20D GETS CLOSE !

On Jul 6, 5:08 am, Noons wrote:
Your imagination is really fertile. There is nothing wrong
with my monitor and a lot wrong with your eyes.

For proof, see Bret's second image from the
raw file: it's night and day from the other crap
in the jpg file in which you imagine detail.

Hey slick, they are both JPG files made from the same RAW image.
I don't shoot JPG files in-camera so Canon's in-camera processing has
nothing to do with it as you claim.

wrote:

On Jul 6, 7:37 am, "Saguenay" wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673036/original

finally! Something with a reasonable size for a good
evaluation! Thought you were stuck in the 600x400
itty bity time warp...

so, what happened to the feather detail under the eye,
at the base of the beak? Can you rescan so they look
as detailed as the other feathers at the edge of the
background? you know, the ones that look "in focus"
and detailed even though the whole bird is in focus?

Ooops sorry: you can't... Nearly forgot Canon's in-camera
processing smears up fine detail it finds away from edges,
thinking it's noise...

;-)

Sorry, I see **all** feathers details under the eye. I stress: ALL details.
Seems you use a monitor as much subtle than your appreciation.

When I mess the calibration, YES, I see a white mess under the eye. I bet
you do.


I think I will sit on the fence, leaning slightly towards Noon's
comments, minus the language..

But there *is* detail (hidden?) in that area in the original jpg - if
you doubt that, just play with the gamma (way down) and contrast in an
image editor and you'll see almost everything that is in his raw
version, is also hiding in the jpg.

But to claim you can *see* that detail clearly on a 'well-calibrated
screen'??? Here's what that 'detail' looks like, at ridiculously
magnified levels (pixels outlined to help (or hinder?):

http://www.marktphoto.com/annika_zoomed.jpg

To me that is just a fairly flat area of off-white, with just some
waftings of slight shade variations (pardon my prose).... If you
check the levels, there is very little under 235 or over 250 in any
channel, and within each channel there is even less variation...
"Detail"? hmm.

If I messed with my screen enough to make that 'clear detail', it
would be nothing like what I could (or would want to) print.

So saguenay, what sort of monitor do you have, what gamma is it set
to, what sort of printer do you have, and what sort of colour
calibration/print matching process do you use? I'm intrigued!!

What do others think? Annika - do you see clear detail in that area
of the jpg? Maybe I/we just have a differing opinion of what being
clearly visible means...




Well here's one for ya!

This bloke has paid big money to setup a site with something like 500
pages. Not only are the image files large, but adds a little explanation
under the images.

http://www.charliewaite.com/image-de...LibraryID=2523

Note here the problem.

"Information about monitors:
Please note that all monitors are different and may not represent the
original print. These web files have been optimized for mac monitor
viewing. If you are viewing on a PC monitor, images will render darker
and more saturated than intended. "

What a wacko!

r

On Jul 6, 11:05 pm, Rob wrote:

What's a mistery?

or should be a mystery????

spelling nazi...

On Jul 6, 11:08 pm, Annika1980 wrote:


I don't understand what you mean by in-camera processing.
Both images I posted were made from the same RAW file. So obviously
there is detail in that file. Any differences between them occured
well after the image was out of the camera. So your gripe seems to be
more about the choices I made during post-processing the RAW file
rather than something that happened in-camera.


fair enough. ALL your jpgs are off camera?

On Jul 6, 11:11 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

Your imagination is really fertile. There is nothing wrong
with my monitor and a lot wrong with your eyes.

For proof, see Bret's second image from the
raw file: it's night and day from the other crap
in the jpg file in which you imagine detail.

Hey slick, they are both JPG files made from the same RAW image.
I don't shoot JPG files in-camera so Canon's in-camera processing has
nothing to do with it as you claim.


don't try to change the subject here.
This was someone claiming to see what is not there.
What I claim here is that the detail he "sees" is
simply not there, in your original jpg.
That is the claim here, in my reply to this poster.

You're trying to twist it into another reply, to one
of your posts. In which I claim most in-camera
dslr processing is crap. It is: go to pbase and check
the many examples there. And please: don't bother
showing me examples off the 5d or 1dsm2,
those are completely out of context.

One can shoot both raw and jpg in-camera,
you know that of course.
If these are your jpgs off-camera, from raws, you
really need to take your 20d-goggles off for a moment
and look at the process again: something is definitely
wrong in how you are zapping the raw stuff.

Having multiple fuzzy and non-fuzzy areas in the
same focus plane is a definite no-no.
Most of the butt-kissers here won't even blink at
that, but I and others will notice when you show
a large enough image.

As for the 600X400 stuff, quite frankly it's too
small to be worth any comments. As such, I
don't comment.

You can continue to take the kissing and just not
improve whatever the heck is wrong. Your choice,
of course. I thought I was talking to someone who
prides himself on quality. Maybe I was wrong?

Note: I'm not the only one noticing it.

On Jul 6, 11:20 pm, Rob wrote:


"Information about monitors:
Please note that all monitors are different and may not represent the
original print. These web files have been optimized for mac monitor
viewing. If you are viewing on a PC monitor, images will render darker
and more saturated than intended. "

What a wacko!

holy cow! 500+ pounds for a 40cmX40cm print?
what's it printed on, gold plate?

On Jul 6, 10:11 am, Noons wrote:

Hey slick, they are both JPG files made from the same RAW image.
I don't shoot JPG files in-camera so Canon's in-camera processing has
nothing to do with it as you claim.

don't try to change the subject here.

I'm not changing the subject. You claimed my pic lacked detail due to
Canon's in-camera processing. I called bull**** and proved that you
were talking out your ass.

I shoot exclusively in RAW mode, but I would gladly set my 20D to RAW
+JPG to do some testing to disprove your claims.

Noons wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:08 pm, wrote:

What do others think? Annika - do you see clear detail in that area
of the jpg? Maybe I/we just have a differing opinion of what being
clearly visible means...

Of course there is no detail - in the jpg!
Of course there is detail if we go back to the raw file,
like Bret did.
The problem has nothing to do with monitor settings.
And all to do with Canon's in-camera processing.

But to be totally fair you did say that Bret would not be able to go
back and rescan for more detail, indicating that the detail was lost
forever. But in fact since it was taken as a raw image Bret was able to
go back and get more detail, very much like re-scanning film.
You did not simply say that the jpeg that Bret originally posted lack
detail, in a fair small area I might add, but you went on to say that he
could not get it back.

Of course if he were shoot with slide film, like many film buffs seem to
like to shoot, well then the detail would have be really lost.

Scott

Noons wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:08 pm, wrote:


What do others think? Annika - do you see clear detail in that area
of the jpg? Maybe I/we just have a differing opinion of what being
clearly visible means...

Of course there is no detail - in the jpg!
Of course there is detail if we go back to the raw file,
like Bret did.
The problem has nothing to do with monitor settings.
And all to do with Canon's in-camera processing.

Here is another example, also from Bret:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/74548755/original
note exactly the same area under the beak
and inside the "S" curve in the neck.

Totally devoid of detail, even though other
areas of the image in the same focus plane are
very pleasing.

That's just because it's blown out at that point.
Nothing to do with Canon, beyond over-exposure in that portion of the image.
This is understandable when you note how dark the shadows were under the
wing...which means this was shot under harsh sun.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Rob wrote:
Noons wrote:

On Jul 5, 10:33 pm, Annika1980 wrote:


Ooops sorry: you can't... Nearly forgot Canon's in-camera
processing smears up fine detail it finds away from edges,
thinking it's noise...

Wrong again, Buttdrip!
I can pull as much detail as I need from the RAW file.
Maybe even a little too
much:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81712964/original


Once again, you prove unable to understand basic English.
I said: "Canon's in-camera processing". WTF has
that got to do with your raw file post-processing is a mistery
to anyone.


What's a mistery?


or should be a mystery????

It's a mistery why you care how he spells mystery on use-net...


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson