raybrizzi

<p>You can get one for every color bird or animal you shoot. That way if a flamingo sees a pink camera it won't get spooked. Or tan for lions. I'm buying them all!</p>

<p>Good stuff in here. I've been using Lightroom sharpening mostly, but the nice thing about it is that it never modifies the original, so I can go back and revisit them later. As well as easily saving multiple edits of the same picture.</p>

<p>It would have been easier to print this without the ridiculous kvetching about capitals that could just have easily been in a different, relevant post.Since this is a topic that concerns other posts by the same author, that would make more sense and wouldn't have wasted many readers' time.<br>

Anyway, Patrick, you mentioned in the document "Remember that you should never add digital sharpness with help from a Raw-conversion software or with your camera." I use Adobe Lightroom with RAW (oops, raw) photos, which has its sharpening feature built in. Do you know if this uses the same engine as Photoshop or a different one? Thanks for the post and doc. Ray</p>

<p>A lot of interesting answers. Yes, having an additional SD card to go with the battery makes sense. Yet at some point. you'll still probably have one or the other go out on you.<br>

I don't quite see the benefit to a customer of getting a smaller body like the K7 that needs an additional box to add features like GPS or wireless so there's room for it, when a body the size of the k20 could hold the same stuff.<br>

The clockwise rotation on verticals sounds like it might be testing.<br>

Thanks for the explanations!</p>

<p>What exactly is the purpose of a battery grip? Is it just so that cameras have the same size and feel as 70s vintage SLR's with motor drive? For 129 dollars I can buy a couple of batteries from Pentax or 5 from Digital Concepts or the like. Or is it for people that are shooting stills continuously like a movie when that one shot that comes along when you can't take the time for changing a battery? There'd more likely be an SD card change or two before that happened.</p>

 

<p>My k10d is perfectly silent on rotating. But I have that feature turned off anyway, don't want a shrunken picture to look at.</p>

<p>One more thing... I've stopped using polarizers because they tend to make the sky more of a gray than a blue unless it's a very bright clear day. adding a bit of blue saturation and darkening it slightly later accomplishes the same thing without losing all that light. Of course for reflections it's another story.</p>

<p>Howard, besides the boarders, in Central Park there is a roller disco scene near the 72nd street crossroad, sort of in front of the bandshell. Usually there on weekends. Very colorful outfits and very serious dancers.</p>

<p>Thanks. I printed out that website. will check the pentaxforums page also.</p>

<p>This could be an interesting gallery. I only have a k10d though. It looks like the plan for a housing development.<br>

<br /> My dust experience was interesting. I would get spots in a lot of pictures that would come and go. Never used a brush or cleaner. But I went out and bought a big ass blower with a bulb about 4 inches for the next time. The camera saw it and got nervous and I haven't seen a dust spot since.</p>

<p>Perhaps an earthquake? but more likely a foot hitting the tripod. The bridge curve in one set is faint, where the other is very clear, similar to the bright and dimmer pairs of streetlights.<br>

I like it though. It looks like a double bridge.</p>

<p>That's my neighborhood! Here are the local pics that I've submitted so far.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=805191<br>

The scooter shot, the Blonde family, and Skull girl are my favorites.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the clunkers are to be destroyed with a very corrosive chemical, probably preventing flowers from growing either in the car or anywhere near wherever they do the work.<br>

The pictures are gorgeous, though!</p>

<p>I saw someone else with a Pentax K10D on the street today. Perhaps the third Pentax DSLR I've seen outside of my own and in stores in almost 2 years. He was from a Scandinavian country.</p>

<p>Thanks, Andrew. Yes, they mentioned Metz, Sunpak and another brand I can't recall, but nothing was in there for Pentax on their computer.<br>

I tried that link, but it comes up with a blank screen. The site itself is there and the link from the front page is the same.<br>

I'll go down to 17th street on my next shopping trip for a word from our sponsor :)</p>

<p>I was down at B+H and asked if there were any non-Pentax flashes that were compatible. I took a look at the only one that was compatible (my biggest problem with Pentax...) and it was the Vivitar DF-383. I tested it on a k20d and was pretty happy with the results. I took shots that were 3 to 30 feet away and they were lit well and evenly without dropoffs.<br>

It comes in with the same guide number as the pentax 540 flash, has up-down and left-right swiveling, and automatically adjusts for focal length. And it also comes in at $129, about $200 less than the Pentax.<br>

It doesn't seem to have true P-TTL as I understand it, since it hasn't got the pre-flash. But it seemed to be very accurate at several distances and focal lengths that I tried<br>

Anyone have any experience with this?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oh no, Jeff drank the KoolAid!</p>

<p>Jeff, wouldn't the easier solution be to use Firefox? The only popups I get are from weather.com. Certainly cheaper than switching to a mac...</p>

<p>Fantastic street shots. These are the kind of shots I would love to take but they never seem to work out like these do. Well timed captures of the people, which is what street is all about.</p>

<p>and i thought my 1680*1050 22 inch monitor was big enough :(<br>

When I'm working with lightroom and I set the view to 1:1, it gives a full 10.2 MP image from my Pentax K10D as the equivalent of roughly a 44 inch wide print. So it's enough resolution, you just can't see it all at once.</p>

<p>Yes, that's what I meant. I don't mind getting no ratings, but low ones thrown in by bots just add insult to injury. If I don't get ratings, that means people aren't appreciating the photos and I need to work at it more. Comments are more valuable, but I do think the ratings system works. Pictures that I know are very good from the forum tend to get more and better ratings.</p>

<p>Today is the first day I didn't get one 3/3 on every picture within ten minutes of posting</p>

<p>I got $250 from Der Spiegel for a picture I took which they found on a website (whom I had let use the picture free.) I found later that the New York Observer had also used it as well when I searched for my name on Bing. They acknowledged that it was my picture. They gave me some doubletalk about Creative Commons, but hey, at least they spelled my name right.</p>

<p>there are bots involved which are hard to track, but the team is working on it. You can run but you can't hide when it comes to people trying to screw up the internet<br>

http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00U1cd<br>

http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00U1bb<br>

Let's let the guys fix the real problem instead of making all kinds of rules. It's a lot of work finding the patterns working through a huge database. <br>

Or maybe people just don't like your pictures :) I know they don't like mine! I'm the king of one 3/3 ratings.</p>

 

<p>I thought I saw him with JFK and Bobby walking over a hill with Martin Luther King</p>