PIX 2015
texinwien

texinwien

Lives in Austria Vienna, Austria
Works as a Software Architect / Consultant
Joined on Apr 23, 2012
About me:

Started shooting OM-D E-M5 on April 28, 2012, after a ~4 year hiatus. Previously shot the Canon 300D, which I bought when it first came out.

Comments

Total: 64, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

I'm not interested in the win, and I can't help it that no one else entered this contest. I'm more interested in providing before and after samples as a public service to anyone who's interested in seeing how the presets work.

As I stated in the description, the top photo is the one to which I applied the preset. The obvious conclusion is that the bottom photo is the original.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2015 at 14:05 UTC as 1st comment
On VSCO Film 07: Eclectic Films challenge (13 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mond: There are a lot of plug-in presets that claim to simulate old film, mostly they are added into packages that perform a variety of effects, it's unusual to see stand-alone presets and especially ones that are so expensive. Very much a niche market, I'd say.

There is also the fact that these plus-ins do nothing more than manipulate the editing tools already contained within programs like Lightroom or Photoshop and there is nothing to stop a skilled operator from working out for themselves the combinations that simulate a film effect and then saving their own preset or action.

A better challenge for this forum might be to provide an example of a film genre and challenging entrants to recreate the effect using their own software package, I'm sure this would attract more attention.

One thing these presets do that you can't do right inside Lightroom or Photoshop is provide camera-specific profiles for each combination of film type and supported camera.

You could, of course, create your own camera profiles to use in Lightroom, but that's more involved than just operating Lightroom's sliders.

Furthermore, I appreciate the time-savings in having a number of one-click starting points that, in addition to applying a custom camera profile, also apply a number of other, reproducible settings changes (including custom tone curves and custom per-color HSL settings).

That tends to speed up editing for me. Whether or not the time saved is worth the price one would need to pay for one of these film packs is something each individual consumer would need to calculate for himself/herself.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 11:29 UTC
On VSCO Film 07: Eclectic Films challenge (13 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mond: I'm afraid the only thing this has taught me about VSCO presets is that nobody buys them.

A couple of facts about pricing:

VSCO often offers discounts on individual packs, and they always offer a 25% discount on subsequent packs.

If you wait for a 25% off sale on the pack you want, and it's the first pack you've ever bought from them, it will cost you $90 rather than $120. If you then wait for discounts on other packs you want, they'll each cost $60 rather than $120 (-25% for repeat buyers + -25% sale discount).

With 7 packs, total, if you waited for limited time discounts on each pack, you'd pay $450 for all 7 packs, rather than the $840 you would expect to pay if you had paid full price for each individual pack.

I'm sure some will still find that expensive - to each his own. Measured against the price of my 32" 4K monitor, high end desktop PC, high end laptop, Lightroom license, cameras and lenses (i.e. the gear and software I use, anyway, to take and edit my images), $450 would be peanuts for me :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 11:22 UTC
On Fujifilm X-T10 Review preview (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: I'm surprised the review didn't mention two problems that become immediately obvious after just a short period of shooting with camera.

1. The exposure measurements. I noticed X-T10 in many situations underexposes compared to previous X-E*, X-A* models. I often have to boost brightness by +0.5 or more in LR. Previous models were very good nailing the exposure, this time Fuji is more like Sony constantly underexposing.

2. The focus precision isn't good: I found camera back focused in too many pictures. I put it head to head against X-A1 and the latter didn't have this problem. I was using a single central point in AF-S mode. I think it's even worse in other modes.

Hi Matthew,

The main problem here is that the camera manufacturers have agreed up on a standard by which the exposure index should be set. Fuji has, according to DPReview and others, systematically failed to follow that standard in a way that would favor JPEG images from their cameras in terms of image noise when compared cameras from other makers who follow the standard.

If there wasn't a standard, or if Fuji decided to call their ISO something other than 'ISO', thereby making it clear that they were using something other than the ISO standard to set exposure index, things would be fine. But as long as they call it 'ISO' while failing to follow the rules of the standard, 'cheating' seems like a completely fair word to use to characterize what they're doing.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 14:49 UTC
On Fujifilm X-T10 Review preview (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

texinwien: Are Fuji still cheating with ISO on this camera as they've been found to do systematically on other models in the X line over the past few years?

flysurfer: while you're right about who's using which techniques to set exposure index (at least the last time I checked), the issue with Fuji is that, according to DPReview and others, Fuji has systematically fallen outside of the 1/3 EV range of allowed leeway (under exposing, natch) with multiple camera models over a span of multiple years.

That's not the case with Olympus.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 23:33 UTC
On Fujifilm X-T10 Review preview (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

texinwien: Are Fuji still cheating with ISO on this camera as they've been found to do systematically on other models in the X line over the past few years?

MikeFL: Fuji cheats, systematically across multiple camera models and several production years, according to DPReview (and others).

DPReview has only reported a single Olympus camera with anomalous ISO, on the other hand, and no one else I'm aware of has credibly corroborated that result, leading many to suspect its accuracy.

Get your facts straight next time.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: first series of mft-lenses are all bad, beside 5.6/9-18 mm - all much worse then the lenses from Panasonic
and now the PRO-lenses are good concepts but it's more illusion than reality... and very expensive too.

Olympus mFT is only a shadow from Olympus FT...

so they get more profits.

Don't get me wrong - Olympus has done a lot for digital photography - even more then most other photo-compagnies... they still deliver fantastic colors (even in JPEG), a real good IBIS (but only in E-M5II) and dust proof

but new mFT cameras and lenses are made for 1-3 years and just for beginners and amateurs as bad as Sony does with NEX

A heavy price for profit... and we have to pay for the criminal faults of management!

This comment is ridiculous. I'm not aware of any objective data or tests that could be used to back up your claims regarding the quality of MFT lenses. Most reviews and data I've read (as well as personal experience) suggest the exact opposite. You don't seem at all credible to me.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 10:31 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: but the quality of Olympus cameras is down to a basis level, Cameras look very quickly very used just from taking them out of the photo-bag or from the sweat on your fingers -
E-M5 was worse - E-M5II is even more worse and E-M1 is not really better...
I had them all for a year - not any longer.

the same but even worse with lenses, first they cut the sunshades out of the lens set and charged crazy extra prices - now all the lenses are not ZUIKO anymore, no famous Japan production - but China plastic

I can only disagree about the build quality. After three years of ownership, traveling in three different continents, often in harsh environments (tropical jungle, safari, hikes through the apps in hot and cold weather), and around 100,000 shutter actuations, my E-M5 looked practically new when I traded it in toward an E-M5II.

The II, which I've also traveled with (again, hiking in the mountains, to the seaside and in cold and hot weather) shows no visible signs of wear.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 10:28 UTC
On Fujifilm X-T10 Review preview (448 comments in total)

Are Fuji still cheating with ISO on this camera as they've been found to do systematically on other models in the X line over the past few years?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 08:05 UTC as 19th comment | 7 replies
On Fujifilm X-T10 Review preview (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: I'm surprised the review didn't mention two problems that become immediately obvious after just a short period of shooting with camera.

1. The exposure measurements. I noticed X-T10 in many situations underexposes compared to previous X-E*, X-A* models. I often have to boost brightness by +0.5 or more in LR. Previous models were very good nailing the exposure, this time Fuji is more like Sony constantly underexposing.

2. The focus precision isn't good: I found camera back focused in too many pictures. I put it head to head against X-A1 and the latter didn't have this problem. I was using a single central point in AF-S mode. I think it's even worse in other modes.

Sounds like the result of continued cheating to me. That's exactly the behavior we'd expect - chronic underexposure - if Fuji hadn't changed their cheating ways.

DPR: why no word on whether or not Fuji cheats with ISO on this camera as they have systematically done with others in the X line over the past few years?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 06:58 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: DPR, can you discuss the ETTR process you use as it relates to in-camera single shot dynamic modes found on modern cameras (not multi-shot HDR gimmics)? It seems like they do many of the same things and the complexity of raw processing and manually determining exposure is far less necessary if the camera's programmers already juggle much of this automatically. Perhaps these modes are not fully developed in your eyes yet and need significant improvement?

Wouldn't it be as simple as giving users a "1 EV pull", "2 EV pull", and "3 EV pull" metering modes? Seems like if the camera can accurately meter for mid-tones then it's a simple ISO change in most cases paired with basic scaling in the JPG creation to give these outputs.

It doesn't seem complexity wise more difficult than multi-shot HDR modes except that internally the camera adjusts brightness of each to match and writes them out independently.

"The point is that no camera I can think of gives you a meaningful way of telling when your Raw file is starting to clip"

What about the live view highlight overexposure warnings on recent Olympus models?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 09:38 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (525 comments in total)
In reply to:

badi: "This has two direct benefits: firstly it provides images with full color resolution, [...] Secondly, as a result of sampling the same point four times, the images will have greatly improved noise characteristics. The other benefits over the Olympus system is that it could be faster, as it only requires four exposures, rather than eight"

About the first two benefits... yes, they are true, but they are also true for olympus. Maybe you just rephrase, so that should be clear. The term "the other benefits over the olympus system" suggest that also the first two are "better" in pentax.

About the last one - it's not a benefit, it's a different approach - some will prefer the increased res, as taking 4 shots or 8 is usually about the same thing: it can only be applied to perfect static subjects.
Also here, i would rather say that both manufacturers just didn't want to go the full way and make both options available. At least in the case of olympus it's clearly only a matter of software.

Leandros S: I agree that if the Pentax method does require less time (time will tell), that would be an advantage. The problem with DPR's wording is that it suggests that some things that are not advantages to the Pentax method in comparison to the Olympus method actually are.

As an E-M5 II owner, I'd be happy if Olympus added the 4-shot method as an additional option. I can see advantages to both, but it's important to be clear about what those advantages are.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (525 comments in total)
In reply to:

badi: "This has two direct benefits: firstly it provides images with full color resolution, [...] Secondly, as a result of sampling the same point four times, the images will have greatly improved noise characteristics. The other benefits over the Olympus system is that it could be faster, as it only requires four exposures, rather than eight"

About the first two benefits... yes, they are true, but they are also true for olympus. Maybe you just rephrase, so that should be clear. The term "the other benefits over the olympus system" suggest that also the first two are "better" in pentax.

About the last one - it's not a benefit, it's a different approach - some will prefer the increased res, as taking 4 shots or 8 is usually about the same thing: it can only be applied to perfect static subjects.
Also here, i would rather say that both manufacturers just didn't want to go the full way and make both options available. At least in the case of olympus it's clearly only a matter of software.

Agreed - that's worded poorly and is guaranteed to lead to confusion (see earlier posts on this discussion for examples).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 06:46 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (525 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Looks like Pentax's new FF camera will be having sensor shift tech. Thanks Ricoh for innovating when the two market leaders are just hanging loose.

fmian - my eyes are open. The Olympus shifts for color information and resolution, whereas the Pentax only shifts for color information.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 23:47 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (525 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Looks like Pentax's new FF camera will be having sensor shift tech. Thanks Ricoh for innovating when the two market leaders are just hanging loose.

solarider - The Olympus does that, as well, then it goes a step further.

The first 4 exposures are shifted just like the Pentax in order to kill false color (like foveon). Then four more exposures are shifted at the sub pixel level to increase linear resolution. So, no, the Pentax isn't doing something special that the Olympus isn't, as far as I can tell, and according to what IR and DPReview have written.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 23:45 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (525 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Looks like Pentax's new FF camera will be having sensor shift tech. Thanks Ricoh for innovating when the two market leaders are just hanging loose.

So the key difference, as I stated, and as confirmed by Imaging Resource and DPReview, is that the Olympus captures 8 exposures for a much larger boost in linear resolution, whereas the Pentax captures only 4 exposures.

That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming it.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 23:25 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (525 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Looks like Pentax's new FF camera will be having sensor shift tech. Thanks Ricoh for innovating when the two market leaders are just hanging loose.

solarider - how is it different than the high resolution sensor shift mode on the recently released Olympus OMD E-M5 II, other than the fact that the K3 II only records 4 photos, while the E-M5 II records 8?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 23:09 UTC
In reply to:

Mssimo: Just confirmed that HDR images can also be merged into pano. Welcome the HDR Raw Pano.

I certainly hope they add some more projections for the pano stitcher. Spherical, Cylindrical and Rectilinear are really very limiting. Panini please.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 20:35 UTC
In reply to:

vadims: Standalone Lightroom 6 is still missing on adobe.ru... But one can, of course, conveniently buy Lightroom CC 6. (Yes, there is http://www.adobe.com/ru/products/photoshop-lightroom.html which has a "Lightroom 6 - Buy" link at the very bottom, but that leads to store selector that causes infinite page loop in Chrome and FF [and hangs browsers, eventually], and leads to Lightroom 5 in IE).

Their sales in Russia are handled by Softkey.ru. Their site does have LR6, but only full version, not upgrade. Just got off the call with their customer support, they confirmed -- no upgrades.

Now ignoramuses like David Rossberg would say that's whining... OK, Mr. Smarty Pants, tell me how I can upgrade LR5 to 6 w/o signing up to CC.

<sigh> That's monopoly for you...

If you run any ad-blockers, you should whitelist *.adobe.com . I had some trouble purchasing (from Austria) with Ghostery and AdBlock Plus running on adobe.com . Things got slightly better after I whitelisted the domain in both blockers.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 20:23 UTC
In reply to:

vermaden: So now Lightroom now comes with HUGIN plugin? :)
http://hugin.sourceforge.net/

Hugin and Enfuse plugins: http://photographers-toolbox.com/blog/category/lrenfuse/

Enfuse does exposure averaging In addition to hdr blending.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 10:29 UTC
Total: 64, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »