Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
 1 
 on: Today at 03:35:31 PM 
Started by geesbert - Last post by Frederic_H
Not exactly the same weight.
To me the universalis is a F ("field") precise enough to be used with a MFDB, which is rather cool. If it lets me shoot some 4x5 and use a dslr too, I really couldn't ask for more (well, maybe more movements and/or tilt on the rear standard too...).

 2 
 on: Today at 03:33:46 PM 
Started by pedro39photo - Last post by melchiorpavone
We agree. Manual focus is superior, period.

The only caveat to this is that AF sometimes allows you to capture shots you would of missed altogether, which does count for something, and in some cases is everything.

Yes, agreed.

 3 
 on: Today at 03:32:23 PM 
Started by Eric Brody - Last post by kirkt
You're welcome.  I have used it mostly for HDR and HDR spherical panoramas.  It is packable and easy to use and the firmware is constantly being maintained and updated with new features.  I have used it with a Canon 5D, 5DII and 5DIII, no Nikons though.

kirk

 4 
 on: Today at 03:32:13 PM 
Started by mstevensphoto - Last post by Robert Ardill
OK, well I’ve devised a test that does demonstrate at least to some extent the issue we’ve been discussing.

I took a file with a sort of Granger Rainbow that I constructed myself in sRGB in 16-bit mode.



I then converted this to ProPhoto.

I then converted both images to a destination profile (I used a Canson profile so it’s entirely 3rd-party and out of my control).  The conversion was perceptual with BPC on in both cases.  This is the data that would be sent to the printer: the job of the CMM is done.

I then placed one image above the other as layers in Photoshop and set the upper layer to Difference.  I applied a Levels adjustment above the two layers to make the difference more apparent.  This is what it looks like:



The test is not conclusive as the differences could be due to rounding errors … or they could be due to the compression of the ProPhoto space to the smaller printer space.

The only conclusive way of doing this, to my mind, is to look at the mapping algorithm … or at the profile mapping using GamutVision or Chromix.  This is a bit like asking to see a Black Hole … you can show the maths, you can show the stars twirling around seemingly nothing … but you can’t show the Black Hole.  Or at least I can’t for this particular black hole Smiley.

Robert

 5 
 on: Today at 03:26:42 PM 
Started by pedro39photo - Last post by John Koerner
What you are saying may be true, but not germane to the topic, of focussing typical subject matter (people, sports, etc.) hand held. It has nothing to do with it. My claim is that manual focus is superior for such subject matter.

We agree. Manual focus is superior, period.

The only caveat to this is that AF sometimes allows you to capture shots you would of missed altogether, which does count for something, and in some cases is everything.

 6 
 on: Today at 03:20:18 PM 
Started by geesbert - Last post by RobertJ
In that case, I'd prefer the Cambo, but there's still that M Line Two which is super nice.

 7 
 on: Today at 03:09:38 PM 
Started by geesbert - Last post by Frederic_H
On the F-line you press the flat element at the bottom of the front frame (with the A/S logo engraved) and swing manually, then release it to lock.

 8 
 on: Today at 03:07:31 PM 
Started by LesPalenik - Last post by Telecaster
Good article IMO on Photokina by Thom Hogan. Read down past the camera maker summaries for his observations re. the utter lack of a seamless maker-provided camera-to-screen workflow/datapath. Given that most folks don't print you'd think some there'd be more some consideration of what they we actually (want to) do with photos.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-lost-photokina.html

-Dave-

 9 
 on: Today at 03:05:01 PM 
Started by Thomas Krüger - Last post by alanmcf
I just spoke with GlobalBMG.com. They apparently source HP papers for HP (or some such). I was told that Litho Realistic Matte paper is out of stock (reading often as discontinued) everywhere because the manufacture could no longer get the paper base. She says that they are working on a very similar "improved" replacement that would be ready in 6 to 8 weeks, and that it would carry the same Litho Realistic name.

 10 
 on: Today at 03:00:55 PM 
Started by chaosphere - Last post by chaosphere
up  Smiley

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad