Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 on: Today at 03:30:55 PM 
Started by EinstStein - Last post by EinstStein
All of you are extremely helpful. Thanks a lot.
On calibrating the display, I am still reluctant to investigate the  things like spiders. Is it really necessary? What is the cheapest acceptable alternative ?

 on: Today at 03:05:58 PM 
Started by Eric Myrvaagnes - Last post by Rob C
Makes me think Alfred Hitchcock.


 on: Today at 03:03:11 PM 
Started by Rob C - Last post by Rob C

Good source material.


 on: Today at 03:03:11 PM 
Started by John E - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
Good assortment. I would find it hard to pick a winner.

 on: Today at 02:59:01 PM 
Started by David Eckels - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
Congrats, David!

I think this works well. My initial response was that the colors express a sense of exuberance, of joy in being there at that time, which seems to fit your description.

My response is generally quite negative to many "overly-HDR" images, which seem to me to by trying too hard to impress.

I also liked what both Alain and Andrew had to say. Pleasing yourself and having fun are what it's all about, IMHO.


 on: Today at 02:47:20 PM 
Started by Theodoros - Last post by erlingmm
Which is sad. It is obvious that OVF is dying.

I will hold on to my Leica S007 as long as possible, love the OVF.

 on: Today at 02:45:29 PM 
Started by schertz - Last post by Doug Gray
That's true; but those kind of gamut volume differences are not what matters most - for the most part the impact of even a 50K or larger difference of gamut volume would go undetectable in many photographs. The more important variable is accuracy in laying down the file numbers and this is where custom profiling could be of incremental benefit.

I wouldn't mind reviewing it if the Canadian distributor (Vistek I believe) would provide the amount I need to do it. This thread is the first I hear of this paper so there have been no approaches yet.

In general gamut volume is greatly overhyped. The colors affected are at the most saturated and perceptual sensitivity in those areas is greatly reduced. At those saturations it takes, on average, 3 dEs (standard 1976) to produce a perceptual change of 1dE (2000) which is a much better indicator. And that's on top of the fact that a 3% change in gamut volume that is evenly increased is only about a 1% change in a given dimension.

Far more important is the smoothness and accuracy of the profile in gamut. That's mostly a function of the printer, ink, number of patches used, and profiling software.

I would sure like to see some work to create useful quality metrics for printer/profile combos. Accuracy can be done with a separately generated, independent patch set but smoothness is another matter because it requires either a huge number of patches or analysis of imaged, gradients from a scan or photo and that is sensitive to how good the CMFs of the imaging device are.

I would think this sort of thing would be valuable in rating printers. What I use now is just printing a set of images like Roman 16 which stresses various saturation gradients but they are a small subset of gradients encountered and is subjective in any case.

 on: Today at 02:41:11 PM 
Started by Gennaro_27 - Last post by Mark D Segal
Yes, I understand that, and hope things work out better for you going forward.

 on: Today at 02:39:45 PM 
Started by brianrybolt - Last post by qwz
Some things in IQ depends on camera features - like in-body stabilisation for all lens (and possibility to use lower ISO or/and sharper apertures).
No one so far used 6500.6300 and XT-2 looks pretty similar. 6500 possible has a little better high ISO only.
If you are JPEG shooter - Fujifilm offers more options like 'film' profiles. If you are RAW shooter - check what converter works better.
Any of them except native has some limitations. For instance Capture ONE has some features is not available with Fuji X-Trans although C1 has very nice x-trans rendition.

Because this cameras are from one generation, both have 24 megapixels on APS-C more difference (for stills) will be due lens.
For video 6300 has not so good 2K, but very good 4K. Fujifilm has nice 4K too with lesser rolling shutter but with crop-factor. Also Fujifilm has a F-log gamma only via HDMI output.

 on: Today at 02:38:41 PM 
Started by Theodoros - Last post by Pics2
One thing the Fuji won't get you is the huge OVF image of the medium format SLRS.

Which is sad. It is obvious that OVF is dying.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10