Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,761   Posts: 1,516,091   Online: 908
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,419
    In this thread celebrating love for the Olympus XA, I don't understand someone coming here to pur it down or make comments about other cameras.

    Would it not make more sense just to stay away? Or make a thread for the camera that you do love?

    Just saying....
    - Bill Lynch

  2. #22
    eurekaiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Ana, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    130
    I think the answer is a resounding no. Anyone who's spent a large amount of time visiting (or especially running) an internet forum would know, people that like the XYZ (or it's variants) are clearly uneducated dolts, with no taste or insite, into what a proper, usable widget is or should be. Duh. If they weren't so near sighted, smarter, or actually paid any attention to reality at all, they would be using ABC instead. It so obviously outperforms XYZ that it's comical. Even starving children in Africa are laughing about it.
    Sometimes I post my photos on flickr.
    Sometimes I update my tumblr.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by BardParker View Post
    have found them to be very robust with their clamshell lens cover. Kent
    It's called a "sliding dust barrier". It has never been anything except a "sliding dust barrier". I'm kind of curious as to what kind of weird-ass clams you've seen.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Tyler, Texas USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    100
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by chuck94022 View Post
    Nice photos. Curious about "processed and scanned" only statement by the original poster. Most (except perhaps for the deer shot) appear to have been sharpened at least. Was the scan done by the processor? If so, they also sharpened. If done by the OP, probably he had some sharpening and perhaps curves set in the scanner - curves in the scanner could account for some of the sky separation I presume. Still, for no filters, it is certainly nice separation of sky and cloud. Not trying to drag this into a d* discussion, just curious.
    No sharpening done by me. I just imported the CD images as straight scans into lightroom and exported them to flickr. I didn't request sharpening on my order. But I was curious, so I called Precision Camera in Austin, and spoke to the lab director who confirmed that, as a default, they DO use autosharpening on their high resolution Noritsu scanner. In any event, this was my first film processing order with Precision Camera, and I was very impressed with the quality.

  5. #25
    chuck94022's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by BardParker View Post
    No sharpening done by me. I just imported the CD images as straight scans into lightroom and exported them to flickr. I didn't request sharpening on my order. But I was curious, so I called Precision Camera in Austin, and spoke to the lab director who confirmed that, as a default, they DO use autosharpening on their high resolution Noritsu scanner. In any event, this was my first film processing order with Precision Camera, and I was very impressed with the quality.
    That's what I thought. You can easily tell by zooming in on the ridge line of the mountain - you'll see the telltale sign of sharpening by noticing that the sky pixels adjacent to the dark ridge pixels are brighter than the surrounding sky pixels. That's what sharpening does. Anyway, nice shots.


    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.928154,116.427981

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by BardParker View Post
    they DO use autosharpening on their high resolution Noritsu scanner.
    Without getting too involved in describing a d*****l process, scanning involves a slight loss in sharpness that needs to be corrected.

  7. #27
    chuck94022's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    Without getting too involved in describing a d*****l process, scanning involves a slight loss in sharpness that needs to be corrected.
    Of course. I'm not surprised. I only asked because the photo evidence contradicted the original poster's statement: "no digital manipulation except resizing." Sharpening is digital manipulation, and when evaluating the quality of a camera's images, it should be noted.

    I'm not trying to raise a stink here, just wanted to clarify what I was seeing. I like the images.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Tyler, Texas USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    100
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by thuggins View Post
    It's called a "sliding dust barrier". It has never been anything except a "sliding dust barrier". I'm kind of curious as to what kind of weird-ass clams you've seen.
    Whatever... Next?

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Tyler, Texas USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    100
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by chuck94022 View Post
    Of course. I'm not surprised. I only asked because the photo evidence contradicted the original poster's statement: "no digital manipulation except resizing." Sharpening is digital manipulation, and when evaluating the quality of a camera's images, it should be noted.

    I'm not trying to raise a stink here, just wanted to clarify what I was seeing. I like the images.
    Thank you for your comments. I have no experience scanning my own film, and recently got back into film after about a 10 year hiatus, so I send it to professional labs. I did not realize they do autosharpening as a default. I appreciate your discerning eye in pointing this out. I simply meant that I did NO playing around in PS or LR with these images.

    It was interesting to me that the little Olympus XA images compared very favorably with my medium format Pentax 645N. Here's a direct comparison:


    18210025.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr
    Olympus XA, Kodak BW400CN


    52260011.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr
    Pentax 645N, SMC FA 75mm lens, Kodak TriX

    Regards,
    Kent

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA., U.S.A.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    228

    A link to a Magnum essay by Erich Hartmann, all done with an Olympus XA.

    Quote Originally Posted by chuck94022 View Post
    Nice photos. Curious about "processed and scanned" only statement by the original poster. Most (except perhaps for the deer shot) appear to have been sharpened at least. Was the scan done by the processor? If so, they also sharpened. If done by the OP, probably he had some sharpening and perhaps curves set in the scanner - curves in the scanner could account for some of the sky separation I presume. Still, for no filters, it is certainly nice separation of sky and cloud. Not trying to drag this into a d* discussion, just curious.
    I was doing some research and found this Magnum essay by Erich Hartmann.
    All done with an Olympus XA & they were done before Digital Existed...

    http://www.magnumphotos.com/c.aspx?V...d=2K7O3R1VUF5N

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin