 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> From what I've seen, if you buy an expensive camera,
Depends what you mean "expensive". Before the dslr craze, this was pretty
normal on a $400 camera with a good lens.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2010 11:29:02 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Trying to sharpen the image just amplifies the JPEG compression, sadly.
Depends on the tools; I've seen a tool for GIMP called "refocus-it" that
actually does a very good job. With practice, an unsharp mask or NL
filter can do pretty good with them as well, from what I've seen (I've
not practiced that as much).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4bdf12e4@news.povray.org...
> Mike Raiford wrote:
> > Has anybody seen the previews for some of the features of this new
> > edition of Photoshop?
> >
> > Been playing with it for a while. The Content-aware fill is truly
> > amazing.
> While it *is* truly amazing - to the point of being frightening - the
> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
> copy of Photoshop in the first place. Last time I checked, it's
> jaw-droppingly expensive...
It's less than pocket change for individuals or businesses doing actual work
with it, as far as tools go.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/5/2010 3:02 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> I suppose the path is Windows own 'editor', then Photoshop Elements,
> then Photoshop depending on how serious you are. Still when you consider
> you can get the latest Paint Shop Pro for under £80 and Elements for
> under £55 jumping up to £644 for Photoshop is a chasm.
There is an upgrade from Elements to Photoshop, which gives a small
discount ;)
It's much like jumping from an advanced point and shoot camera to a DSLR.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/4/2010 11:59 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
Believe me, it is worth it. Especially a lens at that price (Just a
guess: 400mm f/2.8 aperture, which would be one heck of a lens!)
Of course, the one I purchased was about $700, a 70-200 f/4 (a great
budget lens, btw ...)
The difference between that, and the 70-300 Quantarray was astounding.
All on a low-end (Digital Rebel) body. The lens really matters the most.
>> And I'm mostly normal :)
>
> You're in povray.off-topic and you seriously expect us to believe you're
> *normal*?? :-P
>
.... Mostly ....
I've never been committed to any sort of institution for the insane, or
anything like that.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/4/2010 1:50 PM, Darren New wrote:
> The lens, however, lets you take pictures you wouldn't otherwise be able
> to take. Even a small quality change in the lens adds or removes an hour
> each day that you can take natural light pictures, or pictures that
> aren't motion-blurred, or etc.
Right. The bigger the aperture, the more glass (And in high-end lenses
it's exotic glass with exotic coatings) ergo, the more cost.
Remember, the glass has to be a special type (and in most lenses, there
are a couple different types of glass being used) to eliminate
dispersion effects. Also, its expensive to grind some of the profiles on
the glass to counter geometrical distortions. Again, adding to the price
tag.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> terms of the MPEG license attached to the camera.
>
> You'd be surprised.
>
Not really, there are some scary lawyer words buried in those owner's
manuals. How many of them mean anything are a different story, but you
do pay extra for the extra lawyer words.
>> have old Minolta lenses that still work just fine on a new Sony Alpha.
>
> Yeah, actually, I wound up with a camera that was slightly more
> expensive and a bit heavier than I needed because it supported lenses
> that were older than I am, which I obviously don't own. Had I
> understood that, I would have gone the next body down.
>
If you own old lenses, it's worth the time, and maybe money, to look at
the different cameras. If you don't own old lenses, it doesn't matter.
I have lenses older than me. SLR bodies, folding cameras, and
8/super8/16mm film cameras too. Twenty five cents goes a long way at tag
sales.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just got PSP X2 working again.
What is with these companies? PSP8 had a perfectly good mechanism for
browsing pictures. You opened the browser, you navigated to the directory
with the pictures, it generated and saved the thumbnails in that directory,
and you could work with a directory full of photos.
PSP X2, you open the paint program the first time, and it locks up for an
hour going around thumbnailing every photo on your entire system, into its
own little hidden directory, including all the pictures you will never want
to work on with this program, and it doesn't stop when you close the
program, and it's too unresponsive to even tell it to stop. And I really
don't even want ten thousand extra thumbnails on my disk. I now have three
progams that generate thumbnails for every photo I look at, and at least one
that generates thumbnails for every photo I don't look at as well. *And* the
photos already all have thumbnails in them!
Plus, really, I don't need a program running all the time just in case I
stick a memory chip in that has photos on it. And anyway that's already
built into Windows, so why are you ruining that feature by giving your own
half-assed implementation?
</rant>
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:21:15 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I just got PSP X2 working again.
>
> What is with these companies? PSP8 had a perfectly good mechanism for
> browsing pictures.
Very different companies. Jasc good; Corel bad.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0016.html
>
> (For whatever reason, my camera utterly refuses to focus on small
> objects. I guess it's beyond the physical limits of the lense system or
> something...)
The fact that the corner is in focus, and is just a bit further away
than the center, suggests that the camera focused as near as it could. A
macro mode might get you a bit closer to your subject.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
