Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 »
 on: Today at 04:16:14 PM 
Started by Jimbob2 - Last post by Jimbob2
Reduced to $2900.

 on: Today at 04:13:23 PM 
Started by spencerD - Last post by spencerD
Thanks again, good to hear from XT-1 owners.
Better is always nice, but equal overall is just fine with me.
Point is, I do concentrate on landscape photography so quality needs to be good. With regards fine detail. Does it needs to be the highest resolution or detail of all available cameras in the price range no, as long as close/completive. There will always be better in the future.

I'm coming from a Canon 40D and for landscape and travel I would hope/expect the XT to replace it.
The 40D is old by todays standards, yet when I have nailed everything and  have made 12 x 18 prints, I have never felt, gee if only it had more detail. Most people, (friend) including a Simi Pro neighbor are always impress with the detail of my best prints.

It's not like websites doing A/B side by side or looking at 100% of the same image.

So if the XT surpasses my old 40D at base sensitivity, I should be happy.


 on: Today at 04:12:56 PM 
Started by dwbell - Last post by mouse
this concept does not allow users to wreck the colors easily (no unless you put some work to inflict a damage)... because the most important part of the Adobe's color transform will be preserved intact...

Understood.  But the important question is what part of Adobe's color transform must be preserved, and what part may be modified to my taste.

 on: Today at 04:12:00 PM 
Started by Damon Lynch - Last post by iluvmycam
Fantastic, big congrats!!

 on: Today at 04:11:58 PM 
Started by Quentin - Last post by Theodoros
Yes the difference layer mode is great in lining up the two layers. The difference layer mode also helps find movement pixel areas quickly but I like to go back to normal mode to better see the effects when brushing/blending the two layers together. It is a quick process.

It is important to make sure the 1 & 4 shot images to be mixed were shot at the same f-stop.

I worked out the exact layer shift amount using test shots of a lens chart set and have it noted down. I think the multi file is a couple pixels wider and a pixel higher. We talked to Hasselblad about doing something in the processing, or providing an exact script but it was not worth their time.  No idea why they could not make it match the 1 shot in the processing, besides the loss of a few pixels out of 200mpx.

I shot some auto parts still life images with a 5Dll a little while ago. I am so used to the non anti aliasing of multi-shot that all the multi coloured pixel/speckle like anti aliasing of the details freaked me out. Then it dawned on me that was just what 35mm digital looked like.

Theordoros. I would have to search hard drives for a good sample. PM and I will arrange to let you look at something. Putting a LR jpeg up on here shows nothing.

What is the "difference layer mode"? ...what are the two layers? ...layers of what? don't have layers (and you don't have two) in MS... you have true colour capturing in each and every one of the pixels because all RGB colour emission of a space in the scene is captured at the same place!  Cry

 If can't show us examples for MS done in the field you can't claim it can be done! ...pigs don't fly!  Grin

 on: Today at 04:11:25 PM 
Started by Slobodan Blagojevic - Last post by iluvmycam
Beautiful! Way to go!!

 on: Today at 04:10:16 PM 
Started by digitaldog - Last post by digitaldog
I could add something like: A deltaE of less than 1 between two colors is said to be imperceptible but to complicate matters, there are several formulas for calculating this metric. Further the ability of the eye distinguish two colors as different and is more limited for yellows but is better for greens and blues. This just adds even more difficulty in assigning a meaningful and accurate number of colors to these colors spaces.

 on: Today at 04:09:25 PM 
Started by Quentin - Last post by Joe Towner
What focal lengths are you looking to use, and how much tilt/swing/shift are you looking to accomplish? 

Did you dig into what Silvestri offers, has their Flexicam may be what you're looking for...

 on: Today at 04:08:58 PM 
Started by dwbell - Last post by deejjjaaaa
I'm still a little confused by the base profile concept
this concept does not allow users to wreck the colors easily (no unless you put some work to inflict a damage)... because the most important part of the Adobe's color transform will be preserved intact...

 on: Today at 04:08:19 PM 
Started by dwbell - Last post by mouse
If you cycle through the Adobe profiles and look at their base tone curves you will see a difference. On my Canon profiles for example, the Adobe Faithful and Neutral profiles have a base tone curve that has lower contrast than the curve for Adobe Standard, Landscape, and Portrait. However, I learned once that the same is not true for Nikon. Base tone curves in the Adobe profiles seem to vary based on make and model.

When I open the DNG profile editor and cycle through the Adobe profiles looking at the Tone Curve panel, they all appear perfectly linear to me.  (Nikon flavor).

If you look at the base tone curve graphs in the profile editor, the differences seem very small. However the difference in the image is significant. The higher contrast Adobe base tone curves look identical to a gamma 2.2 tone curve. I have no idea how or why the lower contrast base tone curves for some Adobe profiles were determined.

Note that you can start with any base tone curve and make adjustments in the profile editor to drive the gray squares on the image to whatever you deem is "linear". Then, in LR/ACR your tone curve adjustment is free to use for other changes.

In the Xrite ColorChecker Passport software the base profile is fixed (and hidden), and there is no way to adjust the tone curve for the resulting profile. On my Canon files, the Xrite software creates a base tone curve that is the same as the Adobe Standard base tone curve (higher contrast, gamma 2.2?).

I use a custom dual illuminant profile made with the Adobe DNG profile editor from the Canon Camera Faithful base profile. The main reason is the lower contrast tone curve. I find it a better starting point. Highlights are lower and less prone to blow outs. Shadows are lower too, but easy to adjust.

A few years ago I had a forum discussion with Adobe's Eric Chan about the concept of a base profile starting point in the Adobe profile editor. I had made a profile, then used it as the base profile to make another profile, then did it again. Each iteration generated a significanly different (and worse) result, which confused me. Eric told me not to do that. He strongly recommended using one of the Adobe profiles as the base for every custom profile. I'm still a little confused by the base profile concept, especially given that Xrite has no such thing. Xrite seems to always start from "square zero".

I too have trouble with the notion of a base profile starting point, and also have exchanged messages with Eric Chan.  I am no wiser.  

An interesting factoid:  If you open Adobe Standard profile (for Nikon D800) with dcpTool.exe you will find that it has no tone curve at all but does contain 2 Hue-Sat Delta tables.  Looking at Adobe Camera Standard and Camera Neutral profiles, you will see each contains a 96 point tone curve but no Hue-Sat Delta tables.  Don't know what conclusions to draw from that.

In any case, a suggestion to the OP:  He could select one of his profiles that he likes (except for the tone curve); open that profile with dcpTool and edit the xml file by replacing the tone curve (if one is present) with the values he established in LR.  (and of course recompile, as suggested while I was typing).

Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 »