[sleeping]

This happens a lot on all sides, from the people I’ve talked to. They might want to switch brands, but once you have so much invested in glass, it’s not worth it.

Actually, the more expensive your gear is, the *easier* it is to make a brand switch; pro-grade glass tends to hold it’s value a lot better than consumer stuff.

But the thing is that Nikon and Canon especially, tend to be releasing things on offsetting schedules so the one that has the cool new stuff tends to look better, but which brand that is changes fairly regularly….

[sleeping]

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/ is probably what you were thinking of.

[sleeping]

The only time a photo is universally bad, is when it is taken on a Nikon

You’re just lucky we can’t have heretics burnt at the stake any more…. 😉

[sleeping]

Have you considered dropping the “This theme expires in a week” posts? I think they just make people feel sorry for the theme and vote for it more….

[sleeping]

Yeah, I set the built in flash to manual on it’s minimum power setting, so it’s not really contributing to the exposure, but at this close distance it is enough to trigger at least one of the slave sensors on the flashes (because they’re pointing somewhat at each other, one slave will trigger the other if it doesn’t see the on camera flash)

[sleeping]

Hmm, but I think if I shoot with the camera upside down and don’t invert it in post, I will wind up with a right-side up image due to the orientation sensor in the camera?

[sleeping]

I’m really not a fan of allowing Topaz for Farktography, especially if its edits are applied unevenly across the image. There have been a number of photos I’ve had that I thought were really improved with a color duotone filter, but I’ve refrained from doing that for Farktography because the filter is applied unevenly.

I always assumed “evenly across the image” meant that you were applying a filter to the image as a whole, without masking etc. If you’re interpreting that to mean “applying the same value to each pixel in the image”, that would actually rule out just about every post processing tool in existence. Curves, unsharp mask, highlight recovery – all of them are using a algorithms of varying complexity to select parts of the image to apply a change to, e.g. unsharp mask is looking for high-contrast edges and boosting their contrast. If there isn’t an edge, it isn’t affected…

Topaz is using much more complicated algorithms to determine where and how to apply changes, but I’m not sure it’s really a difference of type rather than degree compared to the normal PS filters.

[sleeping]

My biggest barrier to using film cameras more often is how irritating my current scanner is.

Most developers will give you a CD of scans if you want (I usually do that instead of getting prints so I can decide which frames to scan at full resolution). They’re usually not that high-res, but fine for web use….

[sleeping]

(though the table is only 8.5×11, which is kinda small)

Scans can stitch together just like panoramic photos. It’s actually easier because there’s no parallax error.

[sleeping]

If I had something with a full ccd bar and pinholes (Like the Canon LIDE series)

I think I have a LIDE scanner in a drawer someplace. Do you want it (assuming I can find it)?

[sleeping]

There’s no option for “I own a shit ton of film cameras and shoot film occasionally, but would really like to shoot them more often” 😉

[Like]

[sleeping]

I have the pro version. I don’t know how it works with flatbeds, but it’s a bit more manual than the (no longer updated) Nikon software for the 35mm scanner – I basically have to designate the scan area for one frame and then it does the rest automatically….

[sleeping]

You might want to give vuescan a try. I’ve been using it instead of the Nikon software with an old 35mm scanner, and it works pretty well for that. http://www.hamrick.com/

[sleeping]

how the heck did they take medium format film and make a 35mm contact sheet? the folks at the camera store couldn’t tell me. on the plus side it was only $.95.

I bet it’s a digital fake made from film scans rather than an actual contact sheet.

[sleeping]

Genuine Fractals (now perfect resize, apparently) used to be the industry standard for doing this:

http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite/perfect-resize/

but since PS added a dedicated algorithm for upsizing (Bicubic Smoother) a lot of people just use that one now. I think that’s included in Elements as well as the full version of PS, but I’m not 100% positive.

It’s not magic, though, you’re not really going to get more resolution – basically all they are doing is suppressing artifacts like pixellation.

[Author]

Posts