Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 03:10:41 AM 
Started by digitaldog - Last post by pfigen
Apparently Gary even deleted my relatively benign, no personal attacks comment explaining where he went awry in his video. I guess that shows you the measure of the man, but y'all can make up your own mind.

After one of Gary's earlier posts where he went on and on about having the Fuji technicians over to his lab almost on a daily basis to fiddle with the color response, I'm wondering why he didn't just linearize the printer, nail down the chemistry line and then make a good custom profile of the Fuji, rather than spend so much time and effort to try and squeeze and force that device into something sort of resembled sRGB. I mean, for a self proclaimed color management expert, I would have thought this would be obvious. Hell, I was making my own custom Frontier profiles for my local Costco long before Dry Creek was around, and they worked so well, the counter people always asked how I got the color so good the first time through with no test prints.

Oh well. This entire thread is one of the most disappointing ones I've read in some time.

 on: Today at 03:09:34 AM 
Started by kikashi - Last post by stamper
I find this very likeable. Regarding colours, if it was in shade - as it appears to me - then imo the colours would be muted. Regarding framing, it has to be cropped somewhere - whether in camera or computer - and it looks just fine to me. No nitpicks. Smiley

 on: Today at 03:06:51 AM 
Started by Emilmedia - Last post by torger
Oh, another experiment you can do is to open a Pentax 645Z DNG in (the latest) RawTherapee and then load an IQ250 color profile from C1 (RawTherapee supports C1 icc profiles), and then apply a suitable RGB tone curve. That yields a very similar result to C1.

I have just a single raw file with a model to test with, so I can't make much conclusions. It would be great to find some more DNGs from a real studio portrait shoot. If anyone has a link to such downloads I'm interested.

 on: Today at 03:04:02 AM 
Started by Dave (Isle of Skye) - Last post by stamper
You're just getting hung up on the curiosity of how we define a country - and note the lack of the prefix "independent" in these exchanges. Should I stick to legal niceties and say Scotland isn't a country but a kingdom, just as you claimed Gibraltar was a country and someone (you?) claimed Wales isn't a country because it's legally a principality? Which it isn't, legally, as it's just called that and is legally part of the kingdom of England and Wales. As shown in my European examples, the definition of "country" is a bit like the chicken and the egg and which comes first. Quebecois and Catalans think they are a country, as do the Basques, as did the Polish and Finns and Ukrainians before them. Quebec or Catalonia vote yes, and hey presto they are an independent state, another definition of country, so Scotland wouldn't be the first country not to choose independence. And as shawnino says, it wouldn't be the first to be laughed at for voting no.

Why would the English want to give it up? It's not that bad.

John earlier on in the thread you admitted you were stirring it. I assume you still are because nobody could take seriously what you stated above. Grin

 on: Today at 03:01:56 AM 
Started by Chris Calohan - Last post by francois
Fantastic, I love the heron's attitude and the shape of the dead branch. Framing is top notch.

 on: Today at 03:00:19 AM 
Started by Dave (Isle of Skye) - Last post by stamper
With regards to people having an opinion I will refine what I meant. David Cameron the UK Prime minister has refused several times to debate with Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister, about the prospect of Scots leaving the UK. His excuse is, it is for Scots to decide and nobody else including himself. Yesterday, August 28th, he visited Glasgow in Scotland and lectured business people about the drawbacks of separation and then did a TV interview lecturing anyone willing to listen. That is a perfect example of why I stated that only the people who are eligible to vote should have an opinion.  Roll Eyes

 on: Today at 02:59:36 AM 
Started by PeterAit - Last post by francois
Nice, very pure image.

Two details if I may:
- the composition would have worked better for me had the birds been looking left, or been a bit more left in the frame,
- the bird looks a bit over-exposed on my laptop screen. There may be no problem in a correct viewing environment.


I agree with the placement of the egret in the frame, more to the left would have been nice. Other than that, it'a a lovely photo.

 on: Today at 02:54:59 AM 
Started by Emilmedia - Last post by torger
The 645Z can write DNGs, so any DNG compatible software can open it. However color is much about profiles and processing pipeline. I don't know what the status of the profiles are in various software, although we can be sure that it's not any for the 645Z in C1.

I've made an experiment by converting an 645Z file to an IQ250 raw file through a special software I have, and then you can run in C1. To my eye it looks good. I'm not sure if the sensor response is close enough though so colors will be equal. Not for a real workflow of course, but an interesting experiment to see if there's any special magic in the IQ250 compared to the considerably cheaper 645Z. I cannot yet answer if there's a difference or not, as I have not any test files IQ250 and 645Z shooting the same subject. I'm hoping this will come at some point so we can make a real comparison.

Have you thought about making your own color profiles? It seems to me that many photographers could save a lot of money by trying to make a profile that produces more pleasing colors than the manufacturers/raw converters default. Maybe it's difficult, I don't really know. As a landscape photographer a default "accurate" daylight profile is all I need and have a custom profile for my digital back (which I prefer compared to the manufacturer's profiles), but I guess it's a lot more complex when skin color is in the equation.

Hasselblad has their "Hasselblad Natural Colour Solution" which it's hard to find information about, but I guess is some type of proprietary color model which may be one answer to why they can produce very pleasing color with sensors like the Kodaks which on paper are not as good as the best competition (Dalsa CCDs and Sony CMOSes).

I'm thinking that the 645Z is more an enlarged 135 camera than a small medium format camera, meaning that color and workflow will be more like a 135 camera system, so I would expect that if you find MF skin colors better than most/all 135 cameras it's most likely that you won't be pleased by the 645Z's default rendering. But it could as said be possible to tune it to your liking, as there's probably nothing wrong with the hardware.

 on: Today at 02:54:51 AM 
Started by Codger - Last post by kers

I am also doing mostly architecture and always carry the latest 70-200 2.8 VR ; but for this i would like the d4 ...
Also it has a very good VR .
It is much lighter and smaller to carry around ( i do not use it that much so the 2.8  is mostly 1,5kg extra to carry)

if you are looking for the best optical quality i would consider the Zeiss 135 d2 .

 on: Today at 02:33:29 AM 
Started by kikashi - Last post by kikashi
It wasn't random, Harald: the top of the falls was obscured by vegetation. I wished it wasn't so, but...

Bernard, I didn't use a polariser, just a big stopper. I wonder if it's responsible for dulling the colours. I'm curious that you'd lose the top: for me, the patterns of flowing water were interesting.


Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10 »