All Forum Comments
I thought that ordinary stock was not very IR sensitive.
Comment by sophiecentaur posted on using filters at 19/06/2009 - 13:53
It struck me that, bearing in mind the possibility of doing much more useful correction 'at home' with digital, a filter could introduce much more 'top cut', to get rid of the scattered UV and violet (even), and yet you could still do some compensation to get the colour balance right. All that would be missing would be the 'far blues' but it would be easy to get 'white' whites afterward.
Now I've thought about it, I would expect a whole new set of filters to be on the market 'specially' for digital cameras. Manufacturers don't usually miss a trick when there's a possible new market. Perhaps there are some and I just haven't spotted them.
Now I've thought about it, I would expect a whole new set of filters to be on the market 'specially' for digital cameras. Manufacturers don't usually miss a trick when there's a possible new market. Perhaps there are some and I just haven't spotted them.
Comment by sophiecentaur posted on using filters at 18/06/2009 - 17:08
Photoshop can do a lot for your pictures but it can't correct for some things.
How many contributors here use polarising filters and UV filters?
I have some potentially very nice pictures taken in the Pyrennese but they have suffered from the effects of haze. What are your thoughts about using a UV filter - or even something stronger - for most outdoor shots? Is there a downside? RAW would allow me to correct for any imbalance in a way that film processing could never have done.
How many contributors here use polarising filters and UV filters?
I have some potentially very nice pictures taken in the Pyrennese but they have suffered from the effects of haze. What are your thoughts about using a UV filter - or even something stronger - for most outdoor shots? Is there a downside? RAW would allow me to correct for any imbalance in a way that film processing could never have done.
Comment by sophiecentaur posted on using filters at 18/06/2009 - 12:06
Cheers
It all worked well and I have 1.30 now.
I now need to find some hundreds of quids for the next step!
It all worked well and I have 1.30 now.
I now need to find some hundreds of quids for the next step!
Comment by sophiecentaur posted on K10D/K20D firmware compatability at 17/06/2009 - 14:53
OK
I'm very proud that I found I have version 1.0 after only two two tries.
Now, how do I update it?
I want to buy a new lens and the AF won't work if I don't (so I have read).
I'm very proud that I found I have version 1.0 after only two two tries.
Now, how do I update it?
I want to buy a new lens and the AF won't work if I don't (so I have read).
Comment by sophiecentaur posted on K10D/K20D firmware compatability at 14/06/2009 - 23:09
I am considering buying one of these. It sounds a nice piece of kit. I want to be able to use it with a teleconverter, however, so that I can get 500mm's worth occasionally on my K10D.
What are the compatibility issues, though?
Reading the Sigma blurb, it is not clear whether I can use their teleconverters between Pentax and Pentax. What's the real position? Pentax don't seem to make one.
It may sound like a dumb question but I should hate to spend money going up a blind alley.
I'm sure someone will know the answer. (A quick search just seemed to confuse a poor old buffer).
What are the compatibility issues, though?
Reading the Sigma blurb, it is not clear whether I can use their teleconverters between Pentax and Pentax. What's the real position? Pentax don't seem to make one.
It may sound like a dumb question but I should hate to spend money going up a blind alley.
I'm sure someone will know the answer. (A quick search just seemed to confuse a poor old buffer).
Comment by sophiecentaur posted on teleconverter for Pentax DA 60-250mm f4 ED at 14/06/2009 - 19:11
