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 |
#511
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who understand all this. i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull**** being spewed here. I'm sure they do. so you finally agree it's reversible. amazing. I've never denied it. yes you have. It's just that it's not fully reversible in the strict sense that Floyd used it. it is, but in a different way. two different uses of the term. the problem is that he won't acknowledge there can be other meanings because he's never used the software in question and is talking out his ass. There is no other meaning which can be applied to the term 'fully reversible' as used in physics. this isn't about physics. it's about a non-destructive workflow. In using those words in that way he was expressing a particular rigorously defined meaning for which there is no substitute. however, there are alternate meanings and just as valid. |
#512
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:58:11 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: I think I would laugh in the same circumstances. why? the camera in the 5s is very good, and *far* more portable than a nikon d3 or d4 with multiple lenses. If I have to explain a joke to you it ceases to be funny. what makes you think he was joking? i'm quite sure his iphone 5s really is the camera he has been using lately. Why do you think Floyd was laughing? because he's a condescending elitist asshole who will never admit that a camera in a phone can give his bulky kit a run for its money? just a guess. Because he was expecting something quite different and found he was caught by surprise when he realised what his friend was talking about. what's funny about that? Gawdelpus! anyone who laughs at a smartphone camera is an idiot. no it won't be the best choice in all situations but it can be in quite a few. No, that's only your best guess. nope. it's my opinion and that of many others who actually use one. http://austinmann.com/trek/iphone-5s-review-patagonia This iPhone 5S beats out the 5 in every camera test and in many ways I prefer it to my DSLR. *Sure it has its pros & cons but for the first time ever, I didn't bring my Canon 1DX and I didn't regret it one bit. That's saying a lot.* -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#513
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:40:38 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2014-09-21 02:33:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:01:29 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-09-21 01:34:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:38:30 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who understand all this. i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull**** being spewed here. I'm sure they do. so you finally agree it's reversible. amazing. I've never denied it. It's just that it's not fully reversible in the strict sense that Floyd used it. Floyd is using Lightroom & Photoshop? Amazing!!! Hell, or is it Barrow (that is more likely) has frozen over. You really do have a problem looking directly at what I have been saying. What I am saying is, this tread has become very silly with all sorts of folks disagreeing, and talking at cross purposes. Right from the point when nospam started contradicting Floyd. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#514
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:58:14 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who understand all this. i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull**** being spewed here. I'm sure they do. so you finally agree it's reversible. amazing. I've never denied it. yes you have. It's just that it's not fully reversible in the strict sense that Floyd used it. it is, but in a different way. two different uses of the term. the problem is that he won't acknowledge there can be other meanings because he's never used the software in question and is talking out his ass. There is no other meaning which can be applied to the term 'fully reversible' as used in physics. this isn't about physics. It's an aspect of physics when you try answering Albert Molon's very first question "Has somebody analysed this (i.e. how to best sharpen an image, what unsharpness can be eliminated in post-processing)?" Floyd gave a perfectly accurate and relevant answer to that question and you have been ****ing up the thread ever since. I bet that even now you will say something irrelevant about a non-destructive work flow. How the hell do you think that's going to fix a lens problem? Idiot. it's about a non-destructive workflow. In using those words in that way he was expressing a particular rigorously defined meaning for which there is no substitute. however, there are alternate meanings and just as valid. And utterly irrelevant. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#515
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:58:13 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: And here is an Adobe guy who knows about entropy. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/adobe-me..._encoding.html Scroll down to find the heading "Entropy Encoding". Going into video encoding are you? Whatever happened to the affection for JPEGs? How do you think Adobe optimises the alignment of shots when constructing a panorama from a collection of images? what does that have to do with a non-destructive workflow? Nothing, but it has a lot to do with entropy and reversible processes in image processing. But you couldn't know that. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#516
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:58:12 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: "Maximum entropy method in image processing". Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who understand all this. i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull**** being spewed here. Here is a gal at Adobe who understands the concept of a non-destructive workflow. http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html And here is an Adobe guy who knows about entropy. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/adobe-me..._encoding.html Scroll down to find the heading "Entropy Encoding". that has absolutely nothing to do with a non-destructive workflow and whether something is reversible. Which is why your contributions to this thread have been meaningless noise. you have that backwards. anything other than a non-destructive workflow is noise. that includes thermodynamics, physics, entropy, flat earth and whatever else was mentioned. Ignoramus! -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#517
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 2014-09-21 05:13:46 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:58:12 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: "Maximum entropy method in image processing". Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who understand all this. i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull**** being spewed here. Here is a gal at Adobe who understands the concept of a non-destructive workflow. http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html And here is an Adobe guy who knows about entropy. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/adobe-me..._encoding.html Scroll down to find the heading "Entropy Encoding". that has absolutely nothing to do with a non-destructive workflow and whether something is reversible. Which is why your contributions to this thread have been meaningless noise. you have that backwards. anything other than a non-destructive workflow is noise. that includes thermodynamics, physics, entropy, flat earth and whatever else was mentioned. Ignoramus! I knew that word was going to show up sooner or later. ;-) -- Regards, Savageduck |
#518
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-20 22:55:48 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 02:19:41 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Savageduck wrote: On 2014-09-20 05:01:11 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:51:48 -0400, nospam wrote: Le Snip But you have turned your face away from what he was trying to say ... nope. if there's anyone who has turned their faces it's you and floyd. Sigh ... The one thing which is quite obvious is Floyd's arrogant denigration of anybody who disagrees with him, interprets what he says literally, or fails to discern what it is he actually means from his arcane diatribes. He dismisses software and technics he does & won't use as some sort of lesser species. No wonder he has to live where he does, and I am sure that he is the most respected and sought out technical blabber mouth in Barrow. There are other folks who question Floyd's credentials and some of the stuff he says. This was a discussion which when it came up in rec.photo.digital fell apart quite quickly when Floyd told Tony Cooper he was wrong regarding "Street Photography". It seems he also tried to fly his concept in dpreview forums. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50358552 Here is the criticism: "Here's an interesting bit of Street Photography. No people, no pavement, no city. An empty truck parked on an unmaintained gravel "road". The nearest concrete sidewalk is 500 miles south. A paradise to some, while others say it is desolation. http://apaflo.com/street/d8a_2303.s.jpg I know of no street photographer who would not call this statement delusional." Here is what Wikipedia has to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography "Street photography is photography that features the human condition within public places and does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. The subject of the photograph might be absent of people and can be an object or environment where the image projects a decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic." By that definition, Floyd is correct in calling that street photography. --- snip --- ...and yet there are those, many of whom engage in street photography, who disagree with Floyd. How dare they! BTW: I think it made a nice surreal image. Not many who understand the basis for Street Photography would disagree with me on that. Instead it's people who want to use their own special definition of Street, usually as a mechanical means of removing vast amounts of what they see as "competition" from consideration of where the stand. That is very common with the general population of photographers on the Internet, whether it is Street or any other genre. We see it in Macro Photography, we see it in Portrait Photography, we see it in Landscape Photography, and on and on. The point is that authoritative definitions, not personal ones, make it a Street shot. It was selected specifically because it is an good example of the difference. You should not miss the point that saying there are those who disagree means exactly nothing. The vast majority of recognized experts on that topic would not disagree, and that is what means something. It's an example that _you_ can learn from, both about reasonable logic and about Street Photography. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#519
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
Savageduck wrote:
BTW: That was a quotation of Floyd's words above, not Frank Dodd's. Here is some of what he said which disagreed with that Alaskan proposition. "I know of no street photographer who would not call this statement delusional. Your saying Ansel Adams moonrise photo is street photography I know of no street photographer who would not also call this statement delusional. Your uncalled-for personal attacks on Chris and on me. Your very strange inability to hear what anyone else is saying to you in any forum. Being called out as the pathological liar of your hometown, Barrow, Alaska Others can do as they wish, but I've put you on my ignore list. Good bye" The first thing to note is that citing something like the webpage of David Eves, as is done above, is a clear indication that the writer is projecting his own delusion. Same with what you did! You aren't citing an authority in this case either. Just the opposite. You're not interested in truth or learning. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#520
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-20 23:39:49 +0000, nospam said: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Nothing in your reply makes image processing be the same as thermodynamics, Eric. You're blathering about things you know nothing about. See http://tinyurl.com/mbrhs3e You failed again. Are you jusyt wildly googling and hoping that something will support your incorrect claims? Seems that way. "Maximum entropy method in image processing". Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who understand all this. i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull**** being spewed here. Here is a gal at Adobe who understands the concept of a non-destructive workflow. http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html Not too great a choice on your part. Her job is to try explaining products to idiots who can't comprehend either the theory or the technology. It defines you. But she supports what Eric is saying, not what you claim. Hmmmm... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sharpening | Alfred Molon[_4_] | Digital Photography | 23 | April 3rd 13 06:57 PM |
Sharpening | Ockham's Razor | Digital Photography | 11 | February 6th 07 08:35 PM |
Am I over-sharpening? | Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address | Digital Photography | 12 | February 9th 06 06:58 AM |
RAW sharpening | embee | Digital Photography | 11 | December 24th 04 03:43 PM |
D70 on-camera sharpening vs. Photoshop sharpening | john | Digital Photography | 7 | July 23rd 04 10:55 AM |