Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »
 11 
 on: Today at 05:14:45 PM 
Started by Chiotas - Last post by Alan Goldhammer
Just make sure that the sensor is supported in the Asus/LG(?) software.

See if you can stretch the budget a little for an NEC or Eizo. It hurts now, yes, but pays off in the long run...
The monitors must have an addressable LUT, that's not software.  Software comes with the sensor or you can use ArgyllCMS which is freeware to calibrate the monitor.  Agree that if the OP can get a NEC, that's the way to go.  Base colors in a NEC are outstanding.

 12 
 on: Today at 05:10:30 PM 
Started by Ellis Vener - Last post by Alan Goldhammer
Jeff is certainly more of an expert than I am on all things Adobe but here's the LINK to the specification optimization for Photoshop.  Only certain manipulations in PS require lots of processing power and memory.  With LR if you have a decent system you are good to go and it's not as dependent on RAM, GPU, or CPU at this point in time.  Perhaps as more PS features get added that might change but again with the movement to CC those of us who stick with LR/PS perpetual license are likely not to see much in the way of differences.  I run a fast i-5 CPU with 16GB of fast RAM and don't see any issues at all with LR.

Alan

 13 
 on: Today at 05:09:42 PM 
Started by Brian Hirschfeld - Last post by scooby70
Leica.

You can't spit the first syllable out  the name without someone saying yea . . . rich dentists, or lately. . . rich Chinese looking for dash a ornament for their Bentley....

The last and most important thing is Leicas make you use the most important tool you own . . . your brain.

IMO

BC


I do wonder why there seems to be a tend to refer to some cameras or the companies who make them in mildly derogatory terms. Can't we love what we love and let the others exist with our blessing?

These days electronic companies have the temerity to make cameras but so what? They're not camera phones they're cameras and any unwanted add ons such as wifi and HDR can be turned off or ignored leaving you with, if that's what you want, a camera set to manual.

I've never owned a Leica as I just didn't see the need to spend that much money. Instead I owned lesser RF's each with a single lens and enjoyed using cheaper but still enjoyable gear. I sold my RF's years ago and although I do still own film cameras it's just for the memories and my most used camera now and for some time was made by a massive far eastern company - and I love it. They make cameras, fridges, vacuum cleaners and all manor of things and they probably make ships too and they almost certainly make phones but what I own is a camera and I use old manual lenses on it in aperture and occasionally manual mode and to me it's a very film shooting like experience and not at all like phoning my dentist.

 14 
 on: Today at 05:05:12 PM 
Started by Slobodan Blagojevic - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic
Thanks everyone for the comments, positive and negative, critique and suggestions. It is always a struggle (for me, at least) to find a balance between spectacular and natural, impactful and believable (in post-processing).

The latest version I posted (on Flickr, and automatically updated in my first post on this thread, takes into account some of the comments I found valid. Stamper, you are right, the version before that was a bit desaturated, so I brought back some, especially in the trees. Hans, I increased the contrast a bit as well.

I continue to disagree (with some) about the amount of foreground. I believe that, as Russ et al do as well, that much foreground is necessary to balance the sheer visual weight of the mountain. I accept, however, that the foreground should be less crunchy, so I adjusted it with a ND grad, by darkening it, reducing clarity, contrast and saturation a bit.

At the end, I wanted to share, for what it is worth, the original file, straight out of camera (with LR defaults, obviously):

P.S. I would also strongly suggest to see the OP photo on Flickr, given that there it will be on a black background. The white background here does dim brightness and saturation a bit.

 15 
 on: Today at 05:02:42 PM 
Started by LenR - Last post by digitaldog
I have both, but have no desire to spend them on your "scientific" terrorism.
Then move on. Considering your first post here was:Good thing I couldn't understand a thing of the impossible-to-define-colors blabbering of our esteemed nerds... that seems to admit you're lost and has no positive bering on the topic, why are you here?

Look, if you have something valuable to share, do so. Otherwise, what are we supposed to make of your first post here and what appears to be an admission of being lost and adding blah to a large part of your text?

 16 
 on: Today at 05:02:36 PM 
Started by chuckn - Last post by luxborealis
Due to the tight cropping, it may be visually less distracting if you were to correct the angles of the bipuildings. I think that would allow the reflections to become more dominant as viewers' eyes will be less likely to be pulled away.

 17 
 on: Today at 05:00:29 PM 
Started by Isaac - Last post by Isaac
"When is a photo of a crying girl not a photo of a crying girl? News photography in the age of truthiness"

 18 
 on: Today at 04:58:05 PM 
Started by felix5616 - Last post by felix5616
I have a white lightning X800 flash with power cords, sync cords, 7" reflector, umbrella, 13" stand with casters and a cybersync set of transmitter and receiver for wireless flash control. Asking $350 for everything. Located in NC. References and pics available

 19 
 on: Today at 04:56:37 PM 
Started by apobobo - Last post by apobobo
not mind the brand and model.

If you want to sell,let me know.

Thanks.

 20 
 on: Today at 04:54:34 PM 
Started by narikin - Last post by Dan Vincent
You may only have the dye inks and the original Ultrachrome inks to use since the cartridges are keyed so you can't put the wrong cart into the wrong slot.

About the only thing in common between the x600 the x800 printers and newer are the waste carts and cutters and paper. As far as I know, you can't put an x800 cartridge into an 4000/7600/9600 printer. The only series of printers Epson made that I think all three sizes of printers shared the same ink carts was this series. When they "improved" to the 4800, it took its own special carts that wouldn't fit in the 7800/9800. Same for the x880 and especial for the x900 series. Even the carts for the 4900 are of yet another capacity compared to the 7900/9900 and the 4880 before it.

This is about right according to my recollection. I've worked with almost all of these models.

It's dumb (or profitable) that they made two separate cart form factors for the 4800 versus the larger printers because the carts on offer were the exact same capacity (110 and 220ml carts were available for all x800 series). Seeing a 4800 loaded with 220ml carts was amusing, and they were exactly the same size as the 9800 220ml carts... just keyed differently.

The 7/9900 series changed the form factors completely and all the carts are the same physical size, they just hold different volumes of ink. For the 4900 they had to make the cart smaller to accommodate the smaller form factor.

Interestingly enough the 3880 and 3800 use the same carts except for the Magentas (which are keyed differently). So if you have a friend getting rid of ink on a 3800 and you have a 3880, take it!

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad