jemal.yarbrough

<p>Shot with the Pentax MX-1. Handheld in dark chapel. Opened up using Camera Raw, noise reduction using Topaz Denoise. Desaturated on purpose (even though I may remix it to add back in saturation). Not cropped. </p>

<p><a title="IMGP0513-as-Smart-Object-1 by Jemal Y., on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5501/11379535353_6528e1e48b.jpg" alt="IMGP0513-as-Smart-Object-1" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p>21mm limited. With crop factor turns into a 31mm equivalent. Works great on K10D. </p>

<p>ME - funny thing is that since the K10, I have always kept noise reduction to off because of write speeds. I now have an MX-1 and wish it had a setting that would just allow me to turn NR off, but it doesn't. If I had a K-3, it would have been one of my first adjustments. And, I rarely shoot jpegs. If the other cameras are any indication, there are only three or so menu options which actually impact Raw files which should be file size, raw file type, that anti-aliasing thing they invented and shake reduction (my guess). All the other settings should have to do with raw file preview and processing the raw files in camera. <br>

Good luck with the K-3. I still want one. </p>

 

<p>Hey ME and other K-3 owners. Turn of noise reduction as I hear that it can be very aggressive and turns on at low isos (1,600 or so). Hear your shots will instantly be sharper.</p>

<p>I think Robin Smith gave excellent editing tips. Most times we spend hours "editing" photos without actually spending any time at all on the idea of editing the photos from the perspective of does this photo actually work and need to be shown as my best work or should it be put somewhere else never to be seen again. That is the last and most crucial part. I love your first leafs collage. Masterful. Tightly edited in terms of which photos to use. Less is more applies to this form of editing too. It is something that I struggle with. But when I apply it ruthlessly, then, and only then, do I really show my best work instead of the work that I worked hard to make better, but failed at it work. Master that and the rest of your editing issues will fix themselves.</p>

<p>Thanks Doug!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/94-pentax-price-watch/243854-pentax-k-5-ii-599-b-h-black-friday-fire-sale.html#post2594678" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/94-pentax-price-watch/243854-pentax-k-5-ii-599-b-h-black-friday-fire-sale.html#post2594678</a></p>

<p>I actually like the last image. A lot. The sky was not a distraction for me. I liked the coldness of the photo and the blue added to that feeling. So Hin Man, I guess this is the part where everyone's personal taste is different. The only processing issue I note is purely a technical as opposed to artistic one. The sky is pushed a bit too far in the upper left corner and appears to break down a bit.<br>

Tim is right, however, in his point about using the PP to help focus the eye on what you think is important and for the effect you seek to achieve.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hin Man: The last four images are really nice. If what you have done so far is an example, you are off to a fine start. Just remember that PP is another tool in your tool bag. Use it for the result that you want, but don't use it just because it can do something. Less is more as they say. When I first started out with the PP software, I did too much. Over time, I began dialing it back, way way way back. Now I try to use it either 1) to create a particular vision (filters, colors, tone) , 2) to correct my screw ups (such as under exposed), 3) correct camera deficiencies (open up shadows, bring down highlights, sharpen) or 4) some combination of all three.<br>

Good luck. </p>

<p>Great shots. You made me hungry.</p>

<p>Hi everyone. It has been awhile since posting here. Haven't shot much, but here are the latest things.</p>

<p><a title="IMGP0298 by Jemal Y., on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5492/10875346764_cca5e3a42e.jpg" alt="IMGP0298" width="500" height="375" /></a><br>

<strong>Flower - Macro shot with Pentax MX-1</strong><br>

<a title="Mushroom by Jemal Y., on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7392/10989296973_bd28c8496c.jpg" alt="Mushroom" width="375" height="500" /></a><br>

<strong>Underside of mushroom cap - Macro shot with Pentax MX-1</strong></p>

<p><a title="Honey & Summer-001-100 by Jemal Y., on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7294/11029682434_775fc749e7.jpg" alt="Honey & Summer-001-100" width="500" height="332" /></a><br>

<strong>Faith & Love - Shot with Pentax K20D and FA 100mm</strong></p>

<p>I will be back later in the week to comment on your great photos. </p>

<p>Thanks Michael,<br>

It was either a flea bay purchase or craigslist. I will probably end up sending it in to Pentax, but I'm hearing they want $180 - $200 to fix this problem. :(</p>

<p>Update: I have the problem in the link. So I bought loktight and took the silver ring in photo 2 and screwed it back down to the base in photo 1. I was able to figure out the screw alignment (I think) by marks on the silver piece. So that part is done.</p>

<p>Does anyone know how to screw the two pieces back together? If you look at picture two there is a groove (two actually) that are used to lock the piece into place inside the base. The aperture pin also fits inside of a lever. However when you screw the piece down you have to get everything to line up just right. Then as best I can tell, you have to rotate the focusing ring to also seat the lens deeper. It is driving me crazy. </p>

<p>Yep that's it. I have the screws. Now if someone could just tell me how to put it back together. From what I gather there is a metal circular ring that sits in the center and is screwed down by the three screws. Once that is done, the lens barrel is twisted down in place. Seems simple enough, but it has to end up with the aperture lever in that black semi-circle slot. Has anyone of you guys home fixed this? I will try it myself before begging Pentax to fix it. And this definitely should not happen. </p>

<p><a title="Inside 40mm mount by Jemal Y., on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2826/10369104675_9a537db8ff.jpg" alt="Inside 40mm mount" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p><a title="Side inside lens by Jemal Y., on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3704/10369354913_8b14f66073.jpg" alt="Side inside lens" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p>Excuse the dust. We are working. lol. </p>

<p>Thanks Hin Man. I will pop the rear portion of the lens onto another body to see if they still turn the mechanisms inside just to make sure it still works. </p>

<p>O.k. So um, yeah. I posted years ago about my 40mm limited lens "sticking" and not getting infinity focus. I sparingly used it since then and pretty much had it stuck on my spare k20d. Yesterday, I pulled it out and used it a bit. It would get stuck while turning trying to get focus lock. I would help it by manually twisting the focus ring, not really thinking about it since it had the quick shift focus thingy.</p>

<p>Today I tried to use the lens again. It focused for a bit on things, but then stopped getting focus. I reached around to see if it was sticking. No luck. Then I actually looked at the lens itself. The part of the lens, I will call it the barrel, that extends out of the focus housing was hanging down a bit and there was a gap between it and the focus ring. What the heck? Of course, I tried to get it to go back inside. And to my surprise it did. I think decided to take it off my camera so I could figure out what to do with it. </p>

<p>Well when I turned it upside down to take the lens off the body, the entire barrel came out of the focusing ring body with one tiny black screw. But I could hear rattling in the focus ring body. A couple of shakes and two more tiny black screws fell out. Nothing else. No springs, no flange, no other parts, not nothing. </p>

<p>Has anybody heard of this? Is there an easy fix? I assume not since nothing else is loose, i.e., the screws on the lens mount are there happy and tight, and I cannot even begin to figure out how to screw it back together. <br>

Any help would be appreciated because I currently have a $400, on special lens from Adorama, broken in my hands without $400.00 to spend on getting a replacement lens fro Adorama or anywhere else. </p>

<p>Sad face in Los Angeles.</p>

<p>p.s., I will post pictures of it soon.</p>

<p>Glad they updated the flashes. Hope they got rid of the annoying automatic power off without the ability to turn that feature off. Glad the 360 got the swivel. Hate the new price points on everything. I can get a flash head for the price of the 540 now. Sheesh.</p>

<p>I would think that if your jpg is rendering properly in camera it is not the raw file since this is the digital negative used by the camera to make the jpeg. This may be a silly question, but have you turned on exposure compensation? Not only with the +/- button, but there is something like automatic exposure compensation in the menus too where the camera will adjust to give you a proper exposure. </p>

<p>Yeah, I'm not too excited about the announcement. Hence, no discussion. </p>

<p>I (again) broke the hot shoe of my Pentax 540 flash. Does anyone know where I can get the repair part (super easy repair). I keep calling Pentax Parts, but apparently there is literally one person who does this and she's always on the phone. Any suggestions? I've called, left messages, sent smoke signals, begged and now just hate this process. <br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>John that first shot of the falls is stunning!</p>

<p>I have found that while you lose p-ttl, any flash trigger made for Canon seems to work with Pentax K-10, K-20 and K-5. Using the built in wireless system works, but it is definitely a line of sight system and that small black disk on the flash definitely needs to be able to see the flash fire from on the camera.</p>

<p>I initially misread the problem/question. Sorry. I do have a question. Does your K-5 have the shadow adjustment/highlight protection settings turned on? It could be that those settings are throwing off the flash when used wirelessly. I ask because you said that " the shadows were not less intense, just less exposed." Just curious. My 540 flash is broken (I need the hot shoe replaced - I broke it), and I don't have it with me currently anyway. </p>

<p>Couple of things. Tv of 180 is too fast. What 50mm lens are you using? And does the flash need to push more light to get a proper exposure at the x-sync speed, hence, no way to turn the flash down? </p>

<p>My favorites of the week are:</p>

<p >Steve T. - Interesting set of photos. Great start to the POTW</p>

<p >Matt B. - That second photo belongs in a magazine somewhere</p>

<p >Howard T. - I love flowers 2 and 4. Great work.</p>

<p >Bob M. - I agree with Douglas. Glad to hear your test were normal.</p>