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?



Naw, he has great genes, they are just ugly genes.

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:08:58 -0500, HK wrote:

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.



Most photoshopped photos look photoshopped. I can see touching up a sky
a bit or getting rid of redeye or other simple stuff in an image, but
most of the rest of it seems to produce clichés, especially in the hands
of amateurs. The less you mess with a decent photo, the more pleasing it
will be.

Were the owls touched up?

I do very little touch up with Photoshop. I haven't learned how to do much
yet, and I try to get a semi-decent picture to begin with. I wish RG would
take me along to the Grand Tetons next time he goes. I'd love to hold his
camera bag or something and maybe get in a few shots myself.

JohnH,
Since you shot in jpg, the camera is functioning as your "photoshop".
The different auto settings will make minor changes in the way it will
process the photo. They will change the color to vibrant, soft focus,
emphasize certain colors etc.

If you shot in RAW, you need to process it out of the camera.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:53:03 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:08:58 -0500, HK wrote:

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.



Most photoshopped photos look photoshopped. I can see touching up a sky
a bit or getting rid of redeye or other simple stuff in an image, but
most of the rest of it seems to produce clichés, especially in the hands
of amateurs. The less you mess with a decent photo, the more pleasing it
will be.

Were the owls touched up?

I do very little touch up with Photoshop. I haven't learned how to do much
yet, and I try to get a semi-decent picture to begin with. I wish RG would
take me along to the Grand Tetons next time he goes. I'd love to hold his
camera bag or something and maybe get in a few shots myself.

JohnH,
Since you shot in jpg, the camera is functioning as your "photoshop".
The different auto settings will make minor changes in the way it will
process the photo. They will change the color to vibrant, soft focus,
emphasize certain colors etc.

If you shot in RAW, you need to process it out of the camera.

I only shoot in the raw when I'm in San Francisco.
--
John H

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:53:03 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:08:58 -0500, HK wrote:

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.


Most photoshopped photos look photoshopped. I can see touching up a sky
a bit or getting rid of redeye or other simple stuff in an image, but
most of the rest of it seems to produce clichés, especially in the hands
of amateurs. The less you mess with a decent photo, the more pleasing it
will be.
Were the owls touched up?

I do very little touch up with Photoshop. I haven't learned how to do much
yet, and I try to get a semi-decent picture to begin with. I wish RG would
take me along to the Grand Tetons next time he goes. I'd love to hold his
camera bag or something and maybe get in a few shots myself.
JohnH,
Since you shot in jpg, the camera is functioning as your "photoshop".
The different auto settings will make minor changes in the way it will
process the photo. They will change the color to vibrant, soft focus,
emphasize certain colors etc.

If you shot in RAW, you need to process it out of the camera.

I only shoot in the raw when I'm in San Francisco.

Well, you know what they say, "When in Rome..... "

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:01:48 -0500, John H.
wrote:

OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash,
which was bounced off the ceiling.

Ok, then something else happened to soften up the image. Did you
check white balance, sharpening, saturation. contrast levels in the
camara? Did you shoot in RGB or Adobe color space?

Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face
even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred.

Read on dude...

Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the
camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm
expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very
sharp detail.

Ok, I phrased that badly - what I meant to say was that your narrow
focus spot metering did you in on that image - sorry, I was really
(and still am) tired late yesterday.

Area spot imaging will give you a broader focusing area to work with
and as you were to the side of the subject with varying distances
involved, spotting the meter wouldn't necessarily work well.

With respect to detail on spot metering, the spot metering does more
than just focus the lens for you - it also reads light, adjusts the
image parameters and a ton of other things as part of it's algorithm.
That image is focused - it's all the other issues that caused the
percieved soft focus problem.

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.

Very definetly part of the probem, but not the whole problem.

The other issue that I forgot to ask is if you shot in .jpg, then
exported the image to a processor. Sometimes, not always mind you, if
you have the camera color space set differently than the processor
color space, the results can be iffy - changes in compression, etc.
You might have shot at a low compression scale also which might have
affected things.

Also, again not always, once you edit an image, if the processor isn't
get properly, the translation can give you some loss - in particular
if the image is set for print or web display.

Which is why I always shoot in Adobe space and in RAW format.

I appreciate your suggestions.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:46:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:01:48 -0500, John H.
wrote:

OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash,
which was bounced off the ceiling.

Ok, then something else happened to soften up the image. Did you
check white balance, sharpening, saturation. contrast levels in the
camara? Did you shoot in RGB or Adobe color space?

Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face
even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred.

Read on dude...

Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the
camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm
expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very
sharp detail.

Ok, I phrased that badly - what I meant to say was that your narrow
focus spot metering did you in on that image - sorry, I was really
(and still am) tired late yesterday.

Area spot imaging will give you a broader focusing area to work with
and as you were to the side of the subject with varying distances
involved, spotting the meter wouldn't necessarily work well.

With respect to detail on spot metering, the spot metering does more
than just focus the lens for you - it also reads light, adjusts the
image parameters and a ton of other things as part of it's algorithm.
That image is focused - it's all the other issues that caused the
percieved soft focus problem.

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.

Very definetly part of the probem, but not the whole problem.

The other issue that I forgot to ask is if you shot in .jpg, then
exported the image to a processor. Sometimes, not always mind you, if
you have the camera color space set differently than the processor
color space, the results can be iffy - changes in compression, etc.
You might have shot at a low compression scale also which might have
affected things.

Also, again not always, once you edit an image, if the processor isn't
get properly, the translation can give you some loss - in particular
if the image is set for print or web display.

Which is why I always shoot in Adobe space and in RAW format.

I appreciate your suggestions.

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.

Again, your comments are welcome.
--
John H

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:46:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:01:48 -0500, John H.
wrote:

OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash,
which was bounced off the ceiling.
Ok, then something else happened to soften up the image. Did you
check white balance, sharpening, saturation. contrast levels in the
camara? Did you shoot in RGB or Adobe color space?

Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face
even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred.
Read on dude...

Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the
camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm
expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very
sharp detail.
Ok, I phrased that badly - what I meant to say was that your narrow
focus spot metering did you in on that image - sorry, I was really
(and still am) tired late yesterday.

Area spot imaging will give you a broader focusing area to work with
and as you were to the side of the subject with varying distances
involved, spotting the meter wouldn't necessarily work well.

With respect to detail on spot metering, the spot metering does more
than just focus the lens for you - it also reads light, adjusts the
image parameters and a ton of other things as part of it's algorithm.
That image is focused - it's all the other issues that caused the
percieved soft focus problem.

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.
Very definetly part of the probem, but not the whole problem.

The other issue that I forgot to ask is if you shot in .jpg, then
exported the image to a processor. Sometimes, not always mind you, if
you have the camera color space set differently than the processor
color space, the results can be iffy - changes in compression, etc.
You might have shot at a low compression scale also which might have
affected things.

Also, again not always, once you edit an image, if the processor isn't
get properly, the translation can give you some loss - in particular
if the image is set for print or web display.

Which is why I always shoot in Adobe space and in RAW format.

I appreciate your suggestions.

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.

Again, your comments are welcome.

John it really is easy:

1. Hit menu
2.Go the little camera,(it will say "Shooting Menu" on the top of the
window. Move down till you see the "Color Space" if you normally don't
process in Adobe make sure it is on sRGB. If you do use Adobe to adjust
color, vibrance, etc, change it to AdobeRGB.
3. Now move the cursor down until you see "Optimize Image" Click on
that and you can change it to Normal, softer, vivid etc.

Now the camera computer will process the info using those settings and
save it as a jpg.

Or shoot in RAW and then adjust afterwards.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:46:01 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:46:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:01:48 -0500, John H.
wrote:

OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash,
which was bounced off the ceiling.
Ok, then something else happened to soften up the image. Did you
check white balance, sharpening, saturation. contrast levels in the
camara? Did you shoot in RGB or Adobe color space?

Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face
even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred.
Read on dude...

Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the
camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm
expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very
sharp detail.
Ok, I phrased that badly - what I meant to say was that your narrow
focus spot metering did you in on that image - sorry, I was really
(and still am) tired late yesterday.

Area spot imaging will give you a broader focusing area to work with
and as you were to the side of the subject with varying distances
involved, spotting the meter wouldn't necessarily work well.

With respect to detail on spot metering, the spot metering does more
than just focus the lens for you - it also reads light, adjusts the
image parameters and a ton of other things as part of it's algorithm.
That image is focused - it's all the other issues that caused the
percieved soft focus problem.

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.
Very definetly part of the probem, but not the whole problem.

The other issue that I forgot to ask is if you shot in .jpg, then
exported the image to a processor. Sometimes, not always mind you, if
you have the camera color space set differently than the processor
color space, the results can be iffy - changes in compression, etc.
You might have shot at a low compression scale also which might have
affected things.

Also, again not always, once you edit an image, if the processor isn't
get properly, the translation can give you some loss - in particular
if the image is set for print or web display.

Which is why I always shoot in Adobe space and in RAW format.

I appreciate your suggestions.

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.

Again, your comments are welcome.

John it really is easy:

1. Hit menu
2.Go the little camera,(it will say "Shooting Menu" on the top of the
window. Move down till you see the "Color Space" if you normally don't
process in Adobe make sure it is on sRGB. If you do use Adobe to adjust
color, vibrance, etc, change it to AdobeRGB.
3. Now move the cursor down until you see "Optimize Image" Click on
that and you can change it to Normal, softer, vivid etc.

Now the camera computer will process the info using those settings and
save it as a jpg.

Or shoot in RAW and then adjust afterwards.

Hey! I wanted to look it up in my book, damnit. Now you took all the joy of
discovery learning away.

But, thanks anyway!
--
John H

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:10:26 -0500, John H. wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:46:01 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:46:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:01:48 -0500, John H.
wrote:

OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash,
which was bounced off the ceiling.
Ok, then something else happened to soften up the image. Did you
check white balance, sharpening, saturation. contrast levels in the
camara? Did you shoot in RGB or Adobe color space?

Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face
even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred.
Read on dude...

Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the
camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm
expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very
sharp detail.
Ok, I phrased that badly - what I meant to say was that your narrow
focus spot metering did you in on that image - sorry, I was really
(and still am) tired late yesterday.

Area spot imaging will give you a broader focusing area to work with
and as you were to the side of the subject with varying distances
involved, spotting the meter wouldn't necessarily work well.

With respect to detail on spot metering, the spot metering does more
than just focus the lens for you - it also reads light, adjusts the
image parameters and a ton of other things as part of it's algorithm.
That image is focused - it's all the other issues that caused the
percieved soft focus problem.

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.
Very definetly part of the probem, but not the whole problem.

The other issue that I forgot to ask is if you shot in .jpg, then
exported the image to a processor. Sometimes, not always mind you, if
you have the camera color space set differently than the processor
color space, the results can be iffy - changes in compression, etc.
You might have shot at a low compression scale also which might have
affected things.

Also, again not always, once you edit an image, if the processor isn't
get properly, the translation can give you some loss - in particular
if the image is set for print or web display.

Which is why I always shoot in Adobe space and in RAW format.

I appreciate your suggestions.

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.

Again, your comments are welcome.

John it really is easy:

1. Hit menu
2.Go the little camera,(it will say "Shooting Menu" on the top of the
window. Move down till you see the "Color Space" if you normally don't
process in Adobe make sure it is on sRGB. If you do use Adobe to adjust
color, vibrance, etc, change it to AdobeRGB.
3. Now move the cursor down until you see "Optimize Image" Click on
that and you can change it to Normal, softer, vivid etc.

Now the camera computer will process the info using those settings and
save it as a jpg.

Or shoot in RAW and then adjust afterwards.

Hey! I wanted to look it up in my book, damnit. Now you took all the joy of
discovery learning away.

But, thanks anyway!

PS. It was set on 'normal' and on sRGB. I left it alone until I get the
lens back from Nikon.
--
John H

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:10:26 -0500, John H. wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:46:01 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:46:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:01:48 -0500, John H.
wrote:

OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash,
which was bounced off the ceiling.
Ok, then something else happened to soften up the image. Did you
check white balance, sharpening, saturation. contrast levels in the
camara? Did you shoot in RGB or Adobe color space?

Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face
even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred.
Read on dude...

Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the
camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm
expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very
sharp detail.
Ok, I phrased that badly - what I meant to say was that your narrow
focus spot metering did you in on that image - sorry, I was really
(and still am) tired late yesterday.

Area spot imaging will give you a broader focusing area to work with
and as you were to the side of the subject with varying distances
involved, spotting the meter wouldn't necessarily work well.

With respect to detail on spot metering, the spot metering does more
than just focus the lens for you - it also reads light, adjusts the
image parameters and a ton of other things as part of it's algorithm.
That image is focused - it's all the other issues that caused the
percieved soft focus problem.

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.
Very definetly part of the probem, but not the whole problem.

The other issue that I forgot to ask is if you shot in .jpg, then
exported the image to a processor. Sometimes, not always mind you, if
you have the camera color space set differently than the processor
color space, the results can be iffy - changes in compression, etc.
You might have shot at a low compression scale also which might have
affected things.

Also, again not always, once you edit an image, if the processor isn't
get properly, the translation can give you some loss - in particular
if the image is set for print or web display.

Which is why I always shoot in Adobe space and in RAW format.

I appreciate your suggestions.
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.

Again, your comments are welcome.
John it really is easy:

1. Hit menu
2.Go the little camera,(it will say "Shooting Menu" on the top of the
window. Move down till you see the "Color Space" if you normally don't
process in Adobe make sure it is on sRGB. If you do use Adobe to adjust
color, vibrance, etc, change it to AdobeRGB.
3. Now move the cursor down until you see "Optimize Image" Click on
that and you can change it to Normal, softer, vivid etc.

Now the camera computer will process the info using those settings and
save it as a jpg.

Or shoot in RAW and then adjust afterwards.
Hey! I wanted to look it up in my book, damnit. Now you took all the joy of
discovery learning away.

But, thanks anyway!

PS. It was set on 'normal' and on sRGB. I left it alone until I get the
lens back from Nikon.

JohnH,
You know what they say, "once you shot in RAW, you will never go back".

Or was it "It is all RAW on the inside".