| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/26/2007 02:01:45 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
What I don't get, however, is why anyone else.. anywhere.. gives a shit *what* I, or anyone else that isn't themselves, shoots in.. besides people asking for specific pros/cons or advice on the differences.
|
Amen
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:02:29 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
He said the most peaceful thing on earth and u know damn well if god said heres the solution everyone would shut up for about 10 years and then war would break out again. This man said what needed to be said and too bad it wont be more then 10 mintues before the next raw or jpeg post. |
Yeah, but *who cares*? It's perfectly OK for people to keep weighing in with their own opinions. If it's repeating itself, nobody has to read it. When people stop posting to it, it goes away of its own accord.
Be realistic: every single topic in these forums could be "closed down" by a post such as Artyste's: "You do what you want to, I do what I want to, he does what he wants to, there's room for everyone and every opinion." I mean, that really IS an admirable sentiment, and it definitely DOES make for a healthier environment if people can learn to advocate without being strident, but the bottom line is, it's GOOD to see people expressing their opinions and there's no reason at all to shut it down if it's not getting personal, ya know?
Or am I missing something? Do we want a designated "Forum Czar" who keeps up on these threads and makes a unilateral decision as to when everything has been said that should be said, and shuts them down?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:03:58 AM · #128 |
| Well SC can still lock a thread and if one were to create a new thread to discuss why it was locked they have the sole descresion to lock the follow up thread. Trust me this forum is lightly controlled compared tot he Nazi's that run ngemu they have 24 hour world wide nazi's patrolling threads older then my car lol. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:41:42 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Well SC can still lock a thread and if one were to create a new thread to discuss why it was locked they have the sole descresion to lock the follow up thread. Trust me this forum is lightly controlled compared tot he Nazi's that run ngemu they have 24 hour world wide nazi's patrolling threads older then my car lol. |
Yes, of course they CAN lock one. The question is, what provocation is required before they step in and DO so? As you so astutely point out, this site is "ruled" with a light hand, and IMO that's a good thing. Thus, they let threads (like this one) die their own natural deaths when folks run out of steam.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:56:19 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Well SC can still lock a thread and if one were to create a new thread to discuss why it was locked they have the sole descresion to lock the follow up thread. Trust me this forum is lightly controlled compared tot he Nazi's that run ngemu they have 24 hour world wide nazi's patrolling threads older then my car lol. |
Hey Jeff,
I'm going to suggest something in the nicest way I can.
You're a "new kid on the block" so to speak and you've jumped into a very tight-knit community of people that have been around for years, banging your fists on the table, demanding to be heard, but have done so in what is easily perceived as a combative manner.
Relax, have fun, get a sense what others are saying and know when it's time to ease up a notch.
Just some observations and hopefully helpful suggestions regarding getting acclimated/adjusted to the people and ways here. There's an incredible wealth of knowledge and talent on this site, and hopefully you can add to it.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:55:29 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Well SC can still lock a thread and if one were to create a new thread to discuss why it was locked they have the sole descresion to lock the follow up thread. Trust me this forum is lightly controlled compared tot he Nazi's that run ngemu they have 24 hour world wide nazi's patrolling threads older then my car lol. |
Hey Jeff,
I'm going to suggest something in the nicest way I can.
You're a "new kid on the block" so to speak and you've jumped into a very tight-knit community of people that have been around for years, banging your fists on the table, demanding to be heard, but have done so in what is easily perceived as a combative manner.
Relax, have fun, get a sense what others are saying and know when it's time to ease up a notch.
Just some observations and hopefully helpful suggestions regarding getting acclimated/adjusted to the people and ways here. There's an incredible wealth of knowledge and talent on this site, and hopefully you can add to it. |
I just know i see a bunch of frustrated people that are having the worse debate since film versus digital. Let me start a thread on that and see if it doesnt get 100 pages long. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 08:44:45 AM · #132 |
| Just hijack this one. Anyway, this thread should keep on rolling till I've finished my poem adapting the Apostle's Creed to incorporate the beliefs of the DPC community. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:39:03 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
Just hijack this one. Anyway, this thread should keep on rolling till I've finished my poem adapting the Apostle's Creed to incorporate the beliefs of the DPC community. |
That shouldnt be too hard... or is it? |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:41:42 AM · #134 |
If this discussion is gonna continue, please keep it remotely connected to the topic and remember - assume good faith. Discussion does not equal argument. I started this thread with a serious question. If you guys feel the need to fight, please take it elsewhere.
And don't ya dare intentionally hijack the thread. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:48:01 AM · #135 |
| Heh nards i say lock it fight ends for a few days hehe and a fight starts saying no no lol. Its okay fights break out over fights all the time. Take it outside. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:50:41 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Heh nards i say lock it fight ends for a few days hehe and a fight starts saying no no lol. Its okay fights break out over fights all the time. Take it outside. |
No, that's not the game here. I can't lock my own threads, and I don't WANT this thread locked. It's a valuable discussion, and when it falls apart into silly, childish arguments, what I want is for the childish arguing to stop and let the thread continue.
By the way, there is no fight here. There was a lot of good, solid discussion. Let's keep it that way.
Let's drop the mention of locking the thread. Let's act mature about it, okay? |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:54:12 AM · #137 |
I can agree and understand to a point. Its about as valuable as Film versus Digital. WHich has happend a million times. This convo is common also.
But it brings up all the pros cons and personal experiences people have had. Ill take the cliff notes version when your done! |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 11:05:45 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Ill take the cliff notes version when your done! |
Feel free to check back in at any time. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 11:09:33 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I find it ironic that a camera that cost over 3G doesn't take satisfactory jpegs right out of the box compelling one to use raw to compensate. lol jk had to say it though. |
You can find it ironic if you like, but those cameras are designed to produce images (RAW or JPG) that are expected to have further processing done to them. |
so back in the days of negative cameras, does the super-expensive cameras produce negatives that must be edited to be good? |
But I don't use a film camera and the camera I do use is designed to produce files that are meant to be edited to be in their final form. I can't change that fact. It's what the engineers who made the camera decided to do. JPEG or RAW.
With RAW at least my workflow is simpler and I don't do steps twice to the image, when they aren't needed.
(sharpening, white balance, contrast)
It works for me, it doesn't have to work for anyone else. I happen to have a stupidly fast dual processor PC with more memory than I know what to do with so RAW processing takes seconds (in fact opening large JPEGs often seems to take longer with some tools)
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 11:19:59.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 11:16:16 AM · #140 |
I'll remind a certain participant that the forum rules ask:
- That you assume good faith
- That you act in a civil, non-combative manner
- That you not bait other users
- That you not hijack discussions (which includes dominating the discussion with non-contributing posts)
Let's get the discussion back on track, and keep it out of the ditch. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 11:17:24 AM · #141 |
I shoot RAW, but process most of what I do in DPP, which requires very little user input (usually, it runs overnight). I can go back and tweak any picture that I really like in Lightroom or RSP or Photomatix.
Funny, it would be quicker to process a big shoot at a 1 hour photo lab--the raw converter chugs along for a while.
One doesn't always have time to set a custom white balance, and the camera guesses wrong sometimes. And there are some shots where I think a little warmer is better.
One big reason to shoot RAW is mixed lighting. Say you're taking an environmental portrait in a room lit with cool white fluorescents, and set custom WB for the subject. There is a window in the background, and its a cloudy day. Assuming most of the light you metered for is from the fluorescents, the outside will have a magenta color cast. You can re-process the RAW for "cloudy WB" and then cut and paste the two JPGs to get a good looking picture.
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 11:18:12. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 11:21:31 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by hankk:
One big reason to shoot RAW is mixed lighting. Say you're taking an environmental portrait in a room lit with cool white fluorescents, and set custom WB for the subject. There is a window in the background, and its a cloudy day. Assuming most of the light you metered for is from the fluorescents, the outside will have a magenta color cast. You can re-process the RAW for "cloudy WB" and then cut and paste the two JPGs to get a good looking picture. |
In that sort of situation I tend to do two things.
1/ Use the large electronic flourescent colour cast removal switch on the wall, prior to taking the shot.
2/ use a strobe with a gel to match the remaining ambient light.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 12:18:17 PM · #143 |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 12:33:03 PM · #144 |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 12:37:52 PM · #145 |
I shoot raw and buy lots of discs. Storage sucks. Wait till we are all start shooting some new form of image that will be all the exposures in one. I see the future full of huge huge files.
As they say in the record business, Fix it in post. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 12:38:56 PM · #146 |
OMG, that's hilarious!
- No notes on what compression level used and resultant file sizes
- No procedural notes
- Crappy test image
- Absolutely unsupportable results
I ran a JPEG compression of the crappy "original" saved at 25% quality (!) and took the difference between it and the original, and the result is better than the touted "HD Photo" result. There's no way that JPEG compression would give a difference result as bad as what's shown, unless applied at dismal quality, and done repeatedly. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 12:40:20 PM · #147 |
That's pretty revealing.
Anybody know of any such comparisons - or can you tell me how to do one - of an image recorded and processed in RAW/TIFF versus one recorded in JPG and processed in JPG???
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 12:52:28 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by nards656:
That's pretty revealing.
Anybody know of any such comparisons - or can you tell me how to do one - of an image recorded and processed in RAW/TIFF versus one recorded in JPG and processed in JPG??? |
Well, in theory, RAW would be black (it is lossless).
As Kirbic says, there doesn't appear to be much science to this (although if the review were prepared by someone independent I might give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did the comparison under fair/equivalent conditions against a lossless capture).
However - the credit for the image goes to Microsoft, and so I am somewhat suspicious/distrusting!!
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 12:54:21 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I ran a JPEG compression of the crappy "original" saved at 25% quality (!) and took the difference between it and the original, and the result is better than the touted "HD Photo" result. There's no way that JPEG compression would give a difference result as bad as what's shown, unless applied at dismal quality, and done repeatedly. |
I agree with your scepticism. My only criticism of your science is that your "original" was stored in jpeg format, not a lossless format.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 12:56:09 PM · #150 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 08:35:00 PM EDT.
