All Forum Comments
Comment by Prieni posted on Flies (macros) at 14/05/2007 - 15:14
Matt,
your last link was the one I was looking for (i.e. the series of sample pics). Thanks for that (and the other links),
Prieni
your last link was the one I was looking for (i.e. the series of sample pics). Thanks for that (and the other links),
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on Pentax 10-17 or Sigma 10-20 at 27/04/2007 - 15:15
I also consider a wide-angle zoom and can't really decide whether I want a fisheye or not (though I'm leaning towards the Pentax).
Anyway, here is a comparison on pbase:
http://www.pbase.com/alinla/1017_vs_1020&view=tree
Some more samples of the Pentax are on Steves Digicams istDL review (scroll down to see the 10-17 pics)
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/istdl_samples.html
There were more samples of the Pentax on another site, I downloaded them to my computer but I don't remember where I found them. It's a series of 10 pics at different focal lengths. I could mail them to you but I'm hesitant to post them somewhere as they are not my images.
Hope this helps you to make the decision (hasn't really worked for me so far),
Prieni
Anyway, here is a comparison on pbase:
http://www.pbase.com/alinla/1017_vs_1020&view=tree
Some more samples of the Pentax are on Steves Digicams istDL review (scroll down to see the 10-17 pics)
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/istdl_samples.html
There were more samples of the Pentax on another site, I downloaded them to my computer but I don't remember where I found them. It's a series of 10 pics at different focal lengths. I could mail them to you but I'm hesitant to post them somewhere as they are not my images.
Hope this helps you to make the decision (hasn't really worked for me so far),
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on Pentax 10-17 or Sigma 10-20 at 27/04/2007 - 10:14
Lilly,
I can't see the latest detail. But from your description it seems that what you see in that latter detail is chromatic abberation, so the effect in the upper right corner must be something else...
Prieni
I can't see the latest detail. But from your description it seems that what you see in that latter detail is chromatic abberation, so the effect in the upper right corner must be something else...
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on chromatic aberration at 13/12/2007 - 12:46
Difficult to say if that really is CA. What does the lower right corner look like? Round the little whiteish speck you should see the same (CA is worse in the corners than in the center) if it really is CA.
I would also think that what I see in your crop is not CA but some other halo effect. I haven't got a clue, though, what it might be. CA should be less broad, for a fixed focal length lens only a few pixels.
(It's easier to correct fixed focal length lenses for CA than zooms and the longer the lens the easier it should get. My "worst" lens in respect to CA is the 10-17 fisheye, i.e. very wide angle and zoom. However, SilkyPix does a pretty good job in correcting CA.)
Prieni
I would also think that what I see in your crop is not CA but some other halo effect. I haven't got a clue, though, what it might be. CA should be less broad, for a fixed focal length lens only a few pixels.
(It's easier to correct fixed focal length lenses for CA than zooms and the longer the lens the easier it should get. My "worst" lens in respect to CA is the 10-17 fisheye, i.e. very wide angle and zoom. However, SilkyPix does a pretty good job in correcting CA.)
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on chromatic aberration at 12/12/2007 - 08:37
Quote:
I volunteer to do it.
Just as soon as Matt does the Silkypix manual.
No guesses as to who we'll get to try it out. And, no, I didn't mean you, Graham.
G
George,I volunteer to do it.
Just as soon as Matt does the Silkypix manual.
No guesses as to who we'll get to try it out. And, no, I didn't mean you, Graham.
G
I would gladly volunteer. If it comes with the 10D, of course
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on A dummies guide to K10 at 18/04/2007 - 21:41
Matt,
this is well put and also the reason why I put "HDR" in quotation marks in my post. HDR doesn't work without tone mapping as the dynamic range would be too huge to be shown on any output device.
Thanks for the tip on Artizen, sounds interesting...
Cheers,
Prieni
this is well put and also the reason why I put "HDR" in quotation marks in my post. HDR doesn't work without tone mapping as the dynamic range would be too huge to be shown on any output device.
Thanks for the tip on Artizen, sounds interesting...
Cheers,
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on First Image Attempt using HDR in photoshop UPDATED IMAGE at 16/04/2007 - 09:54
Pete,
good first try, but as Chris pointed out there are some weaknesses. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the halos around the tree trunk. There are lighter areas directly next to the tree that don't make sense.
I also had a go at the technique a while back, here are original (i.e. straight in CameraRaw (that was before I used SilkyPix)) and "HDR" version.
*ist D, Sigma 105/2.8 DG EX Macro, 20 s, A 22.
Original:
HDR from a few different RAW conversions:
In SilkyPix with the highlight correction one could get away with fewer RAW conversions (or with one only).
That's another 2 p
Prieni
good first try, but as Chris pointed out there are some weaknesses. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the halos around the tree trunk. There are lighter areas directly next to the tree that don't make sense.
I also had a go at the technique a while back, here are original (i.e. straight in CameraRaw (that was before I used SilkyPix)) and "HDR" version.
*ist D, Sigma 105/2.8 DG EX Macro, 20 s, A 22.
Original:
HDR from a few different RAW conversions:
In SilkyPix with the highlight correction one could get away with fewer RAW conversions (or with one only).
That's another 2 p
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on First Image Attempt using HDR in photoshop UPDATED IMAGE at 16/04/2007 - 08:16
Quote:
I have no idea of the grounds on which they accept or reject photos.
However, the boat shot struck me as a bit random. There was nothing about it that made me look at it, if you'll forgive me.
The one of the building (is it the Sydney Opera House?) was fab - a terrific bold shape with interesting detail that you get on a second look - except for the shadow, which ruins it for me.
I love the rose. They must be being very picky if the rather distracting imperfection on the left about 2/3 of the way up was what made them say no.
On this basis, though, I'm not sure I have anything I'd chance submitting.
Well done for getting some in. Could you post those too? Or links to them?
Chris, I also don't know how they judge and they don't say anywhere. One can, of course, look at the ones that are in and may (or may not) get an idea. Anyway, it's their site and their judgement, fair enough.I have no idea of the grounds on which they accept or reject photos.
However, the boat shot struck me as a bit random. There was nothing about it that made me look at it, if you'll forgive me.
The one of the building (is it the Sydney Opera House?) was fab - a terrific bold shape with interesting detail that you get on a second look - except for the shadow, which ruins it for me.
I love the rose. They must be being very picky if the rather distracting imperfection on the left about 2/3 of the way up was what made them say no.
On this basis, though, I'm not sure I have anything I'd chance submitting.
Well done for getting some in. Could you post those too? Or links to them?
Yeah, the boat shot was just another try to fathom the criteria. I quite like it but then I am biased as I had a good cruise on this vessel which since has been sold on.
The building is the Sydney Opera house. For me the shadow is not so much of a spoiler. And I didn't have much time to stick around and wait for better light as I only had a 7-hour stopover in Sydney on my way to Fiji.
Perhaps the rose shot is too "classic" and the colours look oversaturated, although I didn't crank up saturation on this one.
I think it's always worth submitting what you think are your best shots. What's the worst that can happpen? They reject them. Fair enough. For me it doesn't take away anything from shots I like when they don't vote them in.
The ones that made it can be found in the Pentax Photo Gallery, of course, when you choose the "artist" (hmm, sounds good!) Ralf Prien.
If you want I can put some links in (have to upload, though) as I noticed that the ones I put in the other post take a while to load (highest quality jpegs) at home. I should have reduced quality before uploading...
Cheers,
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on Pentax Photo Gallery at 13/04/2007 - 08:18
To come back to the original topic, here are some of the images that were rejected:
*istD, Sigma 105 mm F2.8 DG Makro, 1/125 s, A19, ISO 200, flash.
*istD, FA J 18-35 mm, f=35 mm, 1/1000 s, A 9.5, ISO 200.
*istD, FA J 18-35 mm, 1/500 s, A 8, ISO 200.
Well, at least I got four accepted...
*istD, Sigma 105 mm F2.8 DG Makro, 1/125 s, A19, ISO 200, flash.
*istD, FA J 18-35 mm, f=35 mm, 1/1000 s, A 9.5, ISO 200.
*istD, FA J 18-35 mm, 1/500 s, A 8, ISO 200.
Well, at least I got four accepted...
Comment by Prieni posted on Pentax Photo Gallery at 12/04/2007 - 19:57
absolutely brilliant pictures. I especially like No. 4 (the crop of the first fly). Does give you the creeps
What do you do to avoid them just buzzing away? Some sort of hypnosis? I assume that you have to get quite close to the "beasts"?
Your flash diffuser seems to work pretty good. Keep up the nice work.
Prieni