Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 »
 81 
 on: Today at 03:25:56 AM 
Started by dsapkota - Last post by dsapkota
up.

 82 
 on: Today at 03:23:13 AM 
Started by dsapkota - Last post by dsapkota
up.

 83 
 on: Today at 03:21:26 AM 
Started by trevarthan - Last post by BernardLanguillier
Agreed with the team here.

A single D810 images optimally shot with a good lens will not be very far from Imacon scanned 4x5 in the first place. This is the result of first hand experience and I have recently gotten rid of my Imacon Flextight III. I frankly don't regret it, removing dust from scans is easily the most boring thing I have ever done. I believe that the X1 and X5 now come with dust removal capabilities, but they are very exensive. Wink

Shooting slide films is a nightmare in terms of DR in all but the most amazing light. Shooting negatives is easier but then scanning becomes more of a problem. Plus there are no more Quickloads these days, which makes even loading film sheets cumbersome.

Indeed, if you factor in stitching, then your D810 will outdo both 4x5 and 8x10 easily in terms of image quality at a fraction of the cost, with 10 times more convenience and universality. Nowadays, stitching with software such as Autopano Pro or PTgui Pro is so easy and applicable to such a broad range of scenes that I don't know why anybody serious about image quality wouldn't add the technique to one's tool kit.

Stitching is also a means to carry fewer lenses in the field. I typically work with a 55mm and 180mm MF lenses only on most trips these days. No more wide angle.

Cheers,
Bernard

 84 
 on: Today at 03:18:28 AM 
Started by BartvanderWolf - Last post by BartvanderWolf
Bart:
You are producing a string that contains the numerical value you want in decimal representation, which is not the same as a number.

Yes, probably something like that won't work. I'm also exploring the option to set one's own global option, like:
Code:
-set option:mydeblur '%%[fx:1-3290*%Deblur%/2873127]'
after which one should be able to use it as
Code:
'%%[mydeblur]'

The double %% are supposed to be a Windows batch escaped single %.

Quote
Question:
My understanding is that Fred Weinhaus, in his scripts, always has this kind of numerical preprocessing done by the shell (the scripting language), not by ImageMagick itself.
Are you able to have your scripting language do basic arithmetic and push the result over to IM?

For some reason it doesn't work yet, which is strange because a batch variable like %deblur% is correctly parsed. So probably something to do with text versus numerical.

Quote
I'll post something on the Users Forum. This, really, is more of a scripting language question than an IM one, I think, but hopefully someone will know.

Maybe, but I do see code examples that does exactly what I'm trying, it only doesn't work in a batch script (assuming correct porting to windowese). For example this should correctly feed a calculation of a pixel value to a label (in unixese command line code):
Code:
convert rose:  -set option:mylabel '%[pixel:u.p{12,26}]' -delete 0 \
          label:'%[mylabel]'    label_fx_indirect.gif

Quote

I'll be watching that as well. Thanks for thinking along, I really like the suggestion for a variable blur, so I'd like to get it working, either via script precalculation or (preferably) an in-line "Percent escape" convert calculation.

Cheers,
Bart

 85 
 on: Today at 03:17:36 AM 
Started by BartvanderWolf - Last post by NicolasRobidoux
Bart:
See http://www.imagemagick.org/discourse-server/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26006#p113878. Please thank Alan Gibson (a.k.a. snibgo, so putting a link to im.snibgo.com would be nice, just like giving a link to Fred Weinhaus' scripts page) in your script's header. He's helped twice now (also helped with AdobeRGB).

 86 
 on: Today at 03:13:00 AM 
Started by eklisiarh - Last post by D Fosse
I'd go for the CG, no question (I have a newer CG246 btw). But I'm a photographer. The CGs are manufactured to extremely tight tolerances in all respects. In your case, however, reading, you might be better off with an EV2436 - not 2416 which has a TN panel (narrow viewing angles), but a 2436 with an IPS panel (wide viewing angles).

The EVs can be set to automatically adjust brightness after ambient light. This is a no-no for a photographer, where you would attempt to control the environment for a fixed monitor brightness, but for reading it might reduce eye strain.

An issue with newer LED monitors is pulse width modulation - IOW flicker. The EV2436 has no PWM until you reach extremely dim levels, so it should be safe. http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/eizo_ev2436w.htm

EDIT: Got the panel sizes mixed up, I see you said 2216. This is also a TN model, but there is no corresponding 22 inch IPS model. That would be the 23 inch EV2336, but I don't know if it is as flicker-free as the 24 inch.

 87 
 on: Today at 03:09:15 AM 
Started by JV - Last post by Theodoros

Not that I'd hold you to it, but you'e quite incorrect about Capture One representing the majority of Phase One sales revenue.

As far as a 35mm camera is concerned, I think it would be prudent if Phase One focused on the medium format camera first before embarking on an entirely new camera system in an extremely competitive playing field.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
I don't say that they should challenge the "Big boys" in the FF market... There is room though for a specialised design that could serve their current customers... A highly sophisticated modular mirrorless  with extras like a dedicated bellows and extensive movements and perhaps an electronically self adaptable to the lens in use OVF could provide a very interesting alternative for all architectural, still life studio and landscape photography...

 88 
 on: Today at 03:00:27 AM 
Started by sharperstill - Last post by sharperstill
Thanks for the reply Steve,
So 8 or 11 are the sweet spots.
I'll test again tomorrow.
Jon

 89 
 on: Today at 02:49:16 AM 
Started by ehackett - Last post by stamper
Quote Ed

Smart and civil discussion, free and expert assistance, appreciative and constructive comments about others' photos, and some straightforward advice and instruction are all quite relaxing after immersion in the world's woes.   

Thanks to all! 

unquote

Could you please link to the posts you are alluding to? I seem to have missed some of them....or all of them. Wink Grin

 90 
 on: Today at 02:47:39 AM 
Started by Jack Hogan - Last post by john beardsworth
I guess this isn't too important for photographers, but it you ever want to paint using Photoshop then there is a massive upgrade from CS4 to CS5 (the bristle brushes) and an almost as big upgrade from CS5 to CS6 (the airbrush and erodible tip brush/pencil).  So far no upgrade from CS6 to CC.  For anyone interested in painting digitally using Photoshop, upgrading to CS6 while this is still available would be a really good move!

I agree, Robert, the wet media brushes amazed this jaded Photoshop user.

Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad