All Forum Comments
although I've never tried it myself I have been told that the lid off a tube of Pringles makes a pretty good white balance doo-hicky
Comment by Mongoose posted on Why does black look purple? at 05/06/2007 - 16:04
anything in KA or later mount on ebay is going mental at the moment.
Comment by Mongoose posted on B&W Again again at 12/06/2007 - 09:05
Quote:
A 1.7 just went on ebay for £92.00 . Think I'll get myself a new 1.4 for the extra £73.00.
At some point...
Dan
that's about normal and the main reason I don't have one. One day I'll spring for the AF 1.4, but I'm not paying £100 just for AF (I have an A series 1.7 already).A 1.7 just went on ebay for £92.00 . Think I'll get myself a new 1.4 for the extra £73.00.
At some point...
Dan
Comment by Mongoose posted on B&W Again again at 11/06/2007 - 22:49
I tried to buy an ND filter in my local Messups a couple of months ago. They not only didn't have one, they tried to tell me that they don't exist.
Comment by Mongoose posted on EXTENSION TUBES at 09/06/2007 - 23:17
I never have understood the ease argument for JPEGs.
If my RAWs come off the camera perfect, I batch process them. No difference.
If they need editing for WB, exposure tweekage etc, this is FAR easier in RAW.
Maybe I'm just a bad photographer (in fact I'm fairly sure I am) but I can't imagine putting a photo on my wall without some degree of post processing. Raw shooting makes that post processing easier and less lossy. Since I now have a K10D and 40GB of storage in the shape of a small portable hard drive, I really have no reason to consider JPEG as an option.
If my RAWs come off the camera perfect, I batch process them. No difference.
If they need editing for WB, exposure tweekage etc, this is FAR easier in RAW.
Maybe I'm just a bad photographer (in fact I'm fairly sure I am) but I can't imagine putting a photo on my wall without some degree of post processing. Raw shooting makes that post processing easier and less lossy. Since I now have a K10D and 40GB of storage in the shape of a small portable hard drive, I really have no reason to consider JPEG as an option.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Can any one explain..... at 05/06/2007 - 16:48
mmmm perhaps if I leave my K10D in the display cabinet with my Dad's spotmatic and give them some privacy.......
Comment by Mongoose posted on New Spotmatic?? at 01/06/2007 - 12:07
depends on your definition of "better". Personally I prefer PEF, smaller file sizes and consequently faster write times, not to mention they don't clog up my HDD so fast.
Comment by Mongoose posted on PEF or DNG ? at 01/06/2007 - 13:53
Quote:
I'd suggest you start with Elements 5 (and possibly the Pentax converter). Get your head round it all, then when you've exhausted the options, then look at Silkypix
Elements is a fine package which should cover 99.9% of photographic needs. There are some tutorials aimed at Elements on my website
Matt
fine advice there, that's more or less what I did and while the more advanced RAW converters are superior, it's amazing what you can accomplish with the Pentax supplied software.Quote:
I do plan on using RAW asap - and hope that Elements 5 will be sufficient to fix my foibles. Does Silkypix operate as a stand alone program or is it a plug in for E5?
Silkypix is at the core of the Pentax converter. There is a free edition (with limited tweaks available) and a developer edition (which isn't that much). Yes, it's stand-alone.I do plan on using RAW asap - and hope that Elements 5 will be sufficient to fix my foibles. Does Silkypix operate as a stand alone program or is it a plug in for E5?
I'd suggest you start with Elements 5 (and possibly the Pentax converter). Get your head round it all, then when you've exhausted the options, then look at Silkypix
Elements is a fine package which should cover 99.9% of photographic needs. There are some tutorials aimed at Elements on my website
Matt
Comment by Mongoose posted on Noobie needs lenses at 01/06/2007 - 21:51
for that fluorescent filled hall I'd definitely suggest getting your head around RAW processing, even if only using the supplied Pentax software. It will allow you to worry about proper white balancing on a per-shot basis later on, so you can just get on with shooting at the venue.
Another lens I can heartily recommend for low light candid portrait work is a 50mm prime. Don't let the low prices fool you (£160 for a brand new FA 50mm F1.4) these are really 1st class glass. I use an A series 50mm F1.7 (£30 from ebay in the good old days, ~£50 now I guess, the price of Pentax popularity) and managed to get some shots at my cousins 3rd birthday which her parents just adore. Since there was no need for me to use flash, she never knew I was taking photos so they are nice and natural.
Another lens I can heartily recommend for low light candid portrait work is a 50mm prime. Don't let the low prices fool you (£160 for a brand new FA 50mm F1.4) these are really 1st class glass. I use an A series 50mm F1.7 (£30 from ebay in the good old days, ~£50 now I guess, the price of Pentax popularity) and managed to get some shots at my cousins 3rd birthday which her parents just adore. Since there was no need for me to use flash, she never knew I was taking photos so they are nice and natural.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Noobie needs lenses at 01/06/2007 - 11:14
Quote:
And you don't need to have been training at the gym for the DA50-200
It's a carry-everywhere lens (unlike the f/2.8 lenses :shock
Matt
absolutely, it tucks neatly in the bottom of my long nose camera bag with the 18-55 on the camera. 18-200 in one bag, weighs almost nothing and great photos throughout the range. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Sigma And you don't need to have been training at the gym for the DA50-200
It's a carry-everywhere lens (unlike the f/2.8 lenses :shock
Matt
Comment by Mongoose posted on Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 at 01/06/2007 - 12:09
