Word :    Username :           
 

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

 

http://stobblehouse.com/photos/sun [...] iumrez.jpg
250kb

Full Nikon D2x rez, 12MP:
http://stobblehouse.com/photo/sund [...] ullrez.jpg
2.3MB

--
Yours, Eolake

eolake@stobblehouse.com
http://stobblehouse.com

Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

 

"Eolake Stobblehouse" <eolake@maccreator.spamremove.net> wrote in message
news:050620052225097700%eolake@maccreator.spamremove.net...
> http://stobblehouse.com/photos/sun [...] iumrez.jpg
> 250kb
>
> Full Nikon D2x rez, 12MP:
> http://stobblehouse.com/photo/sund [...] ullrez.jpg
> 2.3MB

purrrr

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

 

Eolake Stobblehouse <eolake@maccreator.spamremove.net> writes:
> http://stobblehouse.com/photos/sun [...] iumrez.jpg
> 250kb

Not found.

> Full Nikon D2x rez, 12MP:
> http://stobblehouse.com/photo/sund [...] ullrez.jpg
> 2.3MB

Nice shot ;-)

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

 

"Eolake Stobblehouse" <eolake@maccreator.spamremove.net> wrote in message
news:050620052225097700%eolake@maccreator.spamremove.net...
> http://stobblehouse.com/photos/sun [...] iumrez.jpg
> 250kb
>
> Full Nikon D2x rez, 12MP:
> http://stobblehouse.com/photo/sund [...] ullrez.jpg
> 2.3MB
>
> --
> Yours, Eolake
>
> eolake@stobblehouse.com
> http://stobblehouse.com

Showoff :) Nice, enjoy that baby.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

 

Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
[snip]
> Full Nikon D2x rez, 12MP:
> http://stobblehouse.com/photo/sund [...] ullrez.jpg
> 2.3MB

Looks even better with a trace of red/cyan chromatic abberation
reduced. About "+3" with the Photoshop CS2 Lens Correction filter
improves it. (But I'm still learning about that filter, and I'm sure
others would get it better).

I would like to know whether the reduction would be better if done to a
Raw image in Camera Raw, instead of to a JPEG? (I don't think you've
reached the limits of that camera yet).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

 

In article <7xvf4sjvp2.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>not found

http://stobblehouse.com/photo/sund [...] iumrez.jpg

(just a smaller version of the full rez bridge image.)

--
Yours, Eolake

eolake@stobblehouse.com
http://stobblehouse.com

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

 

In article <ayMoe.8453$So7.3344@fe10.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> Showoff :)

You caught me. :)

Awesome camera.
But I wouldn't have shelled out for it if I did not believe that I can
use it to the hilt, artistically. I am getting an A2 printer (Epson
4800) to make the most of the wonderful resolution.
I was winning art competion awards as a young man, I am much looking
forward to continuing on that track and taking it further. (Not the
competitions so much as the art.)

--
Yours, Eolake

eolake@stobblehouse.com
http://stobblehouse.com

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

 

In article <1118046077.424828.211750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Barry Pearson <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:

> Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
> [snip]
> > Full Nikon D2x rez, 12MP:
> > http://stobblehouse.com/photo/sund [...] ullrez.jpg
> > 2.3MB
>
> Looks even better with a trace of red/cyan chromatic abberation
> reduced. About "+3" with the Photoshop CS2 Lens Correction filter
> improves it. (But I'm still learning about that filter, and I'm sure
> others would get it better).
>
> I would like to know whether the reduction would be better if done to a
> Raw image in Camera Raw, instead of to a JPEG? (I don't think you've
> reached the limits of that camera yet).


Without doubt. I have just ordered PS CS2, so I have not even been able
to work with RAW files yet.

--
Yours, Eolake

eolake@stobblehouse.com
http://stobblehouse.com

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

 

Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
> In article <1118046077.424828.211750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Barry Pearson <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > I would like to know whether the reduction would be better if done to a
> > Raw image in Camera Raw, instead of to a JPEG? (I don't think you've
> > reached the limits of that camera yet).
>
> Without doubt. I have just ordered PS CS2, so I have not even been able
> to work with RAW files yet.

If you have Photoshop CS already, you could shoot Raw, and convert the
NEFs to DNG with the 3.1 DNG Converter, then process the DNGs with CS &
ACR 2.4. (It really does work).

ACR 2.4 has chromatic abberation reduction for working with Raw, but
Photoshop CS doesn't have the Lens Correction filter for working with
post-conversion images. At the moment, when starting with Raw, rather
than scanned images, I prefer to do the chromatic abberation reduction
in ACR rather than Photoshop.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

 

It seems I am many weeks behind the curve, software wise, for I am not
sure what y'all mean by "chromatic abberation reduction".
Is it reduction of color fringing?
(And did you really see that in the image I posted?)

--
Yours, Eolake

eolake@stobblehouse.com
http://stobblehouse.com

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

 

Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
> It seems I am many weeks behind the curve, software wise, for I am not
> sure what y'all mean by "chromatic abberation reduction".
> Is it reduction of color fringing?

Yes.

> (And did you really see that in the image I posted?)

Yes. Only a little, hence my "+3", which is a very small correction.

I notice chromatic abberation with digital when using the same lenses I
used with 35mm slides, yet didn't see it when I projected those slides
onto a screen. I think digital is a bit more ruthless where lenses are
concerned.

I normally see it most when there is detail against the sky, such as
the tree on the right of the photo. Does it matter? Perhaps not much,
and perhaps by the time you printed it much of the effect would have
disappeared. But at least one of my lenses gives a bigger effect than
that at wide angle. I shoot only Raw, and often find that a quick visit
to the "Lens" tab is useful.

Perhaps I should never have mentioned it. Now you might start looking
for it everywhere!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Reply to Anonymous
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Digital Camera > Digital Camera General > A Nikon D2x image
Go to:

There are 628 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them