"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

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.

"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!

"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.

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.

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

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

"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.

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.

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?