Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 02:20:02 PM 
Started by G* - Last post by Paul2660
IMO 20 mp is plenty unless you plan on making a large print. Something that is less and less demand now as the instant gratification generation moves to Facebook, Instagram etc.

I am done with the chase.


 on: Today at 01:56:31 PM 
Started by torger - Last post by torger
As I wrote in the initial post there is a difference between the two formats, 3FR = uncalibrated raw data with calibration data in tags on the side, and FFF = calibration applied and calibration tags removed. A converter that parses the format gets to the same result of course so from a user perspective there is no difference. However it's relevant to us that write raw conversion software. Also worth noting is that many smaller third party apps have its raw conversion based on dcraw, which does not apply calibration data as the format of it is not reverse-engineered. A while ago I reverse-engineered that for the IIQ format (now available in latest dcraw), and obviouslyt I have more work to do now with 3FR. I don't like to store my images in proprietary formats, so the least thing I want is to have the format reverse-engineered and covered in open-source software.

MFD CCDs are harder to convert than newer CMOS, as the former is much more "analog", there's slight non-linearity in the AD-conversion (hence calibration curves), and there's more read noise which can disturb demosaicers and create false texture.

Even the calibrated FFF file for my H4D-50 has slight difference between green channels, which put some demosaicers off target and they start producing mazing artifacts. This can be compensated for with a threshold though ("green equiliberation" in RawTherapee where this is a user setting), so its quite easy but still an extra thing to think about.

I do not agree with the view that it's about to "extract" the DR they capture, you can't really do magic there in signal terms, the raw data is what it is, but you can do "psychovisual magic" ie, make a noise reduction which is pleasing to the eye, and that's what Phocus does very successfully. Some demosaicers worsen the noise and make it look more blotchy, so the best technique is probably to have a demosaicer focused on detail in the bright areas and one focused less on detail and more on smoothness in the noiser shadows, I suspect Phocus has such a technique rather than using the same demosiacer over the whole image.

Concerning demosaicers specially made for AA-filter-less cameras I don't know if there needs to be that much of a difference, I think Lightroom makes a quite good work in the bright areas, and all have aliasing problems. Maybe Phocus has a little bit less, have looked more at texture so far. Possibly texture is a bit overdone in LR, and that might be that a demosaicer designed for AA-filtered cameras is a bit more sensitive to catch texture, but that's just a speculation.

I haven't had time to make comparisons with my Aptus yet so I don't know what I will think of the absolute image quality when comparing side by side. I hope to be able to do that quite soon, but this calibration data problem will delay me, seems to be more coding than shooting for me the coming time...

 on: Today at 01:53:04 PM 
Started by Bob_B - Last post by Bob_B
From the standpoint of reliability and operability, how advisable is it to buy a used flash head (Canon 580 EX II or 430 EX II or even 270 EX II)? My local camera store  has some used ones at a good price, and I would buy one if it weren't likely to fail. I have bought several great  used lenses from them, but never a flash, and I don't know much about the expected working lifetime of a flash.

I guess it boils down to how much use the flash received (and why it was returned). The flash tube and capacitor have a defined life = number of flashes, neither of which are easily assessed. So, buying a used flash is a bit more risky than buying a used lens or camera body, but that's just my opinion.

 on: Today at 01:50:08 PM 
Started by torger - Last post by ErikKaffehr

Only LR/ACR has this behaviour of the ones I tried, that is LR, Capture One, Raw Therapee, AccuRaw, Iridient Raw Developer.

I hope that fix it, as more and more cameras drop the OLP filter.

The images blow show this quite well, they are not sharpened an upsized to 200%.

Best regards

Hi Erik

It must be a lot less complicated to hone a dedicated raw convertor to a given line of cameras rather than to a hotchpotch of cameras from differing manufacturers.

 on: Today at 01:38:23 PM 
Started by Derek Kemp - Last post by Derek Kemp
Although, it could be my error:
I just finished a new computer build. Therefore, a new install of PS CC2014. OS is Windows 8.1.
When I open Camera Raw, start processing a picture: If I try to use the "Adjustment Brush", regardless of the diameter I choose, the area that is "adjusted" is not under the selected area shown by the circles. It is about a full diameter away from the shown centre, at about a 45 degree angle down and to the right (like, about 4 o'clock).
I also notice that the "Spot Removal" tool is doing the exact same thing. All other tools seem to be ok.
If I reduce the size down far enough, at some point the circles turn into a double lined cross. At that point, the selected centre is correct,  but if I increase the size, as soon as the circles, denoting the selected area, become visible again, this anomaly occurs.
I've never heard of this before and my previous installs of PS have all been ok.
Has any one else encountered this? Is it me or a bug or my install?
Thanks for any help on this.

 on: Today at 01:37:39 PM 
Started by zr_photo - Last post by Torbjörn Tapani
Get a SSD preferably 500 Gb for the system so that you do not end up with a full system drive. SSDs perform better with some space left. Samsung are good.

RAW files can live on the 2Tb HDD.

 on: Today at 01:31:38 PM 
Started by Glenn Bartley - Last post by Kevin Gallagher
 Just lovely as always Glenn!!

Actually, I was just thinking it looks like a Bluejay and a Red Breasted Grosbeak had a collision Smiley

 on: Today at 01:27:47 PM 
Started by hdomke - Last post by Jeff Magidson
I've been printing on Epson Pro printers for 10+ years. I've also been printing on my Canon ipf8300 for 2.5 years.

1) On the issue of loading sheets on the ipf8300 - Once you get the hang of it, its really easy and very dependable. I load 11x14 & 17x22 sheets all the time and get perfectly even and square borders without any problems.

2) Image quality - my Epson 3880 and my ipf8300 are VERY close in image quality. With good profiles it's really neck and neck. The 3880 has a slightly better dither, only noticeable on glossy paper in smooth areas at VERY close distances or with a loupe.

3) Consistency - My ipf8300 has problems with color consistency over time, this has been a PITA! I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere. I often make prints for clients and then get orders for reprints many months later. Between the first printing and prints made at a later date there is often a slight but noticeable shift in the neutral areas on the magenta/green axis. One time I was doing a large run of 24"x32" prints of 1 image, and the prints shifted in color (subtle but noticeable) during the run - very frustrating! I didn't change ink carts or anything during the run. My hunch is if the printer determines that the print head(s) needs to be remapped because of a clog, it results in a slight color shift. I've never had this issue with my 2 Epson 3880s. I would love to know if other Canon IPF users have noticed this issue. This issue is enough to make me want to go back to Epson for my next large printer in the future.

 on: Today at 01:16:21 PM 
Started by Roman Racela - Last post by Roman Racela
I'm glad you approve, Scott! Smiley

Yep, very well done.

 on: Today at 01:15:34 PM 
Started by Roman Racela - Last post by Roman Racela
Thanks for the compliment. Some of the formations found here are even weirder. I found some that look like wings and chicken heads. I'd love to go back there and explore and photograph the area for an entire week Smiley

What a great shot!! The formations kinda look like giant mushrooms. As others have said the color is stunning, very well don sir!

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »