A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New mandate needed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 25th 12, 10:40 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default New mandate needed

On 2012-03-25 17:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:19:19 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-24 16:27 , Eric Stevens wrote:

That the effect of which I complaining is real is shown by SavageDucks
two versions of the half-dome.


Not really. The options include reducing the size of the image you
submit (where needed to overcome re-sizing limits).


That has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make: that the
perceptual quality of the image suffers if you reduce the amount of
visual information either by reducing the size (in pixels) or by
increasing the JPEG compression.


No. See http://gallery.photo.net/photo/15416772-lg.jpg

500 x 750
152 kB.
Nice, complex, layered, detailed image.

I snipped away the rest of your post as:

1. It seems a hunt for justification for an untenable position. (Yes I
read that other stuff. Doesn't change my opinion on posting).

2. I just spent 2.5 hours in the woods and my back is sore, my left
ankle burning and I'm in a miserable mood. Phots to follow. Maybe.

3. The SO wants me in the kitchen to work on dinner.


--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.
  #32  
Old March 28th 12, 10:28 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default New mandate needed

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.

  #33  
Old March 28th 12, 11:19 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default New mandate needed

On 2012-03-28 14:28:41 -0700, Pete A said:

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


Le Snip

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.


....and yet NX2 does not do all you need it to do.


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.


....and that is a major reason I shoot mostly RAW only and only
occasionally Raw + JPEG, but mostly, knowing that in camera WB settings
in camera are critical for JPEG only. For an NEF they are irrelevant
until processed. When the lighting is more problematic than an obvious
5500 daylight temperature setting, I use a WhiBal card as a WB
reference to set the the WB in ACR.
I have no great expectation of getting WB for JPEGs perfect without
some sort of WB reference.


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.


So, do you believe that Canon shooters should stick to DPP, & Nikon
shooters to NX2?

Just because part of the "Nikon system" is mated to NX2, does not mean
that NX2 is going to be an ideal solution for all. I certainly found
NX2 not to be to my liking, and you have found it to be problematic,
but continue to resist looking beyond it
....and your big reason is it is part of the "Nikon system"?


Your rant shows how locked-in you are to Apple and Adobe.


Yup! My choice entirely, as nothing else has met my needs.

Sorry to have burst your Mac-worshipping bubble by using science rather
than anecdotal evidence.


Sorry, no bubble burst any where near me.

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.


Why? You are one of those locked into NX2 and being anal when you find
it tough to deal with JPEGs when it comes to resizing.


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.


I still have a feeling that many of your problems will be eased once
you look beyond NX2.



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.


After 25 years of writing crime scene and investigative reports, I
still hold the opinion that any police force depending on a "speaking
clock" and the associated expense for checking time, to be pretty damn
stupid. I was surprised to find that an organization with a Law
enforcement reputation such as that held by LMP, had been micro-managed
into such a dumb practice.
Bear in mind it was the UK press which raised the issue in the first place.


I request that we revert to discussion rather than dictation.


I thought that was what we were engaged in, but I seem to have touched
a nerve somewhere along the way. If so I apologize.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #34  
Old March 29th 12, 01:40 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default New mandate needed

On 2012-03-28 17:03:59 -0700, Bruce said:

Savageduck wrote:
After 25 years of writing crime scene and investigative reports, I
still hold the opinion that any police force depending on a "speaking
clock" and the associated expense for checking time, to be pretty damn
stupid. I was surprised to find that an organization with a Law
enforcement reputation such as that held by LMP, had been micro-managed
into such a dumb practice.
Bear in mind it was the UK press which raised the issue in the first place.



Don't be ridiculous.

A clueless PR spokesperson who clearly had not the faintest idea how
policing works used the idea of 'checking the time of incidents' as a
very lame and completely off-the-cuff excuse for a telephone bill for
dialling the Speaking Clock. Yet the original news report detailed
much greater spending by other government departments (not in any way
related to policing) on the Speaking Clock without needing to provide
Britain's worst daily newspaper with any excuse for it.

You may recall (or you may choose not to) that I pointed out to you
that the Speaking Clock was formerly a free service. As such, it was
routinely used by millions of people to check whether their watches
and/or clocks were showing the right time, or just to check the time
on a day when they had forgotten to put on their watch. Many people
think it is still free and therefore would not hesitate to use their
employer's phone to call it.

Instead, you decided to launch into a characteristically dogmatic
demolition of the credibility of an entire police force based on your
own very personal misunderstanding of a thoroughly incompetently
written article in a newspaper that daily plumbs the depths of
Britain's lowest ever standards of journalism, based on an
off-the-cuff remark by a completely clueless PR spokesperson.

A competent policeman would never jump to conclusions based on such
flimsy evidence, distorted as it was by grossly incompetent tabloid
"journalism" that does not deserve to be called such.


This is ground that was well trampled, and the unnecessary cost to LMP
was undeniable, and it is not easy to find a similar budget item within
most law enforcement agencies World wide.

As usual you misrepresented my opinion of the LMP with your statement
"You decided to launch into a characteristically dogmatic demolition of
an entire police force..." regardless of the, in your opinion,
"thoroughly incompetently written article". It doesn't actually matter
how well, or poorly the article was written. What mattered was the fact
that the budget item, and the practice was exposed.

In terms of law enforcement, investigation, and crime prevention, I
hold the LMP and the majority of U.K. police departments in the highest
regard. I have always held that this issue was an insular piece of
departmental micro-management effecting one area of a large
organization. Regardless of your opinion of the newspaper in question,
the unnecessary cost to LMP was real, and in any organization should
have been queried, and the practice halted. They did the public a
service by shining a light on the practice.


I have to agree with Pete A and I applaud him for standing up to your
relentless bullying.


PeteA resurrected a subject which should have died some time (excuse
the pun) ago. Others had far more to say on the subject, and I would
hardly call my contribution "relentless bullying".

PeteA is not one to pull his punches, and the two of us correspond
regularly outside of the photo groups, and I doubt that he would call
our discussions and correspondence in anyway "bullying". If he does
feel that way, perhaps he might care to comment.

Your distain for lesser mortals, and their opinions is well noted.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #35  
Old March 29th 12, 02:00 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default New mandate needed

On 2012-03-28 23:19:01 +0100, Savageduck said:

On 2012-03-28 14:28:41 -0700, Pete A said:

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


Le Snip

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.


...and yet NX2 does not do all you need it to do.


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.


...and that is a major reason I shoot mostly RAW only and only
occasionally Raw + JPEG, but mostly, knowing that in camera WB settings
in camera are critical for JPEG only. For an NEF they are irrelevant
until processed. When the lighting is more problematic than an obvious
5500 daylight temperature setting, I use a WhiBal card as a WB
reference to set the the WB in ACR.
I have no great expectation of getting WB for JPEGs perfect without
some sort of WB reference.


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.


So, do you believe that Canon shooters should stick to DPP, & Nikon
shooters to NX2?


No, but I know Canon shooters that stick to DPP and Nikon shooters that
stick to NX2 simply because they prefer these editors to Adobe's
offerings. In each case, cost has absolutely nothing to do with the
decisions because it's peanuts compared to the cost of the hardware.

Just because part of the "Nikon system" is mated to NX2, does not mean
that NX2 is going to be an ideal solution for all. I certainly found
NX2 not to be to my liking, and you have found it to be problematic,
but continue to resist looking beyond it
...and your big reason is it is part of the "Nikon system"?


That is your stubbornly held interpretation of my situation because
I've previously refrained from stating that Photoshop is a total pile
of sh*t, regardless of price, in my experience with using it and
observing the reactions to endless images where it has been used.

In the hands of anyone other than a real pro PS does nothing more than,
firstly, fuel a desire to pay for plug-ins and upgrade to the next
version; and secondly, produce photoshopped-looking images that make
those in the art world sick to death of photography as an art form.

NX2 has its faults, but at least most of us who like using it can
produce images that don't receive the scathing criticism that PS'ed
images attract.

In case you still aren't clear about my views: my Nikon system (with or
without NX2) can produce images to my liking in a way that no other
system could possibly do for my styles of image production. Some of my
published images have undergone no more editing than cropping. Why?
Because only NX2 allows me to learn from endless camera adjustments
after the image capture. I incorporate that learning into my next
shoot. After dozens of iterations, I now rarely make a mistake
therefore my editing steps are usually trivial. Unlike some, editing
isn't my hobby.

My surreal art pushes the D700 so hard, even at base ISO, that I just
have to get it right in-camera. I never "chimp" image playback because
it cannot show me the 2.4 stops of headroom I have to play with above
JPEG clipping level.

I'm not fond of ****ing into the wind so other editors don't rock my
boat at the moment.


Your rant shows how locked-in you are to Apple and Adobe.


Yup! My choice entirely, as nothing else has met my needs.

Sorry to have burst your Mac-worshipping bubble by using science rather
than anecdotal evidence.


Sorry, no bubble burst any where near me.

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.


Why? You are one of those locked into NX2 and being anal when you find
it tough to deal with JPEGs when it comes to resizing.


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.


I still have a feeling that many of your problems will be eased once
you look beyond NX2.


As above, having looked far beyond NX2 and Adobe there is nothing yet
that takes my fancy.


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.


After 25 years of writing crime scene and investigative reports, I
still hold the opinion that any police force depending on a "speaking
clock" and the associated expense for checking time, to be pretty damn
stupid. I was surprised to find that an organization with a Law
enforcement reputation such as that held by LMP, had been micro-managed
into such a dumb practice.
Bear in mind it was the UK press which raised the issue in the first place.


We have at least ten US televisions programs per week showing how
corrupt, inept, and unbelievably stupid US cops are. I could post
dozens of URLs about it, but I simply chose not to because it insults
the exemplary dedication to duty shown by all the wonderful people who
never get mentioned.

I firmly believe that the visitors to the 2012 Olympics will be in some
of the safest hands in the world. Of course I will take offense if
anyone suggests otherwise.


I request that we revert to discussion rather than dictation.


I thought that was what we were engaged in, but I seem to have touched
a nerve somewhere along the way. If so I apologize.


Communication has no purpose unless each side is open enough to allow
raw nerves to be touched sometimes. Apologies to you if my terse
comments and strong opinions have caused offense.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SI] New mandate needed Alan Browne Digital Photography 220 April 2nd 12 12:02 PM
New mandate needed David J Taylor[_16_] Digital Photography 3 March 21st 12 02:50 AM
[SI] Shootin Reminders: Mandate: Tubes & Special Mandate PanoMosaicsDUE 2008.10.26 Alan Browne Digital Photography 0 October 16th 08 09:55 PM
[SI] Shootin Reminders: Mandate: Tubes & Special Mandate PanoMosaicsDUE 2008.10.26 Alan Browne Digital SLR Cameras 0 October 16th 08 09:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.