On 2012-03-24 13:19:52 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2012-03-24 05:08:17 -0700, Pete A said:

On 2012-03-24 02:04:54 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2012-03-23 16:12:39 -0700, Pete A said:

On 2012-03-23 21:13:43 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:

This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and

I don't believe 2 MB.

I've since posted an example.

Fair enough. I've since posted the same photo at 1200x800 and 300 kB.
(Actually a little larger).

Even with a high amount of detail in the image I
rarely see anything above 500 kB or so. Reducing the quality level to 8
or 7 (PS CS5 scale) is usually enough. I have submitted some at quality
level 6 with little or no discernible quality loss.

I'm sorry that's meaningless to non-CS users like me.

See below.


Display it smaller as well as at a lower quality level. 1200x800 is
arbitrary. And quite large compared to how most photos are shown on the
web.

But are the photographs intended only to be adequate on the web?
Perhaps that's my problem? I'm trying to give an impression of what it
might be like in a print.

I've demonstrated that your photo can easily be edited to 1200x800, 300
kB and be quite presentable (it should be noted that there is nothing
particularly great about the image whether at full quality or lesser.
It is "large" in JPG terms because of the patterns in the image.

If you don't use PS you can use any other editor. The JPG quality
scales (depending on the particular app) is typically 1 ... 10, 1...12,
1...100 all with the same relative meaning/effect.

In the end they all have the same basic result: a smaller file and
usually (in the upper range) little or no discernible photo degradation.

Not wishing to be argumentative, just reiterating what has been
explained in great technical detail previously on Usenet photography
groups: there are exceedingly few JPEG encoders and decoders that do an
excellent job. Since late Dec. 2011, Nikon Capture NX2 now has JPEG
functionality that is totally unusable for serious photography - this
product by no means stands alone.

Pete, you as a Mac user have one of the very best jpeg resizing tools
available in "Preview".

Actually, Preview is a crap image scaler. Up to and including OS-X 10.5
(Leopard), image scaling in Preview, Safari, Finder thumbnail view, and
other applications is not gamma corrected. I don't yet know if this
error has been fixed in later versions of OS-X.

http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html

The two links you posted of the car picture clearly show the problem in
Safari. I opened each link in a separate tab and just let Safari scale
each image to fit the browser window. The intricate grille is much
brighter in DNC3977Afw (the smaller image) than the larger image. To a
lesser extent, the same occurs on the wheel spokes. The URL (above)
demonstrates this effect in the example of the eyes of the golden fly.

I must be leading a less obsessive life than you. All I am doing is
resizing an image to dimensions suitable for the SI.
Why should I care if there is a Gamma issue with the eye of a golden
fly after resizing?

This is not rocket science, or analysis of macro images, for crying out
loud. This is meant to be a piece of entertaining fun. What you are
describing is pixel peeping to an extreme and has very strong OCD
elements.

There might well be times when this Gamma issue is a real problem, but
resizing for the SI is not one of them. So what if there is a minor
change in the brightness of the intricate grill on the resized image
which is intended for display viewing only. This is not going to be an
image file intended for printing, or critical pixel level comparison to
an original. The SI is not a comparison gallery for resized vs original
images.
You are over complicating this issue. I thought you were trying to
simplify some of the things in your life because of your condition.
Just resized the damn image file, and submit it! Nobody is going to
have the original to make the comparison. This is not a proposition of
Wittgensteinian proportions for you to wrap your brain around. Let it
go and have some fun.


Unfortunately, the image scaler in NX2 is not gamma corrected either,
therefore I have no means of downsizing an image without losing
quality, irrespective of the JPEG compression level.

Then locking into NX2 as your primary editor is not particularly
useful. Since you are able to afford the camera equipment you use, I
would suggest that you step up and get yourself a copy of Photoshop
Elements 10. That should make life a bit easier for you.


Try this experiment:
Process one of your NEFs with your NX2 and save the full size image at
the highest quality NX2 jpeg. I would imagine that depending on content
you should have a file size of 3-12 MB.
Open that file in Preview. Select the "Resize Tool" and make the
dimensional adjustments.
Save as, with a a file name change and adjust the jpeg quality to a
level you might be uncomfortable going to with what was once a huge
file, and see what you get.

The nature of the JPEG encoder error in NX2 means that images need to
be saved as TIFF then converted to JPEG in Preview. That's no hardship,
of course, because Preview is the only application I have that
indicates the JPEG file size as the compression level slider is moved,
which is very useful.

Rather than faffing around trying to find proper image scaling software
I'll experiment with OS-X Lion - if its version of Preview has an
accurate image scaler I shall be very pleased indeed.

Just buy PS Elements 10 already!
...or LR4, or step up to the big one, CS5 (or soon to be released CS6).

If Adobe paid me a large sum of money to use it's picture editing
software as my primary editor I still wouldn't use it. I'm not alone in
finding the the way it works infuriating for several reasons. And yes,
I use a previous version of Photoshop occasionally when I see fit.

For f..k's sake, it can't even honour the most basic camera setting:
white balance, which is the first step to get right before any further
processing becomes meaningful. This step should be set near-enough
right in the camera because it influences metering, scene recognition,
and autofocus accuracy.

Of course Adobe doesn't honour a plethora Nikon camera settings because
they are proprietary. As I've said before, I fail to see any reason to
purchase a Nikon system other than for its proprietary features. If you
don't need or want them then why buy a Nikon system - they form a not
insignificant part of the purchase cost.

Your rant shows how locked-in you are to Apple and Adobe. Sorry to have
burst your Mac-worshipping bubble by using science rather than
anecdotal evidence. Prior to OS-X Lion, there are many imaging related
things that a Mac didn't do nearly as well as it should've done during
the last decade, which is despicable. Windows XP had better imaging API
functions and default colour management for applications to use than
the far more recent OS-X Leopard. Get over it.

Capture NX2 has bugs that are causing me some (manageable) hassles and
it may soon cause D800/D4 owners serious grief. Good - either NX2 will
get it improved or it will have to be replaced by something better. The
main problem with NX2 is that its low price hasn't enabled nearly
enough consumer-funded development, unlike Adobe software.


Stop mind ****ing!!

Your attempt at denigrating the London Metropolitan Police over the
statistically insignificant cost spent on calls to the speaking clock
was the biggest attempt at "mind ****ing" I've seen in anything other
than highly disruptive factions of the media.

I request that we revert to discussion rather than dictation.