Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
 61 
 on: August 26, 2016, 03:07:36 PM 
Started by biker - Last post by Telecaster
I still have my K-20D stowed away in a box somewhere. For US$200 even in 2016 it's a lot of camera.

-Dave-

 62 
 on: August 26, 2016, 02:53:16 PM 
Started by Joseph Colson - Last post by Joseph Colson
The Zeiss Loxia 35mm f/2 Biogon T* Lens for Sony E Mount has been SOLD. Thanks.

 63 
 on: August 26, 2016, 02:27:26 PM 
Started by DougJ - Last post by Tim Lookingbill
I use LR and PS CC on a Windows 7 machine, working on images on a Wacom Cintiq 12wx, and printing to an Epson R3000.  I am calibrating the Cintiq with a Spyder4Pro (but the controls on this legacy Cintiq don't make adjustments easy).

This arrangement has worked well for me for years and is still working well: my prints are neither too dark nor too bright; the tonal range of the prints looks A-OK to me; and, at first blush, the print and the image on the Cintiq look close--close enough that I am not prompted to look more closely to see just what, if any problem, might be present.


Ciao,

Doug

First if things are working with screen to print match, I wouldn't be concerned, unless you're editing for high end advertising content and industrial design and other color critical work.

You're working on a Wacom tablet as a display is not the best tool for color precision work. You might set it to factory defaults and adjust brightness of white and white balance neutrality to match your print viewing brightness appearance of white paper and run the SpyderPro4 again.

The indication that you can't really make out the 'X' in the densest shadow test suggests the Wacom doesn't have a standard gamma shaped curve most likely influenced by other custom settings you've applied which the factory defaults may correct.

 64 
 on: August 26, 2016, 02:12:37 PM 
Started by BernardLanguillier - Last post by E.J. Peiker
My number one wish for Phase is to intro a Schneider Kreuznach 25-50mm to round out the zoom line and get the zooms into real wide angle territory.  I'd backup the Brinks Truck for that one :)

 65 
 on: August 26, 2016, 02:05:51 PM 
Started by feppe - Last post by lowep
[...]mirrorless doesn't offer much - if any - improvements on size when comparing the same crop factor cameras. Here a size comparison between Fujifilm X-T2 with 90mm (135mm equivalent), Sony A7II with 90mm (longest Camera Size has), and Nikon D810 with 105mm. Fuji is also lightest at 1,047g, Sony 1,201g, Nikon 1,770g. Pretty striking differences between APS-C and FF. The apertures between the three combos are roughly similar, but the weight and size differential between the Sony and Nikon would be smaller with a native or adapted 105mm lens.

Uhuh now understood you are only referring to size and not other features of mirrorless cameras

 66 
 on: August 26, 2016, 01:55:56 PM 
Started by feppe - Last post by scyth
For the very shallow DOF in the 100-135mm range I don't think there are many options in m43 world.

http://metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-M43-BT4 + Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM = 120mm eq FOV (85 * 2 * 0.7) @ 1.8 eq aperture (1.2 + 2 stops - 1 stop) ... with autofocus... but yes, it is an expensive adapter


 67 
 on: August 26, 2016, 01:54:54 PM 
Started by DougJ - Last post by DougJ
I use LR and PS CC on a Windows 7 machine, working on images on a Wacom Cintiq 12wx, and printing to an Epson R3000.  I am calibrating the Cintiq with a Spyder4Pro (but the controls on this legacy Cintiq don't make adjustments easy).

This arrangement has worked well for me for years and is still working well: my prints are neither too dark nor too bright; the tonal range of the prints looks A-OK to me; and, at first blush, the print and the image on the Cintiq look close--close enough that I am not prompted to look more closely to see just what, if any problem, might be present.

Then, along came Mark's post about the Aardenburg monitor checker.  Well, why not, I thought.  So I downloaded it and checked the Cintiq.  Here's what I found:

1.  Gamma squares: of the six, the first and last squares are blended; the other four show distinct halves, that I would judge to be close but no cigar.  If I add a curves adjustment layer and adjust the L-layer, those halves are easily made to blend.

2 & 3.  Blackpoint & Whitepoint clipping: I'd say these are both OK.  I need "to find" the X; the Z is more easily found.

4. Lateral adaptation: the horizontal L=50 band does not show any ripling.

5. Color checker: I don't have a color checker.

My question is: where in my set up do I make what adjustment to attempt to make the inner four gamma squares blend?

Using the Cintiq's "controller," I can adjust brightness, contrast and backlight of the display.  Is it the contrast setting that I need to adjust to achive a better blend of the gamma squares?

I have color (within the display GUI) wherein I have the display set for 6500K.  I notice there, that RGB values are set at 252, 236, and 250 respectively.  I assume that the Cintiq software has set those values; let me put it this way, I have no recollection adjusting the RGB values to those.

So, back to my question: How do I go about trying to make a better blend in four of the gamma squares.

TIA for any comment, advice, instruction.

Ciao,

Doug

 68 
 on: August 26, 2016, 01:06:50 PM 
Started by feppe - Last post by armand
If I had m43 and full frame I wouldn't have gotten the aps-c Fuji. But Fuji was first and I don't see it leaving anytime soon as it has the better lenses and it's quite easy to use, plus great colors without much fiddling.

For the very shallow DOF in the 100-135mm range I don't think there are many options in m43 world. Even in the shorter portrait range they only have the 42.5 F1.2 which seems to be as good or better than the Fuji (for twice the money I think).
If you are willing to give up some DOF (or compromise on the the equiv fov for a 75 F1.8 ) it doesn't make sense to get another system.

 69 
 on: August 26, 2016, 12:48:32 PM 
Started by MattBurt - Last post by thierrylegros396
Very good B/W.

Thierry

 70 
 on: August 26, 2016, 12:37:10 PM 
Started by datro - Last post by datro
Hi all,

I'm in the process of updating some of the lighting in my printing studio and came across these:

High CRI LED T8 Lamps

Looks like they can be purchased direct or through Amazon.  They claim 95 CRI and an R9 value of 95!  Seems pretty amazing compared to almost everything else out there in the T8 form factor.  They are not direct replacement tubes, i.e. you have to remove the ballast and rewire the fixture, but I actually would prefer that to get rid of any possible hum.  As best I can tell, the LED emitters being used are "remote phosphor" types, similar to what is in the Yuji bulbs.

Has anyone tried these and can report any experience pro or con?

Dave


Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10