post processing

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 06:55:53 +0000, David Taylor
wrote:

On 16/03/2014 19:50, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
A more accurate interpretation might be that they use RAW images
because of the scene's wide dynamic range.

I will use JPG for snapshots but not for images where I might want to
print them to a reasonable size. In that case I prefer my own image
massaging to whatever might be done by the camera.

It's both - you can plan on using RAW if you know that the scene /needs/
it, but the impression I get from reports here is that often it is the
saviour of inappropriate exposure.

As printing needs here rarely exceed 30 cm (12 inches), and most images
are for HD TV or Web display, my requirements are fortunately less
stringent than yours. My Nikon and Sony cameras do a good job in-camera.

I'm exploring what I can do with A2 or thereabouts. :-)

A young lady who is 16 years old asked me to shoot a passport
picture for her a couple weeks ago. She a neighbor that I've
been photographing since she was 2 years old and I have
literally a tens of thousands of pictures of her.

We shot the passport photo, and of course I also shot a dozen or
so more than that, just because people pictures are what I do.

It turned out one of them has been printed at A1 size, both in a
color version and in a BW version. I like the BW, but showed
her mother an 8x10 in color too and she wanted a big one in
color. Right now I'm willing to say that it is perhaps the most
gorgeous photograph I've ever done of a young woman. It's a
basic head shot, with a lot of emotional impact, of an extremely
attractive young lady.

That's why I shoot everything, even simple 2"x2" passport shots,
in RAW mode. I think it is obvious that an image that good
deserves a lot better processing than is even remotely possible
if one starts with a JPEG out of the camera.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 17/03/2014 09:12, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:
[]
I think of raw as kind of negative.
When shooting I keep an eye not on the thumb image but on the histogram.


Noëlle Adam

Same here, generally, but I also like the "flashing highlights" display
to indicate potential over-exposure.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 17/03/2014 08:33, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:
Le 16/03/14 15:36, David Taylor a écrit :

Yes, on some cameras I have the default exposure at -1/3 stop. I rarely
find white-balance to be an issue, but I'm not often taking stage
pictures (and I can appreciate the need for extra margin due to the
greater dynamic range). I did take this one in Argentina:


http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2009/An...51-21-size.jpg

but there were so many lighting effects that I wouldn't want to say
whether the WB is "right" or not.
I think it is "right". It has the colors of the show.
But when the light is very dim, the dimmed stage spots give a reddish
color that is not due to gels.
The most terrible light effect I had was with a oriental music show with
lot of changing colored lights, and overabundance of "black light". The
"black light" totally confused the sensor and the results were yuk...

As that was ISO 1600 on a Nikon D60,
there was some post-processing (such as noise reduction in PaintShop Pro
10). 1/30s, f/6.3 Nikon 18-200 mm at 200 mm.

When I can be at 2000 iso, I consider that "plenty light" and I am very
happy with it.
http://th08.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/...ut-d66s3ts.jpg
(not post-prod beside reduction and a slight ajustement of color balance)
There, it was "plenty light",not to much light contrast,enough color
contrast, and 2000 iso are good enough to allow every margin I need.
Piece of cake !
That is not usual.
More often, I use 3200 or 4000 iso...Even with a D700, that is not much,
specially when most of the stage is dark areas.
I dont stop down a lot, use my 70-200 2,8 (no VR) at 3,5 or 2,8.
My own stability with this heavy lens does not allow me to go much under
1/160 s : and usually, people on the stage move as well !
Depends of the show. I am almost always a bit too short of 3-4 IL to
make confortable choices.

Noëlle Adam

Yes, I can appreciate that for what used to be called "artificial light"
white balance can sometimes be rather incorrect, not to mention
fluorescent light sources! I do sometimes need to correct that and can
easily do so the the JPEG.

Oh, now, with the Nikon 5200, ISO 3200 is quite OK. The D60 which I
used for that image is a rather old model, but what I had at the time.
Movement of the actors or performers can be another issue, requiring
careful timing. I was lucky to be able to hand-hold at 1/30s with 200
mm, but that's another advantage of having VR lenses. Interesting how
we have ended up with different choices to meet our different
photographic and operational needs.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 17/03/2014 09:47, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
That's why I shoot everything, even simple 2"x2" passport shots,
in RAW mode. I think it is obvious that an image that good
deserves a lot better processing than is even remotely possible
if one starts with a JPEG out of the camera.

An interesting story, Floyd! You are lucky to have a good model.

Nevertheless, if the image content is of sufficient interest, even one
taken on a phone may be good enough....
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

David Taylor wrote:
On 17/03/2014 09:47, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
That's why I shoot everything, even simple 2"x2" passport shots,
in RAW mode. I think it is obvious that an image that good
deserves a lot better processing than is even remotely possible
if one starts with a JPEG out of the camera.

An interesting story, Floyd! You are lucky to have a good model.

Nevertheless, if the image content is of sufficient interest, even one
taken on a phone may be good enough....

But this isn't something where "sufficient" is good enough. I
do see it as one of the best photographs I've ever produced.

What came out of the camera just had potential, and only because
I had the RAW data from a Nikon D800. To realize the potential
required significant post processing to make it more than good
enough, and instead extend towards the best it could be. What
it was out of the camera is only potential, and the "real thing"
is on paper at 24"x36".

The BW version is currently on public display. I can't imagine
displaying a print that large taken on a cell phone...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Le 17/03/14 10:55, David Taylor a écrit :

Oh, now, with the Nikon 5200, ISO 3200 is quite OK.
Noise is not a big issue, if you can do good filtering. Dynamics is.
What is totally absurd is the fact that the tests images for high iso
usually display evenly lighted scenes, shoot with high speeds.
Well, for me I need high iso mostly it's because its dark around.
With very bright spots most often than not.

The D60 which I
used for that image is a rather old model, but what I had at the time.
Movement of the actors or performers can be another issue, requiring
careful timing. I was lucky to be able to hand-hold at 1/30s with 200
mm, but that's another advantage of having VR lenses. Interesting how
we have ended up with different choices to meet our different
photographic and operational needs.

My choise is most an economical choice. No money for a 80-200VR 2,8 and
I use more the wide aperture (helps focus in darkness, as well) than
slow speeds.

Yesterday show was again something in very dim light, all reddish.
I had two cameras this time, my usual D700 with 70-200 2,8 and a D7000
with a 16-85 VR.
With the VR I never had enough light to get normal speeds, but I used it
to get movements. I hope it will look nice ; sometimes the camera was
not even able to autofocus on the dancer.
The D7000 have a "quiet" mode. Not much quieter tant the normal mode,
but at last, a lot quieter than my D700.
On the whole, I like VR to get movements on dancers like that
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vihoj41megf626e/_DSC7314.jpg
(old shot) but I think it does not compensate for a fast lense.
Last year I buyed the nikon 24-85 VR (FF) and was not very happy with
it. The quality and color contrast does not matched my other lenses.
It has huge distortion as well. Dont know if the lense was just a bad
item or what.
Overall is was so much less than the 16-85VR (aps-c) that I sold it
shortly after instead of selling the 16-85VR. And decided to get an
aps-c as second camera instead. More versatility.

Now that the D7100 is there, the D7000 is the best bargain on second
hand market.

Noëlle Adam

Le 17/03/14 11:26, Floyd L. Davidson a écrit :

The BW version is currently on public display. I can't imagine
displaying a print that large taken on a cell phone...

Sometimes it can be done, but for the specific look of it, just like you
can have displays of polas, of stenope zone-plate, whatever.

It was a lucky occasion but you do not work on luck alone, that's good !

Noëlle Adam

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

So you're still on record with the hilarious comment that only Adobe can
call a plug-in a "Photoshop plug-in"?

Yup. Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in". The rest
should call theirs "Plug-in for Photoshop".

wrong.

So, are thesde your statements, then:

1. Only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-ins

Never said that.

you just did, above.

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
Yes, it's a typing error on my part. The mind said "Photoshop
Plug-in" and the fingers said "Adobe Plug-in".

Sandman:
So you're still on record with the hilarious comment that only
Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop plug-in"?

Yup. Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in". The rest
should call theirs "Plug-in for Photoshop".

That's hilarious!

Sandman:
So, are thesde your statements, then:

1. Only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-ins

Never said that.

So, anyone can make photoshp plug-ins but only Adobe can *call* them
Photoshop plug-ins? Haha!

I wonder why you, again, snipped this stupidity of yours that totally
contradicts this:

Tony Cooper
03/13/2014 fonts

"Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."

And why you totally ignored the earlier post, where someone else than Adobe
calls their plug-in a "Photoshop plug-in":

http://tinyurl.com/ngbuqzw

"Adobe Photoshop Plug-in Module"

You're a riot, Tony. I've never seen a troll so invested in his own pride
that it is totally impossible for him to ever in his life admit to making
even the smallest error. You can talk for days, weeks trying to twist
reality to make it seem like you didn't make an error. Hilarious!

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
So, are thesde your statements, then:

1. Only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-ins

Tony Cooper:
Never said that.

nospam:
you just did, above.

Evidently, your reading skills are not working today. Anyone can
create a plug-in to be used with Photoshop. They cannot
legitimately call it a "Photoshop Plug-in", though.

You've made that stupid statement a couple of times now. I've been busy
laughing at you - but I think it's time for you to actually, you know,
substantiate it.

You claim that only Adobe can "call" a plug-in a "Photoshop plug-in" and we
know that many developers call their plug-ins "Photoshop plug-in" and we
know that Adobe lists third party plugin's under the heading "Photoshop
plug-in" so so far there is nothing out there in the real world that has
yet to align to your claims.

http://css3ps.com - "Photoshop plugin"
http://www.cutandslice.me - "Photoshop plugin"
http://www.divine-project.com - "Photoshop Plugin"
http://subtlepatterns.com - "Photoshop plugin"
http://webzap.uiparade.com - "PS plugin"
http://pnghat.madebysource.com - "Photoshop plugin"
http://skeuomorphism.it - "Photoshop plugin"
http://www.autofx.com/ - "Adobe Photoshop plug-ins"

So, please tell us again how these people can't "call" their plugins the
way they are already calling them, Tony.

I don't know if Adobe ever makes one, though. A plug-in that Adobe
makes would be one created by Adobe.

You don't know... whether... Adobe ever... made a plug-in... for Photoshop?

What ARE you doing in this thread? I mean - you are here saying that *only*
Adobe can call a plugin a "Photoshop plug-in" and you've said this:

"Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."

So, what plug-ins were you in reference to there, Mr six feet under?

Surely the hole you're digging is starting to become hot, you're going to
come way too close to the center of the earth.

--
Sandman[.net]