Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* What's the fuss over 3:2 aspect ratio? - 7 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ecd50976e6eb9d55?hl=en
* Is there a website showing the cross section of a modern autofocus lens and
how the autofocus mechanism in a lens works? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06c77197131a440d?hl=en
* How to hold and carry a camera with a heavy lens - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/35d5d71e3cce87b4?hl=en
* Anyone remembers those old soft and hard camera cases? - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/323e68ef10ad5b0f?hl=en
* Manual focus forums - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a45717a29276683d?hl=en
* Billion Pixel Pictures from your point and shoot (not joking). - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4f98cd1612005227?hl=en
* Another source condemns 3:2 format - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/058d826c39e92f11?hl=en
* Nikon- CL-L2 Ballistic Nylon Lens Case Service Advisory - 3 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0dbd4b5f208f274d?hl=en
* Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? - 6 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c04187075ef6f9c5?hl=en
* re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d37cad4ce10bb478?hl=en
* Problem with a Canon 50D - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a9a0f0506dd8c10b?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's the fuss over 3:2 aspect ratio?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ecd50976e6eb9d55?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 7:19 am
From: "Peter"

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:78birhF1lo6adU2@mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Peter <peternew@nospamoptonline.net>
> wrote:
>> "Crippled DSLRs" <cdslrs@noaddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:7u4u15h17avctll8ijg0i9kv7h9pktdq6h@4ax.com...
>
>>> As someone else stated, the subject determines the cropping ratio--it
>>> must.
>>> I don't think there's one print I've ever made during my lifetime that
>>> accurately fits any of the "standard" aspect ratios. Only the lazy, the
>>> snapshooters, and the incompetent photographers and artists would abide
>>> by
>>> someone else's idea of how to crop their compositions. I use those
>>> alignment/cropping grids as quick guidelines only, so as not to
>>> inadvertently clip something needed later. This too is why I despise any
>>> viewfinder that isn't 100%. They're nearly useless. I make every pixel
>>> count, as any seasoned photographer should. Frame/mat-makers and
>>> paper-suppliers don't determine my compositions for me. I tell them what
>>> size frames that they have to make for me, while I keep a sharp and
>>> accurate paper-trimmer handy.
>>>
>>> "There are none so lost as those who follow."
>>>
>>> That simple saying is deeply true in all walks and beliefs in life. This
>>> includes letting someone else dictate your compositions for you because
>>> you're too mentally lame or lack any creativity of your own.
>>>
>>> Keep on arguing about "standard" aspect ratios. It lets everyone know
>>> which
>>> of you are the blase snapshooters or the tomes of sheep-following
>>> pretend-photographer trolls online.
>
>> Well stated. I keep the grid on my screen only as a guide. The "rule of
>> thirds" may be and should be violated whenever the subject says so.
>
> There's no point to a rule which is broken whenever it's useful to do
> so.

Which is why I used quotes.

--
Peter

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 7:22 am
From: "Peter"

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:78cf12F1jglv6U3@mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems DMac <d-mac@d-mac.info.delete> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Peter <peternew@nospamoptonline.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Crippled DSLRs" <cdslrs@noaddress.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:7u4u15h17avctll8ijg0i9kv7h9pktdq6h@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>> As someone else stated, the subject determines the cropping ratio--it
>>>>> must.
>>>>> I don't think there's one print I've ever made during my lifetime that
>>>>> accurately fits any of the "standard" aspect ratios. Only the lazy,
>>>>> the
>>>>> snapshooters, and the incompetent photographers and artists would
>>>>> abide by
>>>>> someone else's idea of how to crop their compositions. I use those
>>>>> alignment/cropping grids as quick guidelines only, so as not to
>>>>> inadvertently clip something needed later. This too is why I despise
>>>>> any
>>>>> viewfinder that isn't 100%. They're nearly useless. I make every pixel
>>>>> count, as any seasoned photographer should. Frame/mat-makers and
>>>>> paper-suppliers don't determine my compositions for me. I tell them
>>>>> what
>>>>> size frames that they have to make for me, while I keep a sharp and
>>>>> accurate paper-trimmer handy.
>>>>>
>>>>> "There are none so lost as those who follow."
>>>>>
>>>>> That simple saying is deeply true in all walks and beliefs in life.
>>>>> This
>>>>> includes letting someone else dictate your compositions for you
>>>>> because
>>>>> you're too mentally lame or lack any creativity of your own.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep on arguing about "standard" aspect ratios. It lets everyone know
>>>>> which
>>>>> of you are the blase snapshooters or the tomes of sheep-following
>>>>> pretend-photographer trolls online.
>>>
>>>> Well stated. I keep the grid on my screen only as a guide. The "rule of
>>>> thirds" may be and should be violated whenever the subject says so.
>>>
>>> There's no point to a rule which is broken whenever it's useful to do
>>> so.
>
>> I have yet to see a picture composed to the rule of thirds that would
>> look better (as in more pleasing) were it composed differently. Even
>> 16:3 aspect ratio.
>
> There have been quite a number of painters and art critics who thought
> the golden section was a definite improvement on thirds.
>

To my way of thinking the golden section is a client who commissions a
project. :-)

--
Peter

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 10:25 am
From: Alan Browne

On 30-05-09 00:11, DRS wrote:
> "Alan Browne"<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:ZcSdnU0et9Q_sr3XnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com
>> On 29-05-09 02:30, DRS wrote:
>>> "Crippled DSLRs"<cdslrs@noaddress.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7u4u15h17avctll8ijg0i9kv7h9pktdq6h@4ax.com
>>>
>>>> I make every pixel count, as any seasoned photographer should.
>>> For some reason this strikes me as enormously funny.
>> What kind of seasoning do you reckon? Steak spices? Col. Sanders
>> secret herbs and spices? Certainly cooked to be sure.
>>
>> Of course he doesn't realize that the camera makes every pixel "count"
>> (photons that is).
>>
>> I'd strike "enormously funny" and use "pathetic". YMMV.
>
> When I read it I had a mental image of the coach exhorting his team of
> photographers to "get out there and make every pixel count!"
>
> The absurd can be amusing.

"Get a pixel for the Gipper!"

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 12:38 pm
From: Bob Larter

tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:28:19 +1000, DMac <d-mac@d-mac.info.delete>
> wrote:
>
>> All of that by-passes the convenience of being able to buy a $5 frame in
>> standard aspect ratio or needing to shell out $50 plus for a custom made
>> frame to fit an aspect ratio you invent.
>
> Has the custom of matting photographs not yet made its way to
> Australia?

Hey, don't project D-Mac onto the rest of us in Oz! He's a whole subject
of his own.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 12:45 pm
From: Bob Larter

Jeff R. wrote:
> DMac wrote:
>> I have yet to see a picture composed to the rule of thirds that would
>> look better (as in more pleasing) were it composed differently. Even
>> 16:3 aspect ratio.
>
> DMac's example of composition:
> http://www.mendosus.com/photography/composition.jpg
>
> 'nuff said.

Oh dear.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 4:28 pm
From: frank

On May 30, 2:45 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeff R. wrote:
> > DMac wrote:
> >> I have yet to see a picture composed to the rule of thirds that would
> >> look better (as in more pleasing) were it composed differently. Even
> >> 16:3 aspect ratio.
>
> > DMac's example of composition:
> >http://www.mendosus.com/photography/composition.jpg
>
> > 'nuff said.
>
> Oh dear.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

I would have asked for a different tree if I wanted a hair transplant,
but hey, mebbee down under they have restrictions on the type of rug
you can plant....they've banned spray paint??

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 4:29 pm
From: frank

On May 29, 1:55 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
> On 29-05-09 02:30, DRS wrote:
>
> > "Crippled DSLRs"<cds...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
> >news:7u4u15h17avctll8ijg0i9kv7h9pktdq6h@4ax.com
>
> >> I make every pixel count, as any seasoned photographer should.
>
> > For some reason this strikes me as enormously funny.
>
> What kind of seasoning do you reckon? Steak spices? Col. Sanders
> secret herbs and spices? Certainly cooked to be sure.
>
> Of course he doesn't realize that the camera makes every pixel "count"
> (photons that is).
>
> I'd strike "enormously funny" and use "pathetic". YMMV.
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
> -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

pixel dust. pretty expensive but you can just get ordinary dust if you
want....

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is there a website showing the cross section of a modern autofocus lens
and how the autofocus mechanism in a lens works?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06c77197131a440d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 7:22 am
From: me@mine.net

On Fri, 29 May 2009 14:18:58 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digital
aniramca@gmail.com wrote:

>Just curious to know how the lens barrel is moving up or down when you
>press the camera's button. It must drain a lot of energy from the
>battery to do this. I recall the old autofocus lens was a monster
>size. Is there a diagram somewhere in the web which shows how this is
>accomplished? Is there some kind of a spiral screw along the outer
>skin of the lens barrel? I also assume that the bigger the lens, the
>more energy needed to move the lens during autofocusing.
>Thanks for the info.

Some discussion of the Nikon SWM lens design may be found here.
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/scene/03/index.htm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to hold and carry a camera with a heavy lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/35d5d71e3cce87b4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 7:28 am
From: me@mine.net

On Fri, 29 May 2009 07:36:21 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digital
aniramca@gmail.com wrote:

>I am wondering what is the best way to carry around a camera in a hand
>strap with heavy and large lenses (glass lenses 200-300mm up)
>I felt uncomfortable to let the camera with a heavy lens hang on its
>strap while walking around. Do most people handle the lens just at the
>lens mount area to support the camera and lens while walking? If you
>just let it hangs on the strap, the strap can also break. Was it just
>recently a major camera brand name provided a notice about their
>defective camera hand strap?
>Another related question is whether there are any cases that with a
>lot of usage, the camera-lens mount buckle/bend under the pressures?
>I assume that most DSLR bodies are made of steel around the lens
>mount. Are cheaper DSLRs (non pro type) more prone to this failure, as
>perhaps the lens mount on the camera body was not designed to carry
>for heavy lenses? Or is the camera body usually over-designed and this
>would never be a problem at all.
>Thanks for info and discussion.

When carrying my 70-200mm I will face the top of the body toward me and
either have the strap off my shoulder for quicker access or over my head
and across my body. With the strap lengthened appropriately you can find a
position where the lens is off your hip and doesn't bounce much. I use this
frequently with and without a 1.4/2x TC. Yes, this will cause some wear on
the mount and after five years over three bodies the lens' mount shows some
wear and looseness and I'll probably have it replaced in the near future

For the larger 200-400 f/4 I use the strap on the lens and remove the
camera strap..

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anyone remembers those old soft and hard camera cases?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/323e68ef10ad5b0f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 7:55 am
From: Allodoxaphobia

On Sat, 30 May 2009 03:26:59 -0400, nospam wrote:
> In article <Cd2Ul.27681$c45.15731@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, Miles
><mileschap@REMOVEMEpacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> My nice old Canon case which is still in perfect shape after 40 years
>> (has it really been that long?). So doesn't anyone make a nice
>> leather case for digital cameras that mounts on the bottom through a
>> screw hole in the tripod mount where one can open the clasp button and
>> the top portion drops down, just leaving the bottom attached, and you
>> start adjusting the camera and taking pics, just as with the old Canon
>> case?
>
> the problem is that a dslr has an lcd screen and numerous buttons on
> the back, and any case would likely block that, making it difficult to
> use the camera.

http://www.ikelite.com/web_pages/1digital.html

:-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Manual focus forums
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a45717a29276683d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 10:39 am
From: Grimly Curmudgeon

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember aniramca@gmail.com saying something
like:

>I guess the MFlenses.com is also
>from Europe.

Yep.
Hungary, but hosted elsewhere now.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Billion Pixel Pictures from your point and shoot (not joking).
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4f98cd1612005227?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 10:44 am
From: Evan Platt

On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:30:27 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090527-gigapan-pictures.html

There was a great site with the Obama photos, and comments such as
"Look! A two headed monster!" and a close up of a body with two heads
from the photograph.. :)
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another source condemns 3:2 format
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/058d826c39e92f11?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 11:26 am
From: Bob Larter

Rich wrote:
> On May 20, 3:20 am, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> I agree on that. My camera also shoots 16:9 by cropping the top/bottom
>>> of the frame. However, the raw captured this way is still full sized
>>> 3:2. Only the Sony image s/w on the computer will show the in camera
>>> gen'd raw as 16:9. So I don't bother with this mode.
>> I like to have as many pixels as possible, regardless of the format.
>> That way, I can crop to the ratio that suits the individual image.
>>
>> --
>> W
>> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
>> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
>> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Then you are clueless because 4:3 contains MORE pixels as part of a
> set-size image circle than 3:2.

Like I give a fuck. Most of the time, I crop to a 3:2 ratio anyway,
because that's what looks good to me. If you actually took any pictures,
maybe you'd get some sort of idea about what ratio to shoot to.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon- CL-L2 Ballistic Nylon Lens Case Service Advisory
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0dbd4b5f208f274d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 12:25 pm
From: Bob Larter

Watching The Parade Of Fools wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 22:31:56 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>> I probably would not use it much. I do have a suitable tripod but it's a
>>>> bear to haul around. I have used it on road trips. The tripod lives in
>>>> my van recently because I hate hauling it up & down the stairs however I
>>>> haven't actually used in in the past few weeks it's been there.
>>>
>>> You would probably benefit from using a really good monopod,
>> Not a bad idea. For wildlife on the mega-tripod the head has to be loose
>> to pan around anyways, it has big rubber grips for pan/tilt. Those
>> gimbel heads cost a fortune!
>
> Oops, too late. The wil[*SLAP!*]

Still waiting to see some of your shots, kook.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 12:26 pm
From: Bob Larter

The Parade of Morons Never Ends wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 08:44:05 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Fool wrote:
>>> I bet that you have fun in that mind of yours, pretending to take snapshots
>> I posted 400 keepers this month, where's your work?
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3530558744/in/set-72157603328712620/
>> -that's the best I could get with the 300/2.8 that I keep handy at the
>> nursery during the day... pretty puny.
>
> Wow, what a dema[*SLAP!*]

Still waiting to see your photos, kook.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 12:30 pm
From: Bob Larter

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
>> manufactured)?
>
> The U2 cameras were US made and frigging amazing. I saw contact prints from
> some test shots once, and was able to see instantly why the Russians were so
> irritated.

Sure, & that dates back to the sixties.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c04187075ef6f9c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 12:51 pm
From: aniramca@gmail.com

I am sorry if this topic may have been discussed too many times.
However, I still have difficulties dealing with the concept of RAW
files. Someone suggested that RAW files are like negatives, while-as
JPEG files are like prints.
My question is whether we can physically see a RAW file... I mean
without placing it in the mercy of a software to open it as a JPEG
file (and in the mean time, the software is doing the processing and
converting it into JPEG using their own algorithm to produce what they
consider to be the best JPEG. I agree that perhaps people should
create both RAW and JPEG files when they take pictures.

The next question is whether commercial photo processing softwares
(Photoshop, Paintshop, Aperture, etc) treating RAW files produced from
different brand cameras differently, as I noticed that the extension
file name for RAW files differ from cameras to cameras. Can the
special software made by the camera's manufacturer (which sometimes
comes with the camera that you purchase) do a better job than the
commercially photo processing softwares?

I recall that someone mentioned that the camera's processing engine is
not as versatile as a computer's photo processing software, as well as
the time to produce the JPEG file in the camera is relatively short.
Therefore, built-in camera processing engine cannot make a better job
than a real photo processing software. As processing speed is getting
faster and faster, could a camera sometime in the future produces JPEG
photos which are as good as or better than the commercial photo
softwares?

Thanks for the discussions

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 1:18 pm
From: nospam

In article
<8eff0e4e-0aad-4415-b46f-cab79f99d0a4@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
<aniramca@gmail.com> wrote:

conceptually yes.

> My question is whether we can physically see a RAW file... I mean
> without placing it in the mercy of a software to open it as a JPEG
> file (and in the mean time, the software is doing the processing and
> converting it into JPEG using their own algorithm to produce what they
> consider to be the best JPEG. I agree that perhaps people should
> create both RAW and JPEG files when they take pictures.

software has to process the jpeg too. the difference is that raw is a
dump of the sensor data and jpeg is processed and lossy compressed. if
you want to adjust the image, it's *much* better to work with the raw
rather than a jpeg that's already lost some information.

> The next question is whether commercial photo processing softwares
> (Photoshop, Paintshop, Aperture, etc) treating RAW files produced from
> different brand cameras differently, as I noticed that the extension
> file name for RAW files differ from cameras to cameras. Can the
> special software made by the camera's manufacturer (which sometimes
> comes with the camera that you purchase) do a better job than the
> commercially photo processing softwares?

different raw converters produce different results. which one is best
is *very* subjective. the software that comes with the camera often
does produce a better result because the camera companies know exactly
what the sensor can do, whereas third parties have to figure out some
of it. whether you'll notice a difference and which one you prefer is
another story. adobe now has profiles that match the look of the
camera maker's software.

> I recall that someone mentioned that the camera's processing engine is
> not as versatile as a computer's photo processing software, as well as
> the time to produce the JPEG file in the camera is relatively short.
> Therefore, built-in camera processing engine cannot make a better job
> than a real photo processing software. As processing speed is getting
> faster and faster, could a camera sometime in the future produces JPEG
> photos which are as good as or better than the commercial photo
> softwares?

given the same parameters, you'll get essentially the same jpeg from
either the camera or the computer. the difference is you aren't stuck
with those settings if you shoot raw. you can decide on different
settings after you shoot, such as white balance. this is really
helpful if you accidentally forget to switch from sunny to indoor, for
example, or if the auto white balance doesn't quite get it right.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 1:18 pm
From: "Trev"

aniramca@gmail.com wrote:
> I am sorry if this topic may have been discussed too many times.
> However, I still have difficulties dealing with the concept of RAW
> files. Someone suggested that RAW files are like negatives, while-as
> JPEG files are like prints.
> My question is whether we can physically see a RAW file... I mean
> without placing it in the mercy of a software to open it as a JPEG
> file (and in the mean time, the software is doing the processing and
> converting it into JPEG using their own algorithm to produce what they
> consider to be the best JPEG. I agree that perhaps people should
> create both RAW and JPEG files when they take picture

Any converter soft ware creates a image for display on the monitor based on
the data from the RAW file. Its Just a raster image and until it is saved
as a jpeg or tiff or anything else That's is all it is. The deference is if
you save your photos in camera as jpeg it does the conversion once and
that's it. Where as the raw can be adjusted by the user in the software to
look as the user want not as is preset for all images in the camera. If you
have Vivid setting turned on by mistake or wrong WB you have it for life.

>
> The next question is whether commercial photo processing softwares
> (Photoshop, Paintshop, Aperture, etc) treating RAW files produced from
> different brand cameras differently, as I noticed that the extension
> file name for RAW files differ from cameras to cameras. Can the
> special software made by the camera's manufacturer (which sometimes
> comes with the camera that you purchase) do a better job than the
> commercially photo processing softwares?.

Well as a paintshop pro fan I can tell you it does not give much control
over the conversion. The manufactures software may well give better control
(in most cases it does). Third party converts rawtherapee.or such is better
Lightroom Is tops especially if you have more then one brand of camera
>
> I recall that someone mentioned that the camera's processing engine is
> not as versatile as a computer's photo processing software, as well as
> the time to produce the JPEG file in the camera is relatively short.
> Therefore, built-in camera processing engine cannot make a better job
> than a real photo processing software. As processing speed is getting
> faster and faster, could a camera sometime in the future produces JPEG
> photos which are as good as or better than the commercial photo
> softwares?

It will always have the same conversion for each image right or wrong.
Software on the computer allows you to fine tune the raw data to produce
what you want prior to the conversion but without changing the original raw
data. The adjustments are saved along with the image to recreate the same
output if you want at a later date or you could alter the setting to produce
a different output
>
> Thanks for the discussions

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 1:26 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-30 12:51:16 -0700, aniramca@gmail.com said:

> I am sorry if this topic may have been discussed too many times.
> However, I still have difficulties dealing with the concept of RAW
> files. Someone suggested that RAW files are like negatives, while-as
> JPEG files are like prints.
> My question is whether we can physically see a RAW file... I mean
> without placing it in the mercy of a software to open it as a JPEG
> file (and in the mean time, the software is doing the processing and
> converting it into JPEG using their own algorithm to produce what they
> consider to be the best JPEG. I agree that perhaps people should
> create both RAW and JPEG files when they take pictures.
>
> The next question is whether commercial photo processing softwares
> (Photoshop, Paintshop, Aperture, etc) treating RAW files produced from
> different brand cameras differently, as I noticed that the extension
> file name for RAW files differ from cameras to cameras. Can the
> special software made by the camera's manufacturer (which sometimes
> comes with the camera that you purchase) do a better job than the
> commercially photo processing softwares?
>
> I recall that someone mentioned that the camera's processing engine is
> not as versatile as a computer's photo processing software, as well as
> the time to produce the JPEG file in the camera is relatively short.
> Therefore, built-in camera processing engine cannot make a better job
> than a real photo processing software. As processing speed is getting
> faster and faster, could a camera sometime in the future produces JPEG
> photos which are as good as or better than the commercial photo
> softwares?
>
> Thanks for the discussions

I will try to keep this simple, others can expand on the esoteric.

Regardless of the terminology "Digital Negative" a RAW file is just the
"RAW" unprocessed data as recorded via the sensor. As such it if the
"purest" set of digital data available to decode the image. JPG files
are compressed and are "lossy" that is they do not retain all the
original information contained in the RAW file.
TIFs or PSDs are lossless files, but are not RAW files.

The only physical way to "view" this data would be as a print out of
the code which is the RAW file.

Yes different manufacturers use different RAW encoding and as cameras
and sensors develop you will find that there is no common RAW file in
each manufacturer's family of cameras. For example NEF files are
different for each of their cameras, They might as well name them
NEF-101, NEF-102, etc.

So to answer, you need software to read or interpret RAW files. There
are quite a few RAW decoders, I will only speak of Adobe Camera Raw
(ACR).
Opening the RAW file in ACR allows you to make flexible,
non-destructive adjustments, such as white balance, apply adjustment
curves or levels, and many others.

Many of these adjustments can be set in camera when shooting JPG,
however that is what you will have to live with. RAW allows you the
flexibility to make these adjustments nondestructively and retain the
original data straight from the sensor, and you need software to
achieve that.
Maybe one of these day we will be able to make those adjustments in the
camera, and to some degree we can, note things such as Nikon's
D-Lighting. Remember you are still going to be limited by working with
that tiny LCD display on the camera.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 1:27 pm
From: Steven Green

I am not a photo expert or even camera expert, more of a computer
programmer but I will give my 2 cents on this.

It is my understanding that just to view camera raw data conversions
need to be done to the image to make it viewable. For example in the
camera you select the white balance. The image is processed according to
the white balance settings and that is what you see on the screen at the
end and in the generated jpeg.

I don't know specifically what the values stored in the file represent,
be they voltages or light values, I will assume for simplicity that the
internal computer converts the sensors voltage into a bunch of pixels
and stores these in the raw as a bitmap. If that is the case you could
theoretically display the bitmap without any additional conversions but
it may not display well, I don't know enough about the file itself to
give a good answer here.
>
> The next question is whether commercial photo processing softwares
> (Photoshop, Paintshop, Aperture, etc) treating RAW files produced from
> different brand cameras differently, as I noticed that the extension
> file name for RAW files differ from cameras to cameras. Can the
> special software made by the camera's manufacturer (which sometimes
> comes with the camera that you purchase) do a better job than the
> commercially photo processing softwares?
In theory the camera could produce the same image you could produce in
photoshop processing-wise. Where the real difference, IMO rests, is with
the ability to change the settings to adjust the image after the fact to
what you like. The combination of the screen size and input mechanisms
for these software make the computer more effective.

My guess would be that the files store the data differently, but are
loaded into a common form and then used by the package. I would be very
surprised if after that point anything was different. It is possible
that the loader is required to perform some kind of conversion which
could in theory be done differently and maybe alter the image. Never
written a RAW file converter so again not sure what the technical
nitty-gritty is there.

>
> I recall that someone mentioned that the camera's processing engine is
> not as versatile as a computer's photo processing software, as well as
> the time to produce the JPEG file in the camera is relatively short.
> Therefore, built-in camera processing engine cannot make a better job
> than a real photo processing software. As processing speed is getting
> faster and faster, could a camera sometime in the future produces JPEG
> photos which are as good as or better than the commercial photo
> softwares?

Again I think there is no reason the JPEGs couldn't be identical if it
fit the camera's algorithms. To me the advantage with RAW over JPEGs is
that if you need to fix a jpeg you are also undoing what the camera did.
To fix a raw you select the options you want applied, in lightroom, I
start with a blank slate and (assuming I don't like the settings I had
at the time of exposure I just change them. I also keep raw to just make
sure that my images are not lossy, jpegs can use lossy compression when
being generated.

>
> Thanks for the discussions

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 1:55 pm
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu

The answer is, at least for Canon, yes. There is public
domain software available that will convert the data, which is
intensity data at each pixel, into a pixel-for-pixel file, that is,
8 or 12 or 14 bits per pixel. This is not full color, it
is filtered by the Bayer filter.

You can then take that file and make a 24 bit file from it, by
moving red pixel values to the red byte, blue ones to the
blue byte, and green ones to the green byte, leaving the other
two bytes of each 24 bit number zero. This can then
be displayed on you computer. To get the color right you need to scale the
R, G, and B numbers correctly. It will display as
a color image, albeit rather dark since each pixel will
be mostly black.

I've done it, it works.

Doug McDonald

==============================================================================
TOPIC: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d37cad4ce10bb478?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 1:03 pm
From: Greg Dalton

On Sat, 30 May 2009 17:54:56 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>> "Bertram Paul" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
>> news:5sidne6fOftCHo3XnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@novis.pt...
>>> Seems Sony stays lazy and more or less re-launches the A200, 300 and
>>> 350 with a "starter" menu.
>>> As if the older ones were so difficult?
>>>
>>> http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_room/consumer/digital_imaging/digital_cameras/dslr/release/40522.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Tomorrow more news, but if this is all, I fear for the job of the
>>> idiot who came up with this crap.
>>>
>>> I know a good name for the SLR's: Sony Simple SLR
>>>
>>> --
>>> ---
>>> Bertram Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> To be honest, I don't find their Sony products very well engineered or
>> very well thought out.
>
>My beef with Sony is that, IME, their stuff is too fragile, & they're
>too fond of proprietary interfaces.

My beef with idiot newsgroup trolls who desperately try to pretend to be
photographers is that they've never used any Sony equipment and are always
talking out of their asses. My most rugged (and best optical quality)
camera for adventurous wildlife photography is a Sony with a titanium
shell. I particularly like its well thought out design. One finger on each
button or zoom/focusing ring and you can play all its settings like a
finely crafted musical instrument. Using a menu item is rare. There is one
report, still online with photos if you hunt for it, where someone
accidentally ran over the same model of camera full-on with the tire of
their jeep. The only thing that happened was a small stress-crack by one of
the screws on the tripod mounting plate.

It appears that your ability to know anything is too fragile and your
mental interface isn't just proprietary, it's totally fried. I guess you
never buy any camera with a proprietary Li-Ion battery in it?

Proprietary interfaces?

Oh gosh, look at that ... I put an inexpensive ($18) 8G Class-6 speed
Micro-SDHC card in my MemoryStick adapter and I can even bypass this older
Sony camera's reported 2G memory access limit. Huh. Amazing how easy and
inexpensive that was to quadruple the amount of memory this camera was
supposed to support at one time. For 1/160th of the original cost too. A
256M (1/4G) stick used to cost $90 back then, when they were on sale. A
1GIG stick was $250 and not worth the price.

The nice thing is that images from this camera still rival images taken
with any camera being produced today. It's worth keeping it going. Over
200,000 photos later and it's still never needed one single repair. Even
though it's been hauled from glacier covered mountain-tops, through
deserts, and through steamy gator-filled swamps. Fragile? Your mental
condition is fragile.

Damn, 200,000 photos on that camera alone, it caused me to wonder how much
that would have cost to create with film and darkroom supplies. Major ouch!
Even if it was only $10 per 36-exposure roll, you'd be up to $2,000,000 in
costs. These cameras easily pay for themselves many many many many many
times over.

Go troll your "advice" borne of ignorance and your imaginary cameras
elsewhere, you idiots with no real lives keep failing at it in these
newsgroups.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 3:15 pm
From: Greg Dalton

On Sat, 30 May 2009 15:03:20 -0500, Greg Dalton <gdalton@mydomain.org>
wrote:

>Damn, 200,000 photos on that camera alone, it caused me to wonder how much
>that would have cost to create with film and darkroom supplies. Major ouch!
>Even if it was only $10 per 36-exposure roll, you'd be up to $2,000,000 in
>costs. These cameras easily pay for themselves many many many many many
>times over.

Silly me. I forgot to divide those costs by 36. Still, at $55,555, that
kind of film-cost savings is nothing to sneeze at.

Just to appease my curiosity I should see what present film and processing
costs would be for 36 exposures. For grins and giggles I'll try to go the
cheap snap-shooter's route in costs ...

I'm finding an average discount store price for something simple like a 36
exposure roll of FujiFilm 35mm color-slide Sensia ISO 100 is $7.99.

Checking some sites online I find bargain-basement processing of that film
would be around $7. We're up to $15 per 36 images. This is just for cheaper
slide film. Higher quality negatives and proof-prints would add up to
something astronomical.

$15 x 5,555 = $83,333

It's no wonder I can afford to go more remote places now and take photos of
things nobody's ever seen before. How about figuring how much time would
have been wasted just changing those rolls of film.

Though this is a fun consideration. 5,555 36-exposure rolls of film (1.1
oz. each) would also weigh in at 382 lbs. Yeah.... I'm not going to
backpack that either.

<humor>
Besides, my photo-mule starts to get stubborn at anything over 260 lbs.
What? None of you have a mule in your photography gear? You amateurs. Get
the new kind with the carbon-fiber hauling harness and titanium shoes, they
don't break so easy when they slide off the muddy trail. But you do have to
be a bit more concerned about frying your photo-mule with a lightning
strike while on a mountain ridge, the carbon-fiber being so conductive. And
you thought static-electricity was just a concern for your digital camera?
Hah!
</humor>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Problem with a Canon 50D
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a9a0f0506dd8c10b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 30 2009 1:43 pm
From: Matt Ion

Gary Edstrom wrote:
> My 4 month old Canon 50D has just developed a problem with the thumb
> wheel located just behind the shutter release. No function that
> requires its use functions anymore. Among other things, I can no longer
> adjust the ASA value.
>
> Has anyone else seen a similar problem?
>
> I plan on calling Canon for warranty repair next Monday, but wanted to
> see if anyone else has had a similar problem.
>
> In 4 years of use, my older 20D never had any problems.

This may be a stupid question, but are you enabling the thumb wheel? I
don't know about the 50D specifically, but my 40D's power switch has two
positions - the first turns the camera on but leaves the thumbwheel
disabled; the second enabled the thumbwheel.

Not trying to be consescending or anything, it's just amazing the little
things that get overlooked sometimes... I'm even guilty of it myself
(try shooting a couple dozen frames and then realizing you don't have a
card in the camera... duh!)

==============================================================================

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