-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Downtown LA (4 img)
- Thread starter rbda
- Start date
RonJohn
Senior Member
Very nice compositions. What lens did you use?
--
Ron Johnson
'The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked.'
http://www.pbase.com/ronk7uv
--
Ron Johnson
'The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked.'
http://www.pbase.com/ronk7uv
Jay Taylor
Leading Member
Darrell,
These are "sick" espeially for the kit lens. At first glance I thought these would have come from the 16-45. Can you tell us about your post-process?
Thanks and keep up the great work.
--
These are "sick" espeially for the kit lens. At first glance I thought these would have come from the 16-45. Can you tell us about your post-process?
Thanks and keep up the great work.
--
I think the "quality" is mostly because these pictures have been shrunk by a factor of 5. Anyway, here's the process I used...
Shot raw, 3 of the 4 pictures were converted to PS Elements 3 using ACR. I "zeroed" most of the ACR settings except color noise reduction. I also used 16 bits/channel.
The fourth picture (the one with the tree and flowers) was converted to TIFF from Pentax Photo Browser (I couldn't duplicate the saturated reds with ACR).
Rotated and cropped to 3000 x 2000 pixels.
Adjusted the highlight/mid/shadow levels with the PSE Levels control and saved as .psd files.
Reduced the image size to 600 x 400 then used unsharpen mask.
Converted to 8 bits/channel then saved as "high quality" JPEG.
Darrell
Shot raw, 3 of the 4 pictures were converted to PS Elements 3 using ACR. I "zeroed" most of the ACR settings except color noise reduction. I also used 16 bits/channel.
The fourth picture (the one with the tree and flowers) was converted to TIFF from Pentax Photo Browser (I couldn't duplicate the saturated reds with ACR).
Rotated and cropped to 3000 x 2000 pixels.
Adjusted the highlight/mid/shadow levels with the PSE Levels control and saved as .psd files.
Reduced the image size to 600 x 400 then used unsharpen mask.
Converted to 8 bits/channel then saved as "high quality" JPEG.
Darrell
Douglas Film
Veteran Member
Nice shots, your world is very different from mine.
Ash Mishra
Leading Member
Darrell,
Those are some sublime photos. Am really surprised the kit lens was able to deliver that quality.
cheers
Ash
Those are some sublime photos. Am really surprised the kit lens was able to deliver that quality.
cheers
Ash
racehorse in the desert
Senior Member
I like the second one, with the flowers in front of the Disney building. The kit lens is very sharp when you shoot at f64, right? Just joking. Nice images. I like your workflow.
--
John Power
Racehorse in the Desert
'Life is too short to miss out on photography.'
Gallery at: http://jpowerphotos.smugmug.com
--
John Power
Racehorse in the Desert
'Life is too short to miss out on photography.'
Gallery at: http://jpowerphotos.smugmug.com
Julio Marcos
Well-known member
I like the shots although I'm not fond of the polirizer look in general. Actually, with digital, I would not bother (except to eliminate some form of reflections).
--
-Julio
http://jmarcos.smugmug.com/
--
-Julio
http://jmarcos.smugmug.com/
PrimeUser
Senior Member
like them
RonJohn
Senior Member
I think it's time we got rid of the name 'kit lens' with its implied undertones and start calling it the 18-55mm DA instead! Nice job.
--
Ron Johnson
'The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked.'
http://www.pbase.com/ronk7uv
--
Ron Johnson
'The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked.'
http://www.pbase.com/ronk7uv
richardday
Veteran Member
I totally agree!
It's no slouch, it's way, way better than the Sigma 18-50 which scored well (83%) over the "kit" Canon EF-S 18-55 lens in this weeks Amateur Photographer lens test supplement this week (76%).
It's several notches higher than most kit lenses in as much as having a non rotating front element although it's not IF (internal focus) like the DA 16-45 or the FA 28-105 3.2/4.5.
A useful little keeper, if Pentax could improve the vignetting it would be really excellent, but for the money it's very okay!
Cheers
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK
It's no slouch, it's way, way better than the Sigma 18-50 which scored well (83%) over the "kit" Canon EF-S 18-55 lens in this weeks Amateur Photographer lens test supplement this week (76%).
It's several notches higher than most kit lenses in as much as having a non rotating front element although it's not IF (internal focus) like the DA 16-45 or the FA 28-105 3.2/4.5.
A useful little keeper, if Pentax could improve the vignetting it would be really excellent, but for the money it's very okay!
Cheers
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK
racehorse in the desert
Senior Member
Wow, the Getty Museum. I would love to see that. I shot downtown Coolidge, AZ the other day. Here is my image.
--
John Power
Racehorse in the Desert
'Life is too short to miss out on photography.'
Gallery at: http://jpowerphotos.smugmug.com
richardday
Veteran Member
Wow! - You guys don't know your good fortune.
Petrol at $2 a US gallon - We are paying $5.75 - $6.00 a US gallon! ($1.58 per litre).
Rgds
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK
Petrol at $2 a US gallon - We are paying $5.75 - $6.00 a US gallon! ($1.58 per litre).
Rgds
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK
K1000Photographer
Veteran Member
I will agree with this. I have actually been using it more and more. Mainly for its 18mm abilities. It makes a nice wide angle lens.
racehorse in the desert
Senior Member
Yes, that was a couple of months ago. We are at about $2.28 for regular now.
--
John Power
Racehorse in the Desert
'Life is too short to miss out on photography.'
Gallery at: http://jpowerphotos.smugmug.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum