Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 09:29:29 AM 
Started by RSL - Last post by RSL
You learn something new every day in this business. Thanks, Rajan. The content-aware patch tool is a winner. My only problem with this particular picture is that there really isn't anything in that water that feels exactly right for that patch. This was as close as I could come.

 on: Today at 09:27:38 AM 
Started by leebert - Last post by leebert
Well, it may be one of the stupider things I've done, but I grabbed one for $345 & am learning its various virtues & shortcomings. It's not a great lens, it's not a bad lens & if I become a better photographer by working with it it's probably worth it. Being a very long achromat pushed to the extreme of 24MP APS-C 3.5u micron photosites, I'm probably using it on its edge of serviceable use.

But I might seriously think about the older RB67 500/6 which doesn't suffer chromatism (& apparently didn't suck like the 360mm). It can be had for about $350, but since it's a bellows lens it requires the Fotodiox helicoid adapter, $150 extra for each system I own (Nikon & Sony).

The RZ67 350 & 500 apo's are of course also very reasonable for their quality & reach, I saw one Z 500/6 go for as little as US $1100 (but he said it had a little bit of "rot" which I took to mean fungus). There's a Z 1.4x TC that might impair the apo somewhat, but it'll be sharp wide open & no C/A. It'd be a helluva system for $1300 total (including TC) (compare to a Canon "L" 500/4).

  • On 24MP APS-C it'll evince more noticeable chromatic aberration within the limit of its resolving power (I figured it shoots around 80 lp/mm based on other people's test shots using 18MP FF camera bodies). Basically: Smaller pixels, larger apparent C/A.
  • Bright contrast areas, longitudinal C/A, mitigated by stopping down ... maybe a polarizer.
  • Full sunlight: Lateral C/A, mitigated with UV-2B / UV 420 or 85B filters (switch to Tungsten WB).
  • Macro extension tubes bring the mfd down to 4 meters & helps show that it's pretty sharp.
  • It plays well with any camera that proffers focus-peaking & IBIS (slow shutter when propped on a car window).
  • It's heavy but I can "Rambo" it sometimes by jamming my elbow into my gut / hip. I'll have to upgrade from my lightweight tripod.


Kingfisher at 35 meters, stopped down, missed the focus a bit (was just learning to use the A77's features)

Ruddy Duck at 25 meters ...

Eastern Phoebe (off-center crop) w/ some errant wavelengths to her right. This is either long. or lat. CA, not sure, but it does increase toward the edge.

Macro extension tubes at four meters, of feathered cat toy. The feather's barbs & then anterior barbules are visible. That's not bad at 12 feet, pretty damned macro, I must try it in the field w/ my 300/5.6 ULD.

 on: Today at 09:26:12 AM 
Started by mikomartin - Last post by mikomartin
Has anyone noticed that their photos look different (better) inside of Capture One?

After export, my photos look flatter and more held back then they do while I'm editing them.

Example screenshot of photo in Capture One:

Example after export:

Any help would be appreciated.

 on: Today at 09:17:51 AM 
Started by aaronchan - Last post by Ernst Dinkla
Used Canson Rives BFK and several small "ridges" lay on top of the coating with increasing height towards the roll core. So they went unnoticed till at 3 to 4 meters from the core.
The customer was here, the prints were rejected of course. The customer went back home and checked the other prints made with that roll, some of them already framed. In the end I had to reprint 3/4 of the roll and I got compensation from Canson. Experiences like that always cost time/money and the compensation does not cover that. True, there are several HM prints here that have to go to my distributor for similar defects but I print way more on HM than Canson. I have had Innova paper defects too. I do not see a direct relation between the price and less flaws for the 3 brands I mention here. Big fan of Museum Etching these days.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

 on: Today at 09:13:37 AM 
Started by Herbc - Last post by kdphotography
IMHO, there is a difference between what Photoclam did with the Multiflex and the Sunwayfoto GH Pro head vis a vis the AS D4.

AFAIK, the Multiflex is an almost exact replica of the AS Cube.  You'd be hard pressed to find any substantial difference other than the accent of customer service. I bought and enjoy the Cube.

I wanted to buy the D4, as I wanted a lighter geared hiking solution with a slimmer profile. If you compare the D4 and the Cube, the weight difference is really minor.  Not a solution for me, since I already have the Cube.

If you look at the specs of the Sunwayfoto GH Pro geared head, it is much lighter than the Cube.  At 670g it's lighter than the D4. It is smaller too.  This is not a 1:1 knock-off.  If (that's a big if) the GH Pro is a solid and smooth performer, I don't see another option in its weight class for a geared head.  It is enough of a weight difference to the Cube for me to consider it.

Our "US Sunwayfoto distributor" was oblivious----and was not helpful to me in their replies.

There may be a high quality American answer on the horizon but its not here yet.  Wink


 on: Today at 09:11:58 AM 
Started by water1 - Last post by Alan Goldhammer
What's a "safe place" when you are traveling for a month on the road?

And I'd say there is much more risk in having a single copy of an image than any risk associated with copying the images off the card onto another you have a redundant copy.
I don't do much traveling but one thing worth considering is copying to the cloud if where you are staying has fast Internet service.  Certainly every hotel that I've stayed at in Europe in recent years has good Internet connectivity.  Assuming you are just uploading RAW files this might be doable.  Of course it's predicated on having a computer with a card reader when traveling.  What would be really cool is to have a dedicated small device that can do this.  I still would not delete images from any card until I arrived home.

 on: Today at 09:07:54 AM 
Started by torger - Last post by torger
I'm pretty sure that this is the video you are referring to:   It was also posted to LuLa a couple of years ago.

I've seen that video and I suspect that 1) the instrument is dragged too fast, colormunki is a bit noisy on dark patches so averaging is helpful (ie drag slower), 2) the small patches and distance the gap may cause disturbance and give less precise measurements.

I cannot know for sure without thorough testing, but seen indications of this in a forum thread where these type of things were used, and also yesterday when I myself tried to read 8mm patches with my instrument.

With argyll half-size patches and slow dragging (to improve measurement precision) you can drag the instrument without a ruler with no problems. Just tape the paper to the table so it does not move.

 on: Today at 09:06:46 AM 
Started by Dynszis - Last post by bjanes
The "misunderstanding" is only partial. It is true that mft 2.8 is equivalent to a full-frame 5.6, but only for depth-of-field purposes. For light-gathering purposes, it is still 2.8, as compared to 4.5-5.6 for 70-300 full-frame zooms. As such, it allows you to shoot using a shutter speed that is twice faster, or ISO that is a quarter of the one you would have to use on a full-frame camera. With lower ISO, you reclaim some (or all) of the noise advantage the full-frame has.

It is not that simple. The full frame f/2.8 has a larger clear aperture and collects more light than a f/2.8 MFT lens. Roger Clark explains the concept of etendue in his post "When f/ratio Does not Tell the Whole Story". Astronomical telescopes are rated in terms of clear aperture, not f/ratio. How this applies to terrestrial photography is not that simple, but the article is worth reading.



 on: Today at 09:06:25 AM 
Started by churly - Last post by Bob_B
The first one is my favorite, too. The high-key effect really brings home snow, ice, and cold. Nice!

 on: Today at 09:05:02 AM 
Started by aaronchan - Last post by Alan Goldhammer
I just did a big job with Hahnemuhle's Photo Rag and it got F-up
Their paper is very sensetive. I'm not gonna go through the whole story but that's the fact.

Still it would be useful to provide a little more information than you have.  I use Photo Rag Ultra Smooth sheets and have not had any issues.  What is the sensitivity you are seeing?

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 »