Jump to content

Russell Watkins

Verified
  • Content Count

    527
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Russell Watkins

  1. This is just "Velvia vs Astia" in the digital age isn't it?
  2. On a slightly related point, I stopped shooting film because of my vegetarian/vegan beliefs. (Gelatine, in case you were wondering).
  3. Be careful. There are lots of things that the Fuji X- cameras cannot shoot. At all. For some things, they are total rubbish. http://photosfujiscanttake.tumblr.com http://www.oscarsson.dk/blog/?p=1205 Be warned... *whistles nonchalantly*
  4. ...says the man from the land of Fosters and XXXX, those epitomes of "a sample"... Come come, play the ball, not the man . . . and judge ye not until the full story is heard . . . I wouldn't legitimise either of those fluids you mention with a keyword as comparatively wholesome as 'midstream'. dd A fair point, well made. I withdraw my slur.
  5. ...says the man from the land of Fosters and XXXX, those epitomes of "a sample"...
  6. Hi Paul, However, would this stop you from posting those experiments which have a chance of getting struck down ?? One of the problems with having a 30 day penalty. In my case, if I am suspicious, I delete (and this happens even when I am not really sure whether the image will pass, just not willing to take the chance). A shot I've been wanting to get for ages (A shot of a gas flame on a stove) I shot it, and uploaded it from my camera to the computer, wasn't happy with it, and binned it. Another was a shot of my cat sleeping. At 100% there was slight blurring of the eye, so I binned that too. My thought process now is, is the shot sound? and how many is there existing. If there's a 5 or 6 digit number when I search the term I don't waste time going out to get the shot. It'll only drown in a sea of similar. The only thing I'd say is that remember that whilst a slightly blurred cat's eye may stop you uploading it to Alamy, it may make a nice image to keep for other reasons. So don't reflexively delete non-Alamy-worthy images. And well done on your recent QC successes.
  7. There ya go, the laws of physics still stand :-) I knew someone could and would explain it thus :-) Thanks Russell. I've done a lot of reading on this, and you're right of course, the circle of confusion has an effect . . . as does viewing distance (once printed especially) . . . but for us simple folk, there seems to be something approaching consensus that when viewed at "normal" size and at "normal" viewing distance the dof is the same (to the eyes of the observer). This does not argue against the principle explained abouve, but it does suggest, for us simple folk who might want to avoid the harsh mistress' hand-maiden (pixel peeping) and instead view at full-screen and no bigger, that advice to totally ignore dof indicators on lenses is a tad extreme. It seems for normal human vision, prints at or around 10" x 8" (or their decimal equivalents) from either D700 or D800 have little, if any, noticeable dof difference. My reading bears out your description of the harsh mistress too, especially regards accuracy of focusing. If focusing was critical with the D700, it's hyper-critical with the D800. I'm glad my D700 and occasionally hired D4 are adequate for my photographic needs. dd Yup, ten-by-eights have been downsampled a lot; even at 300dpi the image will be 3000 by 2400 pixels rather than the native 7xxx by 4xxx, so the harsh mistress is forced to take a time out. Submit a 36MP image to stock for a reviewer to look at on screen at 100% however, and she's back, biting you on the bum, sneering and calling you names. Often simultaneously.
  8. I think I agree with you but there are already a lot of contributors who use an alias on the forum so I think it could become confusing if they were to all change to their real names now. Allan I agree with you Brenda.
  9. If you want quantitatively correct too - all things being equal and for a blurred vertical or horizontal edge, the blur will span 1.73x more pixels on a 36.2MP sensor compared to a 12.1MP sensor. The same applies to CA. This is one of the reasons why the D800/E is such a cruel mistress when it comes to lens quality and technique. Pixel peeping's bad, m'kay?
  10. My understanding of the consistent nature of the laws of physics makes it impossible for me to understand how two cameras with the same size sensor and the same lens, at the same camera and lens settings, aren't going to have, projected onto the sensor surface, an image with identical depth of field. How does the image projected onto the sensor surface change from that point to the image shown by one of these cameras over the other? dd They don't have the same size sensor. The D800 has a 36MP sensor whereas the D700 is 12MP. The differences in practice are extremely obvious when examined at 100%. I meant physical size, the one that would be of interest to the laws of physics. And they DO have the same size sensor to 0.1mm tolerance: 35.9 x 24mm versus 36.0 × 23.9mm. I fail to see how the image, at the point of falling on the surface of the sensor (or any surface for that matter) is going to change because under the surface there are differences. IF this is true, there is an explanation that fits the laws of physics . . . the number of photo-sites on a sensor is not relevant, surely. dd It's because the blur circle lies across more pixels on a 36MP sensor compared to a 12MP one. When viewed at 100%, the blur is more obvious. And that's why downsampling works as a remedy.
  11. Slightly, maybe. That's the interwebs for you. But I think discussing the psychology of how we approach QC and what goes through our minds when we're PP-ing is relevant. And interesting. And quite possibly helpful.
  12. You have the same as me but yours is a forme fruste. There's a lot of it about. I have to disagree with the diagnosis doc. If anything I am the complete opposite. Anally retentive me - absolutely not - I won't go into the reasons why not - you wouldn't want to know. Aspergers - me - absolutely not - I'm ultra-sensitive to other people's feelings for one thing. I would make a terrible therapist - I would feel everything I was hearing. Obsessive - now that I will admit to - probably the reason I end up with vast numbers of images, just making sure I got the shot. But obsessive traits are part of both anal retentiveness and the Aspie spectrum. So give it time. Yours is not a typical presentation.
  13. Except when I post about server-side/DB errors it seems.
  14. I get a server-side/DB error when posting although my posts do seem to register and display in spite of this.
  15. You have the same as me but yours is a forme fruste. There's a lot of it about.
  16. ...is Oxford Dictionaries' word of the year. Should we try and get "candie" out there?
  17. Well said, Mirco. Indeed. Although in my idle moments, I do wonder how many potentially worthy images haven't made the cut because they were shot as a JPEG and not raw. <devil's advocate mode = off>
  18. Thanks for replying John. I trust my judgement on sharpness, and my basic technique. My problem is because of my anally retentive-Aspergeroid personality, not technical shortcomings.
  19. That plane shot is genius. It works on so many levels. Thanks for posting - brilliant stuff.
  20. This is an excellent point and also an argument for archiving all raw images, even ones you think are beyond redemption because one day, just maybe, raw processors will be able to rescue the abysmally exposed shot that would otherwise work compositionally.
  21. Just to add a rider too this excellent advice - the Lightroom Camera Calibration profiles are approximations to what Nikon, Canon et al use for their profiles. They're not the actual colour profiles that you get from the camera makers. Adobe's engineers have just had a crack at tweaking the default curves to almost-but-not-quite match the "true" colour profiles. If you want to change or tweak the *exact* colour profile in post, it'll require the extra step of opening the raw file in the manufacturer's proprietary image processor e.g. the free ViewNX2 for Nikon (and I'm guessing DPP for Canon can do the same). This is one of the strengths of Nikon - their Picture Control system is extremely usable, useful and tweakable. Probably not something to have in your workflow for every image but it can rescue you on occasions when you want a certain "look" but can't quite get there.
  22. If you can be, say, 5% stricter about image quality than QC, you should never have another failure Aye, and there's the rub. I'm definitely stricter on my images than QC judging by my QC stats but it means that my port is growing stupefyingly slowly because whilst I'm aiming for 5% stricter, my "strictness index" is quite a bit higher than that and end up *not* submitting likely acceptable images because of the Damoclean QC sword. I guess the balance will improve once my port is up in the thousands rather than the hundreds but it's going to to take me an age to get there at this rate. I suspect I'm not alone in this...
  23. As the great man himself almost said: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Scanning cannot drive out spots and blemishes; only cloning can do that".
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.