Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 29, 2007, 1:09 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

this is garbage talk hayward. half the time no one knows what you are trying to get across.
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2007, 1:10 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

maj0rglitch wrote:
Quote:
Roy,

I like it, it is sharper. Thanks for taking time, it is always nice to have a feedback.

What adjustment did you made? I haven't really done anything with my shots aside from adjusting the exposure.
what graphics programs do you have?

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2007, 1:11 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

penolta,

your shots of the coins are really good. it's hard to get good shots of coins

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2007, 3:11 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
robar wrote:
Quote:
I'm old school. macro = 1:1 or higher. 1:2 is a closeup
And the again something you can be virtually ON TOP OF and no feeling (veggie not animal going to fl)

And ok 1:1 is nice but how many things ARE under 2 inches???

Nice you can all do that when ALGEA like life.... butr real animated world sufff easily scared off???... but for by GREAT LUCK, maybe?

How about suoer macro.... like a 0.5:1 lens for something real tiny.... Got a spare $10k YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH





Your posts are really not much to do about what I found it to be for me when I started in this particular forum. It was like a ghost town at first. Itgrew into a friendly and informative forum. Pentax looked to have a shaky future not too long ago and could have possibly gone the way Konica-Minolta did.

The addition of the KD100 and KD10 really helped in changing its future. The lenses available has always been a strong point for this make of camera and price as well.

The incessant comparisons between other makes to justify ones choice is also tiresome.

This forum for the most part iscontinuing its friendliness and being quite informative with whatis found in their particular use of a specific model camera and/or lenses.

Your posts on the other hand are negative and in the fashion of a "put down"and/or correcting people in your manner of speaking which puts me off so much so I don't bother to post any picture here ever again.

This is the absolute last post by me in this forum.


vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2007, 4:40 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
what graphics programs do you have? roy
I have lightroom. There is a setting for sharpening but I can't get it to match your image even at +100% sharpening.


Quote:
This is the absolute last post by me in this forum.
That sucks. The main reason why forums are so successful is because of useful information, feedbacks and ideas available to everyone specially to the newbies like me. If there will be more negative post than encouraging ones I think this section will eventually loose its users. That is a shame this post has a huge impact on the decision making of a lot of people. Without this forum, for sure, I own a different camera.

maj0rglitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2007, 5:08 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

i saw in your exif info you are using PSCS. this does not involve lightroom.
all of the settings i'm listing are not set in stone. i also redid your shot by lowering the dpi for web use and applied the exact settings i'l show you. it'll work with your smaller but larger image. here's what i got using the settings i'll post.



open your image in PS and

hit auto
levels
contrast
color

use unsharp mask setting
amount @ 20%
radius @ 50 pixels
threshold @ 0

use shadow/highlight

shadows
amount 62%
tonal width 50%
radius 30px

highlights
amount 18%
tonal width 50%
radius 30px

play with all of the above. if you can't find what i'm saying just ask.

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2007, 5:19 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
but for by GREAT LUCK, maybe?

How about suoer macro.... like a 0.5:1 lens for something real tiny.... Got a spare $10k YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH
absolutely no luck involved. some of us have what's called , technique.

a super macro like a 0.5:1?? sheesh
hayward, did you take any math in school? that ratio is exactly like a 1:2 lens. the same as your 70-300mm. barely acceptable as a true macro.

robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2007, 7:16 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

robar wrote:
Quote:
I'm old school. macro = 1:1 or higher. 1:2 is a closeup. knowing macros , i'd say maj0rglitch's shot is at least 1:1. and it's a very fine one at that.
something you might want to look up-- there is nomagnification factor at 1:1 or 1:2ratio or any other factor. only a crop factor..
1:1 is 1:1 at the film/sensor plane
it's the same with lenses 100mm= 100mm. the only difference is the viewable size of the image.
penolta

''I have never seen a 2:1,''.

one thing i can say is a 1:5 ratio does not even come into the realm of macro.

here's a 3-4:1 macro. now you can say you've seen one. i'll be happy to explain



roy
We may be at cross-purposes here.

As far as I know there is no such thing as a 2:1 lens.

MajOrglitch used a 7X supplementary lens on the kit lens. You used a 2X teleconverter on a 105 macro. Those insect images therefore may have been greater than 1:1, but I was talking about the capabilities of prime lenses only.

I don't think I usedthe term "Magnification," and didn't intend it to sound that way- if you are referring to the 1:1 - 1:2 comparison, I was referring to the area covered at minimum focus, which relates to the size of the object relative to the size of the frame at the film (or chip) plane.

And thanks for the comment on the images.:-)
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2007, 8:49 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

exactly as i stated. a 1:1 mag shows the subject at the film/sensor plane as the same size as in real life. a 3:1 macro would show at the film/sensor plane as a real life mag of 3 times that in real life.. the way i figure the magnification is to observe a MM, metric, ruler thru the VF. at 1:1 you should see approx. 23.5mm of the ruler. if all you can see at close focus is 6mm , then that would be around a 4:1 mag.

roy
i don't have any books on macro photography but i do have a slew of very nice macro shots.
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2007, 10:47 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

penolta wrote:
Quote:

As far as I know there is no such thing as a 2:1 lens.

And thanks for the comment on the images.:-)
penolta,
canon right now has a 65mm(?) lens that's a dedicated macro. really dedicated as that's all it shoots. you can not use it as a regular lens as it shoots only macros. the range is 1:1 - 5:1. i've seen some remarkable images from it and droll for it. shooting macros is a hit and miss effort because focus is such aprob. be sure to take a lot of images at high f-stops.

for me, off camera flash is a must.

roy

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:57 AM.