1996-1999: Casio QV10A1999-2004: Nikon Coolpix 9502004-2007: Olympus C-50602006-2006: Fujifilm F202007- : Fujifilm F31fd2007-2007: Pentax K100D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2007-2009: Pentax K10D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2009-2012: Pentax K-7 (still mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2009-2011: Fujifilm F200EXR2012- : Pentax K-5ii (+ 15mm, 40mm, 70mm Limiteds)Now you know. :)
Matthew Miller: Fun and confusing fact! "High key lighting" and "high key photographs" are different concepts with different meanings and different history. The former comes to us from cinema, where "key" means the main light; the latter is much older and comes from painting and classical art, and "key" is closer to its use in music, and means the preponderance of tones — everything is shifted to a brighter average exposure, with little or no dark or black tones.
This tutorial focuses on high-key lighting, and the results aren't _really_ high key images in the classical sense (although we can argue about influence of the white background). The model's hair and clothing here have definite dark tones.
Generally, this isn't a huge difference for _high key_, since they're both kinda bright, but there is generally a different emotional effect:
* High-key image: ethereal, delicate, dream-like* High-key lighting: cheery, upbeat, energetic
but if we go to _low key_, there's a huge difference: low key *lighting* usually means that there's a lot of contrast from a hard non-key light. This is often dramatic and dynamic, whereas a low key image in the classical sense has an overall sense of darkness, often without contrasting highlights:
* Low-key image: somber, restrained, depressing* Low-key lighting: dramatic, mysterious, taut
In some ways this is a tangent to the tutorial, but it's something I see a lot of people get mixed up, and it's confusing when people are using a similar-sounding term to mean very different things.
Fun and confusing fact! "High key lighting" and "high key photographs" are different concepts with different meanings and different history. The former comes to us from cinema, where "key" means the main light; the latter is much older and comes from painting and classical art, and "key" is closer to its use in music, and means the preponderance of tones — everything is shifted to a brighter average exposure, with little or no dark or black tones.
joyclick: If Pentax can do K3 what stops them beat'em all superzoom? They have too many superzooms but none outstanding !
Simple. They stopped actually designing and making anything but DSLRs several years ago. Unlike the K-3, this isn't _really_ a Pentax — it's just a thing they commissioned and put the Pentax name on in order to make some money in an easy market segment.
Eleson: So, is the road noew open for millions of patents designed as: "Placing a flash in loc A and a flash in loc B to produce shadowing on subjects that can only be done with flashes in those two specific places."
Try taking a product shot after that. :)
Welcome to writing any non-trivial software program right now.
Jimmy Dozer: Great. About 10 days ago, I sent in a Bowens/Calumet Monolight in to their repair facility. Now what?
Sadly, you are probably out of luck. You will be so far down the list of people the bankruptcy proceedings care about that you're probably best off just buying a replacement elsewhere.
bobbarber: Given: Sensor technology gets better every year.
A. Therefore, people will need larger sensor cameras in the future.
B. Therefore, people will need smaller sensor cameras in the future.
Looking back to the history of large format, medium format, and 35mm film cameras is cheating. The logic behind your choice must come from your own ideas.
Because... god forbid we learn from history?
The punchline of each of these photos seriously cracks me up. Nice.
I'm not going to either criticize or complain about those who are, but: wow, there is a reason that the one with the little kid with hands on the (relatively) huge dog is the lead photo for every story. That's a great photo that really makes you do a double-take.
Steve oliphant: Sorry to say but i tested this lens you should test it your self at 1.4 on a high contrast target like a focus cart with bright light on it ,there was way to much modulation transfer, the 50 1.8 G lens is a much better lens at 1.8 thats you best bet , the 58mm 1.4 is a real peace.... of doo.
That... makes no sense. The words you are using do not mean what you apparently think they mean.
ballwin12: I bet this is a Chinese company, Am I right? They do nothing, just want to steal patterns from others.
Well, maybe. Sakar is a small company headquartered in New Jersey. But they don't really actually design anything themselves; they basically license different brands (like Polaroid or Vivitar or Kodak, or even Hello Kitty) and attach them to Chinese imports.
Since it tends to be very low quality and *COMPLETELY* unsupported (try getting ahold of anyone at Sakar with a technical question, let alone a support request!), I'm pretty sympathetic to Nikon here.
Frank_BR: Unbelievable, the Nokia Lumia 1020 outresolves almost all FF cameras except the Nikon D800! For example, if you compare the Nokia Lumia 1020 with the Canon 5D MkrIII you'll get the following numbers:
Nokia Lumia 1020: ~3600 LPHCanon 5D MkrIII: ~3000 LPH
This result is even more surprising if you consider that the 85mm Canon lens was set to F/7.1, whereas the Lumia lens was wide open at F/2.2. That is, the Canon lens was operating at the optimum aperture regarding resolution, and the Lumia lens was using an aperture much more prone to degradation by optical aberrations. Even so, the Lumia won.
That's not to say it isn't impressive, of course!
I think you're making a false assumption about the "wide open" lens. Basically, all conventional wisdom is off the table here, since this lens doesn't stop down at all, controlling exposure only through digital ISO and shutter speed. That means it's optimized for the only aperture it has -- there really is no concept of "wide open" because there is nothing else.
fakuryu: Slow lenses? Make those lenses a f1.4 and what do you get? Yeah, bigger lenses.
@tkbslc I don't think you appreciate how small, light, and enjoyable these lenses are to use. I have a set of the older series, and I wouldn't trade 'em for a top-of-the line f/2.8 zoom at any price.
Well, maybe if the zoom were pricey enough to resell and buy the upgraded versions of these.
"Best" lenses as scored by easily-measurable characteristics only -- resolution, distortion, vignetting, transmission, chromatic aberration. Sure, those things are important, but it's a remarkably reductionist way of ranking artistic tools.
Nathaniel George Weir: Canon makes better lenses than Nikon, and if you don't agree with me, then check out SLRGear.com and the Digital Picture's "ISO crops" and then compare Canon and Nikon glass. You shall see that Canon lenses are consistently sharper and have less CA.
Sharpness and CA are boring. They are only fixated on as the most important aspects of lens design because they are so easily measured, and the techie population which makes up the core audience of online photo sites gravitates to "serious" and "scientific" reviews based around measurable numbers — never mind that aspects which are not so easily measured are often more interesting and more important.
justinwonnacott: What kind of business model is this! Lomo is cyber begging and people are falling head over heels for it.Hilarious.
So, clearly, the kind of business model it is is "very successful".
Sooo, if we use the 1.6x linear difference in sensor size between this and the Canon G1 X to compare apertures, we get:
Leica: f/3.5-f/6.4Canon G1 X in equivalent terms: f/4.7-f/9.8
As we all know from so much forum arguing, this equivalence is right-on for depth of field effects assuming same-size prints, *and* roughly for noise performance because of the inherent advantage of the larger sensor.
That's last year's competition, I know, but it does look like the Leica isn't entirely wasting the larger sensor.
vroger1: Is it 6.4? I thought it was 5.6- Utterly useless.VRR
Really? The line between okay and "utterly useless" is in that one-third of a stop?
BJN: Raw is not a file type. Raw is not an acronym. Raw is an adjective.
It's also a class of digital files. You might not like it, but there it is.
shakyone: I really enjoyed the article. I'm a long time GIMP user, and it does what I need, when I need to get my hands dirty.
Not meant to argue with the author, but it is worth knowing, GIMP v2.10 will have 16/32 Bit color support. It is working in the development version(http://www.gimpusers.com/news/00422-16-bit-goat-invasion-ready)
You can get GIMP for OSX at: http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html
I'm glad to see DPReview finally acknowledge GIMP as a usable alternative. It much more capable than most realize.
It has a steep learning curve, but so does Photoshop. If you are starting from ground zero, there are plenty of tutorials on the main website and on the web to get you going. There is also a great book by Akkana Peck about how to use it. It is a fantastic reference for novice advanced photo editors.
I like many of the other proposed options.
One more suggstion: A free RAW editor to consider is RawTherapee.
@HowaboutRAW 2.10 isn't 3.0 -- the dot isn't a decimal point.