<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Sat, 26 May 2012 15:54:11 GMT--><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/universal/styles/feed.css"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Journal - Comments</title><link>http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/</link><description></description><copyright></copyright><language>en-US</language><generator>Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/)</generator><item><title>Blakehoo comments on Sigma 30 mm f/2.8 EX DN</title><author>Blakehoo</author><pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 15:36:51 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/4/11/sigma-30-mm-f28-ex-dn.html#comments</link><guid isPermaLink="false">1150021:13402122:comment/18157811</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>I somehow got to your blog from Vitaliy Kiselev&#39;s Personal-View website.  You are very well informed and a very refreshing viewpoint.  I will buy the Sigma lens because of you!</p>]]></description></item><item><title>fk comments on How Crazy is Leica</title><author>fk</author><pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2012 19:30:05 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/5/11/how-crazy-is-leica.html#comments</link><guid isPermaLink="false">1150021:13402122:comment/18068034</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>Since I&#39;ve been shooting with EVFs I turn them B&amp;W. Well, actually you can&#39;t do that, so I put the camera into B&amp;W mode, but shoot RAW. Without colour I can judge exposure more accurately (YMMV of course). That said, I don&#39;t even care for colour. All I care for is light/shadow and form. Most (about 7 out of 10) of my shots I desaturate in LR4, this leaves me with better files than converting them to greytones (not to mention that they actually print in B&amp;W on colour-paper opposed to black&amp;whit-ed by LR), and play with the luminance sliders.</p><p>I salute Leica for that step, and can&#39;t understand all the Leica hate over at DPR. Well, to some degree I can, since they disapprove anything they can&#39;t afford or that&#39;s a step backwards in their minds, while what the MM does (like all digital Leicas) is they actually decelerate photography, which is a good thing.</p><p>Can I afford an MM? No way. Would I like one? Hell, yes!<br/>Good thing there are affordable M4s and M6s and modern b&amp;w film, that beats digital exposures in every way for my applications!</p><p>Thanks for an unbiased view on the new Leicas. Can&#39;t stand those gearheaded articles. Your opinion is always welcomed!</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Joomla comments on E-M5 vs. E-P3: RAW Image Quality</title><author>Joomla</author><pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 15:19:20 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/5/3/e-m5-vs-e-p3-raw-image-quality.html#comments</link><guid isPermaLink="false">1150021:13402122:comment/17954462</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>Nice to hear! Thanks!</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Pekka Potka comments on E-M5 vs. E-P3: RAW Image Quality</title><author>Pekka Potka</author><pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 13:23:00 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/5/3/e-m5-vs-e-p3-raw-image-quality.html#comments</link><guid isPermaLink="false">1150021:13402122:comment/17954128</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>Joomla: Thanks, I will. Same settings work ok for Lightroom 4.1 default values. But there is more headroom and I´m still checking for the limits of Lightroom conversion.<br/>-p-</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Joomla comments on E-M5 vs. E-P3: RAW Image Quality</title><author>Joomla</author><pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 10:34:53 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/5/3/e-m5-vs-e-p3-raw-image-quality.html#comments</link><guid isPermaLink="false">1150021:13402122:comment/17953783</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>Thank you! I would appreciate if you can come up with ETTR settings for E-M5, like you did for E-P3 (viewfinder, histogram etc.)<br/>Thanks and greetings from Serbia!</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Vjim comments on E-M5 vs. E-P3: RAW Image Quality</title><author>Vjim</author><pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 11:35:39 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/5/3/e-m5-vs-e-p3-raw-image-quality.html#comments</link><guid isPermaLink="false">1150021:13402122:comment/17944233</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>Excellent: Thanks for all the work !</p><p>Vjim</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Pekka Potka comments on Olympus E-M5: Dynamic Range - RAW</title><author>Pekka Potka</author><pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 09:45:26 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/4/27/olympus-e-m5-dynamic-range-raw.html#comments</link><guid isPermaLink="false">1150021:13402122:comment/17922816</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>I used the simplest method there is: <br/>- Shot a greyscale at widely varying exposures (at each ISO) from absolute black into absolute white.<br/>- Chose a step in that scale and found out how far (in my exposures) into black this step can be seen differing out of noise and how far into white it can be seen differing from white in said converters. The latter is relatively easy to measure, the former is not easy to measure or see.  Because of that I had to do lots of comparisons between shots and with actual images to keep a standard of what I consider as detail.</p><p>There is no unified definition of how much and in which way a detail must rise above noise to count. That´s why DR measurements in the internet differ so widely. Also there is a difference between hardware measured and perceived difference. I tried to keep to what I think as the last detail before noise in an actual photograph, because that´s the only thing that counts for me. <br/>-p-</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Pekka Potka comments on E-M5 vs. E-P3: RAW Image Quality</title><author>Pekka Potka</author><pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 08:30:37 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/5/3/e-m5-vs-e-p3-raw-image-quality.html#comments</link><guid isPermaLink="false">1150021:13402122:comment/17922664</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>Eolake: This underexposed image can be seen as an interpolated camera JPEG. Try to make it lighter... ;-)<br/>-p-</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Jean Pierre comments on E-M5 vs. E-P3: RAW Image Quality</title><author>Jean Pierre</author><pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 06:57:20 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/5/3/e-m5-vs-e-p3-raw-image-quality.html#comments</link><guid isPermaLink="false">1150021:13402122:comment/17922420</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>Many thanks Pekka for your helpfully tests and information about the new &quot;magic&quot; Oly EM-5.<br/>fortunately has adobe in lightroom 4.1 added EM-5. Now the development makes more fun in Lightroom 4.1 and very good tool for the EM-5.<br/>Greetings from Switzerland<br/>Jean Pierre</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Bob comments on Olympus E-M5: Dynamic Range - RAW</title><author>Bob</author><pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 06:34:52 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/4/27/olympus-e-m5-dynamic-range-raw.html#comments</link><guid isPermaLink="false">1150021:13402122:comment/17922361</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>Great work! I like to ask you about the testing process. How was it taken?<br/>Thanks!</p>]]></description></item></channel></rss>
