All Forum Comments
Only 15/20 for the ducks? These people have no sense of humour! The wasp shots OK but I prefer the Ducks and the Kingfisher shots. Well done in any case!
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Local Competition Winner! at 04/01/2012 - 10:45
You lucky b*****!!
I'll give you £75 for it
I'll give you £75 for it
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on my lx at 03/01/2012 - 18:49
Nice. Cheap and bargain aren't words I would associate with the LX though
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on my lx at 03/01/2012 - 17:50
Sorry I've removed my post, I thought you meant on a DSLR, not the LX. The LX will be able to use TTL mode and you won't have to resort to 'red and green auto' modes. Never used TTL but I presume it's fully automatic.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on af280t at 03/01/2012 - 16:48
Sometimes the lens just fails to find enough contrast to focus on, or the AF system is 'spooked' by something or other, so you end up with shots like 1 and 3. Maybe the bright background has spooked the autofocus. That would be an AF system thing rather than a lens thing. This is confirmed by how the camera managed to achieve focus in shot 2.
I get wack focusing in AF all the time, I just retry and usually it comes good on the second or third go. Never occurred to me to blame the lens per se, although certain lenses do seem to give the AF more bother than others - the 55-300 I found particularly capricious.
I get wack focusing in AF all the time, I just retry and usually it comes good on the second or third go. Never occurred to me to blame the lens per se, although certain lenses do seem to give the AF more bother than others - the 55-300 I found particularly capricious.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Pentax FA 50mm f1.4 at 03/01/2012 - 11:37
If they were declined on the 1st December, they would have still been there in mid December, but would have gone by now. Never mind John!
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Pentax Photo Gallery at 03/01/2012 - 10:53
Does it nail focus in live view?
When you say '50% of the shots I have taken are not in focus' - surely that would be 100% if the problem is 'front focussing' (the technical issue du jour). (Presuming you're talking about shots taken under similar conditions).
Why not post some samples, it's pretty hard to comment otherwise!
When you say '50% of the shots I have taken are not in focus' - surely that would be 100% if the problem is 'front focussing' (the technical issue du jour). (Presuming you're talking about shots taken under similar conditions).
Why not post some samples, it's pretty hard to comment otherwise!
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Pentax FA 50mm f1.4 at 03/01/2012 - 09:50
Noise in an image is no different to wanted texture or details in an image, in terms of jpeg size - all those fine speckles, even if barely visible at 1:1, are faithfully recorded in the jpeg and therefore will increase it's size.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Anyone think the K20D JEPG output is better than the K5 JEPG output? at 03/01/2012 - 09:15
That's pretty incredible Gary.
While only a small proportion of most people's shots will need dramatic recovery, and hopefully the WB isn't grossly out on too many of them once you have processed a few shots in RAW out of necessity, it's so second nature you may as well do 'em all in RAW, even if you apply a fairly modest tone curve adjustment (all RAW edits can be saved as presets, which speeds things up a lot).
While only a small proportion of most people's shots will need dramatic recovery, and hopefully the WB isn't grossly out on too many of them once you have processed a few shots in RAW out of necessity, it's so second nature you may as well do 'em all in RAW, even if you apply a fairly modest tone curve adjustment (all RAW edits can be saved as presets, which speeds things up a lot).
MrB wrote:
So can someone enlighten me (excuse the pun), if I am not changing the white balance when I apply a White Balance Adjustment in software to an out-of-camera Jpeg file, what am I changing?
Yeah but no but...So can someone enlighten me (excuse the pun), if I am not changing the white balance when I apply a White Balance Adjustment in software to an out-of-camera Jpeg file, what am I changing?
Quote:
Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera's setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.sht...Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera's setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.
Quote:
Because Raw files contain a wider gamut of color, the white balance can be corrected without any noticeable loss in detail. Using Raw converters such as the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in is easier and produces better result. On the other hand, the white balance of JPEG files can be easily corrected without much noticeable loss in detail.
http://photoshoptutorials.ws/photography-tutorials/workflow/raw-vs-jpeg.htmlBecause Raw files contain a wider gamut of color, the white balance can be corrected without any noticeable loss in detail. Using Raw converters such as the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in is easier and produces better result. On the other hand, the white balance of JPEG files can be easily corrected without much noticeable loss in detail.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on RAW or JPG shootout (handbags at dawn) at 03/01/2012 - 09:07
The 77ltd is double the price of the 70Ltd? Perhaps a s/h 70ltd could be a 'stepping stone' to the 77 Another one (within reasonable budget) would be something like the Tamron 28-75mm. The Yanks on the other forum seem to love it.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Portrait lenses above 50mm at 03/01/2012 - 08:26
