Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

A. Schacht Ulm (Travenar 2.8/50)
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 8:48 pm    Post subject: A. Schacht Ulm (Travenar 2.8/50) Reply with quote

Here are a few samples from my backyard. The focusing distance was a bit much with this lens. I had to crop the images a bit.

FLOWERS ! Shocked
So many flower shots, I know.... Razz









PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Red geraniums - such a biotch to get the red right! As a matter of interest, what camera and what was the minimum focusing distance?


patrickh


PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
Red geraniums - such a biotch to get the red right! As a matter of interest, what camera and what was the minimum focusing distance?


patrickh


2 red and 2 orange,

Pentax K2o lens > distance was about 2.5 feet.


PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jpeg or RAW? The reason I ask is that you have quite serious blowouts in both the red and the orange - which is the bane of digital sensors, nothing to do with the lens. In RAW it would be quite easy to use the RGB histogram to help reduce the luminance and even the intensity of the blown colours. Embarassed Embarassed


patrickh


PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
jpeg or RAW? The reason I ask is that you have quite serious blowouts in both the red and the orange - which is the bane of digital sensors, nothing to do with the lens. In RAW it would be quite easy to use the RGB histogram to help reduce the luminance and even the intensity of the blown colours. Embarassed Embarassed


patrickh


Hi Ptrich,
No these are only JPRG files. No serious post work on these images just cropped, slight sharp and a reduction in saturation. The original images had much too much color saturation going on.


PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have no idea how many red pics I have had to dump because of blown out colour - it really is the bane of the digital world. Yellow is almost as bad. Smile Smile Smile


patrickh


PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
You have no idea how many red pics I have had to dump because of blown out colour - it really is the bane of the digital world. Yellow is almost as bad. Smile Smile Smile


patrickh


I'd use that sentence (which is really very very true) as THE title for the pointless discussion about why RAW and wider color spaces are better Wink


PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I should have stated these were JPEG to begin with. Just some sample shots not a test folks.

I rarley shoot RAW because Im new to digital and I dont have a good handle on it yet. I purchased my Pentax over the winter and have just now started to shoot with it. (I'm an old film guy.)

I'll be working on some RAW pics tonight.
This ones from a RAW file... does the red look washed out now?



PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2009 5:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Much better Smile Smile Smile

patrickh

Alessandro

May I ask why you do not think RAW is the better format for digital?

patrickh