All Forum Comments
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Orwellian Imaging Regulation and Misinformation UK at 14/08/2009 - 12:13
noddywithoutbigears wrote:
Hi All
I'm rather frustrated with the eractic expose of my K200D, they are either heavily underexposed or overexposed with me constantly in Photoshop to correct them. The only time it seems to give consistent results is when I use a manual lens with manual exposure. I did change the brightness and contrast to +1 in the function menu, but if anything it appears to be worse. Has anybody any ideas as to the cause or maybe camera settings which can be changed to improve things.
Better to dial in EV compensation than extra brightness/contrast, which will just affect the processing of the file rather than the actual exposure. Hi All
I'm rather frustrated with the eractic expose of my K200D, they are either heavily underexposed or overexposed with me constantly in Photoshop to correct them. The only time it seems to give consistent results is when I use a manual lens with manual exposure. I did change the brightness and contrast to +1 in the function menu, but if anything it appears to be worse. Has anybody any ideas as to the cause or maybe camera settings which can be changed to improve things.
I find a rather general tendency to slightly underexpose on my K200D. I program in +0.5 EV and on critical shots, check the histogram carefully. If you do this often, you get a good idea of how your cameras metering responds and when to make adjustments.
I prefer the histogram as far to the right as possible, without clipping. A small amount of burned highlights is recoverable in RAW converter software, but correcting underexposure will increase noise substantially.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Inconsistent Exposure with K200D at 14/08/2009 - 11:48
Quote:
If Pentax can't market their cameras properly that's down to them. It's not any magazine's job to do it for them.
Hmm yes there is something lacking in Pentax's marketing. And it's not all down to money - in Digital SLR Photography magazine, they had a two page spread advertising feature (cunningly disguised as a review!) Now that must have been expensive...If Pentax can't market their cameras properly that's down to them. It's not any magazine's job to do it for them.
But the write up missed a lot of key features of the camera, and the accompanying picture was a bit flat, and showed HEINOUS amounts of CA. Cleaning up CA in editing software costs nothing!
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on AP K-7 Review at 14/08/2009 - 10:03
I agree all the photos in the gallery and 'Your Photos' forum should be Pentax without exception... but how can you actually enforce it other than trust the users to comply with the guidelines? We can't expect all users to embed exif data really...
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Intrigued! at 12/08/2009 - 23:59
grahamwalton wrote:
There seems to be a trend in various forums, for people to use famous portrait photographs, as their own avatar. Should the original photographer receive a fee for everytime their image is posted in this way?
Surely this forum should protect the rights of the original photographer.
That comment bemused me for a moment Graham, because I had assumed your avatar was an old image of my favourite comedian, Vic Reeves! There seems to be a trend in various forums, for people to use famous portrait photographs, as their own avatar. Should the original photographer receive a fee for everytime their image is posted in this way?
Surely this forum should protect the rights of the original photographer.
Leaving aside the particular terms and conditions of Pentax User, I can't see how photographers could possibly demand a fee for the use of their images in this way, unless the avatar was somehow connected to a user who was involved in commercial activity which benefitted from the use of the image. Of course they might reasonably expect a request for permission, but I think they'd probably rather not be dealing with hundreds of such requests. This is an example of a very peripheral harmless activity which would come under 'fair use' in the USA's DMCA law:
Quote:
Fair use serves a crucial role in limiting the reach of what would otherwise be an intolerably expansive grant of rights to copyright owners. Were it not for the fair use doctrine, each of the following activities would be infringing:
whistling a tune while walking down the street (public performance)
cutting out a New Yorker cartoon and posting it on your office door (public display)
photocopying a newspaper article for your files (reproduction)
quoting a line from The Simpsons in an email to a coworker (reproduction)
reverse engineering of computer code (reproduction)
"time-shifting" a radio or television program (reproduction)
playing an excerpt of Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman" in a copyright law course (public performance)
quoting from a novel in a review (reproduction)
http://w2.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html
Fair use serves a crucial role in limiting the reach of what would otherwise be an intolerably expansive grant of rights to copyright owners. Were it not for the fair use doctrine, each of the following activities would be infringing:
whistling a tune while walking down the street (public performance)
cutting out a New Yorker cartoon and posting it on your office door (public display)
photocopying a newspaper article for your files (reproduction)
quoting a line from The Simpsons in an email to a coworker (reproduction)
reverse engineering of computer code (reproduction)
"time-shifting" a radio or television program (reproduction)
playing an excerpt of Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman" in a copyright law course (public performance)
quoting from a novel in a review (reproduction)
http://w2.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on copyright at 12/08/2009 - 23:44
Hesitated to mention Pecker, as the protagonist shoots Canon!
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Films. at 12/08/2009 - 11:25
Thanks Graham
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Lumsdale at 12/08/2009 - 03:35
Rear Window???
Pecker also comes to mind, although it's not quite as good as the above film.
Pecker also comes to mind, although it's not quite as good as the above film.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Films. at 12/08/2009 - 03:28
I went for a walk here this afternoon... its a series of little waterfalls in a valley called Lumsdale a short distance from the secondary school I went to. The valley is not well known, despite being on the edge of the Derbyshire Dales and boasting the most impressive cascades I've come across in this part of the world. There are also several fascinating ruined mills.
Would be a good place for a future Pentax User meet I reckon!
Could really have done with a tripod to allow me to shoot in a lower ISO and with a smaller aperture. K200D with a Tokina 17mm at 400ISO:
Would be a good place for a future Pentax User meet I reckon!
Could really have done with a tripod to allow me to shoot in a lower ISO and with a smaller aperture. K200D with a Tokina 17mm at 400ISO:
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Lumsdale at 11/08/2009 - 19:17
RAW does give more flexibility with adjusting levels to preserve highlights. I find even processed at default settings, there is less noise and a smoother look to RAW images.
I was comparing a RAW conversion to the 'out of the camera jpg' the other day, and the difference was notable particularly re noise and harsh sharpening in the jpg. This is looking at the images in detail though... Perhaps there would have been "virtually no difference", as John says, if I had compared two prints. And perhaps the 'in camera jpg' settings can be adjusted for a more natural result.
I was comparing a RAW conversion to the 'out of the camera jpg' the other day, and the difference was notable particularly re noise and harsh sharpening in the jpg. This is looking at the images in detail though... Perhaps there would have been "virtually no difference", as John says, if I had compared two prints. And perhaps the 'in camera jpg' settings can be adjusted for a more natural result.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on raw vs jpeg at 06/08/2009 - 15:20
I don't see this as 'Orwellian' although it is damn annoying, and no substitute for effective government with a clear sense leadership.