mountainvisions Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>My contribution for the K1000 mandatory on location snap.</p> <p>BTW, this thing looks complicated, I couldn't even find the delete button yet!! And clearly Pentax didn't care about hard core photographers because there is no dedicated WB button. The bright side is there is a dedicated ISO button/switch!</p> <p><a title="Pentax K1000 USA Tour" href=" title="Pentax K1000 USA Tour"> <img src="http://static.flickr.com/3528/3205282306_4ff15f1d72_d.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> </a></p> <p><a title="Pentax K1000 USA Tour" href=" title="Pentax K1000 USA Tour"> <img src="http://static.flickr.com/3448/3204434109_cb599491b3_d.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> </a></p> <p><a title="Pentax K1000 USA Tour" href=" title="Pentax K1000 USA Tour"> <img src="http://static.flickr.com/3087/3204433931_55b1cdefc2_d.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> </a></p> <p><a title="Pentax K1000 USA Tour" href=" title="Pentax K1000 USA Tour"> <img src="http://static.flickr.com/3108/3204433793_b22290acf2_d.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> </a> <a title="Pentax K1000 USA Tour" href=" title="Pentax K1000 USA Tour"> </a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolver Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Sweet...looks just like mine</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alisa_stieg Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>I have one of those too!! I miss the LCD Playback more than the delete button! LOL!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_t.1 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Don't make me go buy film! Cripes, I've still got a roll of that same film sitting on my desk, but it's about... 4-5 years old now. Not gonna load it, don't want to bother spending the money to develop an old roll like that. It wasn't carefully stored.</p> <p>So what makes mine an "SE", the brown leather look? (Ignore that blue spot on the "50mm", that's just some weird light reflection.)<br> <img src="http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p26/stevet_010/_K200535.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="532" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_kennedy Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Cool I have a couple:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_kennedy Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>And another:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_kennedy Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Acually I have another K1000 now that I think about it, but just look at the above picture twice. But apparently I cant find the second...???</p> <p>Steve: I have the same lens on my SE, SN 3100085 - but mine says Japan on it also, after Asahi Opt. Co.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rparmar Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Once a brilliant camera; always a brilliant camera. If I could get film developed professionally at a reasonable price here in Ireland I would be sore tempted. But alas, the days of film are gone forever, except in large urban centres in N. America.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_t.1 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Hey, how come y'all's photos look sharper than mine?</p><p>I'll admit to less than perfect light in my photo (sitting on the wood table top in my computer room, just using the room incandescent lights), but the K20D with the Sigma 18-50 was on a tripod, shot with a 2-second delay on the shutter. F/8, 3 second exposure, 33mm on the lens.</p><p>Are you sharpening your photos a touch before posting them? I was focusing on the "Asahi Pentax" above the lens. Looking at my original on the computer, it looks dead-on tack sharp, much sharper than my posting here. Wow, at 100% size on the screen, I can see sharp looking specs of dust settled around the control dials on top the camera. My photo here I downsized to about 680 in width via Photobucket, no other alteration from the full size and resolution from the camera. Tips please? Thanks.</p><p>Hey, Derek, you have great taste there, buddy!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerdaltx Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Justin, got to ask, were those taken with that Russian 35mm tiltshift lens of yours? If not how the heck did you do the selective focus? post processing?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_kennedy Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Thanks Steve!</p> <p>Due to the lower light levels in the room I was shooting in, I too had to use mirror lockup/2 second delay, Manfrotto tripod, and a 6 second at F14 on the SE, and a 2.5 second exposure at F10 for the other shot.</p> <p>I wanted lots of DoF but not an incredibly looong shutter speed such as I would have needed at F22 or something like that.</p> <p>I took the photos with a Canon 40D shooting in RAW so I could easily adjust the WB (the temperature of the light was 3800, changed it to 3000 in PS - nice and easy). Cropped tight but not quite as tight as you see on these two photos - I recropped them to fit within photonets guidelines. Resized the photo to be 1200 pixels long at the widest side (photographing all my cameras for my website). I also used unsharpmask in PS to sharpen the images a bit after resizing. My unsharpmask settings were usually 150,.4, and zero.</p> <p>I can't recall which lens I used to photograph the cameras but I think it was my Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 lens - a very nice lens. I might have also used my Canon 70-300mm USM IS lens but either way I used extension tubes to get in close. The distance from the one camera to the other was only maybe 3 feet at the furthest. Depending on which camera I was taking a photo of, I might have changed lenses as I have some large cameras (MF cameras actually), and I have some smaller 35mm cameras. I believe I used the area near the lens mount as my focus point to get the camera and any lens on the camera in focus.<br /> Not all the photos of all cameras came out as perfectly focused as the shots of the K1000's because I might have forgotten to set the aperture properly such as the photo I took of one of my Kodak Brownies being shot at F2.8.</p> <p>I used a larger one sheet calender, turned around so that I used the white back - placed on a chair to have a nice seamless background. The calender was taped to the top of the chair, and allowed to bend nicely without folding, then taped to the front of the chair (uhm, front of the seat) to keep it in place.</p> <p>I *always* sharpen before posting. No matter where I am posting, I resize it to fit the guidelines of the site I'm posting to and before saving it in PS I use unsharpmask. Now the photos used here were sized for posting on my site I just then recropped some of the white areas around the camera to fit PN posting godliness so I felt no more sharpening would be needed.</p> <p>Of course after posting the images I see the dust and fingerprints on the cameras!</p> <p>Justin: I liked how you have "Pentax" on the lens seen through the hole of the film box, quite intersting! Nice idea - creative.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>1. Sharpness:</p> <p>Yes they are sharpened. Nothing crazy, I actually turn the sharpness OFF in Lightroom, I do all my sharpening in photoshop where I have more control (for me, since I use various techniques, including, edge inversion and high pass when needed).</p> <p>If the photo is ONLY going to be a web photo, I usually immediately reduce to 1080 height using a photoshop action i created which uses bicubic sharper to downsize. Beyond that it's a photo by photo basis, generally if it's a full res photo, I sharpen 280-320, .3, 0-4 upon opening the photo. Although lately I've altered that in an experimental way where I <br /> use edge inversion for the first sharpening, those completely eliminating noise sharpening, then if needed I run it through Nik Define. This is contrary to Niks advice of using Define first, but I came upon this via trial and error. However, I rarely use Dfine below ISO 800 (or 1600).</p> <p>Anyway, sharpening is just something you have to get a feel for, I've found using various techniques in lower power will give better results than a standard final sharpening before output.</p> <p>And yes, I realize sharpening at the start of the process is taboo, but I'm not the only one that does it, and artifacting isn't a problem IF you are careful.</p> <p>2. Lighting:<br /> <br /> Well lit photos always look sharper, have less noise, etc. I used the most ghetto light tent ever, which is funny because these things are like $20 over at the local ritz! Considering the lighting setup I was using was a few hundred, the camera, tripods and lens, were into the thousands, why I decided to waste an hour building a light tent out of an exacto knifed cardboard box, and white freezer/parchment paper is a mystery! But it works, and well enough! I used 3 flashes to light the camera bounced through the parchment paper.</p> <p>3. Selective focus:</p> <p>One of the advantages of the tilt and shift, well the tilt portion of it, is the selective focus.</p> <p>Now, usually, I would use this for EXTREME DOF. For instance you can do a 1:1 macro by adding a 30mm tube to the 35mm T&S (ok, almost 1:1 macro), and tilting either up or down and then setting your focus point based on the tilt to get more DOF. Imagine without software getting 2x the DOF in your macros!<br> <br /> <br /> This is like the large format cameras that have tilt bellows. In 35mm, however, it seems most people are oblivious to the extreme DOF, and largely use this feature to selectively reduce DOF.</p> <p>Since you can reduce DOF in photoshop (it probably would have taken me 5 minutes to do that in photoshop rather than 30 in the camera) but not increase it, I never really used the selective DOF on a tilt lens to reduce it before these photos. It was an interesting experiment!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_kennedy Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>You used 3 flashes??</p> <p>Huh.</p> <p>I didnt use any...I dont even have a flash unit for my 40D :(</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Yeah, you can never have enough light...2 would have been plenty, and one (off camera) would have gotten the job done with with light tent and maybe a reflector.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_kennedy Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>I wanted to get a small light tent for photos like of the cameras and such but never did break down and get one. I saw walmart selling one for like 80 bux and I said 'Too much'. Now I wish I got it. I do want to get a flash head for the 40D but they are still too much for my lousy paying job.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Derek,</p> <p>You can build one for $5 and 30 minutes of your time.</p> <p>Just get a big (relative term) square box, cut it apart, and add some white paper, or cloth to the cutouts. Put a long seemless white sheet of contruction paper to line the bottom and back.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_kennedy Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Sounds easy enough - the way I did it for the camera shots, I did without a box but the white sheet of paper I did use. I've seen some light boxes like this made from plastic tubing and some sheets.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_t.1 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Justin- Nifty idea for making a light box, cutting the sides away from a heavy cardboard box leaving the corners to create a frame.</p> <p>Here's a step-by-step to make a frame for cheap with some PVC tube and a white bed sheet. Shouldn't take more than $20.</p> <p>http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/light_box_light_tent</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_kennedy Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>That wasnt the site I saw, but its basically the same set up. Cheap to make, great results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_t.1 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 <p>You know those cheap aluminum reflector spring clamps you can buy from the hardware store for a few bucks? A couple times I set up two of those, then used a spring paperclip to hold a sheet of white paper towel over the aluminum refector shroud (top only, and tilted the light a bit to keep the paper draped away from the shroud to provide cooling behind the paper). Presto, instant difused light.</p> <p>The bulbs I was using were the GE Reveal bulbs, the ones that have blueish looking glass. 100 watts each. Pretty good results actually, they seem to have a more neutral white cast to them than the soft white light bulbs. Yeah, I wasn't using real studio-grade light bulbs...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewg_ny Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 <p>I believe the delete button is somewhat hidden on this model--just pull up sharply on the knob on the top left deck (when facing viewfinder). Now the power switch, that's a mystery...</p> <p>Reading this thread goes some distance to explaining why so many e-bay product shots suck. It really has to be a labor of love, I think.</p> <p>IIRC the SE might have a different split-prism viewfinder than the plain-vanilla K1000 in addition to the brown leathers?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_kennedy Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>When I got my K1000 30 years ago, it had a split screen focusing screen but then K1000 I got off of ebay didnt have the split screen. The SE does have the split screen so I dont know. My original K1000 and my SE have the same screen but maybe the K1000 I got off of ebay was a later model than my original model even though they look the same (meaning looking like early models).</p> <p>Not very helpful I know.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now