All Forum Comments
Comment by Prieni posted on Pentax announcement at 15/12/2008 - 14:58
Dwight-Morton wrote:
Well, it wasn't a strong point to start with...ttk wrote:
GPS will stop some copyright theft, i e. Photographer selling a photo of say the London Eye who lives in the USA and has no pass port etc.
Maybe but what if the USA photographers as 2 passports a AMERICAN and a ENGLISH one as s/he could walk into England without port of entry stamp etc.GPS will stop some copyright theft, i e. Photographer selling a photo of say the London Eye who lives in the USA and has no pass port etc.
Comment by Prieni posted on Pentax announcement at 15/12/2008 - 08:47
TGK wrote:
Also we do not have any pine trees round here so I am gonna let it go.
And now you know why there are no pine trees around anymore Also we do not have any pine trees round here so I am gonna let it go.
Comment by Prieni posted on WHAT'S this Bug in my kitchen then** at 13/12/2008 - 15:48
I do mess about with most of my shots in the RAW converter and Photoshop.
In the film days I would bring my film to the lab and get the prints, no way to interfere with them. As I was a student then I didn't have the means to give the prints to a printing expert but rather used the photo chains (and their offers for big prints, sometimes). The results were a mixed bag.
When I started using the *istD and printing at home I was blown away by how much better quality I was able to achieve. (Don't get me wrong, I know that this level of quality could have been achieved with film; it just wasn't achievable for me at the time). I got my first truly sharp enlargements. Wow!
Now I'm taking pics in RAW exclusively (RAW+JPG if I need something to show quickly) and this way I have to touch every single image. And I think that sometimes it requires a bit more than a slight touch up to recreate what you saw at the time.
This is an example from our recent holidays. This is a conversion with the standard set (which, in case of a digital camera means that already a lot of processing has gone into that, let's not forget that!):
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/_RDP2816aswas.jpg[/IMG]
Yes, I know it was a bit hazy at the time but this does look more like fog. Not at all how I remember it.
Processing in SilkyPix by changing white balance, gamma, contrast, curves etc. I ended up with something that better resembled my impression at the time:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/_RDP2816dpr.jpg[/IMG]
Of course resizing and sharpening also was applied.
Overall I think I haven't done too much that could not have been done by a dedicated expert in the darkroom with film (not sure about WB but suspect that a lot can be done with filters).
Yes, it's easier now on the computer (at least for me it is; I'm sure people used to do all kinds of wizardry in the darkroom had lots of trouble achieving the same results on the computer) but basically all that was possible then and has been used by most of the acclaimed photographers (all of them perhaps).
Am I cheating? I don't feel that way but I can understand that point of view. As was said, each to their own.
Prieni
P.S.: Looking through the PPG entries and reading photographers comments like "shot straight from camera, no PP" or similar, most of the time (but not always!) I do think "yes, I can see that. It would have been better with some PP applied". (And, as I said, in these cases the camera already did a lot of processing on the image anyways.)
In the film days I would bring my film to the lab and get the prints, no way to interfere with them. As I was a student then I didn't have the means to give the prints to a printing expert but rather used the photo chains (and their offers for big prints, sometimes). The results were a mixed bag.
When I started using the *istD and printing at home I was blown away by how much better quality I was able to achieve. (Don't get me wrong, I know that this level of quality could have been achieved with film; it just wasn't achievable for me at the time). I got my first truly sharp enlargements. Wow!
Now I'm taking pics in RAW exclusively (RAW+JPG if I need something to show quickly) and this way I have to touch every single image. And I think that sometimes it requires a bit more than a slight touch up to recreate what you saw at the time.
This is an example from our recent holidays. This is a conversion with the standard set (which, in case of a digital camera means that already a lot of processing has gone into that, let's not forget that!):
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/_RDP2816aswas.jpg[/IMG]
Yes, I know it was a bit hazy at the time but this does look more like fog. Not at all how I remember it.
Processing in SilkyPix by changing white balance, gamma, contrast, curves etc. I ended up with something that better resembled my impression at the time:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/_RDP2816dpr.jpg[/IMG]
Of course resizing and sharpening also was applied.
Overall I think I haven't done too much that could not have been done by a dedicated expert in the darkroom with film (not sure about WB but suspect that a lot can be done with filters).
Yes, it's easier now on the computer (at least for me it is; I'm sure people used to do all kinds of wizardry in the darkroom had lots of trouble achieving the same results on the computer) but basically all that was possible then and has been used by most of the acclaimed photographers (all of them perhaps).
Am I cheating? I don't feel that way but I can understand that point of view. As was said, each to their own.
Prieni
P.S.: Looking through the PPG entries and reading photographers comments like "shot straight from camera, no PP" or similar, most of the time (but not always!) I do think "yes, I can see that. It would have been better with some PP applied". (And, as I said, in these cases the camera already did a lot of processing on the image anyways.)
Comment by Prieni posted on Am I missing something? at 12/12/2008 - 14:01
That is great to hear. I wondered about Dirk a few weeks ago and tried to send an email to him. That email did bounce twice and so I gave up.
So I hope he will get our thoughts through you, Lilly. Thanks for that.
Prieni
So I hope he will get our thoughts through you, Lilly. Thanks for that.
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on Missing persons report. at 11/12/2008 - 19:05
RR wrote:
Oh and for Prieni our German friend HERE is the explanation of buying liquid by a length measurement.
Oh, thanks for that, that makes for informative reading! (Makes me get thirsty as well...)Oh and for Prieni our German friend HERE is the explanation of buying liquid by a length measurement.
When I read the reference to the yard as a measure for volume I went on to one of these unit converter pages. The only thing I found was the cubic yard, of course...
Speaking the language is one thing, knowing the culture another! We saw that every time we watched "Who wants to be a millionaire?". It was the supposedly easy questions that were most difficult for us (e.g. when referring to a nursery rhyme).
You learn something new every day...
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on Relative Enlargement Sizes at 11/12/2008 - 16:06
RR wrote:
Well, a cubic yard is only 0.76 cubic metres Quote:
Or a full litre at pint prices
If it's large portions you're after, imperial still wins. Just order a Yard of ale It'll cost more than a pint though !Or a full litre at pint prices
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on Relative Enlargement Sizes at 11/12/2008 - 13:38
Well, the imperial measures do have character. It's only that I never can remember how many chains there are in a league...
When I went over to the UK to work there I was quite relieved to see that my workplace had gone metric. As I do a bit of mechanical design work as part of my job it would have been quite hard for me to adapt to feet and inches.
Was quite surprised on the motorway to find out that from Southampton to London it's only a little more than 60 metres (at least that's what the sign says: 60 m)
Prieni
When I went over to the UK to work there I was quite relieved to see that my workplace had gone metric. As I do a bit of mechanical design work as part of my job it would have been quite hard for me to adapt to feet and inches.
Was quite surprised on the motorway to find out that from Southampton to London it's only a little more than 60 metres (at least that's what the sign says: 60 m)
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on Relative Enlargement Sizes at 11/12/2008 - 12:17
Shaky,
Scottiehat wrote this
The original you cited sounds true to me as well. Ok, one may argue whether face recognition falls in the "stupid gimmick" category or not. If I think face recognition is a great feature (or gimmick) then I don't see myself insulted by George's statement, as he is citing stupid gimmicks only.
I think if you are insulted by George's statements you are finding an insult because you were in search of one.
Certainly no cause to start fuzzing about it...
Scottiehat wrote this
scottthehat wrote:
tut tut tut i dont no why your so persistant on insulting people.
as an answer to George's four statements. I think he meant "persistent" here which I understand to mean "time and time again" (but English is not my native, so I may misunderstand that). That would imply that George's post did contain another insult. Which I fail to see.tut tut tut i dont no why your so persistant on insulting people.
The original you cited sounds true to me as well. Ok, one may argue whether face recognition falls in the "stupid gimmick" category or not. If I think face recognition is a great feature (or gimmick) then I don't see myself insulted by George's statement, as he is citing stupid gimmicks only.
I think if you are insulted by George's statements you are finding an insult because you were in search of one.
Certainly no cause to start fuzzing about it...
Comment by Prieni posted on should pentax dslrs have face detection added at 11/12/2008 - 11:55
GPS in cameras has been a bit controversial because in some cases the police have been using it to track where pictures were taken, which makes some photo-journalists a bit wary for their sources etc. There was an article about it in one of the camera magazines a while back.
Best wishes, Kris.
Prieni