If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SI Comments - Cooper
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote:
: On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter wrote: : : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter wrote: : : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote: : : : : : : snip : : : : : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much : : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much : : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments : : : when looking at "The Loser". : : : : : : : : : Thanks for your comment. : : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting : : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It : : : was better than no image. : : : : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether : : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a : : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light, : : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye; : : loss of sharpness isn't. : : : : : : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make. : : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their : : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor : : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate. : : You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license. : But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which : I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on : the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate. : : : Yes it can. : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices. I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image in post. Bob |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SI Comments - Cooper
"Robert Coe" wrote in message
... I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image in post. NR is correction for the medium so is just removing what was added by electronic noise. That's just a practical issue. I'm puzzled why someone would want to over-intellectualise it. The limits codified by film journalists are a good benchmark. Dodging and burning like Ansel Adams to the point where you get a different look and feel to the negative is art. Editing out an object you were too lazy to walk over to and move may be legitimate if the scene is representative of default reality. But this is getting into a grey zone. A lot of time would be saved if a common system could be developed but that would interfere with all the arguing wouldn't it? -- Charles E. Hardwidge |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SI Comments - Cooper
On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote: : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter wrote: : : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter wrote: : : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote: : : : : : : snip : : : : : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much : : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much : : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments : : : when looking at "The Loser". : : : : : : : : : Thanks for your comment. : : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting : : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It : : : was better than no image. : : : : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether : : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a : : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light, : : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye; : : loss of sharpness isn't. : : : : : : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make. : : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their : : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor : : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate. : : You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license. : But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which : I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on : the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate. : : : Yes it can. : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices. I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image in post. True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think. -- PeterN |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
SI Comments - Cooper
On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said:
On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote: : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter wrote: : : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter wrote: : : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote: : : : : : : snip : : : : : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much : : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much : : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments : : : when looking at "The Loser". : : : : : : : : : Thanks for your comment. : : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting : : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It : : : was better than no image. : : : : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether : : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a : : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light, : : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye; : : loss of sharpness isn't. : : : : : : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make. : : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their : : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor : : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate. : : You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license. : But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which : I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on : the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate. : : : Yes it can. : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices. I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image in post. True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think. So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy photographs. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SI Comments - Cooper
On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said: On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote: : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter wrote: : : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter wrote: : : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote: : : : : : : snip : : : : : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much : : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much : : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments : : : when looking at "The Loser". : : : : : : : : : Thanks for your comment. : : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting : : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It : : : was better than no image. : : : : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether : : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a : : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light, : : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye; : : loss of sharpness isn't. : : : : : : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make. : : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their : : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor : : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate. : : You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license. : But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which : I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on : the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate. : : : Yes it can. : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices. I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image in post. True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think. So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy photographs. Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-) -- PeterN Old habits are hard to break |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
SI Comments - Cooper
On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter said:
On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said: On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote: : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter wrote: : : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter wrote: : : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote: : : : : : : snip : : : : : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much : : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much : : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments : : : when looking at "The Loser". : : : : : : : : : Thanks for your comment. : : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting : : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It : : : was better than no image. : : : : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether : : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a : : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light, : : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye; : : loss of sharpness isn't. : : : : : : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make. : : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their : : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor : : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate. : : You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license. : But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which : I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on : the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate. : : : Yes it can. : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices. I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image in post. True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think. So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy photographs. Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-) Just the facts ma... ...er, sir. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
SI Comments - Cooper
On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter said: On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said: On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote: : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter wrote: : : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter wrote: : : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote: : : : : : : snip : : : : : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much : : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much : : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments : : : when looking at "The Loser". : : : : : : : : : Thanks for your comment. : : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting : : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It : : : was better than no image. : : : : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether : : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a : : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light, : : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye; : : loss of sharpness isn't. : : : : : : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make. : : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their : : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor : : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate. : : You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license. : But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which : I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on : the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate. : : : Yes it can. : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices. I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image in post. True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think. So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy photographs. Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-) Just the facts ma... ...er, sir. Has email made the facts obsolete? -- PeterN |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
SI Comments - Cooper
On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter said:
On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter said: On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said: On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote: : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter wrote: : : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter wrote: : : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote: : : : : : : snip : : : : : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much : : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much : : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments : : : when looking at "The Loser". : : : : : : : : : Thanks for your comment. : : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting : : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It : : : was better than no image. : : : : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether : : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a : : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light, : : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye; : : loss of sharpness isn't. : : : : : : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make. : : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their : : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor : : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate. : : You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license. : But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which : I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on : the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate. : : : Yes it can. : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices. I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image in post. True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think. So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy photographs. Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-) Just the facts ma... ...er, sir. Has email made the facts obsolete? No! The Mayan calendar has. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
SI Comments - Cooper
On 1/11/2013 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter said: On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter said: On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said: On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote: On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter wrote: : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter wrote: : : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : : On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter wrote: : : : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote: : : : : : : snip : : : : : : Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much : : : "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much : : : grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments : : : when looking at "The Loser". : : : : : : : : : Thanks for your comment. : : : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting : : : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It : : : was better than no image. : : : : Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether : : accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a : : corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light, : : high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye; : : loss of sharpness isn't. : : : : : : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make. : : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their : : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor : : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate. : : You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license. : But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which : I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on : the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate. : : : Yes it can. : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices. I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image in post. True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think. So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy photographs. Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-) Just the facts ma... ...er, sir. Has email made the facts obsolete? No! The Mayan calendar has. Then we no longer exist and nothing matters -- PeterN |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
SI Comments - Cooper
On 2013-01-12 10:44:59 -0800, Peter said:
On 1/11/2013 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter said: On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter said: On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter said: Le Snip True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think. So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy photographs. Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-) Just the facts ma... ...er, sir. Has email made the facts obsolete? No! The Mayan calendar has. Then we no longer exist and nothing matters So you too can see into the future? I have a similar take on that sort of thing when the clock finally winds down. -- Regards, Savageduck |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PING: Tony Cooper | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 1 | September 29th 11 07:26 AM |
(SI) People want comments - here's comments! Sounds of the season. | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 24th 10 03:13 AM |
comments please - red tulip_03-comments please.jpg | JLord remove \clothes\ before replying - \clothe | Photographing Nature | 0 | April 19th 05 10:58 PM |
Comments | Claim Guy | Digital Photography | 10 | December 6th 04 01:27 PM |