ggabo Posted September 25, 2006 Share #21 Posted September 25, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, Peter: Please explain, why can one "Have a Life" only with poor English? Tom Your question is not on point. He isn't saying that one can 'have a life' only with poor english. His charge of not 'having a life' is directed toward the critic, not the person being critiqued. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 Hi ggabo, Take a look here any D-lux 3 users?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
peterb Posted September 25, 2006 Share #22 Posted September 25, 2006 Rob, The wow was for the composition of the shot. Tom, I pulled a little hoax on another thread where I was being a little silly and had posted a horridly colored (oops I mean coloured, sorry) shot claiming it as a sample of the M8's output prior to Leitz' finalized firmware release. All but MarkNorton saw the humor (or as he'd want me to write h-u-m-u-o-r) in it and appreciated it for what it was. Plus, knowning full well that many members of this forum take their photographic equipment seriously, I didn't wait days to announce that it was a hoax. I 'fessed up to my prank quite early on and apolozied to any members if I had offended anyone. MarkNorton apparently didn't see the humor of it and dispatched a nastly little post admonishing me to 'get a life'. Sooooooo...when I saw his grammatical soapbox that seemed to go on and on and on here (even while making some glaring grammatical misstakes along the way) I couldn't resist feeding him the same medicine he felt was necessary to give me. As another member pointed out, for a lot of folks here, English is not their primary language (citizens of Ahnold S's Colliforniya notwithstanding) and that some consideration should be allowed. I would hope MarkNorton would agree. I can certainly understand his concern that today (and much of the blame may be placed on the new media for this I suppose) there has been a deterioration in both spelling and grammatical usage. But to take people out on a forum about photography and scold them post after post is perhaps going a bit too far. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted September 25, 2006 Share #23 Posted September 25, 2006 I dunt nake mistakes wi v gramma. I just dont spel gud. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted September 25, 2006 Share #24 Posted September 25, 2006 Rob, As a matter of fact I do shoot RAW. In fact, because of Sean Reid's enthusiastic review of the LX1 I got over my fears of shooting RAW and, more importantly, PROCESSING it. I was interested in knowing at what ISO he may have shot it (or RAW) because one of my concerns about the LX2/DLux3 has been noise (from the additional 2 million or so pixels that are being crammed onto the same sensor as the LX1 and reports that the Venus III engine may still not be able to make up for it, resulting in either excessive loss of detail or too much overprocessing. But thanks for showing me about EXIF information. I downloaded the shot and was able to get all the info. While I'm not new to photography, I'm still learning about things digital. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted September 25, 2006 Share #25 Posted September 25, 2006 Rob, Iffin ur grammur and spelllllin iz not gud I ain't gonna hold it aginst ya! P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted September 25, 2006 Share #26 Posted September 25, 2006 Peter, google view exif and get hold of a programme that just sits in your destop. There are a heap of free downloads. Mine is viewEXIF1.9 Dont recall where I got it, but you should be able to access embedded image data while the picture is in your browser, or wherever you see it, and without having to dl a separate file. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted September 25, 2006 Share #27 Posted September 25, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I got into RAW processing with the LX1 because I looked at the images and decided I pretty much had to. Didnt see any reviews. I admit though I convert to TIFF rather than play too much in the RAW converter, and process in Corel because I find Photoshop so friggin dense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted September 25, 2006 Share #28 Posted September 25, 2006 Not familiar with Corel although I've heard about it. I use Elements 4.0, the stripped down version of Photoshop, and find it to be pretty simple (more on photofinishing and less on photo illustration which, I feel, simplifies things a lot). Although the version I have doesn't seem to have curves you can adjust like previous versions had. But the RAW processing defaults with some minor tweaks is pretty good with the LX1's RAW files. I'd been on the hunt for a second more pocketable camera (I have the Digilux 2). I'd tried the RIcoh GR Digital with its fixed lens (See? I can spell it correctly!) but felt the images were not sharp enough. Shooting RAW was not an option since it apparently took 13 seconds or so to write each file. I was intrigued with the D-Lux2/LX1 mostly because of it's 16:9 chip but was frightened off by reports of noise. (I'd shot FINE Jpegs with the Digilux at 100 ISO so I avoided noise for the most part with that camera...never shot RAW with it since I had no means to process it until I got Elements 4.0 which could handle it.) But Sean Reid's review and starting place for RAW settings gave me the courage to give it a whirl and, well, I've been extremely happy with the camera. I still shoot with as low an ISO as possible but I have shot some high ISO's and with the processing, felt the results were quite good. Surprisingly good, in fact. Because of this camera, I got Elements 4.0 (I'd had 2.0 but it couldn't process RAW files and it remained a bit of a voodoo mystery to me) and now am quite comfortable working with these files, saving them as TIFFs and burning them onto archival disks. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted September 25, 2006 Share #29 Posted September 25, 2006 16x9 is very impressive isnt it Riley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 25, 2006 Share #30 Posted September 25, 2006 Yes, that's all I shoot on the small digicams nowadays. I like elongated shots a lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidE Posted September 25, 2006 Share #31 Posted September 25, 2006 Peter B Rob Rob A Many thanks for your comments re photo of Gummers How. Regarding use of camera.I have to date taken 155 images in 8 days and carry it with me most days. With my original SLR I would be lucky to have taken that number in a couple of years Rob A Thanks for posting information on how to 'extract' EXIF data. As a newcomer to digital I am learning all the time. I am unable to convert raw on my existing iMac Power PC G3 333 Mhz OS 9.21. Does anyone know if this is possible ? Regards David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 25, 2006 Share #32 Posted September 25, 2006 16x9 is very impressive isnt it Riley That very interesting ratio is one of my favorite things about the D-Lux 2. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.