Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/07/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark Rabiner wrote: >You didn't do any sharpening after hand? >How about during hand? Check all your prefs? Menus in your menus? >Its got a very hard look to me. Really verging on too hard. Knowing the general area reasonably well, I'd say it's not sharpened. Mark, perhaps you're accustomed to N**** files? ;) Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com >> From: Bob Adler <rgacpa at yahoo.com> >> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:25:12 -0700 >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Medium Format Digital >> >> Hi Mark, >> The pixels in this image have not been sharpened to protect the innocent >> (unless of course LR applied some sharpening when it output to the >> web...). >> >> Bob Adler >> http://www.rgaphoto.com >> >> On Jul 7, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: >> >>> I think an advantage to medium format digital is it can take a lot of >>> sharpening and not get all funny. >>> This to me is also an advantage to using lower ISO's... >>> than maybe you'd think you'd even need. >>> >>> A high iso small format capture makes of an image which needs to be >>> sharpened very very carefully; as you can go to far and the next day you >>> look at it and you realized you have to redo it. Unless there is a >>> layer in >>> Photoshop for sharpening. Which I'd think there easily could be. >>> >>> >>> Mark William Rabiner >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Tina Manley <images at comporium.net> >>>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>>> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:52:26 -0400 >>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Medium Format Digital >>>> >>>> Now that is one sharp photo!! You had a clear view of Owens Valley. >>>> When >>>> we went up two days later there was a lot of haze. Here is my panorama >>>> from >>>> the same spot: >>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/136216932 >>>> >>>> I have a problem smoothing out skies in panoramas. Are you using >>>> Photoshop >>>> to stitch your's? >>>> >>>> Tina >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Bob Adler <rgacpa at yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> My P45+ stitched in portrait orientation (18mm shift on each side) >>>>> with the >>>>> 35mm lens gives a rough equivalent of a medium format 17.5mm lens. That >>>>> translates into what, about a 12mm rectilinear 35mm equivalent? >>>>> >>>>> And you want what? >>>>> See: >>>>> http://www.rgaphoto.com/GT/content/Valley_View_Pano_W_large.html >>>>> >>>>> This image is from 3 main segments produced by using 3 back shifts >>>>> with a >>>>> portrait oriented P45+ and 35mm lens, for each segment. The 3 back >>>>> shifts >>>>> of >>>>> each segment were stitched together from the images of the 35mm lens >>>>> shifted >>>>> in portrait orientation. This roughly equates to the view of each of >>>>> the 3 >>>>> segments equaling the field of view of a 17.5mm medium format lens/ >>>>> 12mm >>>>> lens on a 35mm format system. 3of these were stitched(swinging the >>>>> camera >>>>> on a panoramic head) to give the image. It was then cropped. The file >>>>> is >>>>> over 2.2GB. >>>>> >>>>> Give me a place to stand and I will hang this image! >>>>> >>>>> In all seriousness there are some correctly stated and some overstated >>>>> items in this expose. But all in all, medium format for landscapes is >>>>> at a >>>>> really nice place right now... >>>>> >>>>> Anyone want to buy some Hassy V and Canon equip? :-) >>>>> Bob >>>>> >>>>> Bob Adler >>>>> http://www.rgaphoto.com >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 6, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Richard Man <richard at imagecraft.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> My pipe dream is that someone, well, Fuji specifically :-) would make >>>>>> a >>>>>> >>>>>> 18x49mm sensor, and build a digital RF system for it. The sensor size >>>>>> is >>>>>> just about the same size as the "full frame" 35mm, so the technology >>>>>> and >>>>>> cost is known (remember that full frame Canon and Sony are as "low" as >>>>>> $2500). >>>>>> >>>>>> The result would of course be a cropped digital XPan. The lens should >>>>>> be >>>>>> much easier to design - heck, lets make them all F2.8 while we are at >>>>>> it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sell the whole system with 3 lens (30, 45 and 90 equivalent) for >>>>>> $10,000 >>>>> to >>>>>> $12,000, and I bet they will sell at least as many of that as Pentax >>>>> 645D. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/> >>>>>> // icc blog: <http://imagecraft.com/blog/> >>>>>> // richard's personal photo blog: <http://www.5pmlight.com> >>>>>> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all >>>>> previous >>>>>> replies in your msgs. ] >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tina Manley, ASMP >>>> www.tinamanley.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information