All Forum Comments
Comment by stu62 posted on New K-70 and 100-300 f4 on way at 20/05/2016 - 22:13
well rumours are that a 200 is coming out
well the have put in for the patent anyway
well the have put in for the patent anyway
Comment by stu62 posted on New K-70 and 100-300 f4 on way at 20/05/2016 - 22:08
Dingo wrote:
We see it every day in the movies when scenes are shot against green screens and complete worlds can be added later. Stu might find consolation in sending off 36 snaps to the Chemist and only having half a dozen that are any good (but are at least his "original" shot) whereas we can revel in pre and post processing if we want to and dramatically alter the original photo to look like anything we want it to, even abstract, regardless of what we originally saw.
I think that was the crux of his original comment, but photography, likes all things in the modern world has moved on to a point where we don't have to see the ugly any more, we just erase it for perfect because it's generally pleasing to more people, and that was the point of my posting the two snaps straight from camera.........I could make them more this, that or the other with post processing but that's the image I took as I set the camera up....and I like the ugly, gnarled flower as it is....regardless of whether it could do with a plethora of tweaks to make it even half decent .
Perhaps Stu just pines for the good old days, whatever they were, or more likely, he just loves to inflame and incite and step back and watch the flames burn for a bit of fun. Either way there is no need for anyone to get precious or defensive about his comment, it's just an opinion, and there are Millions of those on the Internet every day
well john did say i was a mischiefas little devil lolrichandfleur wrote:
One of the points raised by others above was that every photo is processed. You may not have touched these after they came out of the camera, but that final JPEG was made based on the development settings you configured within the camera, even if you didn't' realise it or play a major role in configuring those settings.
Well aware of that Richard but I think (and Stu will have to come back to the thread to confirm) that Stu's point was that, even if we set up everything beforehand and then take the picture we still don't have to be happy with it and can change it to look completely different if we so desire, so in fact the whole concept of "original" photograph no longer exists.One of the points raised by others above was that every photo is processed. You may not have touched these after they came out of the camera, but that final JPEG was made based on the development settings you configured within the camera, even if you didn't' realise it or play a major role in configuring those settings.
We see it every day in the movies when scenes are shot against green screens and complete worlds can be added later. Stu might find consolation in sending off 36 snaps to the Chemist and only having half a dozen that are any good (but are at least his "original" shot) whereas we can revel in pre and post processing if we want to and dramatically alter the original photo to look like anything we want it to, even abstract, regardless of what we originally saw.
I think that was the crux of his original comment, but photography, likes all things in the modern world has moved on to a point where we don't have to see the ugly any more, we just erase it for perfect because it's generally pleasing to more people, and that was the point of my posting the two snaps straight from camera.........I could make them more this, that or the other with post processing but that's the image I took as I set the camera up....and I like the ugly, gnarled flower as it is....regardless of whether it could do with a plethora of tweaks to make it even half decent .
Perhaps Stu just pines for the good old days, whatever they were, or more likely, he just loves to inflame and incite and step back and watch the flames burn for a bit of fun. Either way there is no need for anyone to get precious or defensive about his comment, it's just an opinion, and there are Millions of those on the Internet every day
Comment by stu62 posted on this will be intresting at 20/05/2016 - 20:51
richandfleur wrote:
but even any photo is developed even with film Dingo wrote:
neither has been processed by the way.....as they were taken at the time
One of the points raised by others above was that every photo is processed. You may not have touched these after they came out of the camera, but that final JPEG was made based on the development settings you configured within the camera, even if you didn't' realise it or play a major role in configuring those settings.neither has been processed by the way.....as they were taken at the time
all those progames are doing is mimicking the film
because in the days of film you could setup 6 identical cameras with all the same settings
but with only one differance the brand of film
you fire the cameras all at the same time on a subject and each photo would be differant
ilford colour film to me seemed to favor the blues more
agfa seemed to like the reds and orange
fugi was yellow and kodak was very mutted well it seemed to me
Comment by stu62 posted on this will be intresting at 20/05/2016 - 20:48
richandfleur wrote:
Nearly straight out of camera, with just a bit of contrast adjustment...
But what's it like without the contrast added as I did say people are not prepared to show the befor and afterNearly straight out of camera, with just a bit of contrast adjustment...
Comment by stu62 posted on this will be intresting at 19/05/2016 - 06:19
well when you had film you couldnt alter things like you can today and that was the skill of the photographer
and all those programs in the camera are the equivalent of the film
it was the skill of the photographer to capture that image at that prosice moment it seems that every one is forgeting how to take a photo
and how to use a camera
and all those programs in the camera are the equivalent of the film
it was the skill of the photographer to capture that image at that prosice moment it seems that every one is forgeting how to take a photo
and how to use a camera
Comment by stu62 posted on this will be intresting at 18/05/2016 - 22:39
i have come to think that there is not many true photographers on here
simple reason is that every one seems to have to alter there photos with one program or another to change what they look like
i know this will cause arguments but what the hell
it seems that those that play with there photos are to scared to post what it came out the cameraas well as how it finished up
come on prove that you can take photos straight out the camera and if its not cropped even better
simple reason is that every one seems to have to alter there photos with one program or another to change what they look like
i know this will cause arguments but what the hell
it seems that those that play with there photos are to scared to post what it came out the cameraas well as how it finished up
come on prove that you can take photos straight out the camera and if its not cropped even better
Comment by stu62 posted on this will be intresting at 18/05/2016 - 20:47
I am probably one of the few that hates the k5
I had nothing but trouble with mine could not get it to do what I wanted
And the photo quality straight out the camera was poor
I'm not a big believer of playing with them on the computer
If you can't do it on the camera then it's not for me
I had nothing but trouble with mine could not get it to do what I wanted
And the photo quality straight out the camera was poor
I'm not a big believer of playing with them on the computer
If you can't do it on the camera then it's not for me
Comment by stu62 posted on Boring first shot at 12/05/2016 - 09:35
Algernon wrote:
Major Bo!Bo! by Pentax They should remember that Contax users jumped ship because their expensive MF lenses wouldn't fit the new AF body.
Only solution recall the K-1's and release a K-2 quickly. You can't sell a body that won't work with Sigma lenses. Canikon folk will be clapping their hands.
Sigma have boobed as well they should have rubbed it in that Pentax had let their existing Sigma lens owners down.
Lenses like the Bigma and 150-500mm were available to test on the K-1..... Seems nobody bothered.
I wouldn't be concerned about a small scratch but the lens could act as a crowbar and flex the magnesium body or pull the mount off.
--
-
Major Bo!Bo! by Pentax They should remember that Contax users jumped ship because their expensive MF lenses wouldn't fit the new AF body.
Only solution recall the K-1's and release a K-2 quickly. You can't sell a body that won't work with Sigma lenses. Canikon folk will be clapping their hands.
Sigma have boobed as well they should have rubbed it in that Pentax had let their existing Sigma lens owners down.
Lenses like the Bigma and 150-500mm were available to test on the K-1..... Seems nobody bothered.
I wouldn't be concerned about a small scratch but the lens could act as a crowbar and flex the magnesium body or pull the mount off.
--
-
Algernon wrote:
Major Bo!Bo! by Pentax They should remember that Contax users jumped ship because their expensive MF lenses wouldn't fit the new AF body.
Only solution recall the K-1's and release a K-2 quickly. You can't sell a body that won't work with Sigma lenses. Canikon folk will be clapping their hands.
Sigma have boobed as well they should have rubbed it in that Pentax had let their existing Sigma lens owners down.
Lenses like the Bigma and 150-500mm were available to test on the K-1..... Seems nobody bothered.
I wouldn't be concerned about a small scratch but the lens could act as a crowbar and flex the magnesium body or pull the mount off.
--
-
sigma are a bunch of two faced buracratic swines any way if they was not so intrested in making it hard for pk users to get lenses they would make a lot mor money than they are nowMajor Bo!Bo! by Pentax They should remember that Contax users jumped ship because their expensive MF lenses wouldn't fit the new AF body.
Only solution recall the K-1's and release a K-2 quickly. You can't sell a body that won't work with Sigma lenses. Canikon folk will be clapping their hands.
Sigma have boobed as well they should have rubbed it in that Pentax had let their existing Sigma lens owners down.
Lenses like the Bigma and 150-500mm were available to test on the K-1..... Seems nobody bothered.
I wouldn't be concerned about a small scratch but the lens could act as a crowbar and flex the magnesium body or pull the mount off.
--
-
Comment by stu62 posted on Info regarding Sigma lenses on a K1 at 11/05/2016 - 21:12
jeallen01 wrote:
Unfortunately I don't think - having seen the K-1 at the Birmingham show - that I will be buying a K-1 anytime in the foreseeable future for cost/weight/frame rate reasons as it just doesn't do what I need.
OTOH a S/H K3-II might be on the cards later on, because I think it might for A/F speed reasons.
i have the k3ii and that is one reason why im not having a k1Unfortunately I don't think - having seen the K-1 at the Birmingham show - that I will be buying a K-1 anytime in the foreseeable future for cost/weight/frame rate reasons as it just doesn't do what I need.
OTOH a S/H K3-II might be on the cards later on, because I think it might for A/F speed reasons.
i am enjoying thw k3ii to much to change but the 70/200 is on the cards when i have had chance to play with one when im next in watford
Comment by stu62 posted on So who is planning on buying the K1 (Who hasn't already) at 08/05/2016 - 07:08
Just because you visit a rumours site doesn't give you the right to make stuff up i.e. the title of this thread
--