Reaching Out




Photographed (K20D and Sigma 70mm Macro; 1/400 at f8, 400ASA) mid-morning using natural light and a neutral(ish) backdrop placed just behind the clematis shoot. I found the freshness and delicacy of the growing tip with its covering of fine 'hairs' (not easy to appreciate at this size) apealing as it 'reached out' and searched for somewhere new to anchor and extend its growth.

Pentax SMC M 50mm f1.7 and 200mm f4. I just wish all lenses came with a similar priceerformance ratio. They are also immensely satisfying to use as they force you to think much harder about differential focus, depth-of-field and exposure values before shooting and their is huge 'buzz' that comes from getting it right without the help of camera's microprocessors.

Jon

If you're determined to have a go you might want to follow this thread on 'the other site' first:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/30639-part-1-autofocus...

Let us know how you get on.

Jon

Would that have been the 'cut-down' version lacking the programme (P) mode Geoff?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist

Jon

Gary,

Stamen entering frame at the same point but showing more of the filament and rotated to form an upward curve. Softer (more diffuse lighting) and a colours a tad less saturated.

IMHO

Jon

Agree with the above but also feel that overall impact of the image would have been greater had the point of focus been adjusted to include more detail in the stigma and stamens. This would have had the additional benefit of helping to throw the background more out of focus.

Is it too late to go back for a 'second bite of the cherry'?

Thanks for the swift response, John.

I am hugely embarrassed to admit, so much so that I'm not going to go into detail, that there was a logical explanation for the exposure differences. As I mentioned, I'm still in the neurotic/precious phase of my affair with the new (to me) K20D and my overtly pessimistic nature (remember Neil from the Young Ones?) kicked into play when I saw the differences, bansishing, temporarily at least, all rational thought from my mind.

I have recently switched from sRGB to Adobe RGB for image capture, editing and printing. So far, when combined with my use of an Eizo TFT calibrated with a Pantone Huey Pro, and careful control of room lighting, I've been very pleased with the results. Although I've not yet gone to the extent of having my printer professionally profiled, the colour match between the on-screen and printed images is, to my eye, very good. As you say the on screen images look a little paler, but, with practice, I have found it possible to account for this when editing for print in all but the most extreme cases (i.e. where the dynamic range in the original is particularly wide).

Before closing, I'd like to thank you and the others on the User Team for doing such a fabulous job. In the short time since I joined the forum it has added hugely to my enjoyment of photography and being able to share images and experiences 'on-line' has done wonders for my confidence and motivation.

Kindest regards,

Jon

Haven't had the K20D for long and still familiarising myself with its strengths and idiosyncracies. Just noticed that if the same scene is photographed twice in quick succession (AE matrix metering) using a tripod but using different colour spaces, the image captured in Adobe RGB comes out over-exposed by 0.7 - 1 stop when compared with that captured in sRGB, which to my eye seems closer to 'correct'. I know that it would be easy for me to correct for this 'in-camera' or during post-processing, but is there a reason for there being a difference other than my example of the K20D being a bit 'flaky'?

Jon

Rest assured my fellow photographers of the fairer sex, the adolescent male 'humour' that occurs towards the end of this thread, for which I accept my fair share of responsibility (:blush, was entirely good-natured in intent. Indeed, as I wrote there were moments when my tongue was pressed so firmly against the buccal lining of my cheek that I was in imminent danger of lacerating my facial dermis and epidermis.

If you remain unconvinced, let me know and I'll put you in touch with my my boss (female) and work colleagues, all of whom are female.

Trust me: I know what it feels like to be on the receiving of sexist jokes and banter and am certain that I am a better person for it!

Yours in deepest dudgeon,

Jon

John,

the study of the inner workings of the female brain has been my life's work. The results of recently conducted, double-blinded clinical trial involving the wives of 1500 photographers selected at random from all over the U.K. has revealed that in 85% of cases like yours, substituting the words 'new handbag or handbags' for 'new lens or lenses' in your negotiations has proved highly effective in overcoming the symptoms you describe. In the remaining 15% of cases, a complete resolution was reached once the 'old model' had been traded in for one more malleable.

The full article can be read in the Journal of Irreproducible Results 15, pp 60 - 250, May 2010. A reprint can be obtained from the publishers DA* Optical.

Hope this helps.

Best wishes,

Jon