Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John H." wrote in message
news ![]() On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:23:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:37:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:43:05 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:26:40 -0500, John H. wrote: I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Basic primer - color space is the mathematical space in which color is expressed by numbers, the adding and substraction of to obtain shade. Put simply, this process is called gamut. There is a more detailed explanation if you are interested There are base three schemas used in defining color: RGB (which is the same method used in human site), but density (shading/combining to obtain other colors) is limited to about 30%of what is called Lab Color Space which is based on the CIE Lab1931color space. It is designated on your camera as sRGB Adobe space is called aRGB or sometimes Adobe (in the color space on your camera's menu) and has a wider gamut representing 50% of the 1931 color space. The third is Adobe's Wide Gamut space, but frankly it sucks and you probably don't have it on your camera anyway. There are other types of color spaces depending on the needs of the graphics environment, but these are the most commonly accepted in the world of digital cameras. What happens in processing is that the processor sometimes will be set to sRGB and if you take the image in aRGB, it makes the translation and you might not even be aware of it. Could be the reverse. Might not be that at all, but it's worth looking into. When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. Never mind. I'll go back to my room. -- John H Do you have access to any photography books that predate the digital era? Well, I've got a library within a few blocks. -- John H You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. See if you can find books like this: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...21221846&itm=4 |
#82
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message news ![]() On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:23:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:37:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:43:05 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:26:40 -0500, John H. wrote: I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Basic primer - color space is the mathematical space in which color is expressed by numbers, the adding and substraction of to obtain shade. Put simply, this process is called gamut. There is a more detailed explanation if you are interested There are base three schemas used in defining color: RGB (which is the same method used in human site), but density (shading/combining to obtain other colors) is limited to about 30%of what is called Lab Color Space which is based on the CIE Lab1931color space. It is designated on your camera as sRGB Adobe space is called aRGB or sometimes Adobe (in the color space on your camera's menu) and has a wider gamut representing 50% of the 1931 color space. The third is Adobe's Wide Gamut space, but frankly it sucks and you probably don't have it on your camera anyway. There are other types of color spaces depending on the needs of the graphics environment, but these are the most commonly accepted in the world of digital cameras. What happens in processing is that the processor sometimes will be set to sRGB and if you take the image in aRGB, it makes the translation and you might not even be aware of it. Could be the reverse. Might not be that at all, but it's worth looking into. When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. Never mind. I'll go back to my room. -- John H Do you have access to any photography books that predate the digital era? Well, I've got a library within a few blocks. -- John H You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. See if you can find books like this: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...21221846&itm=4 Bingo. |
#83
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dan" wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:28:27 -0400, "Don White" wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... You wife must be a real beauty to pass along such good genes. You saying John's genes aren't so good? I get 'em at LLBean. They're good, believe me! You do know you're replying to a moron, right? Stupid is..as stupid says! |
#84
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "HK" wrote in message . .. John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. You haven't read the manual that comes with your D200? Perhaps you need a camera more suitable to your level of intellectual curiosity. http://tinyurl.com/2vnovu Dangerous for him. he'd be sticking his finger into the bulb holder. |
#85
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. |
#86
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:30:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. I agree. I've done my 35mm time. I've done my darkrooom time. And now I want to play with my toy. I'm the first to admit, however, that I have a lot to learn about my new toy. It is much different from the Canon FTQL with which I grew up. So, patience is the key. Today I am going to experiment with NEF (RAW) + JPEG Fine, and see if I can tell a difference. Supposedly, this camera will store the picture in *both* formats at the same time. That should be interesting. -- John H |
#87
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:30:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. I agree. I've done my 35mm time. I've done my darkrooom time. And now I want to play with my toy. I'm the first to admit, however, that I have a lot to learn about my new toy. It is much different from the Canon FTQL with which I grew up. So, patience is the key. Today I am going to experiment with NEF (RAW) + JPEG Fine, and see if I can tell a difference. Supposedly, this camera will store the picture in *both* formats at the same time. That should be interesting. JohnH, The advantage of RAW is it stores ALL of the digital information uncompressed, which will allow you to process the photo, and not lose any info. JPG will process the data in camera, and will store the digital picture in a compressed format, that does have a tendency to degrade with additional processing. Straight out of the camera, jpg will probably look better, because the camera's computer has already processed the digital image. Here is a "fair and balanced" look at the pros and cons of both formats: http://www.jmg-galleries.com/article...ht_for_me.html |
#88
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. |
#89
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. |
#90
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. Harry, You seem to know a lot about photography, but all I have seen you post are really crappy snapshots. I know I take some really crappy photos, but I am just learning. Why don't you share some of your better photos where you have used a good flash meter or light meter. Since you have said that you really use your point and shot for almost all of your current photos, does your point and shoot allow you to manually adjust your settings to take advantage of the additional metering info? I am looking for a point and shoot, just to carry in my pocket, but have never thought about carrying a flash and light meter along with my P&S. Do you find the P&S easy to manually adjust? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA Wesbar Trailer Light Lens | General | |||
New Lens! | ASA | |||
Some macro stuff...// Dry groceries for the boat | General | |||
Hatch Lens | ASA |