Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 on: Today at 04:31:26 AM 
Started by RDMAX - Last post by Paulo Bizarro
Yes. Just look at the lenses, and see if they have what you require.

 on: Today at 04:30:36 AM 
Started by David Eckels - Last post by john beardsworth
It appears that Even though the raw file is available from a mobile phone, the LR processing is not up to snuff compared to DSLR images.

I don't see any difference in adjusting different types of images. Sure, Apple make the JPEGs look pretty good, as does a Nikon / Canon / Fuji etc when you shoot with a DSLR, but using LrM to shoot DNGs means you can squeeze that little bit more out of the photo. Most recently I examined a friend's iPhone 7 photographs taken when he thought he was merely a guest at a private concerto but had then been expected to take pictures and share them before leaving. The straight images were certainly good, but he could get far better WB, highlights and shadows in LrM. Subsequently, he could improve them even more on the desktop.

My own iPhone 6 can't create raw images (thanks Apple!) and initially I wondered why Adobe had even bothered to include a camera in LrM. Once it was able to take raw images, my view changed completely. If your phone can take raw images, I find it hard to see why you wouldn't do so.

 on: Today at 04:11:53 AM 
Started by Dan Berg - Last post by Ernst Dinkla
Is it some kind of copyright avoidance by the client, (e.g. "No, it wasn't me that downloaded them".)?

That was what I tried to ask. Maybe binge watching The Good Wife isn't a good idea.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

 on: Today at 04:04:50 AM 
Started by rasworth - Last post by Ernst Dinkla
Just received a box of Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss, printed out a profile target.  While it was drying I decided to compare it to a 8.5x11 sheet of Gold Fibre Silk, both under room lighting and an UV light.

The first attachment is an iPhone snap of the papers illuminated by room lighting, one can just pick up the slightly whiter shade of the Gloss.  The second attachment shows the two sheets illuminated by a UV light, the Silk clearly has some OBA content.  I was surprised, thinking I had read no OBAs in the Silk, but a quick check of the Ilford website revealed no claims of such for Silk, and a definite "no OBA content" for Gold.

To be fair, the Gold Fibre Silk glows much less than some resin based photo paper in my possession.  BTW "gloss" is a misnomer, should be labeled "satin" or "semi-gloss", I can't see any significant difference between the two surfaces.

I'm looking forward to cranking out a profile and doing some real printing on the Gloss.

Richard Southworth

In that Fibre/Baryta group in general there are more Cotton papers OBA free than Alpha Cellulose ones. Probably the aim is to keep the Cotton papers more in the longevity group, users associate cotton with longevity. Technically there is no limitation to add OBAs to cotton paper too. Alpha Cellulose papers can have similar longevity as cotton papers, it all depends on the fiber qualities used.

Ilford in its former incarnation had more analogy between the papers with similar names than it has now. The RC papers with similar names show different spectral plots now where the former company had more identical spectral plots for say RC gloss, silk and pearl. It now shows the paper range character of more distributors that relabel papers bought on the market while in the past it used to make its papers in its own Swiss plant.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

 on: Today at 04:01:33 AM 
Started by Juanito - Last post by Michael Erlewine
i was really excited when the X1D was announced, i had just re-organized a lot of older files and was amazed how all my older DMF files from aptus, P20 and P40 backs (all with a variety of mama and rollei cameras) just popped out and just looked different then what i was getting with everything else (incl. my A7RII) i had just gone through that and was actually looking at the H6 (just for a short, very short moment) and then the X1D was announced and then the GFX....before switching to digital i almost exclusively shot fuji (680, 690, 645) and have always like their smaller digital cameras.....the size and in lens shutter steered me towards the X1D right away....until i tried it...maybe the problem is that compared to the H system it is fast? and the AF is usable? i mean the size and handling is amazing, i really liked the software...but AF is slow, slow, slow....being forced to move the AF point with the 2 wheels is idiotic....clearly an afterthought and a victim of making the camera small and simple....the worst to me was though that i shot the X1D with 45mm head to head with A7RII and 24-70 GM and i just did not see that much difference in the files....i understand we are splitting hair here anyway but it just did not give me that instant pop that i was even used to seeing with my old Phase files.....
so i benched that idea.....and then the GFX files started appearing....and i reluctantly started looking at them.....
long story short...i own the GFX now...i already figured out how to use my studio and location flash with HS (which was the first reason i did not even think about the fuji) and the AF, while not perfect or sony level is heads and shoulders above anything i have ever used in digital medium format....the body is clunky at first but is nice to have all these dials and things right where you need them....and the software makes it a dream to set the camera up in any way possible....the lenses are maybe the best i have ever used....and just when i thought it could not get better i got the rotating finder solution ever...ever...i have dreamed about this...i have used loupes attached to back screens of cameras.....this is just the way things should be....

i understand that this is the X1D thread and i understand that different people have different needs....i shoot people, most of them move around....i wish hasselblad would have put a AF selector nipple on he back (they probably do too)...i am surprised how much better i like the fuji glass over the hasselblad...the same goes for the files....i do understand that fuji is relying on software correction for the final files....but with results like these, i think everybody should....
the X1D with the 45...reminds me of the sony RX1RII (that 42mpix with fixed 35mm) but just the perfect size....and i would get that over any leica right now....but as a system the GFX just works much better for me....

You are right. This post does not belong here.

 on: Today at 03:56:26 AM 
Started by TommyWeir - Last post by David Edge
Dank u wel Ernst

It seems highly likely that the paper that Paper Spectrum has sourced is the Schoeller. I think I will live with the insect risk for this project as that paper's good features really do suit the subject, but I will be warned for future work.


 on: Today at 03:46:44 AM 
Started by Dan Berg - Last post by enduser
Is it some kind of copyright avoidance by the client, (e.g. "No, it wasn't me that downloaded them".)?

 on: Today at 03:35:33 AM 
Started by torger - Last post by sebbe
Hi Dan

As you already found out the darker the shot of the target is, the brighter the profile will be. Actually it's the best to create a shot with the exact brightness you need for the target. For D1 this will be around 243 (with sRGB). It's better to use a brighter shot (without clipping) if you don't hit the exact value.

Then there is also the lens in front of your camera that has an influence. Some lenses adds contrast and get clippings faster than others. If I'm shooting the same target with the same settings with different lenses I'll get different values. Here are three D1 values from a few shots I made recently of the same setting with three different lenses on my Sony a7RII: Sony 90 G Macro: 244, Sony 85 GM: 230, Sony 70-300 G: 255 (clipped). If the colors of these lenses are not completely different, you can still use one profile for all lenses. But expect different steps in processing (especially for contrast, clipping, brightness, exposure, ...). As you can identify out of my answer a different lens will end up in different behaviour with the same curve (no matter of film standard or linear curve).

I hope this will answer most of your questions along with the PM I'll sent to you.
Cheers, seb

 on: Today at 03:34:15 AM 
Started by maddogmurph - Last post by kikashi
B&W. But they're not quite the same shot, though, are they?


 on: Today at 03:33:03 AM 
Started by Chris Calohan - Last post by kikashi
Excellent timing. It seems you won't need the 20fps of the new Sony to capture the moment!


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10