How Long Does Roboxin Stay In Your Urine

second

Ah, the last entry is already back forever, but that I have made to Saalfeld no message was not so much to me as more of the perils of technology. My PC had somehow tired and asked me anything you nothing to work a. Well, then just now ...

After two years I have not started in Saalfeld was, I was still very happy that it fit this year again and motivation for, i also went to the start. It will not embarrass himself at their home race so ...;-)

It started quite well: In the first swimming meters I could swim very well behind my training colleagues Hubert, in his capacity Austrian Ironman pro,. Unfortunately that was not good and after about 400m long, I'm ready to burst and from then on was traveling alone.

20.45min I'm after a second climbed from the pool. When I was then reported shortly after the change that I have 30 seconds behind him and Hubert was on the main road in sight, because it stayed in my head somehow . I have therefore thought it would be a very nice story, yes, if I was the first turning point at Hubert and would have an orientation for the 40 km cycling. So I set off full pot and using pretty much all their might. I had with the bill containing just forgot that most long-distance runners may very well just ride a bike and when I had to find the turning point that my behind was not just become less because it was just too late. The bill I was then 20 kilometers later, because in the last three laps to go I do have really nice park, and was then quite happy to me from my persecutors no one has been obtained.

Running was then just a formality. Hubert was out of reach from behind and was safe anymore, so I could tackle the final 10km relatively relaxed and there no longer had to go to my limits. That is come with 34min on the run course still quite heavy, the second term out, makes me confident for the next race.

is the end, so a 2nd Place and a good mileage to book. About my swimming but I was really annoyed because it was not that day really. I had actually made a time under 20 minutes and fully credited, but that this time should not be.

Then it was announced again two weeks hard training for me for two races to 2nd Bundesliga in Grimsby and Schwerin to get fit. That was also quite successful, at least by my level of exhaustion, on the last Sunday - the last debit day - but then I was really nicely finished and ready for a little relaxation. The rest I also enjoy just and the weather is just what you need. Since the units make loose in the outdoor pool, on the bike and while running it is even more fun.

In this sense I wish a sunny week and remain until the next (timely ;-)) feedback with a happy

Cheers ...

Almost forgot: Many thanks for the many good pictures of my club mates Tobias ...

My Cervical Mucus Is Never Clear

Test: Olympus E-P1 (Part 3) What is still not

white on colorful, Germany 2010

Today I finish my test report from the Olympus E-P1. (The first part can be found in the archive at May 2010:. Part 1, Part 1a , Part 2) In this final part of the review should there be a little comparison between the PL1 and Panasonic GF1. When the PL1 was just announced, I had in a previous post already discussed whether to buy the PL1, if perhaps the GF1 Panasonic already has. Here, I compared the essential technical characteristics of PL1 and GF1 together, and I will recommend there be read again, the previous post then rounds off the picture with this, because what I've written there, in my view still applies. It is interesting to me, from today's perspective, that my forecast of the street price of PL1 is found to be incorrect.

Those who are externals interested, will quickly find that the GF1 looks much more elegant and chic as the PEN E-PL1. This, though, not to say that the PL1 is poorly designed, no, it is only a bit more moderately plastic and has not so subtle curves as the GF1. This point is clearly to the Panasonic camera.

But we will of course not alone in outward appearance, but our interest is rather to the intrinsic values, and here the PL1 really shine and earn points towards the GF1. Although I myself always taking pictures in RAW, but many of you are interssieren for JPG output of cameras, some queries have shown. Some readers have asked me, time to make a direct comparison, and I put you on here. The image details are 100% original size in each case from a JPG directly cut out from the camera and Photoshop Elements only assembled, labeled and even saved as JPG in the highest quality. In this case, all three cameras involved in each case on default settings, which relates to noise reduction, sharpening, and gradation. In each camera, the finest resolution JPG was used, and all photographs were taken with the same lens, the Olympus Pancake 25mm/F2.8 for FT, which was obviously connected with the MFT cameras with MMF-1 adapter.

Comparison of JPG images from Olympus E-P1, Panasonic GF1 and Olympus E-620

What me during the test shots struck first, was the fact that the GF1 was not quite as exposure, such as PL1 and the E-620, for the GF1 tended underexpose the scene. Also, the automatic white balance was not quite as good as the Olympus cameras, can also be seen still a slight magenta cast with the GF1 images, clearly visible in the shine of the body blue leather surface of the ball. As a second

necessarily have to say in defense of GF1 that the difference is not as PL1 great if you take the files as RAW, and as developed in Lightroom. But then an advantage is for PL1. I find it amazing what tickles Olympus out of this sensor, because supposedly it is indeed basically the same or a very very similar in all three chip cameras. If one considers only the JPGs, you can almost come to the conclusion that the PL1 little more noisy at ISO 1600 than the GF1 and the I-620 at 800th ISO One must also consider that this is not at the expense of the details go, the photos of the PL1 Even at high ISO numbers their fine detail, the small structures are not smoothed out, only to suppress the noise! Also in the ISO 1600 image (and even at ISO 3200) can see the hairline cracks in the leather of the red area at the PL1 yet, while this Structure in the other two cameras at lower ISO speeds threatens to disappear.

Of course these are not scientifically accurate shots, but enough for a practical comparison there. The pictures are better directly from the camera of course a bit, since swallowed the lossy JPEG compression when saving a bit of image quality, and this was indeed saved after joining in Photoshop again. So please do not make the mistake of comparing these sections with 100% Crops from other cameras, which were taken at different light and with other lenses and other motifs, and then output directly from the camera. Moreover, one can in any Setting up the camera now so many parameters that influence the image quality (in particular detail reproduction, contrast and Rasuchen) that such comparisons are always problematic. And I would note also again that I have the discussions about the noise actually find quite exaggerated. The reasons are listed quickly: For a good photo usually completely different things important than the noise, and provided further that if any eventual grain visible only in the impractical 100% view or meter-high poster enlargements. So please do not overstate this comparison! Some have asked why I made the comparison image.

basic rule is that the Panasonic is not a bad camera GF1. But in some areas, the PL1 is personal for me, but just a tad bit better. Besides the basic technical issues such as the Olympus in-camera image stabilization and better compatibility with all my Olympus FT lenses, it is next to the lower Rasuchen especially the beautiful crisp basic focus of the PL1 photos that I am always impressed, especially with the Panasonic Pancake 20mm/F1.7! It has paid off, that Olympus has built in a thinner PL1 anti-aliasing filter. Olympus now has only beautiful small, sharp and bright fixed focal lengths for his PENs build, then we could be almost perfectly happy ...

Finally, little things that have struck me: If you shoot in very low light starts at the Panasonic GF1 the image on the display to stutter in (probably because then the shutter speed to be increased). This is the Olympus E-P1 is not watching, here is the refresh rate of liquid, which in practice makes the photographing of course enjoyable. In addition, there is now for the GF1 a "firmware hack" , which they allege the video recording quality of the GF1 improve dramatically, I could not try because the GF1 is sold. Is annoying in any case with two cameras that will be spent in the work state is a very "lubricating" the video image, which is especially for pans and fast movement does not look very nice. Here, manufacturers should make improvements, and not the individual images inside the camera "somehow" set off, but install a real choice for 24/25/30 frames per second.

is often discussed in the internet with the speed of the autofocus of the MFT cameras. After the firmware update for the Olympus E-P1 this is my impression (I have not exactly measured it) is completely on par with the Panasonic GF1. In practice, I have not experienced any significant difference. Only the AF speed with adapted the FT lenses could of course be higher, but for me he is adequate in most situations quickly, and main thing is, the AF is accurate and generally available. This is namely the Panasonic GF1 FT with adapted lenses by far not always so, see this list of Panasonic .

It will be interesting to see what the next step Olympus is making in the camera market that new body in the FT and MFT-zone appears and the new lenses. But before this happens (maybe in the fall to Photokina ?), We will really put us here in the future with more of a shot and the actual photos apart. Less technology, more pictures! Nevertheless, You may of course be happy to further questions and express your opinion, please use the comment function.

I've showed the high ISO comparison because you asked. Now forget about ISO noise, it's not as important as you think it is! Just take photos and enjoy.

Fun Sayings For Track Shirts

Lightroom

The view to the horizon, Germany 2010

As of today, so now the new version of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom available. You can buy them on the side of Adobe for just under 300 €, the update from earlier versions cost 100 €. I've written many times that I very Lightroom like to use, and I've also here and here already presented my Lightroom presets for the Panasonic GF1 and Olympus. But unfortunately, the latest version of Lightroom 3.0 is still not a very important step in the workflow: the so-called "soft proof".

With Soft Proof is a simulation meant that on the screen shows approximately how an image will be printed later appear on paper. This requires the appropriate software can take into account the profile of the calibrated printer, and accordingly simulate the paper color. This last step before printing it possible, in accordance with the expected playback of a specific printer, the Contrast and color to optimize the photo. So you then had the best control over the subsequent paper image, which saves a lot of time, money and stress, because with the help of such soft proofs can be awkward test prints on a "trial and error to avoid.

Well, most people just assume either that which brings her printer so and are content, or send their photos to the photo service, where they are then adjusted by an automatic and usually printed very neatly. But just like the pictures of my today's blog posts are often not at all out good because it is highly saturated colors (here, blue and green) and gradients There, and in addition the diffenrenzierten shades of the clouds. Here most of the printers default settings do not bring the optimal contrast ratio or created an ugly color cast. To avoid this, provide some good photo services, the possibility of a color profile of the machines used there to download to see it even by soft proofing can be as the result of the printed image is before you made the order. Very useful especially for expensive large-format printing!

prerequisite for such treatment and assessment by soft proofing is of course that you have color management under control, and the workflow is correct. In practice this means that the monitor be profiled must be what I do with the colorimeter Quato iColor Display (Silver Haze Pro) . Otherwise, the screen displays that is not the real colors of the photo, and it fits in its processing steps of the image so that it good only on this one monitor looks! Most manufacturers give their screens with strange preferences, and also changes the color reproduction and luminance of a monitor with increasing age, so one has to distinguish even again and again. In addition, all participating master color management software, that can take into account the monitor profile. Maybe I'll do well again in the future, a blog post that my complete color management clarified, let's see. Until then, you, the Internet offers more than enough reading material, if you are looking for the right keywords.

Well, in many cases it's enough though, even without a soft proof "somehow" to print his pictures or have it exposed at present, but how do I help me if I do then it would make in a workflow with color management in Lightroom out a soft proof? The first possibility is, of course, to buy the "big" Photoshop CS, which sometimes just silly 1000, - € costs (or at least a student version also 200, - €). The other option (and my personal alternative) is an existing Photoshop Elements by a utility-enable soft proofing. PS Elements may indeed appear to be from home, no soft proof, but the functions to be only "hidden" because the element also uses routines from the big brother CS. a software called "Elements +" , which only costs $ 12 (equivalent to about 14 € including VAT) will turn next to the soft proof and free of other nice features of Photoshop CS in Elements, such as when working with curves, layers, masks, smart objects, scripts, etc.

This is my workflow when it comes to soft proof: I open from Lightroom a copy of the photos in my old version 4.0 of Photoshop Elements (Free addition to any camera or something), then run with the help of the element plus additional function of the soft proof, I have set up according to my printer profile and Compensation and simulation of the paper color. I leave the preview of the soft proof view and change with color and contrast corrections, the photo so that the proof looks good, ie that the image will be so out of the printer is the way I want it to be. Depending on the printer can be quite extensive adjustments, for such a printer usually has a completely different color space than my screen, that is, especially with highly saturated colors, most printer problems. Ah yes, the color profiles for my printer to create I am the way, with a colorimeter "Datacolor Spyder Print" .

Conclusion: Too bad the new version of Lightroom is still dominated no soft proofing. Then I could in fact really just about anything to get it over to Lightroom without having to first open another program in addition to complicated.

That reminds me of yet: Take part but please be at the current survey of MFT cameras, if you have not already done it. It only runs until tomorrow at 23:55 clock! Do you know why

the guys at Adobe have not yet built in soft-proofing into Lightroom? Colour management can be a hassle, but it's a must-have when you want to have real control over your prints.