Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:03:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;)
I appreciate your suggestions.
Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be
a
damn IT professional to take a picture.
LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency
to over sharpen them.
Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.

Not true.


I didn't bother to respond to Joe's comment seriously, because aLL
digital images need to be sharpened. jpg's are sharpened in camera. I
quickly learned that an unsharped RAW photo will look very fuzzy.

I took some RAW +JPG shots yesterday. In viewing them through Adobe
Photoshop Elements, without any processing, the JPG's seem sharper and the
RAW's seem brighter (as thumbnails). Note that when I say RAW, the
extension is actually NEF.

As I zoom in, the JPG's 'pixelize' at less of a zoom than the NEF, which is
to be expected 'cause the JPG file is only about a third of the NEF file
(5MB vs 16MB). When, in Adobe, I attemp to sharpen the NEF file, I see no
change in the picture. Also, when I try to save the file as a JPG, Adobe
lets me save it as a DNG, whatever the hell that is.

Now, I downloaded the latest version of IrfanView which will open the NEF
files. But, when opened, all I get is a 'purplescale' picture. Almost like
'greyscale', but tinted purple.

Have you ever visited our nations capitol in the wintertime? It's a
beautiful place. I know where you could stay pretty cheaply!

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!

What?

No way.

Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."

As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.

Take sharpening for instance. They would develop the negative, then
redevelop a slighty out of focus negative, then combine the two to
sharpen up the image. Or adjust the color eye in particular with
Kodachrome which had a bad feature of non-reproducing true color if
the temp was a little off in the developing solutions. TriX was a
freakin' nightmare unless you had extremely fast lenses and shot wide
open all the time.

Refocusing, double print, masking, using masks as layers to produce
sharper, clearer images and color or introducing new elements into a
composite image - art prints, news prints, etc., etc., etc.

I honestly don't know where you got this idea of "only so much" in the
darkroom. For pete's sake, "Moonride over Hernandez New Mexico" was
altered in several ways.

Allow me to cite from Adam's biography.

"The development of the negative was a painstaking process, being
carried out very slowly to give the maximum control of the image. The
resulting negative was difficult to print and several years after it
was taken the foreground was subjected to a process of chemical
"intensification" that altered it in a way whereby "Printing was a bit
easier thereafter, although it remains a challenge".

The printing of the image was also in itself a highly skilled task
with different areas being "masked" and given more or less exposure
than others until the overall balance of tones was one that resulted
in a satisfactory image. Even differences in batches of what were
supposedly exactly the same type of photographic paper were noticed, a
result of all the variables involved led to the comment, "It is safe
to say that no two prints are precisely the same."

"Now, I see a lot of doctored photos, and 99% of them bore me
because I know the "eye" and "art" had nothing to do with them.

With all due respect, bullfeathers as my Grandfather used to say in
polite company.

You had no clue that I sandbagged you on that image I asked you to
look at - editing images in Photoshop and futzing around with the EXIF
data is child's play.

You had no clue - none, zero, zip, nada.

You are correct in that you usually can tell a "doctored" image
because in most cases, you won't see that in real life - some things
don't mix.

However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.

With respect to the minds eye, I point you to this:

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=34287

Gene saw this image at a pub in Dublin, only it had a different cast
of characters. He saw, in his mind's eye, a brilliant adaptation
using himself as the cast of characters. Nine images were taken to
produce that one photo, altered, adjusted and composited to produce
the final result.

Gene's mind's eye as a brilliant compositional photographer (and
generally a brilliant photographer period) and his skills working at
manipulating, adjusting, compositing the photo came together to
produce that image.

I won't even begin to introduce you to other photographer's I've been
mentored by over forty years and their work because you clearly have
no appreciation for their "art".

I apologise for the sharp tone, but you ****ed me off by making what
was clearly an uninformed and ignorant statement - in particular for a
old timey print guy.

You should know better.

Thanks for the link. Some great shots there.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:13:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!
What?

No way.
Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."

As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.


I'll be glad to have this discussion with you in email.

But then the rest of us wouldn't learn from what Tom has to say, Harry!

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:12:27 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:41:37 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:13:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!
What?

No way.
Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."
As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.
I'll be glad to have this discussion with you in email.
Nah - I'd rather have it here - this is where it started.
Too bad, then. And yes I work with professional photographers all the
time, and yes, I did get to mess around with Tri-X in the darkroom at
the Kansas City Star.

Then you know what you said is patently false.


Not at all. I sometimes did a little burning, a little dodging, just
like everyone else in the darkroom but the professionals were good
enough to get decent news photos even at night at traffic accidents and
shootings.

If something really drastic was needed, a print was given to the crew of
airbrush artists, but those guys were mainly there to work on
advertising illustrations or the amateur photos advertisers sometimes
submitted with their ads for the paper to make up for them or the
"brides" photos, so they all had that "halo" effect popular back then.

I'm not really interested in participating in a dissertation here.

By the way, that photo you posted yesterday, you did notice I cleaned it
up a bit for you. In the good old days, you could get an effect like you
had that by smearing vaseline on the negative before making a print.

Harry, there is a difference between 'cleaning up' and '****ing up'. What
you did to Tom's photo definitely falls into the latter category.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.

Here's an analogous situation for you.

The other day, I was in here pining for a real pipe organ. One of the
ranking a**holes here, guess who, suggested I should just get myself the
new Hammond B3 keyboard imitation with some sort of electronic gimmick
because it could *simulate* a pipe organ. (I am not referring to Eisboch
here, in case some snark wants to start something).

Now, my father had a real B3 with a Leslie speaker and I loved it and
its sound. But it isn't a pipe organ and even with the new "electronic
device," it doesn't sound like a pipe organ to me. And the a**hole who
made the suggestion doesn't know, wouldn't care, and basically is "ne
culturny," as my grandfather would say.

I know what a real pipe organ sounds like, and I know there isn't a way
to synthesize its sound electronically, no matter how you "sample" it. I
can tell the difference between "real" music produced by real
instruments and electronic music produced by computers. In fact, some
months ago I got to meet one of my favorite young singers, I am sure you
have heard of her, and I was really ecstatic over her album and told her
so, "except" for one track. Which one, she asked. "The one with the
electronic drum," I said. She knew exactly what I meant and winked at me.

You may be a fan of CGI and "photoshopping." I am not. I don't like
computer generated "electronic" music, either. To each his own.

By the way, is this live or...???

http://tinyurl.com/2mh74p


:}

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

John H. wrote:

Harry, there is a difference between 'cleaning up' and '****ing up'. What
you did to Tom's photo definitely falls into the latter category.


If I ever want the opinion of a tired-out, useless old f*art of no
accomplishment, I'll contact you.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:19:49 -0500, HK wrote:


On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.

Here's an analogous situation for you.

The other day, I was in here pining for a real pipe organ. One of the
ranking a**holes here, guess who, suggested I should just get myself the
new Hammond B3 keyboard imitation with some sort of electronic gimmick
because it could *simulate* a pipe organ. (I am not referring to Eisboch
here, in case some snark wants to start something).
snipped

If two people suggested a 'gimmick' to you, why is one an asshole and
Eisboch not? Sounds like preferential sucking up to me!

By the way, is this live or...???

http://tinyurl.com/2mh74p

My guess would be 'live'. A bigger question would be, "Who took it, and why
are you using it?"

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:19:49 -0500, HK wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.
Here's an analogous situation for you.

The other day, I was in here pining for a real pipe organ. One of the
ranking a**holes here, guess who, suggested I should just get myself the
new Hammond B3 keyboard imitation with some sort of electronic gimmick
because it could *simulate* a pipe organ. (I am not referring to Eisboch
here, in case some snark wants to start something).
snipped

If two people suggested a 'gimmick' to you, why is one an asshole and
Eisboch not? Sounds like preferential sucking up to me!
By the way, is this live or...???

http://tinyurl.com/2mh74p

My guess would be 'live'. A bigger question would be, "Who took it, and why
are you using it?"


Because eisboch suggested it as something that would be interesting,
which it was and discussed it that way. He didn't suggest it as a
substitute for a real pipe organ. He knows the difference.

As to your second question, why, how are all your relatives, John? Are
they well? If not, why aren't you visiting them all today?

I am impressed with your ability to spell out curse words I don't.

Is that what you learned in your years in the Army when you couldn't get
a real job?

:}

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message . ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;)
I appreciate your suggestions.
Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to
be a
damn IT professional to take a picture.
LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a
tendency to over sharpen them.
Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.

Not true.


I didn't bother to respond to Joe's comment seriously, because aLL digital
images need to be sharpened. jpg's are sharpened in camera. I quickly
learned that an unsharped RAW photo will look very fuzzy.


Yeah, but you knew what I meant, didn't you? I was referring to excessive
sharpening of DEFECTIVE pictures - the ones that are blurry because of
focusing problems caused by the user, or the camera's inability to deal with
a certain situation.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

TriX was a
freakin' nightmare unless you had extremely fast lenses and shot wide
open all the time.



What??? Nightmare how?