 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / April 2007A real test of RAW V JPEG... You decide.
Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and ideas occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of mine anyone has pinched, are the very ones I used to prevent theft! When I post good ones, few detractors even bothers to pass comment on them! Anyway... I decided to take the opportunity to produce some comparative examples to show what a JPEG file compared to a Camera RAW file really looks like when the camera is setup for JPEG capture and the files are processed to extract the best from each format. Read that as the best I can produce at this time. Maybe others can do it better. There are some times when a RAW capture will yield that tiny bit extra detail and perhaps save an otherwise lost image. Shooting backlit, black and white Pelicans in the glaring sun of an Australian winter - over shallow water, is challenging enough. To then attempt to "match" a JPEG to a correctly developed RAW file might seem to some, an impossible task. Certainly my examples are substantially different to those exhibited by Scott W in his attempt to show everyone how "bad" JPEG capture is. To me it's another weapon in the war against time consuming post shoot processing. 450 clicks at Saturday's wedding equates to a saving of nearly half an hour in processing when I use JPEG for all but the bridal portraits. To further enhance this thread, anyone who wants the Siamese files of JPEG and RAW for their own exploration, only needs to ask. You be the judge, eh? http://www.ryadia.com/jpeg-V-raw.htm Douglas. On Apr 3, 4:59 am, "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.ru...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and ideas > occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of mine anyone has [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Douglas. Douglas, Nice shot. I can't tell the difference on my monitor and wont pretend to say there is a difference. For as long as the final image is sharp and there is detail in both high lights and shadows, who gives a frick if it is JPEG or RAW? What matters is what the client will like. Now that being said, only one small thing I would critized was there is no catch light in the eye. Other than that a nice shot. There does seem to be a color shift, slight, between the first and second image. Again it might just be my monitor. For some reason a catch light brings "life" to the image. You and I have "bumped heads" on some things and that's okay. Just don't out and out dismiss my opinion as I haven't dismissed yours. Everyone has the right to their opinions and everyone has the right to disagree. Keep shooting Douglas. All the great masters of photography shot everyday. Weither they had a paying client or not. Draco Getting even isn't good enough. Being better does. what does this have to do with 35mm equipment? are you aware there are diital newsgroups to post this kind of material in? > what does this have to do with 35mm equipment? are you aware there are > diital newsgroups to post this kind of material in? You do know that you don't have to reply to the last post in the thread don't you? You can reply directly to the OP. Draco did not originate this thread so why are you telling him there are other newsgroups? Why are you not telling Douglas this? Scott > > what does this have to do with 35mm equipment? are you aware there are > > diital newsgroups to post this kind of material in? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Scott Scott, I think Joe was responding to Douglas. His post just fell in under mine. If it was to be pointed at me then ID it that way. Joe, The Canon 20D uses the same lenses that any Canon EOS film camera uses. I do understand your objections in folks asking questions and posting images that are in nature, digital. If you have a question on the type of lens Douglas used or even the ISO and settings of the camera when he took the image, that would go further than the constant "...what does this have to do with 35mm equipment? are you aware there are diital newsgroups to post this kind of material in?..." I am quite sure that we are all aware that this is an equipment NG. Not being able to share information on how an image is captured, film or digital, does not help anyone. Being able to say, 'this was capture with a 300mm f/4 lens at 400 ISO at 250s-f/5.6 - what you all think' doesn't matter if it was digital or analog(film). Does it? If you want nothing but equipment talk then fine. Boring but, fine. No more talk about images, film types, developing, printing, the way light falls to bring out highlights. Just boring facts on equipment. Is that what you really want? How about we let all the folks who post here decide? Draco Getting even isn't good enough. Doing better does. > Is that what you really want? How about we let all the folks who post > here decide? I think they already have. And some people don't like their decision. : On Apr 3, 4:59 am, "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.ru...@yahoo.com.au> : wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] : : Draco The colour difference is due to having used different "colour spaces" to process the images. I used a camera setting of AdobeRGB (8 bit) but developed the RAW file using ProPhotoRGB in 16 bit mode. Had I used sRGB in the camera, the colours may have been closer but the gamut would have narrowed and not achieved my intention of using camera settings beneficial to the JPEG. Thanks for your comment. Douglas > Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and ideas > occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of mine anyone has [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Douglas. More power to ya.....There are MANY advantages to RAW....but if you dont want to use it, and you are skilled enough to get it right in the camera then go for it....JPEG will be fine for 99.9% of your shots....Where RAW is amazing is when you make changes WITHOUT degrading the images....For example....wierd light situations where the white balance may be tough to get right...RAW allows you to shoot it and do your white balance on your monitor where you can more accurately judge it and get it perfect. B&W conversions...custom curves, contrast adjustments...etc...some things are IMPOSSIBLE to get perfect in the camera, for those jobs RAW is amazing....if you are not making any adjustments, then why use it....but having the ability makes it nice....Also the theory is the RAW conversion done in your computer will be better than the one done in your camera because its a more powerful processor.... JR On Apr 3, 3:59 am, "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.ru...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and ideas > occurred to me. You should go there more often. On Apr 3, 3:59 am, "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.ru...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > To further enhance this thread, anyone who wants the Siamese files of JPEG > and RAW for their own exploration, only needs to ask. Please send me the RAW file. : On Apr 3, 3:59 am, "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.ru...@yahoo.com.au> : wrote: : > To further enhance this thread, anyone who wants the Siamese files of JPEG : > and RAW for their own exploration, only needs to ask. : : Please send me the RAW file. You'll need to confirm it is actually your Bret. Your IP address says you're using a different ISP than the one you used to attack me from. Is that right? Douglas On Apr 3, 4:14 pm, "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.ru...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > : Please send me the RAW file. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Douglas Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick! Just send the damn file. If it goes to Lionel I'll get him to forward it to me. On Apr 3, 2:59 am, "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.ru...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and ideas > occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of mine anyone has [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Douglas. The difference is pretty obvious on my monitor. Top photo: more highlight and shadow detail. Beak is lighter overall with a finder gradation in the pink color. The water appears more transparent and "sparkle-y". More detail in the eye although dark. Bottom photo: detail lost in shadows in dark feather area. More contrast overall. More color saturation. Water appears "muddy" when compared to top image. Less detail in the eye - eye itself is darker. But as you point out, these differences may or may not show up in a print. I would contend that they would, if printed properly. But to your other point: the amount of storage available may dictate the use of JPG for your original files. I typically shoot in RAW + JPG (basic, small) to have files for quick previewing. If I like the shots, then I open up the RAW file for fine tuning. YMMV Karl Winkler http://www.karlwinkler.com > On Apr 3, 2:59 am, "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.ru...@yahoo.com.au> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > small) to have files for quick previewing. If I like the shots, then I > open up the RAW file for fine tuning. Yes the differences are pretty clear to me too. Which is the RAW version? I'd have to blow them up to see if there was any difference in sharpness & detail, not something I want to bother with. > But to > your other point: the amount of storage available may dictate the use > of JPG for your original files. I typically shoot in RAW + JPG (basic, > small) to have files for quick previewing. If I like the shots, then I > open up the RAW file for fine tuning. With the continuing drop in memory card prices, there is really no good reason not to shoot RAW or at least RAW + JPG. What does it say about the quality of work from a wedding photographer who complains about taking an extra 30 minutes of his time to make the photos look better? I mean, who can be bothered with such trivial matters? Certainly not a world famous sought-after professional wedding photographer with over 20 (or is it 40?) years of experience. Geez, it's only a wedding photo! It's not like anybody cares what they look like. This ain't pelicans! Of course, when the wedding photographer you've hired shows up with a cheapo Panasonic consumer P&S, that should be your first clue. Perhaps being the lone bidder on that EBAY auction wasn't such a great idea after all. : > But to : > your other point: the amount of storage available may dictate the use [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] : Perhaps being the lone bidder on that EBAY auction wasn't such a great : idea after all. You'll get it soon enough. Until then just stay on your meds and keep out of the cold. When your head clears you'll start to see the real situation. Until then: Sit down Hang on and SHUT UP! Douglas > On Apr 3, 2:59 am, "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.ru...@yahoo.com.au> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > The difference is pretty obvious on my monitor. But Douglas doesn't use a properly calibrated monitor...as evidenced by his inability to decipher this image: http://www.pbase.com/image/76619046/original -Mark² > Top photo: more highlight and shadow detail. Beak is lighter overall > with a finder gradation in the pink color. The water appears more [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > small) to have files for quick previewing. If I like the shots, then I > open up the RAW file for fine tuning. This is (IMO) the best approach. Even when just out snapshooting, I often stumble upon an image that is worth fiddling with...so it's nice to have the RAWs. For the rest, I don't keep the RAW...but in a pinch, it's great to have the lattitude offered by RAW.  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson : But Douglas doesn't use a properly calibrated monitor...as evidenced by his : inability to decipher this image: : http://www.pbase.com/image/76619046/original : : -Mark² at: : www.pbase.com/markuson There you go again Mark... You and Scott W need to get a room to yourselves. FYI I use a 23", apple "Cinema" display attached to a MAC for my editing. I use a PC with a wide screen , 2000 to 1 contrast ratio monitor which produces only two squares differently (by one point in two colours) in the swatch than a Macbeth checker image ... to provide Internet access and general day to day delivery of data to my printers. If I ever bothered to hook up- the Mac to the Internet, (not going to happen) you'd probably complain about my images even more. The bit you can't seem to get your head around is that probably less than 5% of computer monitors used to look at Internet images are actually calibrated and of those, maybe less than 1% are dedicated and calibrated to produce lab quality prints. If you don't like my posts, use the filters Luke, use the filters. Otherwise when you get stuck into me personally with your twisted idea of reality, you are just looking like the twerp you've always been. Unable to hold a conversation up without resorting to presumptions as if they were fact... Maybe it's a good thing your best friend is an Ipod! Douglas >> But Douglas doesn't use a properly calibrated monitor...as evidenced >> by his inability to decipher this image: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > provide Internet access and general day to day delivery of data to my > printers. 2000:1 contrast is manufacturer BS that you've apparently bought into. Fact is, the Apple Cinema displays aren't all that great in terms of consistency and rendition for photo editing. > If I ever bothered to hook up- the Mac to the Internet, (not going to > happen) you'd probably complain about my images even more. The bit > you can't seem to get your head around is that probably less than 5% > of computer monitors used to look at Internet images are actually > calibrated and of those, maybe less than 1% are dedicated and > calibrated to produce lab quality prints. So let me get this straight... You use your internet computer to post about image comparisons...yet you haven't bothered to calibrate that monitor???!!! You never fail to amaze... It takes about 10 to 20 minutes to calibrate a monitor. I suggest you try it. I agree that only a small minority of general population monitors are clibrated properly... I'd actually guess less then 5%. But you are posting images specifically for comparison...so it's rather funny that you post comparisons using a monitor that won't accurately show what you're posting. It became clear that your monitor was out of whack when you failed to see the detail in that (not) dark-frame shot. There is text there that a properly adjusted monitor should be able to read...even on the internet. If you're going to claim that you don't calibrate your internet monitor...then perhaps it's time to stop posting comparisons. By the way... I posted nothing bad. I merely pointed out that you proved last week that your internet monitor wasn't seeing shadow detail. No sin there...BUT...when you post critiques about other folk's shadow detail in their images...all the while, viewing them on a monitor that isn't right...you make yourself look pretty silly. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson : >> But Douglas doesn't use a properly calibrated monitor...as evidenced : >> by his inability to decipher this image: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] : their images...all the while, viewing them on a monitor that isn't : right...you make yourself look pretty silly. Exactly where did I say ANY of my monitors is not calibrated? Exactly where did I say I saw no detail in Scott W's picture? And how did it "become clear" to you about anything? Did you ever ask me what gear I had? Did you ever come to my studio and see for yourself? For that matter, have you ever responded to one of my posts where you haven't criticized me or my equipment? The answer to all these questions is negative yet you have the insight of someone with their head firmly buried up their own anus. Get a life Mark. Just because I now post images you have no examples of, don't get pissed, get some pictures yourself. You go on as if you have intimate knowledge of everything I have and do, yet know absolutely zero about me and my equipment... Why is that? >>>> But Douglas doesn't use a properly calibrated monitor...as >>>> evidenced by his inability to decipher this image: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Exactly where did I say I saw no detail in Scott W's picture? > And how did it "become clear" to you about anything? It became clear that your monitor was not calibrated properly when you assumed the dark image was nothing but black. Did you ever figure out what the text said in that image? > Did you ever ask me what gear I had? I'm sure you have calibration equipment, and you may well have calibrated all your monitors. But the simple fact remains that you couldn't detect the near-black text in that image...so it doesn't matter what you have--if it doesn't allow you to see dark details. That's a done deal...so no sense in trying to undo that clear indication that something was amiss with your screen. > Did you ever come to my studio and see for yourself? See above. > For that matter, have you ever responded to one of my posts where you > haven't criticized me or my equipment? Again, I believe you're confusing me with Mark Thomas. Actually, Douglas, there was a time way back when I used to defend you. Perhaps you've forgotten, or perhaps you've confused me with others as you have done so often. > The answer to all these questions is negative yet you have the > insight of someone with their head firmly buried up their own anus. > Get a life Mark. Just because I now post images you have no examples > of, don't get pissed, get some pictures yourself. I haven't any idea what you're talking about here, Doug. ??? > You go on as if you have intimate knowledge of everything I have and > do, yet know absolutely zero about me and my equipment... Why is that? My comments simply refer to evidence you gave that your monitor wasn't showing you near-blacks. It's really very simple, and was a reference to this image...posted by someone else...to which you responded with clear indication that you saw nothing but black (you made reference to a lens cap being on...not realizing that you had just proven beyond any doubt that your monitor wasn't detecting the print in the image). Here's his image: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/76619046/original If you're going to post images for comparison, then it is perfectly appropriate to note that some shadow detail loss may be going unnoticed by you due to your demonstration of the fact that you monitor wasn't detecting near-black. Simple. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.rules@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >Did you ever come to my studio and see for yourself? The one you were evicted from because you could not pay the rent? : "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.rules@yahoo.com.au> wrote: : > : >Did you ever come to my studio and see for yourself? : : The one you were evicted from because you could not pay the rent? Ha, ha. If I didn't know you I'd think you were trying to light my fuse. It needs more spark than you have to do that! "\(The real\) Douglas" <DJ4groups-only@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >: "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.rules@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If I didn't know you I'd think you were trying to light my fuse. >It needs more spark than you have to do that! It was the studio where you couldn't pay the rent, and when the owner's husband threw you out for non-payment, you accused him publicly, on Usenet, of sexually assaulting your wife. Quite a story, Doug. And you posted it all on Usenet, so anyone can find it in Google Groups, including the owner's husband. : "\(The real\) Douglas" <DJ4groups-only@yahoo.com.au> wrote: : [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] : Quite a story, Doug. And you posted it all on Usenet, so anyone can : find it in Google Groups, including the owner's husband. ----------------------------------------------------- My, my. What an imagination you have Tony. Hardly a "kick out". Court case #1 decision in my favour. Awarded me damages of a 4 figure amount. Court case #2 resulted in an award against the landlords for mischievous behaviour. The landlords? Desley and Wesley Mathers. If you had half a brain you'd have searched the Queensland court records but then if you had half a brain it would be lonely. I photographed their wedding in 2004. She (at the time the sole owner of the property at 2 St Helena Court Cleveland) decided I was such a wonderful photographer, she would spend $24,000 on this place to turn it into a studio. What she didn't count on was her new Husband's disgusting behaviour and his absolutely stupid belief he could do as he pleased without regard for the laws governing landlord/tenant relationships in Australia. Now if you want to attack me about something. Get your facts straight before you start. Now will you tell s about your terminal illness and your miraculous recovery or should I spill the beans on it? While you're at it... Should I post the letter I got back from Paris Match about your fraud? You really are a piece of human garbage Polson. "\(The real\) Douglas" <DJ4groups-only@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >Court case #1 decision in my favour. Awarded me damages of a 4 figure >amount. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >If you had half a brain you'd have searched the Queensland court records There is no record of any such judgements on the Queensland Courts web site. Yes, I looked. : "\(The real\) Douglas" <DJ4groups-only@yahoo.com.au> wrote: : [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : There is no record of any such judgements on the Queensland Courts web : site. Yes, I looked. Looked in the wrong court idiot! : "\(The real\) Douglas" <DJ4groups-only@yahoo.com.au> wrote: : [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : There is no record of any such judgements on the Queensland Courts web : site. Yes, I looked. Bullshit! Start here: http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/practice/legislation/default.htm Then get up to speed on the RTA tenancy laws dispute resolution process in Queensland. Then locate the judgment list for 2006/7 Then you might just discover the data you can't find. What about the terminal illness, Tony? You haven't answered the question about Paris Match either. Not a complete and habitual liar, are you? >> "\(The real\) Douglas" <DJ4groups-only@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > question about Paris Match either. Not a complete and habitual liar, > are you? Speaking of lying... Didn't you, just yesterday, claim to have kill-filed both of us? Wish you would, since kill-filing YOU only lasts a few days until you invent some new screen name.. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson "\(The real\) Douglas" <DJ4groups-only@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >What about the terminal illness, Tony? It's news to me. Since you are the only person who has ever told me that I have a terminal illness, and you are a habitual liar, I just ignore it. I'll die of something, someday. > >What about the terminal illness, Tony? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > terminal illness, and you are a habitual liar, I just ignore it. I'll > die of something, someday. I've often heard D-Mac refer to this, but never knew exactly what he was talking about. I decided to research it and still didn't come up with much. However, I did find one post interesting (posted by D-Mac, aka Ryadia's Kiosk) which I include below. I was particularly drawn to this one sentence: "I myself will never again publish a photograph on the 'net I would not otherwise be willing to put in the public domain.." Kinda ironic, dontcha think? Anyway, here is the entire post: ================================ If this is the same supposedly" terminally ill" Tony Polson whom a regular contributor to these groups identified as the person responsible for slandering my wife's name and falsely accusing me of theft and fraud, I think something is quite out of kilter here. Either this Tony Polson is pulling a swifty on everyone or he is not the same person. For starters being "Terminally Ill" means your death is iminent. Certainly within a year at any rate but it was 18 months ago that the informant said "I know positively it was Tony Polson". When I asked for the evidence, he didn't have any. The Private investigator from London I hired, could not confirm his "Terminal Illness" although there was plenty of rumor about it. He suggested a miraculious recovery may be iminent. In any event I am satisfied he may be many things but the villan, he is not. Secondly... Several people regularly posting to these groups from the Oceania region (where I live) have steadfastly refused to put up any evidence they can take a photo yet I know first hand they can, I've seen their work. I myself will never again publish a photograph on the 'net I would not otherwise be willing to put in the public domain and I sympathise with those who feel the same and have no pictures they would give away so refrain from offering any. Who are we to say this is not happening with Tony? Until he actually clarifies the situation, we may never know. Thirdly, as much as some people would welcome the demise of some posters (probably me included), they have the same right to post such bullshit as they please ...as do those who target them. >From where I sit, Tony Polson has the same rights as all other Usenet posters so the thought that he could (should?) be ridiculed and derided for posting his views and occasional sideswipes at the popular targets here is somewhat repulsive and says a lot about those who target him. Far too many people use Usenet for their own personal entertainment and want to stop others from doing the same. These groups are after all, an entertainment medium and nothing else. I target Alan Browne specifically for his double standards and hypocrisy, nothing more or less. That doesn't mean I have less respect for his views, just contempt for his attitude. As long as he puts himself up as the source of rules (suggestions even) or publisher of behaviour standards and does the opposite himself, I retain the right to highlight such hypocrisy. I really don't know why Tony Polson uses Alan for target practice or for that matter who fired the first shot but if Alan's recent broadside at Tony is any indication, each give as good as they get. Gentlemen... Shall we continue? Douglas >>> What about the terminal illness, Tony? >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > he > didn't have any. The Private investigator from London I hired, could I swear Douglas has ALL the makings of a stalker...and I'm not at all kidding. >I swear Douglas has ALL the makings of a stalker...and I'm not at all >kidding. I disagree. As a stalker, he is completely ineffectual. It is all hot air. Bit like his "photography business", really. Someone who cannot afford a house, cannot afford a studio, lives on a boat and sells very cheap prints on eBay and a market stall. Occasionally shoots weddings at prices that are so ridicuously low that it can't be worth turning up. >>I swear Douglas has ALL the makings of a stalker...and I'm not at all >>kidding. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Occasionally shoots weddings at prices that are so ridicuously low > that it can't be worth turning up. I wouldn't waste my time stalking anyone who would worry about being stalked by the likes of me...... Off topic. Hm.. I thought this might come up again.. On Apr 5, 9:33 am, "\(The real\) Douglas" <DJ4groups- o...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Bullshit! > Start here:http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/practice/legislation/default.htm > Then get up to speed on the RTA tenancy laws dispute resolution process in > Queensland. Why? > Then locate the judgment list for 2006/7 Why do you beat around the bush like this? Which court? Why not just post a direct link? FTR, a search of AUSTLII, shows nothing relevant, on either of the names you gave above. Even "Douglas MacDonald" turns up blank. Those searches are easy to do here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/ and by default, AUSTLII searches all judgement databases. It's database isn't absolutely 100% reliable/comprehensive, but *you* are the one claiming it is easy to find - so just post the link. Your truthfulness is on the line here, Douglas, so I would strongly suggest you post evidence to back up those claims. Otherwise, I shall be enquiring further - if nothing turns up I'll be writing a few letters to the folk you have made accusations against. At least two of them are real, ie the proprietors of the business you gave the name and ABN for - I quote (offending data deleted) *your actual words*: > .... I parted company with "the (business name removed)" (ABN (number > removed)) who -up till her husband touched up my wife- I rented my > Cleveland Studio from. Her actions left me without a studio and the > weddings she promised. You've got to wonder at the type of person who posted that. > "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.ru...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >Did you ever come to my studio and see for yourself? > > The one you were evicted from because you could not pay the rent? No, that was the one he left when the guy tried to feel up his wife. D-mac got even with that guy, though. On the way out the door he kicked the guy's seeing eye dog. >> "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.ru...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >D-mac got even with that guy, though. >On the way out the door he kicked the guy's seeing eye dog. There are only two reasons why a lessee gets kicked out by a lessor: 1. The lease has just completed its full term. 2. The rent hasn't been paid. Tony Polson wrote: Wed 5:05 > I am here to discuss film in a film newsgroup. > > You appear to be here to discuss something else entirely, which > unfortunately means that you are off-topic. ================================= Tony Polson wrote: Wed 5:09 > There are only two reasons why a lessee gets kicked out by a lessor: > > 1. The lease has just completed its full term. > > 2. The rent hasn't been paid. I rest... > Tony Polson wrote: Wed 5:09 > > There are only two reasons why a lessee gets kicked out by a lessor: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I rest... Are you saying that Tony should be posting over in rec.tenant.lease.agreements? >> Tony Polson wrote: Wed 5:09 >> > There are only two reasons why a lessee gets kicked out by a lessor: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Are you saying that Tony should be posting over in >rec.tenant.lease.agreements? Sorry, wrong newsgroup. ;-) WTF man? That's now *9* douglas's in my plonk file over just a couple months. > Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and > ideas occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Douglas. No surprise there... You lost both shadow and highlight detail in the jpeg. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > > Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and > > ideas occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > No surprise there... You lost both shadow and highlight detail in the jpeg. As one of the (film) Luddites I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'll comment anyway. I looked at these images on my laptop and on a 19" CRT and came to the same conclusion: It is completely obvious that detail is lost not only in the shadows and highlights, but in the midtones as well. But if the jpeg is good enough for Douglas's purpose, then fine, it's his choice to make. And if he can't see the difference, then I suggest that any further discussion on the relative merits of RAW vs jpeg is moot. HFL SignatureChange hlockwood to hflockwood in email address >>> Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and >>> ideas occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > HFL Yes. Strangely, he now seems to imply that his internet computer monitor isn't calibrated. So what's the point for him? Don't know. But as you say... If he's happy...great! -It's just that when he posts images for public comparison, one would think he'd welcome that commentary. More often than not, he lashes out. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson . : > No surprise there... You lost both shadow and highlight detail in the jpeg. : [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : that any further discussion on the relative merits of RAW vs jpeg is : moot. Yep... 350 to 1 contrast ratio of your laptop is sure going to tell you plenty. What I'm curious about is how come my very expensive, well maintained and monthly calibrated system of four (4) PCs and one almost new Apple Mac, shows near identical images to the ones I look at on my home PC yet in the wild, 4 or 5 people out of maybe 30 in 2 different groups, see lost detail in areas where none was lost? Originally I posted a rocket to Scott W about his really shocking example of a JPEG image he must have deliberately blown the highlights on to get this bad. He, incidentally, also carries the notion my monitors are not calibrated. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53549069 I demonstrated it is possible to get near identical JPEG images as from a RAW development, even when the raw file was processed in 16 bit, expanded colour space and the JPEG processed in 8 bit mode... Provided you set the camera up for JPEG capture. Now the curious part about Mark's insistence his ESP allows him to see right through his screen, over a few thousand miles of water and into my workroom... Is that his "your monitor needs adjustment" picture is a classic in itself. created at bottom end of a PC's ability to render detail but quite easy to read with a Mac system. At the other end of the spectrum, he is probably blowing visible detail in the highlights because he says I've lost detail in them when the image I posted in well inside the 255.255.255 range of pure white in every region of both images on both the Mac they were created on and the PC which posted them (unaltered) to my web site. This brings us to the issue of Internet images and the imprecise nature of attempting to display a picture on someone else's idea of a correctly calibrated monitor. Mark's insistence his is the only correctly calibrated monitor is absurd. All his pictures look washed out and milky, many with blown highlights. when almost every other image on pbase is not... What does that tell you? All the pbase subscribers should rush out and buy spyders? Margie runs a wide format print shop beside my studio and seriously, if our monitors were off by even 3 points of one colour, I'd have a bunch of wedding and portrait photographers queued up looking for our blood. This isn't happening so the natural assumption can only be that if I see exactly the same Dmax and colour on all my workstations and the PC at home... And I get the same results from 3 different types of printers... Mark is right? Not likely. I just wish he'd recognize the imprecise nature of Internet images and give up his crusade. The OP said "you be the judge". Douglas > . >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > home PC yet in the wild, 4 or 5 people out of maybe 30 in 2 different > groups, see lost detail in areas where none was lost? Because...as stated by you...the vast majority of folks don't have properly calibrated monitors (I believe your statement suggested only 5% of monitors are calibrated...). 4 or 5 out of 30 is significantly higher than the 5% calibration folks that you yourself suggested. > Originally I posted a rocket to Scott W about his really shocking > example of a JPEG image he must have deliberately blown the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > picture is a classic in itself. created at bottom end of a PC's > ability to render detail but quite easy to read with a Mac system. > This brings us to the issue of Internet images and the imprecise > nature of attempting to display a picture on someone else's idea of a > correctly calibrated monitor. Mark's insistence his is the only > correctly calibrated monitor is absurd. Quote me. Never said or suggested anything of the kind. You couldn't read the text in this image. http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/76619046/original If your monitor was properly sensitive to near-blacks, you could have seen it. What's fascinating about your tendencies, Doug, is that you seem chiefly concerned with vindication, rather than interested in an actual comparison where we "judge for ourselves." When we present evidence that sojmething is amiss...you immediately go into attack mode. Try to be a little objective, mate. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On Apr 3, 6:58 pm, "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.ru...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Now the curious part about Mark's insistence his ESP allows him to see right > through his screen, over a few thousand miles of water and into my > workroom... Is that his "your monitor needs adjustment" picture is a classic > in itself. created at bottom end of a PC's ability to render detail but > quite easy to read with a Mac system. Or at least a D-Mac system. Hey Douggie, I can't believe you went a whole post without once mentioning me trying to steal your pics, or your passwords, or whatever the hell I'm supposed to be stealing this week. I think you're slipping. > . > : > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > wild, 4 or 5 people out of maybe 30 in 2 different groups, see lost detail > in areas where none was lost? Big Snip Douglas, I think you're backing yourself into a corner, unnecessarily. My CRT is "optimized" to give me an image that corresponds closely to what I print on my Epson R2400. I would guess, therefore, that it is not fully calibrated, in the usual sense. My (Mac PB G4) laptop is not calibrated at all. But in both cases I was able to see clearly the loss of detail across the spectrum. However, if you consider these to be "near identical images," then that's good enough for me. HFL SignatureChange hlockwood to hflockwood in email address : Douglas, : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : : HFL Interesting Harry. My only purpose for having computers is to edit and print Photographs. Everything else I could do without them. I too have some r2400 printers. I also have a Pro 9800 Wide format Epson and a Mitsubishi digital print lab along with a Xerox DocuPrint laser and a digital print head on my old Durst enlarger. All of these are driven by PCs with different brands of monitors. The one common thing is their colour calibration. The r2400 for some reason prints a tad darker than all the rest and the Xerox slightly warmer in colour. Except for these variations, the whole system is in sync. Your laptop may indeed show you a different picture of an Internet image than your PC. Safari uses a different rendering process than Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox, produces different rendering again. Firefox under Linux produces different images too. In fact a Gforce Video card will render images differently than a Radeon card. I could go on ...but by now I would have thought anyone with a grain of reasoning would recognize that not everyone is going to see the same picture identically with different hardware. I bought a new monitor yesterday after the crap here that suggested other saw my images differently than me and I should be the one to do something about it. Not only did it put my enlarging head out of whack - Photoshop seemingly alters the way it prints based on it's working colourspace which changed with a new monitor - but I discovered (from the tech who came to fix it all) that we all see pictures differently on different computers. He had brought a spare monitor and his laptop. All rendered my pictures differently until he painstakingly calibrated each computer I have to the same level. I don't dispute you can see differently to me. Just recognize I see differently to you too, will you? Internet images are not and never will be seen the same way by everyone. Any discussion on the merits of this is fruitless in the extreme. >> Douglas, >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > other saw my images differently than me and I should be the one to do > something about it. Not your images...simply images in general. >Not only did it put my enlarging head out of > whack - Photoshop seemingly alters the way it prints based on it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > monitor and his laptop. All rendered my pictures differently until he > painstakingly calibrated each computer I have to the same level. That this was new information to you says it all, Doug. The point of calibration is to create a norm...usually for printing. This is the only possible way to print with any level of certainty. If it was ALWAYS different as you suggest, then printers would ALWAYS be rolling the dice, not knowing if their prints would match their screen. Thankfully, they don't have to roll the dice, because contrary to your assertion, screens really CAN be "normed" or calibrated. This post of yours makes it very clear why there's been so much denial and confusion on your part. You needed to hire a tech to tell you what many here already understand--that things only match and represent the image by doing a bit of "painstaking" calibration. Look... There's no sin in not knowing this stuff. The problem only comes when the strength of your insistance does not match the strength of your understanding. That's when you end up making silly statements, and doing silly things like buying a new monitor, hoping that it will somehow magically solve the problem. Even the highest of high-end monitors have to be properly calibrated. Contrast ratio specs given by the manufacturer (which you quoted as some sort of proof that your screen was accurate) are utterly meaningless unless the individual monitor is calibrated carefully. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > I looked at these images on my laptop and on a 19" CRT and came to the > same conclusion: It is completely obvious that detail is lost not only [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that any further discussion on the relative merits of RAW vs jpeg is > moot. Harry, you are a man of few words (and excellent images), but those words are right on the button. I had decided not to engage in this thread, as if you can't say something nice... But having read your comment, I just had to say - Amen. > Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and ideas > occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of mine anyone [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Douglas. Less contrast in the RAW, but more detail on the feathers. Not very noticable. I gather most would pick the JPG because of the contrast. Cheers On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:59:56 GMT, "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.rules@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and ideas >occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of mine anyone has [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Douglas. It depends on the camera you are using, since you are actually testing the cameras JPG converter. The Sony A takes terrible JPG's, but the RAW photos are excellent, similar to the Nikon D200. I never take JPG's with it anymore, luckily the Sony PC software is easy to use. <BobF@nocando.com> wrote in message : >You be the judge, eh? http://www.ryadia.com/jpeg-V-raw.htm : > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : the Nikon D200. I never take JPG's with it anymore, luckily the Sony PC software : is easy to use. Hey Bob... This is rec.photo.canonequipment.dslr, isn't it? What're you doing posting about those OTHER nasty cameras? (grin) On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:59:14 GMT, "\(The real\) Douglas" <mono.rules@yahoo.com.au> wrote: ><BobF@nocando.com> wrote in message >: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >This is rec.photo.canonequipment.dslr, isn't it? What're you doing posting >about those OTHER nasty cameras? (grin) It is? Dam, I don't think I own a Canon.... except for one of my movie cameras... Can I talk about stills from that? Oh yeah, it's not 35mm.... I think it's 3.5 mm .... Oh wait, I do have a Canon 35mm film camera around here somewhere... how radical!! Can we talk about film here? I still have some Fujichrome in the back of the fridge near that bottle of yellow-green stuff... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.