Let's put it more bluntly, this is a Pentax Camera list. The photography
techniques are somewhat off-topic, and the photo-aesthetic stuff is
completely off topic and actually belongs on some other list. The PDML
has always been very tolerant of off-topic posts, but the suggestion
that the
Where and when was that suggested, and by whom?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: graywolf
Let's put it more bluntly, this is a Pentax Camera list. The photography
techniques are somewhat off-topic, and the photo-aesthetic stuff is
completely off topic and actually belongs on some other
I thought this was a Pentax and all things photo related list. (I'm
going to take out an insurance policy on my camera before I take a
picture of my gun wrapped in a Canadian flag)
Norm
graywolf wrote:
Let's put it more bluntly, this is a Pentax Camera list. The photography
techniques
.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
graywolf
Sent: 11. januar 2007 16:24
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow)
Let's put it more bluntly, this is a Pentax Camera list
On 11/1/07, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:
Correct me if I'm wrong. I've only been here a year and a half.
Wow, seems more like ten.
;-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
On Jan 11, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Cotty wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong. I've only been here a year and a half.
Wow, seems more like ten. ... [ka ching!]
I've been here two years but I think it's aged me ten. Those who have
been here for 8 years are probably over one hundred now, it's an e^x
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
graywolf
Sent: 11. januar 2007 16:24
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow)
Let's put it more bluntly, this is a Pentax Camera list. The
photography
techniques are somewhat off-topic, and the photo
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:50:42PM +, Cotty wrote:
On 11/1/07, Tim ?sleby, discombobulated, unleashed:
Correct me if I'm wrong. I've only been here a year and a half.
Wow, seems more like ten.
Only if you count in dog years ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Agreed. For example, I find it useless in most situations to try to
reproduce the exact temperature of the light. For some shots, I want a
warm look, for others, something colder. What the finished photographs
communicates is the important element. To me, what was really there is
On 10/01/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not photography, that's creating a recording of a subject. You
have to learn to trust your eyes and aesthetics, and develop the
ability to see, to do photography.
Wow, I didn't realize that this was the case.
--
Rob Studdert
William Robb wrote:
You need to look at more good pictures then.
Not necessarily photographs either.
Great advice! I'm very fortunate to live within walking distance of a
good art museum (the Carnegie) and I find looking at paintings to be
quite instructive. They had an exhibit of Hudson River
And how did you, or do you, deal with BW?
Youir comments suggest that you're not a photographer but some kind of
technician.
Shel
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
... I am quite in the minority as a
technical photographer as
opposed to an artsy photographer.
Most are the latter and whatever
And how did you, or do you, deal with BW?
Occasionally.
Youir comments suggest that you're not a photographer but some kind of
technician.
Shel
I may have overstated my position somewhat, but I personally find
endless tweaking on the computer irritating and circuitous. My
On 11/01/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And how did you, or do you, deal with BW?
Youir comments suggest that you're not a photographer but some kind of
technician.
I'm a bit confused and surprised at some of the comments relating to
Cory's posts. Whether somebody is making
- Original Message -
From: Digital Image Studio Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow)
On 11/01/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And how did you, or do you, deal with BW?
Youir comments suggest that you're not a photographer but some kind of
technician.
I'm a bit
On Jan 10, 2007, at 5:56 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I may have overstated my position somewhat, but I personally find
endless tweaking on the computer irritating and circuitous. My
photography style ends as it did when shot film... once the
shutter is
pressed. All of the technical (lens
On Jan 10, 2007, at 6:23 AM, William Robb wrote:
I'm a bit confused and surprised at some of the comments relating to
Cory's posts. Whether somebody is making photographs to create art or
records surely they are still a photographer if they control how or
what is being photographed?
By
Well, let me then amend my post: I think he's more a technician than a
photographer concerned with the aesthetics and creativity involved in
photographing a subject. I believe Mr.Papanfuss has stated that as well,
at least to some degree.
Further - and this just may be me - I don't recall ever
Watch out here as an elitist snob... I have been very careful to
qualify any of my potentially denigrating comments WRT photographer vs.
technician. I personally think of it as the difference between a
technical photographer and an artsy photographer. I am very much the
former, but
! These were highly abstract images of fracture surfaces
of some automotive components.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow)
Watch out here as an elitist snob... I have been very careful to
qualify any
@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:16:59 -0500
Interesting.
I consider myself a photographer - period. Although I tend to enjoy nature
photography the most.
In my own time I try to capture outdoor images in a real
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:09 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow)
My turn to say Interesting.
Ever since I really got seriously interested in photography, in the late
80's, I've felt it was a great melding of my technical bent
This could certainly be an interesting discussion.
I'm sure we could categorize types of photos and the skills needed for
them. Also, we could go so far as to say that the more technical
skill you have, the better off you are. However, without some
artistic skill, photos can be less
On 11/01/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, let me then amend my post: I think he's more a technician than a
photographer concerned with the aesthetics and creativity involved in
photographing a subject. I believe Mr.Papanfuss has stated that as well,
at least to some degree.
On 11/01/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And how did you, or do you, deal with BW?
Youir comments suggest that you're not a photographer but
some kind of
technician.
I'm a bit confused and surprised at some of the comments relating to
Cory's posts. Whether somebody is
On 10/1/07, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
This looks set fair to be another lot of nonsense about definitions.
Define 'definitions' ;-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML
On Jan 8, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
If you haven't already, you might want to take a read of this
guy's rantings on linear vs. gamma errors. The color management
part of
it is different from gamma errors.
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/gie/index.htm
This guy
If you haven't already, you might want to take a read of this
guy's rantings on linear vs. gamma errors. The color management
part of
it is different from gamma errors.
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/gie/index.htm
This guy is using Photoshop 6. Which means he's not even working
- Original Message -
From: Cory Papenfuss Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow)
I don't thing Photoshop deals with RAW images anyway, does it? A
RAW image doesn't even make sense until it's been interpolated into RGB.
Anyway, as usual I care little... just having a good ol
On Jan 9, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I don't thing Photoshop deals with RAW images anyway, does it? A
RAW image doesn't even make sense until it's been interpolated into
RGB.
Anyway, as usual I care little... just having a good ol' fashioned
pedantic discussion
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Pedantry does not produce photographs.
MARK! ;-)
--
Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On 10/01/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not all of us are interested in theoretical pedantry.
Mark!
Two quotes out of the one post, impressive.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem, Cory, is that the question I was responding to, and
subsequent discussion, was a bona fide question by a new user on how
best to work with his K10D RAW image files. Not all of us are
interested in theoretical pedantry.
My bad... I don't recall the original inquiry. I was
- Original Message -
From: Cory Papenfuss Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow)
I am cursed by the fact that I do not trust my own preference for
pleasing/accurate,
You need to look at more good pictures then.
Not necessarily photographs either.
I find my own pictures
On Jan 9, 2007, at 5:44 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
... I am quite in the minority as a technical photographer as
opposed to an artsy photographer. Most are the latter and whatever
looks good is acceptable. I find it difficult to trust my own
sense of
quality, so I resort to objective
Sorry, but that's not true. I know the difference between Bayer
interpolation and gamma-encoding. And gamma-encoding is not simply
applying a logrithmic function to the data before quantizing. It's a
mite bit more involved than that, although it presents a first order
approximation.
Now
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 02:15:12 +0100, Tim sleby wrote:
But unlike you, I think it is better setting the darks before brightness. If
I set darkness before brightness, it seems I always need to go back again.
I agree with Tim on this one.
Otherwise, I must say Paul's description is
pretty close
I sometimes set the black point first as well. I'm not really conscious
of a specific ordering of steps in regard to exposure, brightness and
shadows. I think I vary my sequence in respect to the specific needs of
the shot I'm working with.
Paul
On Jan 7, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Jan van Wijk wrote:
Remember that in doing RAW conversion you are performing a gamma
correction on a linear dataset. This means compressing (pushing
closer together, setting the white point on...) the high values)
while expanding (stretching apart, setting the black point on...) the
low values to fit the
A few ways around that data loss:
- Use 16-bit gamma RGB. There's still *some* data manipulation in terms
of quantizing (rounding up/down), but 12-bit linear has less gradations
in all areas than 16-bit gamma.
- Keep all images 16-bit linear and use color-management during any
On Jan 7, 2007, at 7:09 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
A few ways around that data loss:
- Use 16-bit gamma RGB. There's still *some* data manipulation in
terms
of quantizing (rounding up/down), but 12-bit linear has less
gradations
in all areas than 16-bit gamma.
- Keep all
IIRC, Bruce Fraser made that point in his books, and I've read it
elsewhere as well. I usually set the black point in Photoshop, not ACR,
but I'll play around with the black point in ACR just to see what the
results might look like.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
You can
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: 7. januar 2007 15:21
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow)
Remember that in doing RAW conversion you are performing a gamma
correction on a linear dataset. This means compressing (pushing
closer together, setting the white
A few ways around that data loss:
- Use 16-bit gamma RGB. There's still *some* data manipulation in
terms
of quantizing (rounding up/down), but 12-bit linear has less
gradations
in all areas than 16-bit gamma.
- Keep all images 16-bit linear and use color-management during any
On 08/01/07, Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Likely done in a gamma-corrected 16-bit colorspace, but it doesn't
*have* to be. With 16-bits/channel, gamma-correction is even more
processing to the original RAW data than is necessary.
Ah but it does, most commercial RAW
And you do this in Photoshop, right? ]'-)
You're confusing Bayer interpolation with gamma-encoding images.
They're not the same thing Bayer interpolation takes the monochome
image taken by the sensor with alternating RGBG color filter
masks and
tries to recreate an actual 3-colors
Welcome Ed.
About raw word flow. I wrote an article describing my work flow
http://www.photosight.org/pforum/showflat.php?Cat=Board=phototechnicalityN
umber=322113page=0view=collapsedsb=5o=fpart=.
So why not short version it to English?
If you don't find it useful, somebody else might.
I'm not
2007 18:46
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Introduction (Raw work flow)
Welcome Ed.
About raw word flow. I wrote an article describing my work flow
http://www.photosight.org/pforum/showflat.php?Cat=Board=phototechnicalityN
umber=322113page=0view=collapsedsb=5o=fpart=.
So why not short
Quoting Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you are Ken Rockwell, you like strong colours.
I'm not, thank God
Dave
Equine Photography in York Region
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
In my secret second ( or maybe third?) life, I'm Ken Rockwell, and
I'm damn well tired of you Pentaxians making fun of me. Nikon rules!
Paul
On Jan 6, 2007, at 3:18 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
Quoting Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you are Ken Rockwell, you like strong colours.
I'm not,
Thanks for that Tim. Very useful to know how others approach raw processing.
Oh, and welcome Ed!
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
Quoting Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Welcome Ed.
About raw word flow. I wrote an article
: Introduction (Raw work flow)
Thanks for that Tim. Very useful to know how others approach raw
processing.
Oh, and welcome Ed!
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
Quoting Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Welcome Ed.
About raw word flow
Hah! I knew it!
Paul Stenquist wrote:
In my secret second ( or maybe third?) life, I'm Ken Rockwell, and
I'm damn well tired of you Pentaxians making fun of me. Nikon rules!
Paul
On Jan 6, 2007, at 3:18 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
Quoting Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you
Subject: RE: Introduction (Raw work flow)
Thanks for that Tim. Very useful to know how others approach raw
processing.
Oh, and welcome Ed!
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
Quoting Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Welcome Ed
Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
Brian Walters
Sent: 6. januar 2007 23:11
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Introduction (Raw work flow)
Thanks for that Tim. Very useful to know how others approach raw
processing
: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow)
I'm probably a bit too tired and inebriated to do this, but I'll
rough it out.
I shoot only RAW. I open them in Camera RAW converter. I have CS1 on
my main computer and CS2 on my laptop. I use both. CS2 is only an
advantage for pics where you really need
56 matches
Mail list logo
