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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 01:50 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 |