All Forum Comments
Really good, I especially like the night sequences.
Comment by RobL posted on My latest timelapse... at 07/06/2016 - 07:24
Well said AggieDad, I see this debate taking place in other forums as well without resolution but as long as what you do is for your own personal enjoyment, as you say, who cares?
Comment by RobL posted on this will be intresting at 06/06/2016 - 08:17
Thank you AggieDad, I did consider the Raynox but a couple of reviews said the mount wasn't always that positive a connection so it would have been nice to have tried one in a shop instead of relying on the Internet. This arrangement at least gives me the option to use a ring flash; the down side is of course using stepping rings for other lenses.
Comment by RobL posted on Macro filter at 06/06/2016 - 08:03
There is a not so fine line between minor enhancement post processing to Photoshopping the image into something else. The photographer I mentioned makes the point that competition rules define the limits for an image to be accepted. I remember an image of a tribesman walking along a dusty track which turned out to be a composite of about five different photos taken at different times and places; as a 'photo' it implied this was a recording of a place and time but is just deceit. To me the end doesn't always justify the means, the process is as important as the end result and that should be as transparent as possible. In a painting you can see both the artist's image and the skills applied by which it is achieved but not so with a photographic image.
Comment by RobL posted on this will be intresting at 05/06/2016 - 17:52
Never apologize! These are great images and confirm that the 55-300mm lens is a cracking lens in the right hands.
Comment by RobL posted on YARR! Yet Another Ruddy Robin! (4 off) at 05/06/2016 - 17:31
Reviewing these images they don't reward zooming in as the files are reduced, so here is no.4 unprocessed except for cropping & converting to jpeg:
Comment by RobL posted on Macro filter at 05/06/2016 - 17:28
Although I have a 100mm macro lens I don't always want to be carrying it around, so I decided to try a macro filter which as well as being slipped into the bag also has the advantage of not having to change lenses and exposing the sensor in the field. The one I chose is the Marumi DHG Achromat Macro-200 (+5) with a 62mm thread to fit onto the 28-105mm ED DC WR lens. Here are a few uncropped images with minor adjustments in Elements:
1 At 105mm
2 Same view and distance at 28mm
Whatever the focal length of the lens the distance to a sharp focus point is the same, but the depth of field changes. Here are a few more at 105mm
These were all on a K-1 hand held or with a monopod.
1 At 105mm
2 Same view and distance at 28mm
Whatever the focal length of the lens the distance to a sharp focus point is the same, but the depth of field changes. Here are a few more at 105mm
These were all on a K-1 hand held or with a monopod.
Comment by RobL posted on Macro filter at 05/06/2016 - 17:10
Have you tried different lenses? I have trouble with the 55-300mm lens sometimes when it hunts back and forth trying to find focus.
Comment by RobL posted on pentax k50 at 05/06/2016 - 10:13
Read the article. Quote: "..at the moment I am trying to avoid using software at all, which means that it has to look great on the camera display before you got home."
Comment by RobL posted on this will be intresting at 05/06/2016 - 10:03
McGregNi wrote:
I'm not sure I get the point there about Mr Spranz ... ? It's an impressive portfolio and clearly very well captured images, but all of the photos are quite heavily processed, obviously so .... He wouldn't have got very far with any of those without a computer and good processing skills.
I agree this has been an illuminating thread! I've learnt plenty, not about photography, but about the people ... Us.... And the great divide that exists between us. None of the attitudes and polar opinions expressed here appear any way reconcilable...
Rob, your soft antique lens vs PhotoShop blur filter example is a case in point ....I can see absolutely no added value in the effect produced in-camera with the antique lens over an equal result produced later on the computer ... Assuming equivilent' results then it means no difference to me, and absolutely not worth paying more for .... That moves the whole thing into the terrain of preciousness .
To Spranz his day job is very demanding and desk bound so the activity involved in taking the photos is his release, not just spending more computer time postprocessing and I can identify with that. The luxury of being an amateur!I'm not sure I get the point there about Mr Spranz ... ? It's an impressive portfolio and clearly very well captured images, but all of the photos are quite heavily processed, obviously so .... He wouldn't have got very far with any of those without a computer and good processing skills.
I agree this has been an illuminating thread! I've learnt plenty, not about photography, but about the people ... Us.... And the great divide that exists between us. None of the attitudes and polar opinions expressed here appear any way reconcilable...
Rob, your soft antique lens vs PhotoShop blur filter example is a case in point ....I can see absolutely no added value in the effect produced in-camera with the antique lens over an equal result produced later on the computer ... Assuming equivilent' results then it means no difference to me, and absolutely not worth paying more for .... That moves the whole thing into the terrain of preciousness .
Comment by RobL posted on this will be intresting at 05/06/2016 - 09:04
