preferredfault

Joined on Sep 2, 2017

Comments

Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19
On article Why Leica's M10 Monochrom is more than just a gimmick (662 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stujomo: Buy one if you can afford one, if you can't then buy something else that you can afford. It's out of my budget but that doesn't mean I wouldn't mind one. B&W has always been how I prefer to shoot. I found that I can get great B&W conversions with my D800, Dynamic range at low ISO is great and leaves a lot on the table for B&W conversions.
I don't get the bitchin' here about a camera that most will never buy. Even if it was 1000 euros even if the color version of the M10 was 1000 euro most just are not interested in Leica cameras have no wish to own one. Most here don't care for something that is manual focus and most would not want rangefinder so what is the bitchin' really about? What Leica makes has no bearing at all on most peoples photography they can still buy their preferred brands and models.

It's a nice camera, just not $6,000 nice.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2020 at 03:43 UTC
On article Sony a7C sample gallery (35 comments in total)

Good camera, but bad pricing. It's a smaller body A7III for the same price....in a time where better camera's have come out for cheaper. Sweet spot for this camera would have been $1200 tops, like a FF GR3.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2020 at 15:21 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Halftrack: Somebody really needs to come along and make a premium instant film system for enthusiasts. Something that makes decent-sized prints (A 4" x 4" image area would be about perfect imo) and with bodies that have the kind of build quality and control options that enthusiast photographers expect. Everything out there right now seems like basically a children's toy—someone needs to make one that's more of a toy for grownups.

Instant photography is fun, and there's nothing quite like taking your shot and getting a physical, analog print right away. None of the options currently on the market really capture my attention though, except *maybe* a restored SX-70, but even they are not quite what I'm looking for.

If I had the time and the knowledge, this is the kind of thing I might try to start myself via crowdfunding. Sadly, I have neither.

I just want one that has interchangeable lens system so I can mount quality lenses.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2020 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

Slideshow Bob: O.k. A long time ago I shot a product for use in promotional material. I shot it with a 5Ds, and the product was pasta in a box with fairly thin blue blue writing on a white background. Not being a native Canon user, I used DPP to process the shot, thinking that would give me the best result, but all the blue writing came out in a really muted grey in DPP, and I couldn't get the saturation back. I asked around, and everyone told me I was using the wrong settings, so I changed some setting according to what I was told, but still had the same problem.

I loaded the same raw file into ACR, and bingo, the writing was blue!

Now, the interesting thing is that the DPR test scene provides the same scenario. The playing cards have a thin blue line around them (you could also use the King's sword as a good example). You know what? I still can't get freakin' DPP to make that line blue! If I'm still doing something wrong, then please, someone put me out of my misery!

Any thoughts?

Looks to me like CA or moire correction is what's sucking the color out of those lines. They're technically not even blue on the ACR version, more of a purple with some green bits.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2020 at 13:33 UTC
In reply to:

Slideshow Bob: O.k. A long time ago I shot a product for use in promotional material. I shot it with a 5Ds, and the product was pasta in a box with fairly thin blue blue writing on a white background. Not being a native Canon user, I used DPP to process the shot, thinking that would give me the best result, but all the blue writing came out in a really muted grey in DPP, and I couldn't get the saturation back. I asked around, and everyone told me I was using the wrong settings, so I changed some setting according to what I was told, but still had the same problem.

I loaded the same raw file into ACR, and bingo, the writing was blue!

Now, the interesting thing is that the DPR test scene provides the same scenario. The playing cards have a thin blue line around them (you could also use the King's sword as a good example). You know what? I still can't get freakin' DPP to make that line blue! If I'm still doing something wrong, then please, someone put me out of my misery!

Any thoughts?

I don't know what your issue is. But if I had the RAW file I'm sure I could figure it out.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2020 at 03:15 UTC

One powerful feature people tend to overlook in DPP, is the gamma slider. To most people, it's invisible and unused, but that's what gives you the extra control of highlight/midtones/shadows. So if you for example want to raise shadows, and already raised them to the max, you go up to the gamma part above that and move the shadow line in the right direction.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2020 at 03:13 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

lightnchade: I'm sorry, I don't like being negative but these comments are for feedback and this article is in dire need of feedback.

It doesn't even mention two principle reasons for using DPP, the availability of DLO with lens profiles and the ALO lighting optimiser.

I guess it does at least kind of admit it in the ground rules:

"To ensure neither Adobe nor Canon had any advantage out of the gate..."

So it's a comparison between ACR and DPP, but completely ignoring some key reasons (and benefits) for using DPP.

If that's what it wants to be, fine I guess, but why then give it such a misleading heading:

"Adobe Camera Raw vs. Canon Digital Photo Professional: Which should you use and why?"

Guys (and gals), you can be better than this.

PS: And what about he HDR PQ and HEIF support for newer cameras.

DLO is a bit different than ACR's basic lens corrections. It accounts for lens characteristics to bring back detail that would be lost by lens characteristics. So it maps the softness of a lens and how light passes through it affects the final image. It's almost like sharpening, but not quite, because it actually gives you more detail back rather than just adjusting micro contrast to make things appear sharper. It's not magic, but it does noticeably improve images.

Still though, ACR is superior....but ACR does Canon picture styles terribly, they aren't a match at all to true Canon colors, so they're useless. I typically go with Adobe color or Adobe standard. While Adobe blames it on Canon, I think the real issue is Adobe wants people to use its picture profiles, so it deliberately cripples camera makers picture profiles so they look more washed out and less contrasty than Adobe's picture profiles, along with weird colors.

Best of both worlds is to TIFF from DDP, then import to LR.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2020 at 03:00 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Nguyen Studio: What's hilarious to me is that so many photographers want so badly to be seen as legitimate "artists," yet in this case when they see another artist (who uses photography) getting attention, the pitchforks come out!

I think the issue is it's low hanging fruit. Of course people will be attracted to images like this, because it's something most people don't see everyday. Same reason why a lot of street photographers aren't satisfied with their work; because it is something they see everyday, so seems mundane. But if you showed those same mundane city photography to someone that lived next to these mountains, they might find it interesting, while finding these mountain pics not soo interesting because it's mundane to them because it's something they see everyday.

In fact, I know people who live in Canada who live in places like pictured, and they find big city pictures more interesting because of their perspective. They'd sooner hang a painting of an artsy city intersection on their wall, than a mountain like this.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2020 at 22:40 UTC
In reply to:

Olrik: Simard has the luck of being where nobody else is. As talented as he is, I'd like to see his work in, say, downtown Milwaukee.

To put it more in perspective, it's more about things people don't normally see. For example, someone living in rural areas like this or the third world, might find city photo's more interesting, even mundane ones. Where you live, is typically uninteresting to you, because it's what you see everyday.

Personally for me, the last several thousand photo's I've taken, have mostly been confined to a dozen city blocks, because I'm just a hobbyist who takes shots on walks and on the way to stores and such. Obviously not all of them are great shots, but there are still plenty that are. In fact, the top 10-20 photo's I've ever taken (and that's based on view/like count), were all taken inside my home doing things like macro and ultra low DOF photography.

So really, I wouldn't consider these people great photographers, even if the photo's are nice. They're more aptly, photographing a great location with great gear. All they need to do is be there, frame a little, and wait.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2020 at 22:36 UTC

I think the main benefit of film is it takes out the editing process. Sure you can edit film, but editing it takes away from the intended style. Changing style is achieved instead by changing the film type used. Most people spend more time editing than they do taking photo's, and while it can be fun, it can also be tedious.

Personally, I wish someone created a reusable film done in-camera with a built-in scanner that automatically scans the image on the spot and digitizes it. Rather than have a digital sensor, just have a piece of new film type that could be flashed with some special internal light or some other way to reset it. It might be a slow camera, but it would cut down on cost and the busy work.

The cost of film really is the limiting factor for film photography.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2020 at 11:03 UTC as 101st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Alex P Scorsch: I have a Canon 5D Mark II that I have used for years without ANY issues. I bought a Sony RX1 years later and it started falling apart relatively quickly. The manual focus doesn't work, a knob popped off and now it only works about 30% of the time. I feel that the Canon is a real pro tool which I can always count on and the Sony which I paid $2,500 for (plus over $300 for the viewfinder) has totally let me down. Evidently the Sony A7 series that I'm thinking of investing in is going to become quickly undependable as a pro tool.

Not a conspiracy, there's even videos showing it. The ring of the lens mount is made of cheap weak pot metal. It's not machined from a single piece, it's casted metal.

https://youtu.be/nq6yhX-hEIw?t=275

Granted, you could probably get away with it never breaking, but if they're cutting corners on that, they're cutting corners big in other places too. And if you do happen to drop a camera the right way, I could see that ring snapping right off, which would make it one more thing to need to repair and potentially cause even more damage to the lens or camera or both.

So boom, your camera hits the ground just right, not much damage, lens is overall safe....but wait....the mount ring snaps off and your lens goes flying glass first into the concrete. "Thanks Sony!".

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2020 at 07:52 UTC
In reply to:

Alex P Scorsch: I have a Canon 5D Mark II that I have used for years without ANY issues. I bought a Sony RX1 years later and it started falling apart relatively quickly. The manual focus doesn't work, a knob popped off and now it only works about 30% of the time. I feel that the Canon is a real pro tool which I can always count on and the Sony which I paid $2,500 for (plus over $300 for the viewfinder) has totally let me down. Evidently the Sony A7 series that I'm thinking of investing in is going to become quickly undependable as a pro tool.

Sony's lens mount is made of pot metal. Can easily be bent and broken in half by hand. That's why Sony competes....decent sensor, but cheap construction with cut corners. Most of these Sony camera's won't be operational in 10 years. Just look at the used market, almost no Sony camera's on it. Many are sold privately, because many people can't sell their malfunctioning Sony's to used camera shops. So they sell themselves, passing off the issues to whoever is unlucky enough to buy it.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2020 at 00:29 UTC
On article 12 Things Not To Do When Buying Your First Film Camera (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

Miike Dougherty: "9. Don’t buy a medium-format camera (yet)" I think buying an RB67 Pro S is OK because they sell by the pound. (cheap). I know. I own one with 50, 140, and 360.

I think it's all about expectation. People treat everything like you'd treat a kid who wants something but will only use it for a week.

If a person wants to be a serious hobbyist, even with just basic skill/understanding, they can take great pictures with MF, which could very well spark their love for photography, more so than starting with 35mm. It could also help them be better photographers if they decide to downgrade to 35mm.

Personally, I started with some pretty crappy camera's. Then moved up. It was only when I moved up, that I began to really fall in love with photography, and going back and using my first camera, I was far better able to squeeze better photo's out of it.

When I was using my crappy camera's, I was spending a lot more time working and editing around quality issues, and ultimately ending up with many inferior photo's I wasn't happy with.

Some styles of photography absolutely require quality and versatility in order to convey what you want.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2020 at 20:46 UTC

I'm pretty sure that this is the type of thing you should be forced to issue a recall for. The customer cannot possibly be held to account for damage, nor could every customer possibly be reasonably expected to know that this issue exists to avoid it, especially years down the road when people might be buying old equipment, that will just lead to a lot of people having serious issues without the ability to reasonably avoid it. They should be forced to recall every lens, not just issue a warning.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2020 at 04:45 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Fujifilm X-T4 review (1494 comments in total)
In reply to:

preferredfault: Nearly 15 years later, and the XT4's image quality is on par with the original Canon 5D, with a slightly sharper image (thanks to resolution, which can be entirely negated with upscaling AI), but with poorer color rendition and tonality.... for 5x the price. Of course it has other benefits and technologies where it will outperform, such as ISO, and in-camera capabilities. But when it comes to typical shooting conditions, the facts are still there. And that's at 1:1. For typical internet viewing conditions/sizes, there will be no discernible difference, even with the 5D at 1600 ISO.

Except that you're comparing the 5D at ISO 200. That's not base ISO vs base ISO. Put the 5D at 100 ISO, and the XT4 at its lowest ISO, and give it another looksie.

Your photons to photons chart doesn't mean anything, because all it measures is dynamic range, which obviously the 5D will be crippled in, but that's still way more dynamic range than one needs for a usable photo. You only need about 8 stops of dynamic range for a good high quality image.

As for your chroma noise charge, yep the 5D and XT4 are pretty much equivalent at 3200 ISO vs 6400 ISO. BUT even then, the tonality is noticeably better on the 5D, which is pretty important for skin tones. The chroma noise can also be easily removed.

So all your links do is prove my original point.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2020 at 04:32 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T4 review (1494 comments in total)

Nearly 15 years later, and the XT4's image quality is on par with the original Canon 5D, with a slightly sharper image (thanks to resolution, which can be entirely negated with upscaling AI), but with poorer color rendition and tonality.... for 5x the price. Of course it has other benefits and technologies where it will outperform, such as ISO, and in-camera capabilities. But when it comes to typical shooting conditions, the facts are still there. And that's at 1:1. For typical internet viewing conditions/sizes, there will be no discernible difference, even with the 5D at 1600 ISO.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2020 at 19:45 UTC as 74th comment | 3 replies
On article Nikon D780 Review (1191 comments in total)

To be honest, my 5DMK1 puts out better IQ than what I'm seeing in these JPG's.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2020 at 04:08 UTC as 26th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

MaineMike62: The technique describes how to do the process in Photoshop but leaves out an important detail that may not work for some folks if they follow this exactly.

I direct quote from the article:
"the 1st layer will be 1/1 so 100% opacity"

If the layer on top is layer 1 then this method will not work. Layers in Photoshop are hierarchal and if the top layer is at 100 opacity then none of the layers under that top layer - no matter at what opacity you may set them at - will ever be seen.

I am thinking the author may have meant to say to set the bottom layer at 100% opacity and the subsequent layers 'ABOVE' that one at the fractional amounts noted.

What I am now wondering is if I might be able to use the pixel shift technology in my Canon 5D Mk 4 to somehow accomplish the same thing - I just need to figure out how to make 2 files from the one shot to do this process. I would welcome seeing a article about doing that in Photoshop.

I don't see the point in most of the steps. All I've ever done is load up the images in a stack, align them, then do "mean" averaging.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2019 at 03:09 UTC
In reply to:

Holger Bargen: The idea of Pentax Pixel Shift is not to create photos of higher resolution or with less noise - the idea is take photos with much more precise colour information for each pixel - it's more like the idea of a Foveon sensor.

The technique you are describing here does not even come close to this approach. Of course, you will have a quality shift if you put the information of 4 photos into one. But you will never get the higher precision of colour like Pixel Shift does as you will not manage to get the information of each of the three sub-pixels (red, green, blue) as overlay over each other to get the full colour information for each of these sub-pixel by mulitple high precision shift of the sensor.

This is a much more important shift in IQ than the blow up of resolution like your technique does or we can find in some Olympus cameras.

It's true. Pixel Shift cannot equal image stacking.

Pixel shift also results in reduced noise by default, because only a certain number of pixels are activated, which means less electronic interference to introduce noise. Since the pixels move, it changes your angle of view ever so slightly, basically like a VR stereo image. Except it's double that because it has 4 positions. The shift in view isn't enough to make the image blurry, but it is enough to gather new data, which means more details and contrast between details.

It's kind of like how if you look at a box head on from the center, it looks 2 dimensional because you can't see the sides. But move enough to the left or right, you can see the sides. With Pixel Shift, this means extra fine details are captured better.

Image stacking is something everyone should do though, even to pixel shifted images. It can make even cheap sensors look better.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2019 at 03:05 UTC
Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19