Latest update to Lightroom for Android now includes support for raw
files. I just downloaded it for my new Asus tablet (which is really
amazing, BTW) but haven't tried it out yet. I suspect raw conversion
will be a bit slow, given the computing power available, but probably
helpful in
On Jun 21, 2014, at 11:50 , Charles Robinson wrote:
> Followup:
>
> I've been testing a piece of software called "Disk Drill" for OSX which says
> it recognizes Olympus RAW files.
>
> It's done a stellar job on tests with my formatted cards pullin
Followup:
I've been testing a piece of software called "Disk Drill" for OSX which says it
recognizes Olympus RAW files.
It's done a stellar job on tests with my formatted cards pulling up old DMG
files (which, for some reason - Pentax tag in the EXIF, perhaps? -
ected SDXC card to a card reader (on his iPad) and it glitched
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> He has no idea how that happened. He always specifically puts the
>>>> write-protect on before dumping a card, just to be "safe"
>>>>
>>>&g
d, just to be "safe"
He is able to use some 'recovery' utilities to pull some not-very-swell JPEGS
off of the card (not sure if he was shooting some JPG+RAW modes... maybe?) but
so far nobody and nothing has been able to allow him to recover any semblance
of the RAW files ( *.
rd (not sure if he was shooting some JPG+RAW modes... maybe?)
> but so far nobody and nothing has been able to allow him to recover any
> semblance of the RAW files ( *.ORF ) that are on there.
>
> Does anyone have experience with any sort of recovery utility (he's not
> really co
not sure if he was shooting some JPG+RAW modes...
>> maybe?) but so far nobody and nothing has been able to allow him to recover
>> any semblance of the RAW files ( *.ORF ) that are on there.
>>
>> Does anyone have experience with any sort of recovery utility (he's
use some 'recovery' utilities to pull some not-very-swell JPEGS
> off of the card (not sure if he was shooting some JPG+RAW modes... maybe?)
> but so far nobody and nothing has been able to allow him to recover any
> semblance of the RAW files ( *.ORF ) that are on there.
>
o use some 'recovery' utilities to pull some not-very-swell JPEGS
off of the card (not sure if he was shooting some JPG+RAW modes... maybe?) but
so far nobody and nothing has been able to allow him to recover any semblance
of the RAW files ( *.ORF ) that are on there.
Does anyone have expe
lation to jpeg.
That is correct.
Does it affect the JPEG preview inside the raw files?
Yes, it also provides hints for any RAW conversion software that is
aware of the original camera settings. I've been using Pentax Camera
Utility 4 and every raw file I open reflects camera settings
Those people would never be my clients. I'd rather pound sod. ;-)
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Bob W wrote:
> I'm reading a very interesting book at the moment about the commercial
> practice of early Renaissance painting. You should think yourselves lucky
> your clients don't specify that y
On Jul 13, 2012, at 4:12 AM, George Sinos wrote:
> There's a lot of over-thinking going on in this thread. Most of it is
> technically correct and practically insignificant.
Mark!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from
I'm reading a very interesting book at the moment about the commercial
practice of early Renaissance painting. You should think yourselves lucky
your clients don't specify that you grind the colours yourself and use
ultramarine at 2 florins the ounce on the Virgin's cloak, and ultramarine at
one fl
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
> Are you saying it does, or does not, affect the data in the raw file?
Raw files contains sensor data, metadata describing camera settings
and image attributes, and optionally a JPEG preview. Colorspace
profile settings affect the specifics
That's why I spend time to get clients to agree on what the
*deliverables* will be, rather than how I achieve producing those
deliverables. No client tells me how to set my camera, if they insist,
I refuse the contract.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Mark Roberts
wrote:
> You're probably right
. So, if you
use the histogram to make exposure adjustments, theoretically, there
may be a tiny difference in the feedback it gives you.
If you're submitting raw files - set the camera color space to
adobeRGB so the are tagged correctly.
If you're submitting jpgs, the camera setting
On Jul 12, 2012, at 7:31 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> Colorspace is a parameter used in the chroma interpolation phase of
> the raw conversion process, on the way to an RGB channel file of
> whatever format.
Are you saying it does, or does not, affect the data in the raw file?
>
> What they'r
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
>> For an event that I'm shooting, it was just specified we shoot in raw and,
>> adobe RGB.
>> My understanding was that sRGB and adobe RGB only came into play in
>> converting to JPEG, that RAW was just the raw data
Colorspace is a parameter used in the chroma interpolation phase of
the raw conversion process, on the way to an RGB channel file of
whatever format.
What they're telling you is that they want the deliverables produced
with Adobe RGB profile. Most people are confused about the camera
settings when
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:07 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
> AWB changes the WB every time you move the camera. Every frame requires a
> different correction.
>
> I just set it on daylight so it's consistently wrong by the same amount for
> every frame. That way I can batch process the corrections.
I
From: "Peter Loveday"
If the color space for RAW is determined by the sensor & "associated
hardware/software",
what does setting the color space on the camera do?
It probably affects the in-camera translation to jpeg.
That is correct.
Indeed.
However... theoretically, there have been spo
If the color space for RAW is determined by the sensor & "associated
hardware/software",
what does setting the color space on the camera do?
It probably affects the in-camera translation to jpeg.
That is correct.
Indeed.
However... theoretically, there have been sporadic reports that the
n-camera translation to jpeg.
>
> That is correct.
Does it affect the JPEG preview inside the raw files?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
;>> My understanding was that sRGB and adobe RGB only came into play in
>>>> converting to
>>>> JPEG, that RAW was just the raw data off the sensor.
>>>> Am I more confused than usual?
>>>
>>> Nope. You're quite correct. Raw files are
t;>>
>>> My understanding was that sRGB and adobe RGB only came into play in
>>> converting to JPEG, that RAW was just the raw data off the sensor.
>>>
>>> Am I more confused than usual?
>>
>> Nope. You're quite correct. Raw file
usual?
Nope. You're quite correct. Raw files are in the device-determined
color space of the sensor (and, theoretically, associated
hardware/software).
If the color space for RAW is determined by the sensor & "associated
hardware/software", what does setting the color space on
The only difference in size makes whether you chose DNG or PEF. PEF
seemed to be slightly smaller than DNG but its not a rule...
--
roman.blakout.net
K-5 × DA 16-45 × DA* 50-135 × FA 50 × FA 35-70
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
than usual?
Nope. You're quite correct. Raw files are in the device-determined
color space of the sensor (and, theoretically, associated
hardware/software).
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please vi
> You can make sRGB for the
> web and consumer prints, adobeRGB for better ink jet printers, and
> ProPhoto RGB for imaginary devices that may exist in the future.
That was awesome, George. Gotta be in the quotes section of next year's Annual.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http:
Hi Larry. There's no color space in a raw file. You select the color
space when you turn it into a jpeg.
That's another reason to shoot raw files. You can make sRGB for the
web and consumer prints, adobeRGB for better ink jet printers, and
ProPhoto RGB for imaginary devices that ma
For an event that I'm shooting, it was just specified we shoot in raw and,
adobe RGB.
My understanding was that sRGB and adobe RGB only came into play in converting
to JPEG, that RAW was just the raw data off the sensor.
Am I more confused than usual?
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from
On Jun 7, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Tom Cakalic wrote:
>>
>
> Agreed. The ordinary computer user knows nothing about encryption. I'm
> not an encryption expert by any means, but to me using encryption is
> sort of like locking the door on my house. It makes me feel secure.
If you'd like to read an exc
>
> Tom, you're missing an important piece of the equation: encryption.
> Your data will be safe from theft, snooping or tampering as long as
> it's properly encrypted. It won't necessarily be safe from loss, but
> at least it cannot "fall into the wrong hands".
>
> Now, how you determine that it's
From: Bruce Walker
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Tom C. wrote:
Cloud storage is trusting someone else with your data. It may be a
convenient way of storing data, but it should never be the primary or
only backup. I wouldn't consider it as any form of long term backup
for two reasons, especi
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Tom C. wrote:
> Cloud storage is trusting someone else with your data. It may be a
> convenient way of storing data, but it should never be the primary or
> only backup. I wouldn't consider it as any form of long term backup
> for two reasons, especially not with m
On Jun 7, 2012, at 1:42 AM, William Robb wrote:
> If this is the case, then it may well just be random chance that they were
> chosen by the FBI to be made an example of, in which case no cloud storage
> facility is safe, and this is just one more way to lose data.
That's pretty much my line of
> From what I gather, it's the legitimate users who have suffered in this
> case. Their data may be irretrievably gone.
> It also appears that megaupload didn't really do all that much wrong, or
> all that much different from other cloud storage facilities.
> If this is the case, then it may well
On 05/06/2012 7:48 PM, steve harley wrote:
on 2012-06-05 6:17 William Robb wrote
Anyone who is depending on cloud storage should be looking at this as the
potential end result of all their carefully uploaded data.
anyone who is depending _solely_ on cloud storage
Well yes, I mentioned that in
On 05/06/2012 11:51 PM, David Mann wrote:
BTW there were plenty of legitimate users of Megaupload, as with any cloud
storage provider. But the feds won't tell you that.
From what I gather, it's the legitimate users who have suffered in this
case. Their data may be irretrievably gone.
It
On Jun 6, 2012, at 1:04 PM, William Robb wrote:
> On 05/06/2012 10:58 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>>
>> Calling Megaupload a "cloud storage company" is like calling the Mafia
>> a "global security firm". Nobody legit had anything stored there. It
>> was/is for warez, swiped movies and music, etc.
>
on 2012-06-05 6:17 William Robb wrote
Anyone who is depending on cloud storage should be looking at this as the
potential end result of all their carefully uploaded data.
anyone who is depending _solely_ on cloud storage
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/li
On 05/06/2012 10:58 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Calling Megaupload a "cloud storage company" is like calling the Mafia
a "global security firm". Nobody legit had anything stored there. It
was/is for warez, swiped movies and music, etc.
I didn't know that.
Which reinforces my point, really. How
On 6/5/2012 1:10 PM, Matthew Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:00 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
As an aside, how could Dotcom be a real name?
By virtue of a legally executed name change.
Actually you don't even have to do that, you can call yourself any damn
thing you want as long as it's not
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:00 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> As an aside, how could Dotcom be a real name?
By virtue of a legally executed name change.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link dir
As an aside, how could Dotcom be a real name?
On 6/5/2012 8:17 AM, William Robb wrote:
On 05/06/2012 12:05 AM, David Mann wrote:
On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Robb wrote:
IIRC, recently there was a cloud storage company in the USA that got
shut down by the feds because some of their mem
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:17 AM, William Robb
wrote:
>
> On 05/06/2012 12:05 AM, David Mann wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Robb wrote:
>>
>>> IIRC, recently there was a cloud storage company in the USA that got
>>> shut down by the feds because some of their members were storing d
On 05/06/2012 12:05 AM, David Mann wrote:
On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Robb wrote:
IIRC, recently there was a cloud storage company in the USA that got shut down
by the feds because some of their members were storing data they didn't own.
Not sure who exactly you're talking about but
On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Robb wrote:
> IIRC, recently there was a cloud storage company in the USA that got shut
> down by the feds because some of their members were storing data they didn't
> own.
Not sure who exactly you're talking about but Mega Upload was shut down by the
FBI,
On 6/5/2012 05:38, William Robb wrote:
I've read reports of archival blue rays failing within startlingly short
periods of time, and cloud storage is only as long lived as the company
running the facility. IIRC, recently there was a cloud storage company
in the USA that got shut down by the feds
On 04/06/2012 9:23 AM, Bipin Gupta wrote:
Why not use archival quality Blu Ray Discs. You could burn two or more
and disperse them to family/friends for safe keeping just in case
.
For those still in the DVD era, archival quality scratch proof coated
discs are available in over 8 GB capacitie
As a curious (perhaps pointless) counter-example: I've got some
software on oiled paper-tape that is going to outlast the DC600 tapes,
floppies, CDs, DVDs and harddrives that it's been migrated to over the
years.
Not that there's going to be much actual call for my copies of PDP8/e
Focal or OS8.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> I suspect that the trick will be to just share files on an external drive,
> and sneakernet the catalog.
Just put the Lightrom catalog folder on the same hard drive as the
image files and be sure that the drive has been formatted with a
compat
On Jun 3, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
> Larry -
>
> This workaround works with Windows. Maybe you can come up with a way to do
> this with the Mac OS.
>
> http://vimeo.com/12697388
Thanks.
I suspect that the trick will be to just share files on an external drive, and
sneakernet
on 2012-06-04 10:54 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
Sorry - writable optical media fail MUCH faster than hard drives, have
less capacity, and are much more maintenance work.
I wouldn't touch Blue-Ray for archive storage, don't bother with DVD either.
indeed, i have a spindle of 90 or so DVD-R blanks tha
Sorry - writable optical media fail MUCH faster than hard drives, have
less capacity, and are much more maintenance work.
I wouldn't touch Blue-Ray for archive storage, don't bother with DVD either.
Rotating media hard drives are cheap and are currently the most
reliable and best bang for the buck
Why not use archival quality Blu Ray Discs. You could burn two or more
and disperse them to family/friends for safe keeping just in case
.
For those still in the DVD era, archival quality scratch proof coated
discs are available in over 8 GB capacities.
Ultimately all Hard Drives and solid stat
53 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>>
>>> I've got several related issues that may have a single solution:
>>>
>>> I've got about 4.5TB of raw PEFs on two drives. Both drives are starting
>>> to get full.
>>>
>>> I'm very tempted
Colen wrote:
>>
>> I've got several related issues that may have a single solution:
>>
>> I've got about 4.5TB of raw PEFs on two drives. Both drives are starting
>> to get full.
>>
>> I'm very tempted to convert my library of raw files
n:
>
> I've got about 4.5TB of raw PEFs on two drives. Both drives are starting
> to get full.
>
> I'm very tempted to convert my library of raw files from PEF to DNG.
>
> Zab's new laptop, a 17" macbook pro has more processing power than my iMac
> and my
on 2012-06-02 5:28 Larry Colen wrote
What does one cost, with 6-8 TB of capacity?
if you shop sale prices, you can get a cheap 4-drive NAS enclosure for $2-300;
whether these are performant models i don't know; drives are extra
I suspect that the solution that I'll end up with for working o
On 6/2/2012 01:53, Larry Colen wrote:
I've got several related issues that may have a single solution:
I've got about 4.5TB of raw PEFs on two drives. Both drives are
starting to get full.
I'm very tempted to convert my library of raw files from PEF to DNG.
Larry, here i
On Jun 1, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> I've got several related issues that may have a single solution:
>
> I've got about 4.5TB of raw PEFs on two drives. Both drives are starting to
> get full.
>
> [snip]
>
> I'm looking for suggestions as to general plan (for example, gigabit NA
On 2012-06-02 7:28, Larry Colen wrote:
1. Main computer: 4 drive RAID 10 array, two cold drives ready
the four drive RAID 10 array is in the computer? [...] iMac or a laptop.
I'd need an external system.
I'm on Windows PCs for my main systems, with big tower cases. The
laptop just carries p
me building, with the
negatives and prints of my previous 35 years of photography, and I expect the
same thing would happen to the drives as to the negatives.
>
>> My gut feeling is that the right way to do this is some sort of external
>> drive that I can share between the t
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> David Mann
>
> The reason I keep the second drive in the garage is to keep me covered
> in case the house burns down...
>
don't worry, Dave, your house won't burn down.
The ground will swallow it first.
B
--
PDML Pe
On Jun 2, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> But then again, there is the prospect of off-line storage.
> 3T USB3 units are available for about $150 now.
> Just fill it up and put it in the safe.
Yep, big USB drives are great. I have a pair of 2Tb USB2 drives for my photo
files. I
> >> Of Larry Colen
> >> Sent: 01 June 2012 23:53
> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >> Subject: External storage of raw files
> >>
> >> I've got several related issues that may have a single solution:
> >>
> >> I've
probably in the same physical location, too, aren't they?
What happens when the "house burns down"?
My gut feeling is that the right way to do this is some sort of external drive
that I can share between the two machines for storing all the RAW files. I
suspect that I'll
Large volumes of data that need to be secure require more than a single
external drive.
Of course.
A SAN can be done inexpensively with a Linux install. And a SAN can be set
up for dynamic growth.
Need more space? Just add a drive and allocate it to the SAN volume.
It seems our data often outg
;
> B
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
>> Larry Colen
>> Sent: 01 June 2012 23:53
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: External storage of raw files
>>
>> I've got se
On Jun 1, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Bob W wrote:
> Lightroom is very slow over a network has been my experience. You're better
> off keeping your catalogue on your fixed disk.
Yes, my catalog is on the internal disk. I've learned that lesson. I'll just
need to copy that back and forth between machi
Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: External storage of raw files
>
> I've got several related issues that may have a single solution:
>
> I've got about 4.5TB of raw PEFs on two drives. Both drives are
> starting to get full.
>
> I'm very tempted to conv
I've got several related issues that may have a single solution:
I've got about 4.5TB of raw PEFs on two drives. Both drives are starting to
get full.
I'm very tempted to convert my library of raw files from PEF to DNG.
Zab's new laptop, a 17" macbook pro has more
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:30:20 -0700 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
>That will work just fine. It's better to move a LARGE number of files
>this way, rather than from inside Lightroom in the Folders panel.
OK, thanks Godfrey.
I expected as much, and I'd rather COPY than really MOVE
>Just be sure that yo
anel
so that you can reassign all of the image file locations in one
action.
G
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Jan van Wijk wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A question for the Lightroom experts on the list ...
>
> I have been collecting all my RAW files from the last 5 or 6 years into
> Li
gt; I have been collecting all my RAW files from the last 5 or 6 years into
> Lightroom,
> and am getting to the point where the internal disk (750Gb) of the iMAC is
> getting
> to full for comfort.
>
> So because of that, and to gain some extra speed as well I hope, I got myself
>
Hi all,
A question for the Lightroom experts on the list ...
I have been collecting all my RAW files from the last 5 or 6 years into
Lightroom,
and am getting to the point where the internal disk (750Gb) of the iMAC is
getting
to full for comfort.
So because of that, and to gain some extra
shchin
>
>
> RAW files can be now seen directly in Windows 7 and Vista:
> http://dpreview.com/news/1107/11072808microsoftcameracodec.asp
>
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the li
Sessoms
Sent: Sunday, 7 August 2011 6:44 AM
To: PDML@pdml.net
Subject: RE: RAW files in Windows
From: Igor Roshchin
> RAW files can be now seen directly in Windows 7 and Vista:
> http://dpreview.com/news/1107/11072808microsoftcameracodec.asp
>
There was a raw file viewer add-on for XP. It wo
From: Igor Roshchin
RAW files can be now seen directly in Windows 7 and Vista:
http://dpreview.com/news/1107/11072808microsoftcameracodec.asp
There was a raw file viewer add-on for XP. It worked sort of half assed.
It would display the raw files as thumbnails, but took FOREVER to load
them
RAW files can be now seen directly in Windows 7 and Vista:
http://dpreview.com/news/1107/11072808microsoftcameracodec.asp
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
On 12/8/2010 6:21 PM, P N Stenquist wrote:
Is CA correction for jpeg only, or does it work with RAW files?
Paul
I think it works with RAW files too, Paul, but it slows down my K-7 very
considerably, so I turned it off.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net
On 8 December 2010 19:17, Peter Loveday wrote:
>
>>> Miserere, have you noticed an additional bonus of shadow recovery - no
>>> purple fringing at all???
>>
>> That was the first thing I noticed: No purple fringing. Of course, had
>>
>> I remembered to turn on the CA correction feature there shoul
Miserere, have you noticed an additional bonus of shadow recovery - no
purple fringing at all???
That was the first thing I noticed: No purple fringing. Of course, had
I remembered to turn on the CA correction feature there should have
been no PF anyway.
Most likely due to the aperture diffe
The last 2 images are amazing. I don't see any PF in the second one.
Is this a jpg with CA correction enabled? Can I download the RAW files
to play?
A cash back has landed here and now I'm thinking about a K5. The ugly
spots on the sensor stop me from visiting the local pusher.
T
;
>> That was the first thing I noticed: No purple fringing. Of course, had
>> I remembered to turn on the CA correction feature there should have
>> been no PF anyway.
>>
>>
> Is CA correction for jpeg only, or does it work with RAW files?
> Paul
As far as I
had
> I remembered to turn on the CA correction feature there should have
> been no PF anyway.
>
>
Is CA correction for jpeg only, or does it work with RAW files?
Paul
> —M.
>
>\/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com
>
>http://EnticingTheLight.com
>
On 8 December 2010 05:14, Boris Liberman wrote:
> Miserere, have you noticed an additional bonus of shadow recovery - no
> purple fringing at all???
That was the first thing I noticed: No purple fringing. Of course, had
I remembered to turn on the CA correction feature there should have
been no P
I've never noticed Miserere's site being slow to load.
Ted
"The eye of the viewer becomes the eye of the Photographer." Albert Maysles
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly abo
On 12/8/2010 4:58 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
The amount of available shadow recovery on the K5 will push me over
the edge whenever this camera gets close to $1000. Wow.
-Charles
I seem to be having another change of mind. K-7 seems to work and K10D
seems to work too. My most recent experime
On Dec 8, 2010, at 8:54, Boris Liberman wrote:
> On 12/8/2010 4:51 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
>> Hmm... I'm at a U.S. ISP with a multi-gigabit feed to the Internet
>> and approximately a 40-megabit connection into the office segment.
>> I'll try it again later, maybe something was just gumming up
On 12/8/2010 4:51 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
Hmm... I'm at a U.S. ISP with a multi-gigabit feed to the Internet
and approximately a 40-megabit connection into the office segment.
I'll try it again later, maybe something was just gumming up the
works.
-Charles
You're now a hated man, Charles /
On Dec 8, 2010, at 8:49, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Charles Robinson wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:33, Miserere wrote:
>>> http://enticingthelight.com/2010/12/01/review-pentax-k-5/#raw
>>>
>>
>> Fascinating stuff, but holy hell whatever is serving up your websites is
On 12/8/2010 4:49 PM, Matthew Hunt wrote:
It loaded quickly for me... fully rendered in 2 or 3 seconds (on a
fast corporate network in the US).
Less than 10 seconds here in my office in Ramat Gan.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Charles Robinson wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:33, Miserere wrote:
>> http://enticingthelight.com/2010/12/01/review-pentax-k-5/#raw
>>
>
> Fascinating stuff, but holy hell whatever is serving up your websites is
> slwww. :-(
It loaded quickly for
On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:33, Miserere wrote:
> In case anyone is interested, I've updated my review with some
> examples of massaged K-5 images:
>
> http://enticingthelight.com/2010/12/01/review-pentax-k-5/#raw
>
Fascinating stuff, but holy hell whatever is serving up your websites is
sloo
;> Fra: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [pdml-boun...@pdml.net] på vegne av Miserere
>> [miser...@gmail.com]
>> Sendt: 8. desember 2010 09:33
>> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Emne: Massaging K-5 RAW files
>>
>> I was surprised to find out the K-5 only has 1 st
> Stig Vidar Hovland
>
>
>
> Fra: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [pdml-boun...@pdml.net] på vegne av Miserere
> [miser...@gmail.com]
> Sendt: 8. desember 2010 09:33
> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Emne: Massaging K-5 RAW files
>
>
[miser...@gmail.com]
Sendt: 8. desember 2010 09:33
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Massaging K-5 RAW files
I was surprised to find out the K-5 only has 1 stop of highlight
overhead because I thought my K10D had a bit more than that. I'm going
to have to run that check again.
--
PDML P
Miserere, have you noticed an additional bonus of shadow recovery - no
purple fringing at all???
On 12/8/2010 10:33 AM, Miserere wrote:
In case anyone is interested, I've updated my review with some
examples of massaged K-5 images:
http://enticingthelight.com/2010/12/01/review-pentax-k-5/#raw
1 - 100 of 321 matches
Mail list logo
