Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Chrissie last won the day on September 20

Chrissie had the most liked content!


About Chrissie

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    : Switzerland

Recent Profile Visitors

1,768 profile views
  1. OK, so this does look like a full frame sensor of 6000 by 4000 pixels (more or less). I should have asked you, what the current size of the printed area is, which I neglected to do. Figuring, that an average thumb, like the one where you're holding the print, is about 18 mm wide, this looks like the printed area is in fact pretty close to 6" by 4" in size. Now I'm a little confused as to what might be the problem after all? What exactly are you trying to achieve, and in what way is the result different from what you want? Please be as specific as possible, and do mention the size units (mm, cm, inches, ...). And , btw, what was your train of thought when you specified the "Printer Paper Size" as 4" by 6" 10x15cm, while specifying the "Custom Paper Size" as 400.0 mm by 600.0 mm? On a related note, I do have to correct myself on the pixels equals dots claim. Suggested further reading.
  2. If I may inject a little systematics in here: Let's assume, the sensor of your camera is 4000 by 6000 pixels in size, which happens to be the aspect ratio of 2 : 3 of a full frame camera that you are talking about. If you want those pixels to cover an area of "4 by 6" (again assuming, you're are talking about inches here), then you would want 4000 sensor pixels (or: "dots") to cover 4 inches of print space. Likewise, the 6000 sensor pixels (or: "dots") should cover 6 inches of print space. This sounds like 1000 dpi (dots per inch) to me. Nobody around here can do more than guessing about what obscure processing your exporting software or the printer is performing, without you posting a picture of the result, along with the following information: sensor dimensions (pixel) export settings (dpi) Printer settings (dpi) If you're not the analytical but more the experimental type of guy, and the printed image covers less than the intended space, then I'd to either (or both) of the following: decrease the export dpi setting decrease the printer dpi setting.
  3. I wouldn't be surprised, if people consider flashing around private moments too disruptive. If you want to enter (and stay in) that business, you should probably go for fast lenses, which don't require flashing, as well as a body with dedicated low-light capabilities.
  4. Although I've never tried this myself, the user guide lists copying files between cards as one of the a9's features.
  5. The second one is certainly a great shot, but - alas - does not qualify as being "in flight". One foot obviously still touching ground. SCNR The third one I like best, because of the the closeness to the water surface and the reflection of the pink feathers.
  6. I'm seriously considering being on the receiving end of such a deal. Not trading in my a9, but rather buying a used a7riii as a 2nd body ... 😎
  7. For a still object, your shutter speed is fine and ISO is perfect. However, depth of field is inversely correlated to aperture opening: the wider the aperture opening, the shallower is depth of field. For your sample I would suggest stopping down the lens by one or two stops, and taking a little hit in the ISO (will go up, if you leave shutter speed as is).
  8. There is no point in guessing around. Please post a sample picture first.
  9. Going to an Adult-only place that charges £1000 a night I would have expected that a consenting adult of the preferred sex would have been included in the package. SCNR
  10. I may be mistaken, butI believe there used to be a possibility to "endlessly" browse backwards in time through pages of 5 pictures each of gallery pics. Some time recently (I think) this started to be limited to three pages or so. Anybody noticed this, too? Anyway, I would prefer not to be limited in viewing older gallery pics.
  11. This definitely looks like a hardware issue, not a configuration thing. I hope your camera is still under warranty. Anyway, you'll have to turn it in for examination, a quote and possibly a repair.
  12. Were you, by any chance, flying a hang glider or something like that, at the time of the shot?
  13. These are some nice pictures indeed, but please be aware, that the city's name ist Stuttgart, not "Stuggart" .
  14. This is an interesting remark, although it did take away some of the clarity I thought I had. Obviously you need an "image" source in reality, which actually contains enough different color values to saturate the number of recordable colors. Think of a sunset with a continuous (speaking in analogue terms) gradient of hues from orange to dark blue. Can you "spend" all 16k values on shades of blue alone, or do you have to leave some slots unused for shades of green, which are not contained in the image source?
  • Create New...