Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10 »
 on: April 19, 2014, 08:51:29 PM 
Started by PeterAit - Last post by MHMG

I've seen dozens and dozens of posts over the years from people who have a lab supply a profile only for soft proofing and not for final output. They are told they can soft proof but can only use the profile for that use, data must be sent in sRGB. Here's one example from a pretty big lab:

Wow, Andrew, I stand corrected. I have visited the whcc website within the last couple of years and never saw any policy like this. Thiings appear to have changed dramatically in recent years. So, perhaps this "soft proof only" policy is a newer trend, but nonetheless a particularly disturbing one. Indeed, this entire thread just convinces me that printing my own work on my own printers in house makes far more sense than trying to develop a good long term relationship with an outside lab. The traditional photographic print is under siege from a lot of different technological innovations these days, but print providers shouldn't be stepping all over themselves to be killing off their own customer base.

thanks for the heads up.


 on: April 19, 2014, 08:51:25 PM 
Started by revaaron - Last post by eronald
Tulip festival north of Seattle, WA, USA.  I promise it's not fake, only adjusted the resolution.

Nice image Joe.

I like pictures which are quietly pleasant to look at, which leave a comfortable moment with you.


 on: April 19, 2014, 08:49:02 PM 
Started by Eric Myrvaagnes - Last post by cjogo
Good job of cleaning.  The view of the moon lite trees reflecting in the still lake is so relaxing I see bits and pieces floating in the sky.
  Nice  interpretation :-)

 on: April 19, 2014, 08:44:46 PM 
Started by marcmccalmont - Last post by Garycay
      Quite understandable Keith....... this is the result of the forum God's attacks. Put everyone on edge and thinking everyone is attacking each other. No way for a great Forum like this one to be.... shame. But only Michael can change this......

Please Peter Le - please there is another possible way. People, grounded ones please (very important - to NOT exhibit the behavior one wants to see less of) - speak up like just happened several times in this thread. While not perfect, it has possibilities of eventually doing something beneficial (creating a more open environment, having a better interchange about a subject that has a higher probability of being of use to a greater number of folks, and a more co-operative world. Ok the last one is a little over the top. Maybe a more cooperative forum!!

 on: April 19, 2014, 08:42:01 PM 
Started by Ellis Vener - Last post by NancyP
I have heard of people using FedEx to get their gear to the job site city, on the theory that there is less likelihood of theft. I figure that gate checked bags should contain underwear, socks, nightshirts, boring and/or cheap clothes, and other non-breakable stuff no self-respecting burglar/handler would touch - and my checked bag is usually the homeliest bag on the carousel - unlocked, of course, so they can view the used knickers inside and move on to someone else's fancier bag.

 on: April 19, 2014, 08:35:13 PM 
Started by Brian Hirschfeld - Last post by Robert Falconer
I do not own an M240, but I have a friend who owns one and I have shot with his on a few occasions. Personally, I own at late '30s Leica III and an M3.

 on: April 19, 2014, 08:34:11 PM 
Started by robgo2 - Last post by tuthill
Rob, are you aware of the developers plans to speed proceeding up in Photo Ninja?  I purchased it right at the outset and put up with the slow processing speeds until a few months ago at which time I uninstalled it.  I'm running a 2009 MacBook Pro with 8 gig of ram so it's not a speed demon however I don't incur waits for basic adjustments to be processed in LR or PS CC so I think PN could be optimized to run much more quickly.  Any info you have in this regard would be appreciated.

 on: April 19, 2014, 08:34:02 PM 
Started by dkaplan74 - Last post by NancyP
Hey, I like my cheapo miltary-surplus (Beaufort Hall AFB, inscribed on its ugly little barrel) AIS Nikkor 50mm f/1.2, even though it is a PITA to focus and I use it with adapter on my Canon 6D. This is one of these lenses where the defect, hellacious spherical aberration wide open, can also be used as a feature. It is a perfectly fine and sharp lens stopped down to f/2.8 to f/5.6, and the lens you have is better than one still in the store. Sure, I lust after the Sigma Art. For the time being, I am using my trusty fossil. It needs to be at f/4 for astrolandscapes, though, the coma wide open has wider wings than the local harbinger of spring, the buzzard (turkey vulture - wingspan about 5 ft).

 on: April 19, 2014, 08:23:38 PM 
Started by marcmccalmont - Last post by Peter Le
       Quite understandable Keith....... this is the result of the forum God's attacks. Put everyone on edge and thinking everyone is attacking each other. No way for a great Forum like this one to be.... shame. But only Michael can change this......

 on: April 19, 2014, 08:22:39 PM 
Started by Brian Hirschfeld - Last post by JV
I'm not suggesting that Leica move to autofocus for the M, because it would be an enormous engineering hurdle and stray too far from the company's entrenched reputation for building traditional rangefinders.

Thus, the Leica is a precision tool for a very specific type of shooting. However, it's not a highly versatile professional tool for a wide variety of shooting situations.

That said, there are some things that could be improved upon, such as higher ISO performance. For example, I'm not particularly impressed with the CMOSIS sensor tech used in the 240, and think Leica would be better served using current generation Sony sensors.

There are a few items of control operation that could stand improvement as well, but I'm not going to get bogged down listing them all here.

Interesting… just out of curiosity, do you actually own a M 240?  Have you ever shot one?

Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10 »