 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] san rrcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Not really, there are some scary lawyer words buried in those owner's
> manuals.
I just read a recent discussion where someone went thru a bunch of user
manuals for all the high-end cameras, including like the things that TV
studios and digital movie production houses use, and they *all* say you have
to go get your license for any commercial use. Indeed, individual viewers
also need a license to watch any video that was *ever* in MPEG (h.264?)
format that ever had any sort of money transfer associated with it.
So if you take a video with a camera that records it as mpeg, transcode that
to FLV, share it via youtube (where youtube makes money serving ads), and I
watch it, I technically need a license to watch that video.
> 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 had old lenses, but not so old they didn't have autofocus. :-)
> 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.
Yep.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> Very different companies. Jasc good; Corel bad.
Yeah, but this seems a common theme amongst many programs.
"Corel bad" is why I'm looking into whether the $70 photoshop is worthwhile.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well, try this:
>
> http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0064.html
>
> That's probably a metre or two away, it's a dazzlingly bright June
> afternoon, and the image sucks. It's flat and utterly devoid of colour.
>
> http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0011.html
>
> Similar deal. No contrast anywhere, half the frame is bleached white,
> and it doesn't even appear to be properly in focus in places.
>
> These images are scaled down; usually the full-res image is horribly
> grainy too. (Because, let's face it, usually it *isn't* a dazzlingly
> bright June afternoon, and my camera is supremely insensitive to light.
> If it's not blinding sunshine, it wants to use the flash...)
>
> There's no way my camera would ever capture the lush colours and sharp
> edges of the images you show.
As others are pointing out, your images are just fine with a bit of
tweaking. It is all about contrast. Earthy reds and greens do not differ
that much, so it all blurs. I turned your first link black&white to show
you how that contrast appears:
http://picasaweb.google.com/sabrina.kilian/TempAlbum?feat=directlink
Also put a comparison leafy picture in color and B&W.
You can fix it with the aperture and exposure, blurring out the
background. You can fix it in post, just pushing the hue and saturation
values around. You don't fix this in camera with menu options. Skip the
color correction in camera, if you can. Skip jpeg if the camera has the
option to shoot raw. You want some dark in there, so one fix in camera
might be to under expose the images if you can not set the shutter speed
directly.
Or, you fix it in your eyes before the picture. Shoot in black and white
for a while, just as practice, and you can quickly teach yourself how to
spot setting that is just doomed to be washed out. You can fix those
situations (spot flash, waiting for the sun to change, moving to a
different vantage point) but learn to see them first.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
>
I thought the path went windows 'editor', Elements, ArtRage?
I never 'got' Photoshop. I used it at work, and while it does everything
. . . it does everything. Felt like overkill, every time I started it
for something.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
