rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* CHDK does 1/1,000,000 second, now we are talking..... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a7e4242c5cb98016?hl=en
* sigma buys foveon - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b45194b6b402b71a?hl=en
* Nikon D700x another Nikon upgrade? - 12 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b661268290174a96?hl=en
* Blow-out correction - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/335bd6c868a220ad?hl=en
* Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.
WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
* Which free software could acquire 48 bits color depth pictures from a
scanner ? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a04fec022c17778?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: CHDK does 1/1,000,000 second, now we are talking.....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a7e4242c5cb98016?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:34 am
From: calvin-torgen
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:19:27 +1100, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:491fcf9c$0$33593$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Pete D <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3033330611_d6d33a8461_o.jpg
>>
>> What makes you think that the exposure was just 1 microsecond?
>>
>> --
>> Ray Fischer
>> rfischer@sonic.net
>>
>
>Because I said so and you MUST take it on faith that it is SO. If you do not
>I will abuse you and swear at you and be a general arse and there will be
>nothing you can do about it. Nah just kidding, the original EXIF said it
>was.
>
You're a pretty bad troll. There is no metadata on that photo. Trolls better
than you would have attached some fake EXIF info. Not that it would have
mattered.
I have some burst bracket sequence of shots with CHDK, done when testing for
highest possible shutter speeds using that scanning laser method. Some shots
have up to 1/3,000,000 of a second in the EXIF. But unlike you, and like all
others that know how to use CHDK, knowing what it can do and cannot do, I know
that the fastest speed from my camera is 1/40,000. Getting 1/3,000,000 recorded
in any MakerNotes data doesn't concern me in the least. That automatically means
1/40,000. The physical limit of the camera.
Anyone that has enough intellect to run CHDK has enough intellect to know why
1/1,000,000 of a second is just a MakerNotes artifact and does not reflect what
their camera can truly do.
This is why I know that so many of you DSLR-trolls have never even ran CHDK.
Judging by your posts here you're lucky if you can even find your keyboards let
alone know how to run, use, and take advantage of the hundreds of new features
and immeasurable new creative possibilities that CHDK gives back to the world of
photography.
I think I just figured out something. One simple little program takes the whole
world of photography to a new level, making things available that were once
thought impossible, giving back that much to the world of photography and all
photographers. You're jealous and envious because you've never been able to
contribute a thing but being a relentless pretend-photographer troll in a
newsgroup. I get it now. It's all starting to make sense, why you despise CHDK
so much. 300k of programming does more than your whole existence on this planet
ever has. Makes perfect sense now.
Troll away. It reveals so much about your virtual-life.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: sigma buys foveon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b45194b6b402b71a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:37 am
From: "Mr. Strat"
In article <U4idnUWG4_UFXILUnZ2dnUVZ8jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>, RichA
<obama@haslittletime.com> wrote:
> Most people are still astonished they're releasing an update to the SD15
> DSLR, a commercial failure of epic proportions.
Maybe they need the tax write-off.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:47 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <S5STk.88253$E41.18481@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor says...
> The Foveon may have less accurate large-area luminance values because the
> silicon colour filters are not as well defined as in a Bayer matrix.
I was talking about a full-colour sensor, not about the Foveon. You
could for instance have a camera with a scanning back, where the
scanning back captures the full RGB information for each pixel.
> So you have a choice - capturing RGB pixels poorly, or capturing three
> times as many pixels in Bayer matrix. Neither is perfect. Which is
> better for your needs? You decide, and buy your kit accordingly!
It't not the same thing. It's big difference whether you capture just
one colour component per pixel all the full colour information.
Since pixels can't get much smaller, they will have to get better. And
that means finally capturing the full colour information per pixel and
stop throwing away 2/3 of all incoming photons.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:53 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <161120081026114401%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> 'lots' ? ever measure it? it's not that much except in extreme edge
> cases that don't occur in the real world. also, bayer sensors have a
> *lot* more pixels, so even with a small error they're still ahead of
> the game.
Try the exercise I mentioned - sampling a random colour image with in
Bayer pattern and then reconstructing it.
> > If you only capture one colour component per pixel you won't be
> > able to accurately reconstruct the luminance data, especially in image
> > areas where you have pixel level colour changes.
>
> you can't reproduce pixel level changes no matter what you do because
> of aliasing.
That depends on the AA filter. In any case, the problem with Bayer
sensors is that the colour resolution is only half of the luminance
resolution. Either you dimension the AA filter for the colour
resolution, thereby avoiding the aliasing but throwing away a lot of
image information or you dimension it for the luminance resolution and
have a lot of colour aliasing. It's one big mess. The sampling unit in a
Bayer sensor is not well defined: is it one individual pixel or one RGGB
block of pixels?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:23 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <161120081026114401%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> says...
>
>> 'lots' ? ever measure it? it's not that much except in extreme
>> edge
>> cases that don't occur in the real world. also, bayer sensors have
>> a
>> *lot* more pixels, so even with a small error they're still ahead
>> of
>> the game.
>
> Try the exercise I mentioned - sampling a random colour image with
> in
> Bayer pattern and then reconstructing it.
Why does a "random colour image" have relvance to the real world of
photography?
Can you describe this "random colour image" in such a manner that
different observers can achieve repeatable results?
>>> If you only capture one colour component per pixel you won't be
>>> able to accurately reconstruct the luminance data, especially in
>>> image areas where you have pixel level colour changes.
>>
>> you can't reproduce pixel level changes no matter what you do
>> because
>> of aliasing.
>
> That depends on the AA filter. In any case, the problem with Bayer
> sensors is that the colour resolution is only half of the luminance
> resolution. Either you dimension the AA filter for the colour
> resolution, thereby avoiding the aliasing but throwing away a lot of
> image information or you dimension it for the luminance resolution
> and
> have a lot of colour aliasing. It's one big mess. The sampling unit
> in a Bayer sensor is not well defined: is it one individual pixel or
> one RGGB block of pixels?
So show us a camera that we can buy that in the real world works
better than the ones with bayer sensors. If you can't, then what
purpose to you believe to be served by your continued pontificating?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:26 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <S5STk.88253$E41.18481@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David
> J
> Taylor says...
>
>> The Foveon may have less accurate large-area luminance values
>> because the silicon colour filters are not as well defined as in a
>> Bayer matrix.
>
> I was talking about a full-colour sensor, not about the Foveon.
So where can one buy this full-colour non-Foveon sensor?
> You
> could for instance have a camera with a scanning back, where the
> scanning back captures the full RGB information for each pixel.
Yes, you could. And if one has the budget for it and the nature of
the subject allows it and the nature of the finished image to be
provided require it, I believe that you will find that it is generally
agreed that a scanning back would be the way to do the job, so to what
purpose are you arguing?
>> So you have a choice - capturing RGB pixels poorly, or capturing
>> three times as many pixels in Bayer matrix. Neither is perfect.
>> Which is better for your needs? You decide, and buy your kit
>> accordingly!
>
> It't not the same thing. It's big difference whether you capture
> just
> one colour component per pixel all the full colour information.
>
> Since pixels can't get much smaller, they will have to get better.
> And
> that means finally capturing the full colour information per pixel
> and
> stop throwing away 2/3 of all incoming photons.
You have a choice. You can buy a camera and use it or you can wait
for Molon's Pie In The Sky to be invented. I know which I'm going
for.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 9:21 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <gfphr10h83@news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke says...
> So show us a camera that we can buy that in the real world works
> better than the ones with bayer sensors.
Not available yet, except for the Foveon. But a scanning back for
instance is able to capture RGB images.
It is just a matter of time until such full colour sensors become
available. An Asian manufacturer is for instance doing research on a
full colour sensor.
> If you can't, then what
> purpose to you believe to be served by your continued pontificating?
The point simply is that for obvious reasons a full colour sensor is
better than a Bayer sensor. Whether such a camera is available now or in
the future is another issue.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D700x another Nikon upgrade?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b661268290174a96?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:37 am
From: nospam
In article <Xns9B5868915ED86That80sGuy@198.186.190.61>, That80sGuy
<clark@griswold.com> wrote:
> DSLRs need to be made modular. If you can have interchangeable film backs
> you can have interchangeable sensors.
making it modular will make the camera bigger and more expensive, not
to mention that pretty much everything other than the shell will need
to be replaced.
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:37 am
From: John McWilliams
That80sGuy wrote:
> In message news:GLMTk.1784$V71.947@newsfe10.iad, ".."
> <Ginnaam1@hotmail.com> done wrote:
>
>> Nikon brings out a new DSLR only to update it 6 months later. The D700
>> has not be available that long and now they are discontinuing it and
>> replacing it with an upgrade, D700X. They did the same with the D40X
>> introduced it and then 4 months later discontinued it.
>> I was looking at a D90 but if there is a chance it could be
>> discontinued in 6 months maybe I should wait?
>
> DSLRs need to be made modular. If you can have interchangeable film backs
> you can have interchangeable sensors.
We already have that. You get excellent lenses, then from time to time
get a new sensor wrapped in a new body.....changing is quicker this way.
--
john mcwilliams
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:58 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <5bWTk.11745$Ws1.7090@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
> The upgrade to the Canon XSi will
> add HD video with stero audio to leapfrog the D90, then the D90x (or
> whatever they call it) will go from mono to stereo.
<grin> Just one year ago people here were ridiculing video in a DLSR
("real" photographers not needing that). Now it's one of the most
important features. Go figure.
The same happened with live preview, also ridiculed as something no real
photographer would ever meed or want, and now it's a must-have feature.
And as soon as Canon launches a camera with a full-colour-per-pixel
sensor, suddenly all cameras will have to have this feature.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:59 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <161120081037184397%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> making it modular will make the camera bigger and more expensive, not
> to mention that pretty much everything other than the shell will need
> to be replaced.
Also, improvements are made all the time to all systems in a camera, not
just in one.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:13 am
From: John McWilliams
nospam wrote:
> In article <5bWTk.11745$Ws1.7090@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nikon is struggling to keep up with Canon, and the D700X is part of that
>> strategy.
>
> struggling? nikon sold more cameras than canon did last year. a
> bigger issue is the economy.
Agreed on the economy. Where are sales figures available for Canon and
Nikon? I would have thought only estimates were published by third
parties. And please don't mention Google!
--
john mcwilliams
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:29 am
From: measekite
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:55:14 -0800, SMS wrote:
> .. wrote:
>> Nikon brings out a new DSLR only to update it 6 months later. The D700 has
>> not be available that long and now they are discontinuing it and replacing
>> it with an upgrade, D700X. They did the same with the D40X introduced it and
>> then 4 months later discontinued it.
>> I was looking at a D90 but if there is a chance it could be discontinued in
>> 6 months maybe I should wait?
>
> Because of the 5D Mark II, Nikon needs to rush out a rev to the D700 or
> risk losing a lot of new body sales, and a lot of long term lens sales.
>
> Most new models are merely evolutionary, but the 5D Mark II, despite
> it's name, is revolutionary. Similarly, they need a new prosumer model
> to (catch up with the 50D), since the D300 is a year old already.
>
> The D90 is likely not going to be upgraded too soon as it's got the
> video advantage over its Canon XSi competition. It's Canon that needs to
> rush out an upgrade to the XSi that adds video.
I do not think that video is all that important for a DSLR shooter. Maybe
a nice addon but not a gotta have. Besides, the D90 implementation leaves
a lot to be desired and certainly is not a must have.
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:33 am
From: Paul Furman
nospam wrote:
> In article <Xns9B5868915ED86That80sGuy@198.186.190.61>, That80sGuy
> <clark@griswold.com> wrote:
>
>> DSLRs need to be made modular. If you can have interchangeable film backs
>> you can have interchangeable sensors.
>
> making it modular will make the camera bigger and more expensive, not
> to mention that pretty much everything other than the shell will need
> to be replaced.
Red (the cine camera maker) has annouced a modular still/HD system. It
is huge and expensive.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:37 am
From: measekite
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:33:50 -0800, SMS wrote:
> .. wrote:
>> Nikon brings out a new DSLR only to update it 6 months later. The D700 has
>> not be available that long and now they are discontinuing it and replacing
>> it with an upgrade, D700X. They did the same with the D40X introduced it and
>> then 4 months later discontinued it.
>> I was looking at a D90 but if there is a chance it could be discontinued in
>> 6 months maybe I should wait?
>
> Nikon is struggling to keep up with Canon, and the D700X is part of that
> strategy. Look for a D300 upgrade very soon as well, so they can
> compete with the 50D. Canon is still the leading system, but Nikon has
> finally got its act together in sensors, an is giving Canon a run for
> its money, in least in bodies. Nikon still lags Canon badly in terms of
> lenses.
>
> Probably not worth waiting on the D90. The upgrade to the Canon XSi will
> add HD video with stero audio to leapfrog the D90, then the D90x (or
> whatever they call it) will go from mono to stereo.
People seem to be comparing the D90 with the Canon 50D. Then they
comparete the D300 with the Canon 50D and say it needs to be upgraded to
compete. Then they say that the D700 compares to the new Canon 5D MkII
but they need the 700x to really compare and it still won't.
But the real truth is when you look at price points most of the Nikon
models do not compete head on with Canon models but they appear to
interleave with them falling between them in price point and many times in
features.
As far as price it goes something like this.
D40
1000D
D60
XSi *
D90
50D *
D300
D700
5DMkII *
DX3
1DsMkIII
The ones with the * appear to be more desirable at this point except for
the last 2. The Canon is more desirable for certain stills but the DX3
may be more desirable for sports and high ISO stuff.
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:39 am
From: measekite
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:16:48 +0000, That80sGuy wrote:
> In message news:GLMTk.1784$V71.947@newsfe10.iad, ".."
> <Ginnaam1@hotmail.com> done wrote:
>
>> Nikon brings out a new DSLR only to update it 6 months later. The D700
>> has not be available that long and now they are discontinuing it and
>> replacing it with an upgrade, D700X. They did the same with the D40X
>> introduced it and then 4 months later discontinued it.
>> I was looking at a D90 but if there is a chance it could be
>> discontinued in 6 months maybe I should wait?
>
> DSLRs need to be made modular. If you can have interchangeable film backs
> you can have interchangeable sensors.
That is already here. Some medium format film cameras with
interchangeable backs can now add an interchangeable sensor back. The
fact they approach $40,000 is another story.
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:40 am
From: measekite
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:52:40 +1100, N wrote:
> ".." <Ginnaam1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GLMTk.1784$V71.947@newsfe10.iad...
>> Nikon brings out a new DSLR only to update it 6 months later. The D700 has
>> not be available that long and now they are discontinuing it and replacing
>> it with an upgrade, D700X. They did the same with the D40X introduced it
>> and
>> then 4 months later discontinued it.
>> I was looking at a D90 but if there is a chance it could be discontinued
>> in
>> 6 months maybe I should wait?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Do you use the same logic when buying clothes or a car?
Maybe he does not drive and does not wear clothes. Maybe he lives on an
island.
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:56 am
From: nospam
In article <ZKydnVSv2YYL273UnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John
McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Nikon is struggling to keep up with Canon, and the D700X is part of that
> >> strategy.
> >
> > struggling? nikon sold more cameras than canon did last year. a
> > bigger issue is the economy.
>
> Agreed on the economy. Where are sales figures available for Canon and
> Nikon? I would have thought only estimates were published by third
> parties.
nikon and canon report their sales and they're both very close to each
other. i was slightly off in timings, however. in 2007, although
nikon was still #2 in market share, nikon gained while canon slipped:
<http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1207604859.html>
and in the first half 2008, nikon was slightly ahead of canon, 40.7 v.
40.6:
<http://bcnranking.jp/news/0807/080724_11351.html>
in any event, it's not what i'd call struggling. if anyone is
struggling, it's pentax and olympus. oh, and sigma. :)
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:56 am
From: nospam
In article <a%XTk.6299$as4.3406@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, measekite
<inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
> But the real truth is when you look at price points most of the Nikon
> models do not compete head on with Canon models but they appear to
> interleave with them falling between them in price point and many times in
> features.
exactly. slightly different mix of features at different price points.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Blow-out correction
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/335bd6c868a220ad?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:47 am
From: John McWilliams
tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:29:01 +1000, Mark Thomas
> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Pat wrote:
>>>> On Nov 14, 9:20 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> To the Photoshop users here....
>>>>>
>>>>> In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
<< Snipped bits out >>
>>>> I don't have time to play with pictures today :-( but if I were
>>>> approaching either of your pictures, I think I would create a new
>>>> layer. Then I would convert the new layer to B&W. Then I would play
>>>> with levels and contrast to get a VERY contrasty image with every
>>>> piece of data that you have pushed to black. Just the completely
>>>> blown out sections as white. Then on the B&W layer I would hand-draw
>>>> in whatever lines you need to complete window frames, etc. etc. I
>>>> would then cut out the black areas where there is data leaving just
>>>> black areas where you need to fix the image. I would then play around
>>>> with the B&W layer on top of and under the image and play around until
>>>> you get something that looks decent. The black should end up the
>>>> appropriate level of misty gray.
>>>>
>>>> Option 2 would be to create a window where the data is missing. Go to
>>>> another, similar building from the same area and take the exterior of
>>>> the other building and use that to create detail in the image.
>>> You are joking, right? Or have you not read any other reply in this thread?
>>>
>> Did you get out of bed on the wrong side, John?
>
> I think you misunderstand John's comment. I read it as pertaining to
> the suggestion to re-take the image or take another shot of a similar
> building in the same area and blend it in. John's read the other
> posts that explained that I can't do that because the location of the
> shot is quite distant from where I am now.
>
> I don't feel anyone was critical of the photo itself. Most
> concentrated on exactly what I brought up: correcting the one flawed
> area.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I don't expect accolades for the photo even if it
> didn't have a flawed area. In my opinion, it's an interesting but not
> great photo. It became more interesting to me as an exercise in
> correction.
>
> Alan's comment that good photographers take good pictures that don't
> have flaws in them was a bit supercilious, but that's Alan. I think
> most of us have taken the almost-right shot, and if that almost-right
> shot was taken away from our home base then rescue efforts are useful.
> You don't wait for an important shot to learn how to rescue. You
> practice on any shot and learn the skills.
I felt that all the bases had been covered, that with a JPEG from a
compact, given the size and circumstance, that there was really nothing
to be done in post processing that'd make a much better end result. So
it felt to me that Tony had his answers and then some.
Sorry to Pat if I came across as harsh.
--
john mcwilliams
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:27 am
From: Pat
On Nov 16, 10:47 am, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> tony cooper wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:29:01 +1000, Mark Thomas
> > <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
> >> John McWilliams wrote:
> >>> Pat wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 14, 9:20 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>> To the Photoshop users here....
>
> >>>>> In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
>
> >>>>> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
>
> << Snipped bits out >>
>
>
>
> >>>> I don't have time to play with pictures today :-( but if I were
> >>>> approaching either of your pictures, I think I would create a new
> >>>> layer. Then I would convert the new layer to B&W. Then I would play
> >>>> with levels and contrast to get a VERY contrasty image with every
> >>>> piece of data that you have pushed to black. Just the completely
> >>>> blown out sections as white. Then on the B&W layer I would hand-draw
> >>>> in whatever lines you need to complete window frames, etc. etc. I
> >>>> would then cut out the black areas where there is data leaving just
> >>>> black areas where you need to fix the image. I would then play around
> >>>> with the B&W layer on top of and under the image and play around until
> >>>> you get something that looks decent. The black should end up the
> >>>> appropriate level of misty gray.
>
> >>>> Option 2 would be to create a window where the data is missing. Go to
> >>>> another, similar building from the same area and take the exterior of
> >>>> the other building and use that to create detail in the image.
> >>> You are joking, right? Or have you not read any other reply in this thread?
>
> >> Did you get out of bed on the wrong side, John?
>
> > I think you misunderstand John's comment. I read it as pertaining to
> > the suggestion to re-take the image or take another shot of a similar
> > building in the same area and blend it in. John's read the other
> > posts that explained that I can't do that because the location of the
> > shot is quite distant from where I am now.
>
> > I don't feel anyone was critical of the photo itself. Most
> > concentrated on exactly what I brought up: correcting the one flawed
> > area.
>
> > Don't get me wrong. I don't expect accolades for the photo even if it
> > didn't have a flawed area. In my opinion, it's an interesting but not
> > great photo. It became more interesting to me as an exercise in
> > correction.
>
> > Alan's comment that good photographers take good pictures that don't
> > have flaws in them was a bit supercilious, but that's Alan. I think
> > most of us have taken the almost-right shot, and if that almost-right
> > shot was taken away from our home base then rescue efforts are useful.
> > You don't wait for an important shot to learn how to rescue. You
> > practice on any shot and learn the skills.
>
> I felt that all the bases had been covered, that with a JPEG from a
> compact, given the size and circumstance, that there was really nothing
> to be done in post processing that'd make a much better end result. So
> it felt to me that Tony had his answers and then some.
>
> Sorry to Pat if I came across as harsh.
>
> --
> john mcwilliams
Eeks. A newsgroup post that contains rational discussion and
civility. What will be next ??? I fear that this may lead to a
decline in civilization as we know it.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 9:11 am
From: tony cooper
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:27:26 -0800 (PST), Pat
<groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>On Nov 16, 10:47 am, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>> > On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:29:01 +1000, Mark Thomas
>> > <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> John McWilliams wrote:
>> >>> Pat wrote:
>> >>>> On Nov 14, 9:20 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> To the Photoshop users here....
>>
>> >>>>> In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
>>
>> >>>>> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
>>
>> << Snipped bits out >>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>> I don't have time to play with pictures today :-( but if I were
>> >>>> approaching either of your pictures, I think I would create a new
>> >>>> layer. Then I would convert the new layer to B&W. Then I would play
>> >>>> with levels and contrast to get a VERY contrasty image with every
>> >>>> piece of data that you have pushed to black. Just the completely
>> >>>> blown out sections as white. Then on the B&W layer I would hand-draw
>> >>>> in whatever lines you need to complete window frames, etc. etc. I
>> >>>> would then cut out the black areas where there is data leaving just
>> >>>> black areas where you need to fix the image. I would then play around
>> >>>> with the B&W layer on top of and under the image and play around until
>> >>>> you get something that looks decent. The black should end up the
>> >>>> appropriate level of misty gray.
>>
>> >>>> Option 2 would be to create a window where the data is missing. Go to
>> >>>> another, similar building from the same area and take the exterior of
>> >>>> the other building and use that to create detail in the image.
>> >>> You are joking, right? Or have you not read any other reply in this thread?
>>
>> >> Did you get out of bed on the wrong side, John?
>>
>> > I think you misunderstand John's comment. I read it as pertaining to
>> > the suggestion to re-take the image or take another shot of a similar
>> > building in the same area and blend it in. John's read the other
>> > posts that explained that I can't do that because the location of the
>> > shot is quite distant from where I am now.
>>
>> > I don't feel anyone was critical of the photo itself. Most
>> > concentrated on exactly what I brought up: correcting the one flawed
>> > area.
>>
>> > Don't get me wrong. I don't expect accolades for the photo even if it
>> > didn't have a flawed area. In my opinion, it's an interesting but not
>> > great photo. It became more interesting to me as an exercise in
>> > correction.
>>
>> > Alan's comment that good photographers take good pictures that don't
>> > have flaws in them was a bit supercilious, but that's Alan. I think
>> > most of us have taken the almost-right shot, and if that almost-right
>> > shot was taken away from our home base then rescue efforts are useful.
>> > You don't wait for an important shot to learn how to rescue. You
>> > practice on any shot and learn the skills.
>>
>> I felt that all the bases had been covered, that with a JPEG from a
>> compact, given the size and circumstance, that there was really nothing
>> to be done in post processing that'd make a much better end result. So
>> it felt to me that Tony had his answers and then some.
>>
>> Sorry to Pat if I came across as harsh.
>>
>> --
>> john mcwilliams
>
>Eeks. A newsgroup post that contains rational discussion and
>civility. What will be next ??? I fear that this may lead to a
>decline in civilization as we know it.
I plead guilty to attempting rational and polite discussion. It's
a character flaw on my part that I attribute to my upbringing. I was
taught that disagreement between parties can be an acceptable
condition, and that disagreement can result in mutual enlightenment.
Obviously, that has ill-prepared me for newsgroup participation. I
blame my parents.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-
marriage ban. WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:08 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
> But according to you, people in real life can't take anything I say
> seriously unless I give them the opportunity to contact me.
Absolutely. If I don't know "who" you are, why should I should I take
anything you say seriously? It's enough trouble getting people to take _me_
seriously, and they know who I am!
> If I don't put my name on my mailbox, how will they be able
> to tell which door to bang on when they want to confront me?
Normally, one could/would call or write. My point was that people don't
normally "confront" people directly. And if I had your name, and could find
your phone number, I could also find your address.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which free software could acquire 48 bits color depth pictures from a
scanner ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a04fec022c17778?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 9:11 am
From: Guilbert STABILO
Hi all,
I need to scan some old films using a 48 bits color depth (in order to keep
the quality after some graphical process).
My Canon CS5200F does it well but none of my graphical softwares can handle
48 bits picture.
The GIMP 2.6.2 translated my pictures from 48 to 24 bits.
IrfanView does the same as the GIMP (48 => 24).
I also tried XnView which is supposed to handle 48 bits pictures but when
the picture is transfered from the scanner, I get a black screen (I tried
in 24 bits and got the correct picture so this is really a color depth
problem).
I heard that the GIMP 2.6.2 was using a module called GECL which handles 48
bits pictures but I did not find any to configure/activate it : my pictures
are always handled as 24 bits picture.
I do not want to buy any graphical software because many free ones exist.
=> Do you know any free software or plugin which could work with 48 bits
pictures acquired from a scanner ?
Thanks in advance for your help.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 9:21 am
From: nospam
In article <XnF9B58B8F97AF34guista@212.27.60.38>, Guilbert STABILO
<guilbert.stabilo@yahnomailoo.fr> wrote:
> => Do you know any free software or plugin which could work with 48 bits
> pictures acquired from a scanner ?
try the 30 day free trial of adobe photoshop cs4.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment