Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
Op Fri, 07 Apr 2006 03:59:18 +0200 schreef David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 4/7/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/4/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/honda.php Thanks Shel :-) When it aired here a few years ago, it was simply mesmerising It still is. It's closely modeled after a swiss art project 'Die Lauf der Dinge' by Fischli and Weiss. See http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/the-way-of-things/video/1/ Still extremely well done :o) -- Regards, Lucas
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
On Apr 7, 2006, at 4:07 AM, graywolf wrote: Almost all Unix type software can be run on any of those if you can get the source code and compile it for your system. That's very simplified :) Writing portable Unix software is quite an undertaking as there are many little differences in APIs, even though the systems tend to operate in much the same way. I've even had problems with shell scripts, although GNU utilities help a lot if they're installed. - Dave
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
On Apr 7, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Adam Maas wrote: BSD is both a kernel and some userspace tools (with some GNU tools, mostly the gcc toolchain also necessary), it's much more integrated than say Linux, which is an amalgam of a bunch of not necessarily related projects (Almost none of which are from the BSD project). Just to be pedantic, I'd like to point out that Linux is only a kernel. However I would be highly reluctant to offer any kind of Linux support for anything, because the distributions based on it differ widely. - Dave (Slackware user)
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:21 AM, Bob W wrote: Apple seem to want to turn into a company that sells tin, rather than one that sells software. The OS is basically Unix, and now there's nothing different about the tin it runs on. I'd say they're getting out of the software business. Apple write a heck of a lot more software than just OS X. Some of it is actually quite good. http://www.apple.com/software/ FWIW I think they've become a software company that uses its software to sell its hardware. When I bought my computer I bought it for the OS alone. I couldn't care less what's inside the shiny box, but I had to buy the shiny box with the Apple on the side as that's all that would run the OS I wanted. - Dave
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:30 AM, Perry Pellechia wrote: Call me crazy but I am someone who would be (and is) interested in this. I use Corel Draw to make figures with (NMR) data for scientific publications. I also use it for making drawings that I use in the class I teach. While there might be other options available for the Mac platform I am not willing to give up the knowledge I have gained on the Corel products and Corel does not have a Mac version of this software. The one problem I see is in trying to copy files from one OS to the other. A USB thumb-drive might come in handy as I'm not sure that the systems can read/write each others filesystems (NTFS, HFS+). If you can format the XP volume to FAT32 you'd be OK but will have trouble with large files (4Gb). I still think the virtual machine (VMware) option is better. There are rumours that Apple is working on this for inclusion in OS X 10.5, but don't believe anything until you see it. In the meantime, a company called Parallel has made a pre-release of their product available: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04/06/parallels_offers_mac_vt_beta/ - Dave
Re: My first Epson. Please be gentle
On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: My Epson 2200 has never clogged. I've owned it for about four years and have made at least 200 11 x 17 color prints. The longest it has sat unused has probably been about one week. However, it's probably sat three weeks at times without making a color print. Mine just had a clog after three weeks sitting idle. The annoying thing is that a head clean will sort it out, but it'll clog again on the next print. I normally try to print at least once a week - I've never had any clogs when I do this (I usually only make a couple of prints each time, after picking a couple of files from my latest scanning). - Dave
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:59 PM, David Savage wrote: Much more interesting memorable than shots of a car driving through twisty coastal/mountain roads. Or in the case of a 4WD, getting 3 feet of air under it as it flies over a sand dune. How about footage of idiotic drivers being chased through city streets by me in this, the ultimate cyclists' fantasy? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=4623857135 First thing on the target list will be clean 4WDs ;) - Dave
Re: 1.7x AF
When I say doesn't autofocus. The 1.7x does nothing. My conclusion is that the 1.7x can only autofocus when the contacts on the body are in use (like in a A lens) or short circuited (like in a M lens). My Tmount can't short circuit the contacts. A piece of conductive aluminium foil does the job, now a 1.7x can autofocus with Tmounts. On 4/7/06, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you mean when you say doesn't autofocus - nothing at all or it tries and can't manage?
RE: Micro PDML
We were, however, accosted by a few young females in various stages of undress with certain requests (Take me photo, willya?) that we managed to resist. snip For decades I've been trying to use my various cameras to pick up lovely young ladies, and you have that opportunity and refuse? Did I say lovely? Hmmm? Frank, they would suck you in and blow you out in bubbles...and I don't mean that in any nice way at all But feel free to come and try your luck. You'll have to take a language course and sign away any rights to your liver, of course. Maybe the sight of acres of goosepimply flesh is your thing, who knows. Don't forget the purple leg blotch... http://www.viz.co.uk/archive_strips/motorised_strips/viztv_popup_fatslags.ht ml (Needs Flash) Bob
Re: 1.7x AF
On 7 Apr 2006 at 8:54, Toine wrote: When I say doesn't autofocus. The 1.7x does nothing. My conclusion is that the 1.7x can only autofocus when the contacts on the body are in use (like in a A lens) or short circuited (like in a M lens). My Tmount can't short circuit the contacts. A piece of conductive aluminium foil does the job, now a 1.7x can autofocus with Tmounts. History repeats, from a post of mine dated 2002: On 21 Sep 2002 at 20:02, Paul Ewins wrote: Hi all, is it possible to get the 1.7x AF converter to autofocus screwmount lenses? It doesn't work out of the box but as there is no physical linkage that is used for focussing it should work. Is it just a case of shorting out one or more of the control pins on the converter? Hi Paul, It seems so, I didn't realize this until you posted this comment as I'd never really tried it. The only difference between a screw lens + Adaptor K and a K- mount lens is the fact that the aperture/comms pins remain open circuit. Shorting to ground any of the proud pins on the AF adaptor will cause allow the AF to become active. I did creat a temporary solution by wedging some aluminium foil in the gap. The problem is that it's not easy to fix a contact in there without modifying each lens quite a bit as there is no way to add anything to the Adaptor K without adding to the film flange distance. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Run Windoze on your Mac
FWIW I think they've become a software company that uses its software to sell its hardware. When I bought my computer I bought it for the OS alone. I couldn't care less what's inside the shiny box, but I had to buy the shiny box with the Apple on the side as that's all that would run the OS I wanted. Well, as Godfrey pointed out, it's probably more accurate nowadays to describe them as distributors of music and related gadgets. But I do think you've the horse before the cart - I can't understand why anybody cares (up to a point) what box they use - it's the software that matter. Bob
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
Personally, I find using the keyboard in conjunction with a one button mouse easier and faster for most things. Here here! Here too! :-) Bedo.
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
We've got it in Oz too! But I think the mean b-s have cut half of it out. Must have taken hours to work it all out. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 5:49 AM Subject: Re: OT - Honda UK Ad On 6/4/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/honda.php Thanks Shel :-) When it aired here a few years ago, it was simply mesmerising Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PAW x 2
On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I'm going the other way on this one. The bee is soft, and it's very similar to a lot of other shots I've seen. The sea and rocks is a very nice composition and a fresh vision, well executed. The second pic is a winner. The first one is okay, but nothing new. Thanks for the comments. I only added the bumblebee pic because it caught my attention. I actually liked the fact that most of the bee is soft. - Dave
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
Yep. We get it from when the muffler hits the tyre. Dave S. On 4/7/06, John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've got it in Oz too! But I think the mean b-s have cut half of it out. Must have taken hours to work it all out. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: PAW x 2
On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote: Love the bumblebee. Beautyful colours, good comp ... The second one makes me seasick. The horizon is strait, but my stomach tells me it leans to the left. Is being seasick a good thing? For me... not. That photo was taken at an opening to Cook Straight which divides the North South Islands. It's notorious for being choppy, partly due to the very strong tides. I recall that when I took that photo I was starting to feel a little green but I am prone to that in rough water :) The fishing was no good in that location so we went back into the sheltered waters before long, much to my relief. You might feel a little worse after looking at the photos at the bottom of this page, which shows Cook Straight in full fury: http://www.metservice.co.nz/default/index.php?static=2001summer3 The ship in the photo is freight-only: I think the passenger ferries would have stopped sailing long before the swell reached that kind of level. You'll be pleased to hear that that ship (the Suilven) was built in Norway. - Dave
Re: Re: Windows 98 x *ist DS
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/07 Fri AM 12:08:28 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Windows 98 x *ist DS On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:20:13PM +0100, mike wilson wrote: Shel Belinkoff wrote: I ran a Win 98SE machine for a while, and had a USB card installed that would allow for a card reader. However, it was limited to USB 1.0. I don't think USB 2.0 had even come out at that time. In any case, it was really amazing to see the difference in file xfer speed between the 98SE computer and the then new XP box. Plus, of course, being able to run Photoshop in a seamless fashion was a nice feature of the new machine. However, I wonder about how XP would run on a machine with older hardware, which is, in essence, how this thread got started. Doesn't XP have some minimum hardware requirements that, quite possibly, an older machine might not have? Shel That was my original point. If he(?) installs XP and then tries to work with large files and a later version of Photoshop, he will be worse off than if he upgrades to SE and uses a card reader. Even than, the highest PS he can use will be 6 (possibly 7) so only JPEG files will be available. But at least he will be able to do something. Otherwise, he is looking at another financial investment of at least the size of his camera to be able to play with his pictures. Hardly. For the price of a DL I can get an HP Media Center PC with 1GB PCI3200 memory, 2.8GHz P4, 200GB SATA drive, and a DVD burner. That's far more than is needed for digital photo editing. For that matter, for the same price I can buy a Compaq notebook with 512MB of memory and 60GB hard drive - more than enough for photo editing (it's what I use myself). The notebook comes with built-in wireless, too. It's possible to get a perfectly reasonable desktop machine for half that. And for less than $15 he can upgrade his machine so that he can at least do _something_ while he peruses his options. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: RE: 1.7x AF
From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/07 Fri AM 01:04:52 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: 1.7x AF We may have been jumping to conclusions. A very intelligent question Mike. We have a mastermind among us. No irony. You _obviously_ don't know me. 8-) Anyway, the question was answered... Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 7. april 2006 00:33 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: 1.7x AF Toine wrote: I noticed my 1.7x AF converter doesn't autofocus with T-mount lenses. It does autofocus with M-series lenses. The only difference I can imagine is the K-mount on a M-series lens is electrical conductive and the T-mount is made of (isolating) anodized Aluminium. I feel temped to use fine abrasive paper to remove the anodized layer on an old T-mount or short circuit two or more contact on the K mount. Would that make any difference? Maybe dangerous for the D body? Toine What do you mean when you say doesn't autofocus - nothing at all or it tries and can't manage? - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Sigma 70-200/2.8 compared to Bigma?
Hi, I'd like to buy a bit lighter lenses and am thinking about the Sigma 70-200/2.8 APO EX DG. I owned the Bigma 50-500/4-6.3 and would like to ask someone for a comparison, are the images from the lighter lenses significantly better than those from bigma in the 70-200 range, besides that it has 2.8 aperture? Is there any other light tele lenses you would recommend? Thanks, David. -- ing. david lacina | http://photo.lacina.net | +47 90 85 82 01
Re: RE: Micro PDML
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snip fatslags (Needs Flash) 8-)) - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: Windows 98 x *ist DS
If I'm not mistaken, the original poster is located in Brazil, so US prices for computer gear may not be applicable. Shel From: John Francis Hardly. For the price of a DL I can get an HP Media Center PC with 1GB PCI3200 memory, 2.8GHz P4, 200GB SATA drive, and a DVD burner. That's far more than is needed for digital photo editing. For that matter, for the same price I can buy a Compaq notebook with 512MB of memory and 60GB hard drive - more than enough for photo editing (it's what I use myself). The notebook comes with built-in wireless, too. It's possible to get a perfectly reasonable desktop machine for half that.
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
On Apr 6, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: There is a current suit over Apple selling music in its on-line store. When they settled the last suit, part of the deal was that they would not sell music. Looks like they're selling music to Apple Corps, and to me as well. I think the suit you're referring to there was the one in the late 1970s/early 1980s. The settlement in 1991 supposedly killed that one. The current dispute that Bob W pointed to with the URL is over the use of the Apple logo. I love watching the lawyers dance like this. They're all making money from it... both of the principals and all the lawyers too. No, the suit I am talking about was just reported on the news last week. The earlier settlement in which Apple agreed not to sell music was before on-line music sales were ever envisioned, and Apple is trying to say that it only applies to the physical sale of music on CDs, tape, etc., and not to on-line sales where no physical object changes hands. Apple Corps obviously disagrees. Bob
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/honda.php There are no computer graphics or digital tricks in the film. Everything you see really happened in real time exactly as you see it. The film took 606 takes. On the first 605 takes, something, usually very minor, didn't work. How do the tyres climb up the ramp? Kostas
Re: My first Epson. Please be gentle
Epson Enhanced Matte is probably the best choice for test printing. It's no good for sale (paper yellows over time) but it's extremely close to Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, so you can use it for test printing for anything that would be printed on HPR. Moab Kayenta and Entrada are two of my favourites (Vistek sells them btw). -Adam Dave Brooks wrote: Quick service. My Epson R220 arrived Tuesday and my MIS black inks just showed up.Well the SO just gave me the package, they were here erlier.:-) Horse show with Jr tomorrow, so i;ll set it up Saturday and try some of my BW conversions. What was the matte paper suggested.Just a regular Matte.?? My Canon printers can go months with out use and no clogging, Whats an Epson go.? Dave David J Brooks Equine, Pets, Bands, Rural Landscape Photography in York Region www.caughtinmotion.com Pentax istD, PZ-1, Nikon D1 D2H
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
On 7 Apr 2006 at 11:11, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/honda.php There are no computer graphics or digital tricks in the film. Everything you see really happened in real time exactly as you see it. The film took 606 takes. On the first 605 takes, something, usually very minor, didn't work. How do the tyres climb up the ramp? Precarious balance and counter weights? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: My first Epson. Please be gentle
Dave Brooks wrote: What was the matte paper suggested.Just a regular Matte.?? I use Epson Enhanced Matte with the MIS inks and it comes out nice. Except when some of the nozzles are blocked, which happens quite regularly, but cleaning the heads before printing usually solves that. S
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
It will still be dozens of times faster than processing, scanning, and printing 6x7 film. A good, automated RAW workflow makes it barely any more work to get standard JPEGs out of the process than capturing in JPEG format to begin with, but nets you the ability to go further when scene conditions warrant additional effort. Godfrey Well-said. I really don't understand the credibility of the anti-RAW argument that it adds a tremendous amount of work to the workflow. Even in my linux-land, I've got an automated script to dump RAW files from the card, apply auto white-balance, ICC profile, auto-exposure, and dump out a high-quality JPEG complete with USM applied. You know... EXACTLY what the camera does when you do an in-camera JPEG. All it costs me is having to let my computer chew on them unattended for a few minutes. In fact, the time it takes to copy the files from the card is about the same as the processing from RAW-JPEG. Very little additional time is taken for the 95% of the shots that are fine by default. For the 5% that I want to give extra attention to (WB, exposure nonlinearities, etc), I've got the master. I'm *sure* that all of the spiffy winders-only expensive RAW converters everyone uses can do the same as my free, open-source utilities. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: PESO - Peaking out
You're a master of these flower and light pics, Bruce. JOhn On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 05:21:34 +0100, Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax *istD, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, Handheld ISO 400, 1/180 sec @ f/8.0 Converted from Raw using Capture One LE http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3083.htm Comments welcome -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
On Apr 7, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Bob Shell wrote: No, the suit I am talking about was just reported on the news last week. The earlier settlement in which Apple agreed not to sell music was before on-line music sales were ever envisioned, and Apple is trying to say that it only applies to the physical sale of music on CDs, tape, etc., and not to on-line sales where no physical object changes hands. Apple Corps obviously disagrees. http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/03/29/apple_vs_apple_day_one/ - Dave
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
That's very simplified :) Writing portable Unix software is quite an undertaking as there are many little differences in APIs, even though the systems tend to operate in much the same way. I've even had problems with shell scripts, although GNU utilities help a lot if they're installed. Agreed. Happily, the GNU-utils have become the de-facto standard (and in general most feature-rich and easy-to-use) for making a unix(-like) OS go. I helped clean up VT's ECE UNIX lab a few years back. It's amazing how functional and less irritating Sun machines become once you install a full suite of GNU-utils on it. Archaic UNIX platforms are all tantalizingly similar, but when you sit down and try to *use* one you realize they're all slightly different just enough to be annoying. Same with MacOSX. I used NeXT machines in undergrad, but primarily from the GUI. Now that I've played wit MacOSX a little bit, I see that under the hood little has changed. It's still a crusty, old-school UNIX under the hood. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Rob Studdert wrote: On 7 Apr 2006 at 11:11, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/honda.php There are no computer graphics or digital tricks in the film. Everything you see really happened in real time exactly as you see it. The film took 606 takes. On the first 605 takes, something, usually very minor, didn't work. How do the tyres climb up the ramp? Precarious balance and counter weights? Thanks. Where are they? Inside the tyres? Kostas
Re: My first Epson. Please be gentle
I'm using Epson Enhanced Matte with the MIS Eboni ink. Fifty sheets of 8.5x11 is CAD$24.99 at www.epson.ca (free shipping). I've only printing 25 images so far and clogging has not been an issue for far. I'm doing BO printing, and to my eyes (and all I've shown them to) they look very good indeed. The blueish tint of the epson black ink is totally gone. -- Fred Widall, Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall --
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: It simply sounds like you may have picked the wrong camera for the job, the hot pixel management implemented in the Pentax bodies obviously isn't working in your shooting scenario. Works fine in mine. Had mine performed as poorly as Dave Brooks', however, I would have returned it. -Aaron
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:54 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: You asked why/when one should use RAW Actually, no, I never did. I said that I wasn't shooting RAW, someone asked me why, and then a bunch of people told me I was wrong in my decision. I actually do want to know the answer to my question about your speed claim -- how long would it take to process 800 RAW files? -Aaron
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: Well-said. I really don't understand the credibility of the anti-RAW argument that it adds a tremendous amount of work to the workflow. Even in my linux-land, I've got an automated script to dump RAW files from the card, apply auto white-balance, ICC profile, auto-exposure, and dump out a high-quality JPEG complete with USM applied. You know... EXACTLY what the camera does when you do an in-camera JPEG. All it costs me is having to let my computer chew on them unattended for a few minutes. In fact, the time it takes to copy the files from the card is about the same as the processing from RAW-JPEG. Very little additional time is taken for the 95% of the shots that are fine by default. For the 5% that I want to give extra attention to (WB, exposure nonlinearities, etc), I've got the master. I'm *sure* that all of the spiffy winders-only expensive RAW converters everyone uses can do the same as my free, open-source utilities. Cory, did you read my post? I said NOTHING about anti-RAW, I said that FOR MY USE of the camera it was not the correct choice. No matter how streamlined your workflow, 800 RAW images will take a long time to process. Do you not agree? Do you not agree in a situation where the light can never change unless there's a blackout, considering all images must be uploaded immediately after the event, that RAW is not a sensible choice? -Aaron
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:54 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: You asked why/when one should use RAW By the way, the original post was asking for help for a friend taking a technical writing course who wanted to know what are the most common things you'd do to a RAW file in conversion. -Aaron
RE: PAW x 2
Cool link. After reading the comments from Paul and Godfrey I had another look at the bumblebee. I have come to that it is the softness of the bumblebee that makes me like it. That and the simplicity is what make it work for me. Simple, elegant, and slightly different. But others are allowed to feel different ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: David Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 7. april 2006 09:35 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PAW x 2 On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote: Love the bumblebee. Beautyful colours, good comp ... The second one makes me seasick. The horizon is strait, but my stomach tells me it leans to the left. Is being seasick a good thing? For me... not. That photo was taken at an opening to Cook Straight which divides the North South Islands. It's notorious for being choppy, partly due to the very strong tides. I recall that when I took that photo I was starting to feel a little green but I am prone to that in rough water :) The fishing was no good in that location so we went back into the sheltered waters before long, much to my relief. You might feel a little worse after looking at the photos at the bottom of this page, which shows Cook Straight in full fury: http://www.metservice.co.nz/default/index.php?static=2001summer3 The ship in the photo is freight-only: I think the passenger ferries would have stopped sailing long before the swell reached that kind of level. You'll be pleased to hear that that ship (the Suilven) was built in Norway. - Dave
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Cory, did you read my post? I said NOTHING about anti-RAW, I said that FOR MY USE of the camera it was not the correct choice. Yes I did... my comment was more rhetorical to the large number of comments with that sentiment. Yours just happened to be the latest... :) I don't think anyone is trying to tell you your way to do things is crap... to each their own. More a clarification that if you are judging the quality of a DSLR to be inadequate based on the JPEGs it produces, you may not have an accurate representation of its capabilities. No matter how streamlined your workflow, 800 RAW images will take a long time to process. Do you not agree? Do you not agree in a situation where the light can never change unless there's a blackout, considering all images must be uploaded immediately after the event, that RAW is not a sensible choice? Sure there are situations like that. The original theme was something like getting the most out of your DSLR. That's contrary to your suggested mode of operation. If you are absolutely sure that you will never, ever have any need at all to post-process any of the images, then JPEG is the correct way to do it... especially when you've got fixed lighting situations like you suggest. If you screwed up your WB setting at the onset of the shoot (which isn't easily detectable from the LCD of course), you'd be pretty friggin' pissed after you shot 800 images of them, though. Of course, this hasn't even touched on the interpolation algorithm quality of camera vs. RAW converter either. It's been well-established that Pentax DSLRs have pretty soft JPEG images. Whatever floats your 'scope, dude. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
On 4/7/06, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Rob Studdert wrote: Precarious balance and counter weights? Thanks. Where are they? Inside the tyres? Kostas I think so. The way they roll just isn't quit right. Dave S -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:19:32 +0100, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: Well-said. I really don't understand the credibility of the anti-RAW argument that it adds a tremendous amount of work to the workflow. Even in my linux-land, I've got an automated script to dump RAW files from the card, apply auto white-balance, ICC profile, auto-exposure, and dump out a high-quality JPEG complete with USM applied. You know... EXACTLY what the camera does when you do an in-camera JPEG. All it costs me is having to let my computer chew on them unattended for a few minutes. In fact, the time it takes to copy the files from the card is about the same as the processing from RAW-JPEG. Very little additional time is taken for the 95% of the shots that are fine by default. For the 5% that I want to give extra attention to (WB, exposure nonlinearities, etc), I've got the master. I'm *sure* that all of the spiffy winders-only expensive RAW converters everyone uses can do the same as my free, open-source utilities. Cory, did you read my post? I said NOTHING about anti-RAW, I said that FOR MY USE of the camera it was not the correct choice. No matter how streamlined your workflow, 800 RAW images will take a long time to process. Do you not agree? Do you not agree in a situation where the light can never change unless there's a blackout, considering all images must be uploaded immediately after the event, that RAW is not a sensible choice? No. With a decent computer, and the right software, processing RAW takes very little time, and has the advantage that it allows much more tweaking than JPEG. Or do you REALLY never make an error with exposure? John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: My first Epson. Please be gentle
On 4/7/06, Ryan K. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Brooks wrote: Quick service. My Epson R220 arrived Tuesday and my MIS black inks just showed up.Well the SO just gave me the package, they were here erlier.:-) Horse show with Jr tomorrow, so i;ll set it up Saturday and try some of my BW conversions. What was the matte paper suggested.Just a regular Matte.?? My Canon printers can go months with out use and no clogging, Whats an Epson go.? If you don't ever unplug it, you should be fine. Resist the temptation to turn it off on the power strip, only turn it off with it's button. -Ryan Dave David J Brooks Equine, Pets, Bands, Rural Landscape Photography in York Region www.caughtinmotion.com Pentax istD, PZ-1, Nikon D1 D2H In my experience print head clogging tends to occur when the printer has sat unused for some time with empty or near empty ink cartridges. Dave S. -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
FS-Pentax 300mm M42 Mount
My shameless listing for a lens for sale. Pentax 300mm f/4 Manual M42 thread. It comes with a K mount adapter and a Ricoh KR-5 III body that works fine except the light meter is off by about a stop and the cable release threads are stripped. I am asking somewhere around 130.00 for the lens with camera. Obviously negotiable, and shipping charges extra. Here is a link to a pic: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/newtmaker/Takumar300.jpg Walt
Re: PESO - Peaking out
Big, fuzzy, intrusive, knob is just too much. The blossoms themselves, however, are shot at a great angle and with nice lighting. A worthy effort. Jack --- Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax *istD, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, Handheld ISO 400, 1/180 sec @ f/8.0 Converted from Raw using Capture One LE http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3083.htm Comments welcome -- Bruce __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
Do anyone see this, in any way, as being a computer assisted sequence? Jack --- David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/7/06, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Rob Studdert wrote: Precarious balance and counter weights? Thanks. Where are they? Inside the tyres? Kostas I think so. The way they roll just isn't quit right. Dave S -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
On 4/7/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do anyone see this, in any way, as being a computer assisted sequence? Jack Possibly in the initial design of the setup, but IMO the video is genuine. Dave S. -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
On 4/7/06, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks. Where are they? Inside the tyres? Kostas A brief explanation about the tyres here. http://www.steelcitysfinest.com/HondaAccordAd.htm Dave -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
On 7 Apr 2006 at 21:23, David Savage wrote: On 4/7/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do anyone see this, in any way, as being a computer assisted sequence? Jack Possibly in the initial design of the setup, but IMO the video is genuine. I did have a video link to the making of the ad but I can't find it at the moment, the following link is pretty interesting and think it's pretty factual: http://www.anvari.org/fun/Truth/Making_of_Honda_Ad.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
David Savage wrote: On 4/7/06, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks. Where are they? Inside the tyres? A brief explanation about the tyres here. http://www.steelcitysfinest.com/HondaAccordAd.htm Nice night-time panorama of Pittsburgh on that page... :)
Re: OT: Big Squirrel Problem
It's probably just Frank in a bear suit... Norm From: Cotty http://www.geekbase.org/squirrelproblem/ And that's just outside PDML Central, at GFM.
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On 7/4/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: Or do you REALLY never make an error with exposure? I never do :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT: Big Squirrel Problem
Norman Baugher wrote: From: Cotty http://www.geekbase.org/squirrelproblem/ And that's just outside PDML Central, at GFM. It's probably just Frank in a bear suit... I thought it was Dave Brooks without the flannel shirt.
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
All commercials are computer assisted to a certain extent. The film is digitized before it's edited. Even the editing process performs digital modifications. I don't have specific knowledge of this spot, but Shel tells us it was shot live. Assuming that's true, I'm sure that some work was done in post to perfect the final result. Machines like Flame allow frame-by-frame tweaking of the image similar to what we can do with stills in PhotoShop. Paul -- Original message -- From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do anyone see this, in any way, as being a computer assisted sequence? Jack --- David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/7/06, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Rob Studdert wrote: Precarious balance and counter weights? Thanks. Where are they? Inside the tyres? Kostas I think so. The way they roll just isn't quit right. Dave S -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: You asked why/when one should use RAW Actually, no, I never did. I said that I wasn't shooting RAW, someone asked me why, and then a bunch of people told me I was wrong in my decision. I still haven't seen the original post. I saw a post in which you asked that question, otherwise I would not have responded. I'll have to go hunt through the digests to locate the post I responded to. I actually do want to know the answer to my question about your speed claim -- how long would it take to process 800 RAW files? It depends a lot on what machine you're talking about and how you've set up the RAW conversion to operate. If you set it up to output 16bit, full rez files or larger, a great deal of time is spent simply writing the data to disk. If you set it up to output JPEG format data to web-rez sizing, it can move along very expediently. I've not timed the task specifically, but I know I've done case of 200-300 RAW files, set to output to a half-rez JPEG (1000x1500 pixels) 8bit sRGB file, on an iMac G4 20 with 1.25Ghz processor and a fast disk, and walked out of the room for dinner or something like that. The job is done when I return to the room, hmm, about an hour later. Godfrey
Re: My first Epson. Please be gentle
It's $20-22 at most retail outlets. -Adam Fred Widall wrote: I'm using Epson Enhanced Matte with the MIS Eboni ink. Fifty sheets of 8.5x11 is CAD$24.99 at www.epson.ca (free shipping). I've only printing 25 images so far and clogging has not been an issue for far. I'm doing BO printing, and to my eyes (and all I've shown them to) they look very good indeed. The blueish tint of the epson black ink is totally gone. -- Fred Widall, Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall --
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
- Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters Cory, did you read my post? I said NOTHING about anti-RAW, I said that FOR MY USE of the camera it was not the correct choice. Aaron, you are discussing a topic with zealots, every bit as bigoted and about as reactive as a KKK member in a Negro church. As you have found, even hinting at a question gets crosses burned on your front lawn. William Robb
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
I don't want to get into a debate about it, but I have the DVD that includes the advert and the making of film about it. The people who shot it produced it as an interaction of the objects, not the result of image manipulation. It was very difficult to produce and quite an achievement. Whether they used a computer to put the final product together or not, what does it matter? I trust their statement that it was not image manipulation or careful editing that produced the sequence. They would have no reason for lying because the truth would eventually come out and discredit them. Godfrey From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do anyone see this, in any way, as being a computer assisted sequence?
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Hi Aaron, First off, I understand your position, and feel that your choice of shooting JPEG is a good choice for you, in the situation that you're shooting. To answer your question: I don't think it would be very time consuming. Last night I just started to read the chapter in Bruce Fraser's book on how to process RAW files quickly, and while I've not tried the technique yet, I get the impression that it wouldn't take but a few moments. The way I understand it is that you can set up a profile (which should be easy for you as the light in which you shoot never changes) and the adjustments are then all made automatically as the files appear in Photoshop's browser. IOW, it appears that it wouldn't take any more time to make the appropriate adjustments than it would take for the files to load and be seen in the browser - that's in Photoshop CS. I imagine that in CS2 Bridge would replace the browser, the technique would be similar, as would the time. IOW, it can all be done automagically. Please forgive any vagueness in my explanation, as I haven't fully read the chapter yet, it was about 3:00am when I skimmed it, nor have I personally tried the technique at this time. However, I would suggest that the conversion can be pretty quick. I suppose someone who as actually tried the technique can give a more detailed explanation and a more specific idea of the time involved. You might want to get Fraser's book to see just what's possible when using RAW, even if shooting RAW is of no benefit to you when shooting the baseball pics. All that said, there may not be any benefit to shooting RAW in the particular circumstance you've described. But, knowing your way around RAW files and processing can only be helpful in the long term. Shel [Original Message] From: Aaron Reynolds No matter how streamlined your workflow, 800 RAW images will take a long time to process. Do you not agree? Do you not agree in a situation where the light can never change unless there's a blackout, considering all images must be uploaded immediately after the event, that RAW is not a sensible choice?
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
I read an article the described how it was done. Weights were placed strategically placed strategically inside the tires. Shel [Original Message] From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 4/7/2006 5:57:32 AM Subject: Re: OT - Honda UK Ad On 4/7/06, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Rob Studdert wrote: Precarious balance and counter weights? Thanks. Where are they? Inside the tyres? Kostas I think so. The way they roll just isn't quit right. Dave S -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
RE: OT: Big Squirrel Problem
Aah. I see. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 7. april 2006 04:33 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Big Squirrel Problem - Original Message - From: Tim Øsleby Subject: RE: OT: Big Squirrel Problem Thats not a squirrel. You're in Europe, we grow them bigger over here William Robb http://www.geekbase.org/squirrelproblem/
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that the person who sent me the link included some comments, and that I didn't know how accurate his comments were. There are at least two links to how the video was made that have been posted here. They make interesting reading. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 4/7/2006 6:54:24 AM Subject: Re: OT - Honda UK Ad All commercials are computer assisted to a certain extent. The film is digitized before it's edited. Even the editing process performs digital modifications. I don't have specific knowledge of this spot, but Shel tells us it was shot live. Assuming that's true, I'm sure that some work was done in post to perfect the final result. Machines like Flame allow frame-by-frame tweaking of the image similar to what we can do with stills in PhotoShop. -- Original message -- From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do anyone see this, in any way, as being a computer assisted sequence?
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Well, I firmly have one boot in each camp. For serious images I use raw. For throw away images I use jpeg, not even the highest grade of jpeg. The trade off is some times simply the matter of how many images I can get on the card (68 raw or 400+ jpeg with my 5mp C-5050Z). That said one of the jpeg shots I took the day I got the camera was the custom routed and hand painted sign on a friends store; a couple of weeks ago someone stole the sign. The print I gave him is the only thing he has left of it. Does he care whether I used raw or jpeg? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters Cory, did you read my post? I said NOTHING about anti-RAW, I said that FOR MY USE of the camera it was not the correct choice. Aaron, you are discussing a topic with zealots, every bit as bigoted and about as reactive as a KKK member in a Negro church. As you have found, even hinting at a question gets crosses burned on your front lawn. William Robb
Re: OT: Big Squirrel Problem
- Original Message - From: Tim Øsleby Subject: RE: OT: Big Squirrel Problem Aah. I see. You should see our bears William Robb Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 7. april 2006 04:33 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Big Squirrel Problem - Original Message - From: Tim Øsleby Subject: RE: OT: Big Squirrel Problem Thats not a squirrel. You're in Europe, we grow them bigger over here William Robb http://www.geekbase.org/squirrelproblem/
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/hondacog.asp Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] All commercials are computer assisted to a certain extent. The film is digitized before it's edited. Even the editing process performs digital modifications. I don't have specific knowledge of this spot, but Shel tells us it was shot live. Assuming that's true, I'm sure that some work was done in post to perfect the final result. Machines like Flame allow frame-by-frame tweaking of the image similar to what we can do with stills in PhotoShop.
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
Of course it is. However I was not trying to be a guru, I was just commenting on Shel's idea of one size fits all computing. However I never have had that much of a problem running something I had the source code for. Yeh, maybe it needed a tweek or two to run on the equipment I had. But tell you what --try running a IBM mainframe application on Windows GRIN! you need more than a tweek and recompile. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- David Mann wrote: On Apr 7, 2006, at 4:07 AM, graywolf wrote: Almost all Unix type software can be run on any of those if you can get the source code and compile it for your system. That's very simplified :) Writing portable Unix software is quite an undertaking as there are many little differences in APIs, even though the systems tend to operate in much the same way. I've even had problems with shell scripts, although GNU utilities help a lot if they're installed. - Dave
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
I still think the little red eraser in the middle of Thinkpad keyboards is the quickest and easiest pointer device to use in conjuction with the keyboard, no need to move your hand back and forth between them. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Peter Lacus wrote: Personally, I find using the keyboard in conjunction with a one button mouse easier and faster for most things. Here here! Here too! :-) Bedo.
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
As someone who uses Thinkpads daily, the nipple is better than a trackpad, but significantly inferior to a mouse. The mouse is simply more accurate and faster. Both my Thinkpads have USB mice attached. My Mac has a 4 button mouse. Right-clicking is faster than ctrl-clicking. -Adam graywolf wrote: I still think the little red eraser in the middle of Thinkpad keyboards is the quickest and easiest pointer device to use in conjuction with the keyboard, no need to move your hand back and forth between them. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Peter Lacus wrote: Personally, I find using the keyboard in conjunction with a one button mouse easier and faster for most things. Here here! Here too! :-) Bedo.
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
I never suggested anything of the sort. The concept of one-size-fits-all computing was first proffered by ~you~. Shel [Original Message] From: graywolf Of course it is. However I was not trying to be a guru, I was just commenting on Shel's idea of one size fits all computing.
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/honda.php There are no computer graphics or digital tricks in the film. Everything you see really happened in real time exactly as you see it. The film took 606 takes. On the first 605 takes, something, usually very minor, didn't work. How do the tyres climb up the ramp? The viewer doesn't actually know what is up. Up doesn't have to be perpendicular to the floor. Kostas
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: The original theme was something like getting the most out of your DSLR. That's contrary to your suggested mode of operation. Uh, the original theme was 'can you help my technical writer friend by telling him what you do most often while performing a RAW conversion'. I know, because I wrote it. I noted that I can't help him because I don't shoot RAW. And then everyone told me how dumb I am. -Aaron
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:56 AM, John Forbes wrote: Or do you REALLY never make an error with exposure? The exposure has not changed inside the domed stadium in recent memory. Perhaps one day they will change the lights. But in the meantime, yes, I am pretty sure that I will not make an error with exposure. Why do people think this is even related to my question? -Aaron
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 7, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I've not timed the task specifically, but I know I've done case of 200-300 RAW files, set to output to a half-rez JPEG (1000x1500 pixels) 8bit sRGB file, on an iMac G4 20 with 1.25Ghz processor and a fast disk, and walked out of the room for dinner or something like that. The job is done when I return to the room, hmm, about an hour later. I'd be putting up the 2000x3008 files. Unfortunately, the extra two hours in your scenario is far too long. -Aaron
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
This is what I do regarding RAW conversion in Capture One (C1) when there's a batch I want to pay attention to: 1) Create a new folder 2) Inside that folder create a new RAW folder 3) Move files to the folder 4) In C1 set root as destination folder 5) Select portrait style files and rotate 90 counter-clockwise 6) Select all files that were shot with same light 7) See if WB is ok if not, change it 8) Select type of Film in the exposure tab 9) Check if need to compensate exposure, change contrast/brightness and/or saturation 10) Add to batch and start processing (C1 lets you start process while you are working with the next set of photos) 11) Repeat for the next set of photos You stupid Aaron, you don't shoot raw. PS: sorry just kidding ;o) On 4/7/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: The original theme was something like getting the most out of your DSLR. That's contrary to your suggested mode of operation. Uh, the original theme was 'can you help my technical writer friend by telling him what you do most often while performing a RAW conversion'. I know, because I wrote it. I noted that I can't help him because I don't shoot RAW. And then everyone told me how dumb I am. -Aaron
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Hello Aaron, Even as a RAW shooter myself, I can fully understand why you would shoot jpg. In your situation, you can dial in the exposure you want, along with WB and be on your way. I think some venues can benefit by shooting jpg. -- Bruce Friday, April 7, 2006, 5:19:32 AM, you wrote: AR On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: Well-said. I really don't understand the credibility of the anti-RAW argument that it adds a tremendous amount of work to the workflow. Even in my linux-land, I've got an automated script to dump RAW files from the card, apply auto white-balance, ICC profile, auto-exposure, and dump out a high-quality JPEG complete with USM applied. You know... EXACTLY what the camera does when you do an in-camera JPEG. All it costs me is having to let my computer chew on them unattended for a few minutes. In fact, the time it takes to copy the files from the card is about the same as the processing from RAW-JPEG. Very little additional time is taken for the 95% of the shots that are fine by default. For the 5% that I want to give extra attention to (WB, exposure nonlinearities, etc), I've got the master. I'm *sure* that all of the spiffy winders-only expensive RAW converters everyone uses can do the same as my free, open-source utilities. AR Cory, did you read my post? I said NOTHING about anti-RAW, I said that AR FOR MY USE of the camera it was not the correct choice. AR No matter how streamlined your workflow, 800 RAW images will take a AR long time to process. Do you not agree? Do you not agree in a AR situation where the light can never change unless there's a blackout, AR considering all images must be uploaded immediately after the event, AR that RAW is not a sensible choice? AR -Aaron
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Ryan K. Brooks wrote: Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: How do the tyres climb up the ramp? The viewer doesn't actually know what is up. Up doesn't have to be perpendicular to the floor. True, but that would make other bits of the interaction very difficult to accomplish. The tires were weighted inside, as explained in several of the URLs posted already. Godfrey
RE: OT: Big Squirrel Problem
Now I see why the new wide angle zoom is so popular over there. Because everything is soo big. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 7. april 2006 16:39 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Big Squirrel Problem - Original Message - From: Tim Øsleby Subject: RE: OT: Big Squirrel Problem Aah. I see. You should see our bears William Robb Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 7. april 2006 04:33 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Big Squirrel Problem - Original Message - From: Tim Øsleby Subject: RE: OT: Big Squirrel Problem Thats not a squirrel. You're in Europe, we grow them bigger over here William Robb http://www.geekbase.org/squirrelproblem/
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 7, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Fernando Terrazzino wrote: You stupid Aaron, you don't shoot raw. PS: sorry just kidding ;o) Hah! -Aaron
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
That sort of tweaking manipulation was assumed. The essential mechanics were really my point of wonderment. Thanks. Jack --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All commercials are computer assisted to a certain extent. The film is digitized before it's edited. Even the editing process performs digital modifications. I don't have specific knowledge of this spot, but Shel tells us it was shot live. Assuming that's true, I'm sure that some work was done in post to perfect the final result. Machines like Flame allow frame-by-frame tweaking of the image similar to what we can do with stills in PhotoShop. Paul -- Original message -- From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do anyone see this, in any way, as being a computer assisted sequence? Jack --- David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/7/06, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Rob Studdert wrote: Precarious balance and counter weights? Thanks. Where are they? Inside the tyres? Kostas I think so. The way they roll just isn't quit right. Dave S -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT - Honda UK Ad
Okay..I get your point and you'll get no debate from here. Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to get into a debate about it, but I have the DVD that includes the advert and the making of film about it. The people who shot it produced it as an interaction of the objects, not the result of image manipulation. It was very difficult to produce and quite an achievement. Whether they used a computer to put the final product together or not, what does it matter? I trust their statement that it was not image manipulation or careful editing that produced the sequence. They would have no reason for lying because the truth would eventually come out and discredit them. Godfrey From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do anyone see this, in any way, as being a computer assisted sequence? __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: PESO - Reviewing Life
Beautifully rendered and perceived. The white seed sails could imply age. Like it! Jack --- Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like to think of this as viewing life from the perspective that I have now - late parenthood. So I take the viewpoint of the dandelion seed cluster. Looking back to see the flower (my youth) and the bud (my childhood) and forward to the remains of the seed pod (late stages of life). I hope you see the symbolism. On a technical note - plants don't grow in ways to make the shot easy. I used 3 different lenses and many angles to get what I could envision. I really had to finally decide upon the DOF of the subjects vs the background blur. So I chose the perspective I did with emphasis on the seed pod and allowing the focus to soften on the early years (as is my memory). Pentax *istD, Sigma 100-300/4 EX, tripod ISO 400, 1/250 sec @ f/11 Converted from Raw using Capture One LE http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3089.htm Comments welcome -- Bruce __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: PESO - Reviewing Life
Well done. What I like most is that it can stand on its own without the explanation. A simple title, Life, would make it all quite clear. Nicely executed. But sorry to hear you've gone to seed :-))). Paul -- Original message -- From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] I like to think of this as viewing life from the perspective that I have now - late parenthood. So I take the viewpoint of the dandelion seed cluster. Looking back to see the flower (my youth) and the bud (my childhood) and forward to the remains of the seed pod (late stages of life). I hope you see the symbolism. On a technical note - plants don't grow in ways to make the shot easy. I used 3 different lenses and many angles to get what I could envision. I really had to finally decide upon the DOF of the subjects vs the background blur. So I chose the perspective I did with emphasis on the seed pod and allowing the focus to soften on the early years (as is my memory). Pentax *istD, Sigma 100-300/4 EX, tripod ISO 400, 1/250 sec @ f/11 Converted from Raw using Capture One LE http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3089.htm Comments welcome -- Bruce
Re: Re: Windows 98 x *ist DS
In that case, US prices for cameras probably aren't applicable either. I'd still expect a good PC to be available for less than the price of a DS. On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 02:16:31AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: If I'm not mistaken, the original poster is located in Brazil, so US prices for computer gear may not be applicable. Shel From: John Francis Hardly. For the price of a DL I can get an HP Media Center PC with 1GB PCI3200 memory, 2.8GHz P4, 200GB SATA drive, and a DVD burner. That's far more than is needed for digital photo editing. For that matter, for the same price I can buy a Compaq notebook with 512MB of memory and 60GB hard drive - more than enough for photo editing (it's what I use myself). The notebook comes with built-in wireless, too. It's possible to get a perfectly reasonable desktop machine for half that.
Re: OT Nother test
Gabriel Cain wrote: Most mailing lists have a feature called Receive-own-posts, and it usually defaults to false -- you know what you wrote. What you're experiencing is the typical behavior. :-) Gabriel Hi Gabriel, It's true some mailing lists are set up that way, but not this one. Welcome, by the way. Show us your photographs. Doug List Guy
Re: My first Epson. Please be gentle
On 4/7/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Epson Enhanced Matte is probably the best choice for test printing. It's no good for sale (paper yellows over time) So is that why they changed its name from archival matte? What matte papers do people use and like in their Epsons? -- Wendy Beard Ottawa Canada
Re: PESO - Peaking out
Hi! Big, fuzzy, intrusive, knob is just too much. The blossoms themselves, however, are shot at a great angle and with nice lighting. A worthy effort. Bruce, the light and execution are top notch... However I second Jack's comment about the knob... Boris
Re: PESO - Reviewing Life
Hi! I like to think of this as viewing life from the perspective that I have now - late parenthood. So I take the viewpoint of the dandelion seed cluster. Looking back to see the flower (my youth) and the bud (my childhood) and forward to the remains of the seed pod (late stages of life). I hope you see the symbolism. Yes, especially given the fact that it goes from top left to bottom right - the downhill direction... I am humbled and of course - thanks for the lesson... Boris
Re: OT Nother test
Hi Gabriel, It's true some mailing lists are set up that way, but not this one. I noticed that right after I posted. :D Welcome, by the way. Show us your photographs. Okay, I will. http://gabrielcain.com/ The pictures up there, however, are my Nikon 5400 pix. On the pentax side, I'm using a K1000, shooting Provia 100F most of the time. But I don't yet have a slide scanner (I will soon, tho), and consequently, I've got quite a few rolls of slides that arn't accessable right now. :) Hi list. :) Gabriel
RE: PESO - Reviewing Life
Simply outstanding Bruce. With, or without, the explanation. Don -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 11:10 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO - Reviewing Life I like to think of this as viewing life from the perspective that I have now - late parenthood. So I take the viewpoint of the dandelion seed cluster. Looking back to see the flower (my youth) and the bud (my childhood) and forward to the remains of the seed pod (late stages of life). I hope you see the symbolism. On a technical note - plants don't grow in ways to make the shot easy. I used 3 different lenses and many angles to get what I could envision. I really had to finally decide upon the DOF of the subjects vs the background blur. So I chose the perspective I did with emphasis on the seed pod and allowing the focus to soften on the early years (as is my memory). Pentax *istD, Sigma 100-300/4 EX, tripod ISO 400, 1/250 sec @ f/11 Converted from Raw using Capture One LE http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3089.htm Comments welcome -- Bruce
Re: My first Epson. Please be gentle
Epson Velvet Fine Art is definitely the nicest of the Epson papers. And Epson's profiles are near perfect. Radiant White Water Color is my second choice. Not as much tooth as the aforementioned but considerably less expensive. Some of the Hannemuhle papers are very nice. Hannemuhle William Turner is a lot like Epson Velvet Fine Art with even slightly more tooth. But available profiles aren't quite as accurate as those for Epson, the paper chips easily when used with pigment inks, and it's even more expensive. Paul -- Original message -- From: wendy beard [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 4/7/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Epson Enhanced Matte is probably the best choice for test printing. It's no good for sale (paper yellows over time) So is that why they changed its name from archival matte? What matte papers do people use and like in their Epsons? -- Wendy Beard Ottawa Canada
RE: F 35-135 NOT good in the aquarium
FA 28-105 f4-5.6 pz model was a favorite of mine for a film camera. I still have it. Very good lense, not much heavier than the 35-135 and nearly half the close focus. Still around, cheap $100-120 at KEH. Mark Stringer
Re: OT Nother test
Hello Gabriel, Welcome to the list. I took a look through your gallery. You've got some nice shots in there. One that stood out to me as showing some creative vision is: sun-and-the-rocks-at-hole-in-the-wall-01.jpg -- Bruce Friday, April 7, 2006, 10:15:16 AM, you wrote: Hi Gabriel, It's true some mailing lists are set up that way, but not this one. GC I noticed that right after I posted. :D Welcome, by the way. Show us your photographs. GC Okay, I will. http://gabrielcain.com/ GC The pictures up there, however, are my Nikon 5400 pix. On the pentax side, GC I'm using a K1000, shooting Provia 100F most of the time. But I don't yet GC have a slide scanner (I will soon, tho), and consequently, I've got quite a GC few rolls of slides that arn't accessable right now. :) GC Hi list. GC :) GC Gabriel
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Aaron, This was the question to which I was responding: Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:13:23 -0700 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters On Apr 6, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: He's new. He will find the calling soon enough Grasshopper.:-) He found hot pixels, he will find Raw.g I have found the calling: I'm in The Brotherhood. This digital camera thing is for work that is about speed, not quality. Why would I shoot RAW when I could shoot 67? For those situations when you want to get everything the DSLR can do. It's not about increased resolution, it's about getting all the dynamic range that the sensor can capture. It will still be dozens of times faster than processing, scanning, and printing 6x7 film. A good, automated RAW workflow makes it barely any more work to get standard JPEGs out of the process than capturing in JPEG format to begin with, but nets you the ability to go further when scene conditions warrant additional effort. Godfrey Note that I never said anything against your delight in the 6x7, or called you an idiot or exhibited any zealotry about RAW format. You asked why you *would* capture digitally in RAW format vs use your 6x7 with an emphasis on the speediness of the digital. I responded objectively. A comparison of 6x7 to DSLR RAW imaging qualities was not the point of my response, nor was I commenting on the specific high-volume-picture-production situation you are currently engaged in. I was answering as to why you *might* shoot RAW when you *could* use the 6x7. Period. Regards the original post: Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 12:54:44 -0400 From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: OT: help from the RAW file shooters Not for me, but for a friend who sent me this appeal: I'm taking a technical writing course in which we have to write documentation for a piece of software. The software we're using is Silkypix, which, if you don't know it, is a program that converts RAW files to jpegs or tifs. And you can do all kinds of adjusting before you produce the final jpeg or tif. None of the people in my group know anything about photography. What are some typical things you'd want to do if you had a RAW file and you wanted to make sure everything was okay before you saved it in the other format? We know the things the program can do, but we don't know what a photographer would actually want to do. I don't shoot RAW much. But I figured that the fine folks of the PDML would be able to help. -Aaron Before you even get to the question, you should be made aware that a RAW format file out of the camera (.PEF and other RAW formats) is a read-only file to any software I'm familiar with, including Silkypix. So the first thing that users of RAW format files should be made aware of is that they can process a RAW format file as many times and in as many ways as they like or need, never losing their original capture data. A RAW format file in DNG format is a writable file, but what is written and changed in it is not the capture data or original camera metadata. DNG files edited with Adobe Photoshop + Camera Raw and Adobe Bridge add RAW conversion parameters and ancillary metadata (IPTC core data, keyword data, edit history, etc etc), update the preview JPEG and thumbnail enclosures to reflect the current RAW conversion parameters, etc. The original capture data is not affected and can always be returned to at any time. After that, a typical RAW workflow goes like this: - copy files from storage card to computer hard drive - verify files by opening them with a RAW file browser/sorting application ... it's not a complete verification, but sufficient for most needs - if using DNG format, batch convert them, outputting the files into a suitable working location for sorting and selection. - back up to secondary storage the originals, the DNGs, or both depending upon your particular needs Everything up to this point can be automated with applications and scripts. I'd consider that to be the direct answer to What are some typical things you'd want to do if you had a RAW file and you wanted to make sure everything was okay before you saved it in the other format? They should be aware of the rest of the process, however. Next step is selection ... which of the files do you need to work to a form that can be evaluated? - use RAW file browser/sorting application to sort, select and rank candidates for proofing - bundle files which look to need similar adjustments together into groups - make adjustments for each group and apply parameters for RAW conversion processing From there you go on to a mix of batch and individual processing, depending upon the needs. - once you've covered all the groups such that all files have parameters applied, run RAW conversion as batch process,
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:08:42 +0100, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:56 AM, John Forbes wrote: Or do you REALLY never make an error with exposure? The exposure has not changed inside the domed stadium in recent memory. Perhaps one day they will change the lights. But in the meantime, yes, I am pretty sure that I will not make an error with exposure. Why do people think this is even related to my question? The question was: Do you REALLY never make an error with exposure? If the answer is yes, then go on shootig JPEG. If, on the other hand, you are human, you might be better off with RAW. :-) John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: I've not timed the task specifically, but I know I've done case of 200-300 RAW files, set to output to a half-rez JPEG (1000x1500 pixels) 8bit sRGB file, on an iMac G4 20 with 1.25Ghz processor and a fast disk, and walked out of the room for dinner or something like that. The job is done when I return to the room, hmm, about an hour later. I'd be putting up the 2000x3008 files. Unfortunately, the extra two hours in your scenario is far too long. Ok, so you got me interested in timing the process as I haven't done any practical performance investigation on the G5 so far. I know it's faster than my iMac G4 20 was, but by how much I could not say before this. System: Power Macintosh G5 2Ghz DP, 3G RAM, 500G hard disk, Mac OS X v10.4.6. Software: Adobe Photoshop CS2, Bridge and Camera Raw (latest updates to all). Procedure: Collected 100 DNG format RAW files (Pentax, Panasonic and Sony originals so 6, 8.5 and 10Mpixel mix), copied to a new folder. Opened the folder in Bridge and let it do its default processing of the file thumbnails - 2 minutes Opened all files in Camera Raw. Set workspace parameters to sRGB, 2008x3008 pixel resolution, JPEG (quality 10) output. Selected all files. Output to full resolution JPEGs took 4 minutes. That leads me to believe that processing 800 Pentax RAW files to a full resolution JPEG, using standard parameters, would consume under 40 minutes, give or take, with this setup. Godfrey
Re: OT Nother test
Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello Gabriel, Welcome to the list. I took a look through your gallery. You've got some nice shots in there. One that stood out to me as showing some creative vision is: sun-and-the-rocks-at-hole-in-the-wall-01.jpg Thanks!
Re: My first Epson. Please be gentle
On Apr 7, 2006, at 9:52 AM, wendy beard wrote: On 4/7/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Epson Enhanced Matte is probably the best choice for test printing. It's no good for sale (paper yellows over time) So is that why they changed its name from archival matte? What matte papers do people use and like in their Epsons? I use a lot of Epson Enhanced Matte. I have a couple of prints hanging on the wall, printed with PiezographyBW in 2001-2002 when it was called Archival Matte, that continue to look great. As the paper ages, its base color becomes slightly warmer (more yellow) over about the first year then is stable. I like the warm toned rendering for most work as well as the very matte surface, none of the people I have sold prints to have objected. I also like Epson Velvet Fine Art a lot, the texture and brilliance is very nice. It is considerably more expensive and somewhat more of a pain to print since you have to use back-feeding on the R2400 with it. There are plenty of other very nice papers, but since these two are doing the business for me, are easily available and Epson's profiles are right on the money with them, I've standardized and haven't spent the time to experiment with others yet. Godfrey
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:38 PM, John Forbes wrote: The question was: Do you REALLY never make an error with exposure? If the answer is yes, then go on shootig JPEG. If, on the other hand, you are human, you might be better off with RAW. :-) In 22 games last season I did not change the exposure dial and I did not make an error in exposure. Why is it hard to accept that the stadium is lit for TV and that the exposures never change? -Aaron
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Why don't you recommend that your friend buy a copy of Real World Camera Raw and crib his paper from there. It is the book most of the folks on the list learned from and it is only $25 from amazon.com. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:56 AM, John Forbes wrote: Or do you REALLY never make an error with exposure? The exposure has not changed inside the domed stadium in recent memory. Perhaps one day they will change the lights. But in the meantime, yes, I am pretty sure that I will not make an error with exposure. Why do people think this is even related to my question? -Aaron
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
Ah, but the comment wasn't about which is better used by itself, but which was better used in in conjunction with the keyboard. I would not chose the eraser pointer to use with PhotoShop or browsing, but I would for word processing. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Adam Maas wrote: As someone who uses Thinkpads daily, the nipple is better than a trackpad, but significantly inferior to a mouse. The mouse is simply more accurate and faster. Both my Thinkpads have USB mice attached. My Mac has a 4 button mouse. Right-clicking is faster than ctrl-clicking. -Adam graywolf wrote: I still think the little red eraser in the middle of Thinkpad keyboards is the quickest and easiest pointer device to use in conjuction with the keyboard, no need to move your hand back and forth between them. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Peter Lacus wrote: Personally, I find using the keyboard in conjunction with a one button mouse easier and faster for most things. Here here! Here too! :-) Bedo.
Re: Run Windoze on your Mac
Twas merely my translation of what you said in a paragraph or two. It is of course possible I read you wrong. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: I never suggested anything of the sort. The concept of one-size-fits-all computing was first proffered by ~you~. Shel [Original Message] From: graywolf Of course it is. However I was not trying to be a guru, I was just commenting on Shel's idea of one size fits all computing.
Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Aaron, This was the question to which I was responding: Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:13:23 -0700 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters On Apr 6, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: He's new. He will find the calling soon enough Grasshopper.:-) He found hot pixels, he will find Raw.g I have found the calling: I'm in The Brotherhood. This digital camera thing is for work that is about speed, not quality. Why would I shoot RAW when I could shoot 67? For those situations when you want to get everything the DSLR can do. It's not about increased resolution, it's about getting all the dynamic range that the sensor can capture. It will still be dozens of times faster than processing, scanning, and printing 6x7 film. A good, automated RAW workflow makes it barely any more work to get standard JPEGs out of the process than capturing in JPEG format to begin with, but nets you the ability to go further when scene conditions warrant additional effort. Godfrey Note that I never said anything against your delight in the 6x7, or called you an idiot or exhibited any zealotry about RAW format. You asked why you *would* capture digitally in RAW format vs use your 6x7 with an emphasis on the speediness of the digital. I responded objectively. A comparison of 6x7 to DSLR RAW imaging qualities was not the point of my response, nor was I commenting on the specific high-volume-picture-production situation you are currently engaged in. I was answering as to why you *might* shoot RAW when you *could* use the 6x7. Period. Regards the original post: Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 12:54:44 -0400 From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: OT: help from the RAW file shooters Not for me, but for a friend who sent me this appeal: I'm taking a technical writing course in which we have to write documentation for a piece of software. The software we're using is Silkypix, which, if you don't know it, is a program that converts RAW files to jpegs or tifs. And you can do all kinds of adjusting before you produce the final jpeg or tif. None of the people in my group know anything about photography. What are some typical things you'd want to do if you had a RAW file and you wanted to make sure everything was okay before you saved it in the other format? We know the things the program can do, but we don't know what a photographer would actually want to do. I don't shoot RAW much. But I figured that the fine folks of the PDML would be able to help. -Aaron Before you even get to the question, you should be made aware that a RAW format file out of the camera (.PEF and other RAW formats) is a read-only file to any software I'm familiar with, including Silkypix. So the first thing that users of RAW format files should be made aware of is that they can process a RAW format file as many times and in as many ways as they like or need, never losing their original capture data. A RAW format file in DNG format is a writable file, but what is written and changed in it is not the capture data or original camera metadata. DNG files edited with Adobe Photoshop + Camera Raw and Adobe Bridge add RAW conversion parameters and ancillary metadata (IPTC core data, keyword data, edit history, etc etc), update the preview JPEG and thumbnail enclosures to reflect the current RAW conversion parameters, etc. The original capture data is not affected and can always be returned to at any time. After that, a typical RAW workflow goes like this: - copy files from storage card to computer hard drive - verify files by opening them with a RAW file browser/sorting application ... it's not a complete verification, but sufficient for most needs - if using DNG format, batch convert them, outputting the files into a suitable working location for sorting and selection. - back up to secondary storage the originals, the DNGs, or both depending upon your particular needs Everything up to this point can be automated with applications and scripts. I'd consider that to be the direct answer to What are some typical things you'd want to do if you had a RAW file and you wanted to make sure everything was okay before you saved it in the other format? They should be aware of the rest of the process, however. Next step is selection ... which of the files do you need to work to a form that can be evaluated? - use RAW file browser/sorting application to sort, select and rank candidates for proofing - bundle files which look to need similar adjustments together into groups - make adjustments for each group and apply parameters for RAW conversion processing From there you go on to a mix of batch and individual processing, depending upon the needs. - once you've covered all the groups such that all files have parameters applied, run RAW conversion as batch process,
