converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

On 2013-12-08 03:10:07 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 15:25:17 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-12-07 22:27:16 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 23:20:25 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

understanding how the car handles is not the same as being a mechanic.

That's your definition. Who is it then that adjusts wheel alignment
settings, suspension settings, wings, tire pressure adjustment etc ..

mechanics.

Actually, the pit crew is a team of specialists. Generally, when we
use the word "mechanic", we are referring to a person who works on or
repairs the drive train of a vehicle...engine and transmission. The
pit crew people specialize in adjustments to the vehicle, fueling, and
tire changing. While they probably have some mechanical skills, the
real "mechanics" are back in the garage. I doubt if any race driver
refers to his pit crew as his "mechanics".

unimportant distinction.

the point is that it's not the driver who does it.

It's usually the driver who decides it.

Perhaps in days past, and perhaps in races other than F1, F2, IndyCar,
GT1, & GT3.

Today in F1 the car is a mass of telemetry sending data from hundreds
of sensors to the pits where a team of engineers sitting in front of a
wall of monitors evaluate what needs adjustment and what need to be
adjusted in the car by the driver and passes on to the pit crew and
those "mechanics" what they need to prepare to fix or adjust on a pit
stop. It is those engineers who tell the driver what they need him to
adjust in the car on that complex steering wheel.
Those sensors tell them stuff such as the pressure in the push-rod
suspension on each of the corners, with that they can make balance
adjustments to wings, suspension etc.
They get feedback on brake temperatures, exhaust temperatures, fuel
flow, KERS charge, KERS discharge, and so much more.

That's all trimming of what is already there. What is there and how it
is set has been decided by previous testing and driver input. The car
which races at Monaco is not the same as the car which races at Monza.

No kidding!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 12/7/2013 7:24 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Never said that, nor would I argue that. (Unless I was well paid to
do so.)

who is paying you to argue on usenet?

Not your concern.

that means someone is.

otherwise you'd have said you are doing it pro bono.

It take it you are not familiar with what "pro bono" means.

i'm quite familiar with what it means.

It is
short for "Pro bono publico", or "For the public good". If Peter is
arguing with you on a pro bono basis, it's for all our benefit.

they key is 'without compensation'.

No, the key is "for the public good". Something that is done without
compensation is simply a free act unrelated to any benefit to anyone.
So, you wouldn't use the term to describe that.

no, the key is without compensation. i wrote it. i know what i said and
why i said it. the subthread was about payment.

you are once again twisting things just to argue and trying to control
the thread.


So says the master baiter. Oops, I meant master twister. Come to think
of it, I wonder if there is a difference.

--
PeterN

On 12/7/2013 5:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:


I know several people ex F1 teams who refer to themselves as 'racing
mechanics'.


Do they run, ride, or drive? ;-p


--
PeterN

On 12/7/2013 8:17 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 05:34:41 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-12-07 13:23:12 +0000, PeterN said:

On 12/7/2013 4:17 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 18:59:07 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

would it shock you to know that most photographers do not record
actions. the artist modifies each image, individually.

Not all photographers are "artists".

in fact, very few are.


And I was clearly only talking about good photo artists.

that's nice.

everyone else was talking about photographers, not a specific niche you
picked.

For a given definition of 'photographer'. You seem to be using a
different one.

a photographer is one who takes photographs.

what definition are you using?

The question is 'what definition is everyone else using in this
discussion?' My impression is that the definition does not include
merely holiday/family snap shooters.

See my response to Tony Cooper. I can't understand why my clear
contextual definition was ignored.

...because it is biased, pretentious, and wrong.
It is only worthy of being ignored. Your position is the same as saying
that only graduates of the Harvard Law School should be called lawyers.

It would certainly simplify life if that was the case. The cost of
healthcare would plummet.


CYA testing is an expensive waste of resources.

--
PeterN

rOn Sat, 7 Dec 2013 18:59:58 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-12-08 02:15:04 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 06:53:35 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Not at all the same. the purpose for my definition was to make it clear
that a good photo artists was all I was referring to.
My definition was ignored because it attempted to preclude arrogant
chest thumping, albeit unsuccessfully.

The only arrogance evident here is your elitist stance regarding "good
photo artists".
There are photographs which please my eye, sometimes I can define why I
like them, many times there are qualities which are less tangible. Some
of those images could well be called art, some are documentary, but are
still good photographs, in some cases compelling, sometimes disturbing,
but hardly art.

Next there are photographs taken by individuals who believe themselves
to be artists, but who never truly consistently elevate their work to
that level. They produce the occasional magnificent accident, but for
the most part their "art" is awful, only called "art" to distract from
the fact that they are not particularly good photographs.

Then there are shots taken without pretension, or deliberation, some of
these are good, some interesting, most are ordinary and not
particularly good.

What they all have in common is the fact that they were created with
light focused through a lens or lens system onto a light sensitive
medium where it is captured, to be processed via chemistry or computer
to produce a visible, tangible image. Good, or bad, art, or not, they
are all photographs taken by camera users, good, bad, professional,
amateur enthusiasts, indifferent casual users, all termed photographer.

I don't quite understand why you are carrying on so about PeterN's
selected groupf of photographers. Nor do I understand why, having
defined his selected group of photographers he can't just refer to
them as 'photographers'. I suspect you are now talking about something
else without quite realising it.

You do recognise the existence of top photographers. Otherwise you
would not spend so much time an effort on trying to emulate Ansel
Adams. There is no reason why we should not consider only this class
of photographer in a discussion.

Or have I missed something in all the hurly burly?

You might have missed something in the hurly burly.

Earlier in this sub-thread Peter voiced his opinion that only top-photo
artists with a comprehensive knowledge of post processing (wet or
digital) are qualified to produce "photographs". He holds that all
other images produced by individuals without his set of qualifications
cannot in his world be called "photographs". He has condescended to
call them mere "pictures", but does not accept them as "photographs".
In his opinion "photographs" are always works of art, and anything not
a work of art is a mere "picture".

I would go along with PeterN to the extent that a photographer cannot
consistently produce multiple images of high quality unless they have
mastered the full range of photographic skills.

I hold the broader definition of a photograph being the product of
light focused through a lens onto a light sensitive medium where it is
captured to be processed chemically or digitally to produce a visible
image. I hold that all images produced in this way are all photographs,
regardless of the skills of the individual capturing the image. I don't
care if it is a work of art, or a snapshot, good, or bad, it is a
photograph.

Even when he admits the veracity of my stance he still argues for his
exclusionary elitist definition.

I think that was what he was trying to talk about.

As far as my appreciation of good photography and the skills of the
historically great, and outstanding current photographers goes, both
behind the lens and in the darkroom, (wet or digital), I stand in their
shadow.

I do not kid myself, I believe I am in typical company here in that the
range of quality of my shots goes from, quite good to why? why? why?
did I trip the shutter then?
90% of my shots would not be given the Peter honorific "photograph".

Nor mine, but I'm not sure that that's relevant to what he started off
trying to say. Anyway ...
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 19:25:13 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-12-08 03:06:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 15:34:33 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-12-07 23:18:37 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The driver has to be able to talk to the pit crew in terms they
understand.

nobody said otherwise.

what he doesn't need to know is know which screws to turn and by how
much to make it do what he wants.

It's all there on the steering wheel, and the engineers (not mechanics
this time) in the pits monitoring the car telemetrics, tell him which
parameter to adjust, and how much.

http://www.notasmartman.com/wp-conte...escription.jpg

I agree that the driver can make adjustments on the track but there is
much more to it than that. See
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/un...port/5285.html

I have been actively following F1 and all its history, technical
advances, and rule changes through the ages.
I have a pretty good grasp of what can and cannot be done, by driver
and in the pits.
...and I agree there is much more to it, but this is a photo group
after all, So just to keep things OT here is one of the technical
oddities of the 70's, A snapshot of Tyrrell P34 (which is a work of
art).
https://db.tt/3xCvHQeO

A most extraordinary device which, unfortunately, did not work.

There are two subjects in your final sentence. Which one is a work of
art? Perhaps we should ask nospam to parse it for us.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 19:05:53 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-12-08 02:58:06 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 18:18:37 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The driver has to be able to talk to the pit crew in terms they
understand.

nobody said otherwise.

what he doesn't need to know is know which screws to turn and by how
much to make it do what he wants.

How then does he tell them what needs to be done?

These days there is radio communication between car and pits.
You might or might not be familiar with Kimi Raikkonen's recent
infamous communication with the pits, "Leave me alone. I know what I am
doing!"

I didn't mean 'how' in that fashion. I meant how does the driver tell
the pit crew what has to be done if he lacks both the technical
knowledge and the vocabulary?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 19:26:49 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-12-08 03:10:07 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 15:25:17 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-12-07 22:27:16 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 23:20:25 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

understanding how the car handles is not the same as being a mechanic.

That's your definition. Who is it then that adjusts wheel alignment
settings, suspension settings, wings, tire pressure adjustment etc ..

mechanics.

Actually, the pit crew is a team of specialists. Generally, when we
use the word "mechanic", we are referring to a person who works on or
repairs the drive train of a vehicle...engine and transmission. The
pit crew people specialize in adjustments to the vehicle, fueling, and
tire changing. While they probably have some mechanical skills, the
real "mechanics" are back in the garage. I doubt if any race driver
refers to his pit crew as his "mechanics".

unimportant distinction.

the point is that it's not the driver who does it.

It's usually the driver who decides it.

Perhaps in days past, and perhaps in races other than F1, F2, IndyCar,
GT1, & GT3.

Today in F1 the car is a mass of telemetry sending data from hundreds
of sensors to the pits where a team of engineers sitting in front of a
wall of monitors evaluate what needs adjustment and what need to be
adjusted in the car by the driver and passes on to the pit crew and
those "mechanics" what they need to prepare to fix or adjust on a pit
stop. It is those engineers who tell the driver what they need him to
adjust in the car on that complex steering wheel.
Those sensors tell them stuff such as the pressure in the push-rod
suspension on each of the corners, with that they can make balance
adjustments to wings, suspension etc.
They get feedback on brake temperatures, exhaust temperatures, fuel
flow, KERS charge, KERS discharge, and so much more.

That's all trimming of what is already there. What is there and how it
is set has been decided by previous testing and driver input. The car
which races at Monaco is not the same as the car which races at Monza.

No kidding!

And why should that be?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 22:29:46 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/7/2013 5:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:


I know several people ex F1 teams who refer to themselves as 'racing
mechanics'.


Do they run, ride, or drive? ;-p

Scurry.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-12-08 04:11:00 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 19:25:13 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-12-08 03:06:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 15:34:33 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-12-07 23:18:37 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The driver has to be able to talk to the pit crew in terms they
understand.

nobody said otherwise.

what he doesn't need to know is know which screws to turn and by how
much to make it do what he wants.

It's all there on the steering wheel, and the engineers (not mechanics
this time) in the pits monitoring the car telemetrics, tell him which
parameter to adjust, and how much.

http://www.notasmartman.com/wp-conte...escription.jpg

I agree that the driver can make adjustments on the track but there is
much more to it than that. See
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/un...port/5285.html

I have been actively following F1 and all its history, technical
advances, and rule changes through the ages.
I have a pretty good grasp of what can and cannot be done, by driver
and in the pits.
...and I agree there is much more to it, but this is a photo group
after all, So just to keep things OT here is one of the technical
oddities of the 70's, A snapshot of Tyrrell P34 (which is a work of
art).
https://db.tt/3xCvHQeO

A most extraordinary device which, unfortunately, did not work.

That depends on what you understand by "did not work"
I would have thought getting a win, 8 second places, a third place, not
too bad for the first outing of a new concept in its first season
worked quite well.
The real reason it was abandoned was the failure of the tire
manufactures to properly develop tires for the 10'' front wheels. Then
the 1983 FIA rule change locked F1 cars into four wheels, one on each
corner.

There are two subjects in your final sentence. Which one is a work of
art? Perhaps we should ask nospam to parse it for us.

Without doubt the Tyrrell!
....but if you like the snapshot you might think both qualify. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck