hth
Well-known
JonasYip, this thing about not worrying what color balanced film there is in a digital camera you mention, it is not the first time I see it and I do not understand it.
If I use film, isn't it just a matter of applying the appropriate filter before taking the picture, or apply filtering at the print stage, or do some white balancing photoshop (if you scan)?
If I use film, isn't it just a matter of applying the appropriate filter before taking the picture, or apply filtering at the print stage, or do some white balancing photoshop (if you scan)?
JonasYip
Well-known
Remember, that was in regard to this statement:
> you can't do anything with an R-D1 that you couldn't do at least as well with the same lenses on a film RF camera.
Yes, if you carry enough filters along you can apply filters (and lose stops when you need the most perhaps). And you can get your lab to adjust (to their taste?), and you can do anything in photoshop (but probably not as cleanly because you're munging the post-scan data as opposed to adjusting the settings *before* the initial interpolation... probably a minor diff if you're working in 16-bit?).
Obviously we were able to handle these situations just fine with film before digital capture came along. It's just the degree of convenience and control that sets the digital workflow apart for certain things (and causes us to spend far too much time at the computer.... but that's a whole 'nuther issue....)
j
> you can't do anything with an R-D1 that you couldn't do at least as well with the same lenses on a film RF camera.
Yes, if you carry enough filters along you can apply filters (and lose stops when you need the most perhaps). And you can get your lab to adjust (to their taste?), and you can do anything in photoshop (but probably not as cleanly because you're munging the post-scan data as opposed to adjusting the settings *before* the initial interpolation... probably a minor diff if you're working in 16-bit?).
Obviously we were able to handle these situations just fine with film before digital capture came along. It's just the degree of convenience and control that sets the digital workflow apart for certain things (and causes us to spend far too much time at the computer.... but that's a whole 'nuther issue....)
j
hth
Well-known
I see. Yes, I never carried enough filters for this, and getting the right was not easy either. Getting the lab to do it properly did did not work either. Doing it in my darkroom worked, but was a pain, which I why I gave up and concentrated on B&W and slide film instead.
It is easy to do all color balancing in Photoshop, but then I am forced to have digital output in the end, which is OK as wet color printing is such as hazzle. I just got a good scanner, so I am on the beginning of the learning curve to get the best out of it, my simple trials so far have been very promising.
It is easy to do all color balancing in Photoshop, but then I am forced to have digital output in the end, which is OK as wet color printing is such as hazzle. I just got a good scanner, so I am on the beginning of the learning curve to get the best out of it, my simple trials so far have been very promising.
neilsphoto
Established
JLW,
I do have PS CS with their Epson convertor but hey if you can put either kind of R-D1 file up somewhere for a download that would be great. I haven't got any idea what to expect and I'd like to get one, idea I mean.
Thanks
Neil
I do have PS CS with their Epson convertor but hey if you can put either kind of R-D1 file up somewhere for a download that would be great. I haven't got any idea what to expect and I'd like to get one, idea I mean.
Thanks
Neil
S
Sean Reid
Guest
I agree that the pros and cons of the advance lever are really a matter of opinion. I like it but can see why many would want it gone.
Sean
Sean
David Kieltyka
Clicking away feverishly
You may be right about the FD mount but the other two...well, you can use M42 lenses on Canon & Pentax D-SLRs via adapter. And some folks at photo.net are working on a reasonably-priced Contax-to-LTM adapter, using focusing mounts from Kiev cameras. This would let us mount Contax/Kiev lenses on LTM & M cameras, including the R-D1.
-Dave-
JonasYip
Well-known
> I agree that the pros and cons of the advance lever are really a matter of opinion. I like it but can see why many would want it gone.
I was thinking this morning it'd be cool to have both built-in. Auto shutter cocking when you want it, manual advance lever when you want it, user selectable via a menu selection.
I mean, for general shooting I like the handling with the real knobs and manual advance, LCD hidden.... feels like I'm handling a, uh, "real" camera. But in situations where the advance lever gets in the way, like a headshot session perhaps, then I'd switch into "autowind".
Hmm... there must be plenty of room in the $3k cost for them to add everything *I* want, right?
j
I was thinking this morning it'd be cool to have both built-in. Auto shutter cocking when you want it, manual advance lever when you want it, user selectable via a menu selection.
I mean, for general shooting I like the handling with the real knobs and manual advance, LCD hidden.... feels like I'm handling a, uh, "real" camera. But in situations where the advance lever gets in the way, like a headshot session perhaps, then I'd switch into "autowind".
Hmm... there must be plenty of room in the $3k cost for them to add everything *I* want, right?
j
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Right. Or you can plan ahead. Make sure you wear your bifocals so you can see the tiny ISO numbers when changing the setting on the R-D1.
Funny, I was just doing that the other day, standing up on a ladder to shoot a large group shot. When I turned the camera so the client could look at the LCD and see if she liked the effect, I bonked her in the forehead with the camera! Didn't appease her much. Incidentally, I still say you don't really know if you got it until you get it home and see it on the computer monitor.
Y'know, I shot film for about a quarter-century before I got my R-D 1, and I don't recall ever worrying about that. Like I say, you can plan ahead.
See above comment. This is mostly a limitation of my own: When I'm looking for pictures, I can either "see" b&w opportunities or color opportunities, not both at the same time. So, I make up my mind which one I'm looking for and load the camera accordingly. (It's cool that you can switch the R-D 1's raw b&ws back to color, but I can't say I've ever actually wanted to do it.)
Both true. And don't forget that if you want to shoot more than one card's worth with the R-D 1 (no great trick in raw mode) you've either got to carry several expensive cards, or lug along a laptop computer, CD burner, hard disk transfer device, or whatever.
All very true. Much as I hate myself for it, I now shoot digital almost all the time, so I'm aware that there are advantages in HOW you use it. In terms of results, though, I still say you can do just as well with film... maybe not as conveniently in some ways, but more conveniently in others.
Remember, my original reply was to someone who had liked one of my R-D 1 pictures and doesn't own an R-D 1. I just wanted to make him feel better (or put him on the spot, depending on how you look at it) by reminding him that the same result could have been achieved on film.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
If you incorporate the gear train, clutches, etc. needed for a manual advance lever, you've pretty much negated the advantages of building in a motor advance, and vice-versa.
Of course, if this feature did become a craze, I can easily imagine some point-and-shoot manufacturer building a camera with motor advance, but incorporating a fake manual lever that, when actuated, would simply trip a switch that would cycle the wind motor. They could even include a recorded fake wind-gear sound, like the ridiculous "shutter-noise" sounds used on some digital point-and-shoots.
So be careful what you wish for! You might get it, and it would be lame...
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Or how about this? You've seen those radios that run on a hand-cranked generator instead of batteries, right? So, how about a manual lever that, when cranked, charges the camera battery enough to get off a shot or two?
Running the LCD takes more power, so they could also add a 'rewind crank' that you'd spin a number of times to generate enough juice to "rewind" and review your pictures on the LCD!
This is so crazy that it's almost starting to make sense...
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
neilsphoto said:
OK, here's a totally raw Epson ERF image that you can download from the following link:
Click here to download the file
NOTE: If you tried this earlier, you probably didn't get the complete file; for some reason, the server was choking on it. Using the link above will fix it. It will take you to a file-sharing page called 'Jim Williams' Public Folder.' At the bottom of the folder you'll see a list of files you can download; the one you want is named 05-02-05_07.ERF. Click the little download arrow in the column at right and it will begin downloading to your computer. What you'll get is a 13mb binhexed file that will need an application such as Stuffit Expander to decode it, but once you've done that you'll have a complete 9.5mb Epson ERF raw file with which to experiment.
Also, some people have posted that Photoshop CS's raw image converter doesn't do quite as good a job as the skookum Epson one, so you may want to reserve final judgement if your results aren't quite up to snuff.
I'm not claiming the photo is stellar, but it should provide a lot of skin tones, edges, etc. to play with. Tech specs: Epson R-D 1 with Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens and electronic flash illumination; exposure 1/125 (X-sync) @ f/8-ish; ISO equivalent 200.
By the way, the nice-looking folks pictured are the Creighton University Dance Company -- be sure to go see 'em if you ever get a chance.
I'll attach a smaller JPEG version showing how I cleaned up the file:
Last edited:
DaShiv
21st century digital boy
I had a gag flashlight that had to be hand-cranked to produce light (no conventional batteries inside). Operating it was a purely comedic feat, pumping and pumping just to coax out a thin beam of light. I'd like to retain a little dignity while I'm shooting with a camera...
JonasYip
Well-known
jlw said:
Hey, how about downloadable camera tones!
I want my R-D1 to sound like an F3/MD-4 ... heh.j
(i'm kidding, of course)
driggett
Established
When I open the file in Photoshop CS running on a mac I gey invalid file format. Only 2.8mb downloaded. I tried several times but the same file size came thorugh. Can you check the file again.
Thanks,
Chris
Thanks,
Chris
I only got a 1.4Mb download file, and Photoshop CS won't open it...