just take my word for it, here's the Steve's Digicams review:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/hiti_photoshuttle.html
(well worth a read).
And the Imaging Resource review of the 630PS:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRINT/HT630PS/HT6.HTM
Enjoy!
Matt
(It's no problem... info is my business -lol )
Well, as far as quality goes, it is 310dpi. If you want to know what that looks like, just resize you image to around 1900x1200 pixels at 310dpi in PS.
Yes, you lose some detail (going from 6.1 to 2.3Mp), but I have found that by resizing within PS and USM-ing, then printing at 100% (rather than "fit image to media") the results are bang-on what I see on screen.
Colour matching is good. There's an ICM profile shipped with the printer, and the results are highly predictable. The soft-proof option in PS gives a good rendition of the output.
Of course, I would like to see higher resolution, more contrast and detail. However, I am really picky when it comes to these details. The images from the Peter Gabriel concert (especially http://www.pbase.com/image/23620197) just blew me away. The other images I have printed out were for friends - moderate images nothing special. Yes, when a head is only 0.5" round the hair detail goes a bit - but then it's exactly as you see on screen when resized. The overall result, though, it great.
I think it will probably change the way I produce images - just that instant output is superb. HiTi even do a "ruggedised" version that is dust resistant and can be powered from the car!! Amazing or what?!
Dont' just take my word for it, here's the Steve's Digicams review:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/hiti_photoshuttle.html
(well worth a read).
And the Imaging Resource review of the 630PS:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRINT/HT630PS/HT6.HTM
Enjoy!
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Dye Sublimation Printer at 23/12/2003 - 09:31
Hi Shotgun!
You have every right to be curious
The printer costs £180 over here - very reasonable for a dye sub. According to the HiTi web site, their longevity rivals the photo-lab results. With the coating they feel very stable, and very resistant to finger prints too. However, only time will tell how light-stable they really are.
There is a difference in output quality, obviously. The HiTi produces very very smooth, completely dot-less results - they look exactly like a genuine photo. My Epson 870 produces very good results too, with a little more depth (Epson has CcMmYK, while the HiTi has YMC+overlay). The total number of pixels on the PhotoShuttle is just over 2.3million - 310dpi x 4 x 6. There are higher res HiTi devices at 410dpi (4million pixels).
One big plus for the HiTi is that the cost per print remains the same irrespective of the image. For instance, I had some gig photos to print out - I wouldn't dare put it to the Epson as each shot was 80% black. The HiTi zipped out the images, and they looked absolutely fantastic Add to that there is no head-clogging, no mess, and instant dry prints.
I have also tried a new PS technique for creating pencil portraits. I had trouble printing out B&W images on the Epson, but the HiTi output was beautiful.
So, to summarise, I am using the HiTi for "regular" prints (I had a backlog of promises-to-print for friends which I have now fulfilled) and instant results, the Epson for larger format immediate prints, and my internet print providers for 8x10 "real" photos. I am a happy man
Matt
You have every right to be curious
The printer costs £180 over here - very reasonable for a dye sub. According to the HiTi web site, their longevity rivals the photo-lab results. With the coating they feel very stable, and very resistant to finger prints too. However, only time will tell how light-stable they really are.
There is a difference in output quality, obviously. The HiTi produces very very smooth, completely dot-less results - they look exactly like a genuine photo. My Epson 870 produces very good results too, with a little more depth (Epson has CcMmYK, while the HiTi has YMC+overlay). The total number of pixels on the PhotoShuttle is just over 2.3million - 310dpi x 4 x 6. There are higher res HiTi devices at 410dpi (4million pixels).
One big plus for the HiTi is that the cost per print remains the same irrespective of the image. For instance, I had some gig photos to print out - I wouldn't dare put it to the Epson as each shot was 80% black. The HiTi zipped out the images, and they looked absolutely fantastic Add to that there is no head-clogging, no mess, and instant dry prints.
I have also tried a new PS technique for creating pencil portraits. I had trouble printing out B&W images on the Epson, but the HiTi output was beautiful.
So, to summarise, I am using the HiTi for "regular" prints (I had a backlog of promises-to-print for friends which I have now fulfilled) and instant results, the Epson for larger format immediate prints, and my internet print providers for 8x10 "real" photos. I am a happy man
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Dye Sublimation Printer at 23/12/2003 - 07:13
Well, this might help:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201710161/qid=1072740682//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/104-0406714-4156767?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
(Adobe Classroom in a Book by the Adobe Creative Team)
We recently upgraded from PS7 to Adobe Creative Suite CS, and I had to learn InDesign and Illustrator in a very short time for some graphic and brochure work (though I'd used other inferior page layout and vector graphics packages before). Bought the two books and they were exceptionally helpful
Here are some very good online tutorials, of varying degrees of complexity:
http://www.arraich.com/ps_intro.htm (good beginners guide and has Photoshop Elements too)
http://www.russellbrown.com/
If you are tight on funds you might also consider Photoshop Elements 2.0 - it is a very worthy package built around the PS7 engine. Then the upgrade prices from PS6 to PS-CS are very reasonable now - it seems Adobe have got some good deals at the moment. There was little that I couldn't do with PSE2 (plus a few free plugins). PSE is much more user friendly for doing those kind of tasks Now I have PS-CS, it's a dream for the complex tasks
Enjoy!
Matt