man tagad iedeva patreneties 24-200 nu nezin tas 18-125 man likas forshaks. ir jau noskatits sigmas 18-200 man liekas tas man ari buss optimalakais, ir ja u2 pretendenti kas njem ja vel kads pieteiksies moshka varam kadu lielaku skochuhu dabut cenjiks ap 200 Ls Elkoraa laikam
BMW CUBA LATVIA
Braukšana , kas uzbudina. BMW M serija.
Ir vienkārši ātri auto, bet ir arī sporta auto. Nākošais solis uz priekšu - BMW ātrgaitas automobiļi. M sērijas BMW unikālie automobiļi- tehnoloģijas un pieredze tieši no no auto ātrumsacīkšu pasaules. "www.bmw.lv" gh gh gh[ This message was edited by: SpOrcMeN on 2005-10-03 14:10 ]
----------------- ІБАШТЕ!!!!! ЗА УКРАЇНУ!!!!!!!
Нехай подохне суче плем’я!!!!
2005-10-03 14:09, SpOrcMeN rakstīja:
ir ja u2 pretendenti kas njem ja vel kads pieteiksies moshka varam kadu lielaku skochuhu dabut cenjiks ap 200 Ls Elkoraa laikam
2005-10-03 10:29, AV rakstīja:
Katru vakaru detalizeti caurskatu pa dienu sabildeto un lieko izdzesu.
Principa ar 200 bildem (~2GB) pietiek ari nopietnakam celojumam. Sliktakaja gadijuma var pariet tikai uz jpeg, tad 2GB ietilps ~1000 videjas kompresijas 8MPix bildes
Cik noprotu tu rawaa bildee, ja jaa, tad pastaasti, nafig? tb, kadas priekshrocibas?
2005-10-03 14:59, panika_ rakstīja:
Cik noprotu tu rawaa bildee, ja jaa, tad pastaasti, nafig? tb, kadas priekshrocibas?
Advantages of RAW
Now that we’ve dealt with Ken’s objections to using RAW, let’s look at some of its advantages. These are threefold: in quality, latitude, and future uses.
Quality
JPEG is a "one size fits all" solution. In-camera sharpening is applied to produce a pleasing 8 x 10 print, but it may be too much for an 11 x 16 (or bigger). The demosaicing algorithms aren’t as good as they could be: they may produce moiré, stairstepping, "checkerboard" artifacts, or blockiness in the red channel -- to name a few issues endemic with Canon pictures. (Nikons have issues of their own, too; all cameras do.) Most of these issues are too minor to make a visible difference on 8 x 10 prints. At larger print sizes, even "amateur" ones like 11 x 16, they do start showing up. While they probably won’t be distracting to the casual viewer even at that size, they’re nevertheless annoying. With RAW, many of the problems can be avoided. More to the point, the conversion settings can be tailored for the particular print size under consideration. As demonstrated above, RAW does make a significant quality difference even in "perfect" in-camera pictures, even if it only starts to show up past 8 x 10 -- and much more so in scenes that were, for example, either too contrasty or not contrasty enough to produce a "finished" JPEG out-of-camera, no matter how you exposed it.
Latitude
With JPEG, once you shoot the picture, you’re more or less locked into the choices you made when shooting it. If you decide afterwards that maybe it’d look nicer with a warmer color balance, a pulled-down curve for a chiaroscuro look, a pulled-up curve to show some more shadow detail, more noise reduction for a "cleaner" look, or less noise reduction for a more "textured" look... well, you can do much of this in 8-bit post-processing, but your latitude is pretty severely constrained. Do too much, and your skies, other gradients, and shadows will develop visible posterization, your noise-reduction will erase texture detail, or you’ll end up with blobby shadow detail. With some nifty tricks, you can push it a little further... but beyond that, well, basically, you’re out of luck.
Lake Qaraaoun with Mount Hermon in background. West Bekaa, Lebanon, 2003. Canon EOS-10D with EF 35/2, converted with CaptureOne DSLR LE.
Sure, there’s nothing wrong with adopting the "slide shooter" attitude for digital photography, but with the marvelous post-processing options the digital darkroom gives us, this is tying a large, unnecessary ball and chain on your leg. RAW gives latitude to adjust everything -- color balance, white balance, tone curve, sharpening, noise reduction, contrast. You even get maybe another half-stop of exposure latitude in the highlights, and at least a stop, maybe two in the shadows. Negative film it isn’t, but you breathe a lot more easily than with slide -- and not only if you’ve made a boo-boo behind the camera. The fact is that RAW significantly expands your creative options.
Future uses
We’ve already seen what advantages technological development can provide for working with RAW files. Alternative demosaicing algorithms provide different looks and feels, sometimes with dramatically increased quality. There’s no reason to suspect that this development will end now. Not only that, but you might find uses for your pictures that you didn’t intend when you shot them -- and the latitude RAW gives you for adjusting them may make the difference between a superb result and a so-so one. RAW converters will continue to get better, and there might come a day that you’ll wish that your JPEGs were RAWs instead. That happened to me just a couple of days ago. Yep, RAW might be a bad idea for storage 50 or 100 years into the future, but it can give you a lot in the next 5 or 10 years. But do archive a converted copy of your work too.
2005-10-03 14:59, panika_ rakstīja:
Cik noprotu tu rawaa bildee, ja jaa, tad pastaasti, nafig? tb, kadas priekshrocibas?
Aspekti, kurus es uzskatu par prieksrocibu:
- var koriget expozicijas kludas (1-1.5 stopi ar minimaliem kvalitates zudumiem),
- var precizi uzstadit sev velamo wb (bez kvalitates zudumiem).
Ir vel citi bonusi kas atkarigi no konkreta softa, piemeram, ps cs2 raw importa plugina var erti noverst vinjetesanu, mazinat graudu, asinaat, noverst krasu kroplojumus utt.
mekleeju labu standart (sakot no 20 liidz 70/100) zoom objektiivu. galvenie nosacijumi - USM, HSM (whatever you call it) un attela kvalitate. ko varat ieteikt? cenas ~ liidz 500LVL. canon L klasi varat ari nepiedavat.
2005-10-04 21:56, edzjus rakstīja:
mekleeju labu standart (sakot no 20 liidz 70/100) zoom objektiivu. galvenie nosacijumi - USM, HSM (whatever you call it) un attela kvalitate. ko varat ieteikt? cenas ~ liidz 500LVL. canon L klasi varat ari nepiedavat.
Par Ls 500 var atrast lietotu Canon 28-70 2.8 L (nesen ss.lv bij viens pa Ls 550).
Principa Tavam prasibam atbilst ari Canon Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Atsauksmes puslidz ok, cena ari -> ~Ls 300.
Uz 1.6 crop faktora kameram, gan piemerotaks bus Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, atteicigi pa kadu simtu dargaks.
2005-10-04 22:05, AV rakstīja:
Par Ls 500 var atrast lietotu Canon 28-70 2.8 L (nesen ss.lv bij viens pa Ls 550).
Principa Tavam prasibam atbilst ari Canon Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Atsauksmes puslidz ok, cena ari -> ~Ls 300.
Uz 1.6 crop faktora kameram, gan piemerotaks bus Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, atteicigi pa kadu simtu dargaks.
a ko tauta saka par fikseetajiem F objektiviem? kads reaali ir rokaas tureejis piemeram Tokinas razojumus? kas ir iesakaams bez canon objektiiviem?
Offline
. apkaartstaipiishanai labaak kaut kaadu strikjiitii iesietu
