 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4be27992@news.povray.org...
> >> While it *is* truly amazing - to the point of being frightening - the
> >> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
> >> copy of Photoshop in the first place. Last time I checked, it's
> >> jaw-droppingly expensive...
> > It's less than pocket change for individuals or businesses doing actual
work
> > with it, as far as tools go.
> Sure. I can believe that. It's just that _for an individual_ it's
> exorbitantly expensive.
> (But then, it's not designed for individuals...)
Yes, that's the bottomline; it's a professional application for
professionals. Average home user has a lot of other choices that should
satisfy their needs for free or for a few bucks at most. Unfortunately,
piracy of it is beyond critical mass, so everyone thinks of Photoshop when
all they need to is crop a couple of pictures, which encourages them to
pirate it, fueling the fire.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 May 2010 21:09:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> Just FYI, the camera doesn't have any option to save anything but JPEG
>>> format. You can adjust the colour balance (but not very much), and
>>> exposure and IIRC you can manually set the shutter speed in case you're
>>> insane.
>>>
>>> I still want a new camera. It's a PITA that I can't leave the batteries
>>> in this one...
>>
>> What kind of camera have you got? (I suppose I could look at the EXIF
>> tags.....Fujifilm FinePix S304 it looks like.
>
> Yeah, that sounds right.
>
>> Changing the shutter speed, though, that's not insane, that's sensible
>> when you can tell how it will affect the image.
>
> No, I mean... When you adjust the exposure, you turn it up or down
> *relative* to what the camera thinks it should be. But with the shutter
> speed, you can have it automatic, or completely manual (i.e., you have
> to somehow *guess* what the number should be without any assistence).
> It's not relative to what the camera chose.
The camera should have a way of telling you what it thinks optimum
exposure is. Without any training, you can gauge from that.
Or you can guess from the Sunny 16 rule, f16 and 1/ISO shutter speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule
Looking at the manual for the S304 manual mode, it looks fairly simple.
f2.8,4.8,8.2 apertures, really weird choices on the 4.8 and 8.2, but
those are what it has. Since you have expressed that you want the stuff
in focus to be in focus, while the rest gets blurred, use a lower fstop,
2.8 is really narrow. Then, it looks like you do not get a shutter speed
adjustment, just aperture priority mode, so you don't have to worry
about the math or gauging the light available from the sun. Just tell it
the aperture, and let it go. If that is still too bright, could be that
the camera isn't as smart as it pretends to be, and dial the exposure
down, -1 or what ever.
Ap priority is in the photography menu, should show up on the bottom of
the lcd after being selected with "1/5000f2.8" or what ever, based on
the speed it thinks is good, and the aperture you selected. But for
heaven sake, get it out of auto mode.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 May 2010 12:35:02 +0200, scott wrote:
>>
>>> And typically pros will not let the camera do *any* processing, and
>>> import the raw sensor data to their computer for manual colour,
>>> sharpness and exposure control.
>>
>> Exactly - the adjustments I made were pretty basic with GIMP (similar
>> to the ones you made), but if RAW format images were available,
>> there'd be a lot more room to adjust things like exposure.
>
> ....but once the image has been taken, the exposure has already
> happened. How can you change it after the fact?
>
When shooting in RAW, the camera is not recording 'this pixel is X
amount of green.' It is recording only 'sensor location x,y received Z
amount of light.' The editing software looks at that, not at the
interpolated (RGB,HSL,HSV,CMYK,whatever) image. So, if you know that Z
light was received over T time, and you want to know what it might look
like had you left the shutter open for 1.5T, just go through and bump
everything to 1.5Z, then interpolate to get the image to display. This
gets much less accurate as you get past one full step exposure, 0.5 and
2 times the light.
This still won't recover data from areas that were saturated, as if the
sensor is all at Zmax they will all reduce equally. It can, since there
often there is some light hitting the sensor at all locations, be used
to push an exposure up and get more detail out of dark areas. You can
also change the curve of the sensor response by group, affecting only
the red, green, or blue sensors. You can do this with a JPEG as well,
but my suspicion is that if you use a RAW the curve would be applied
before the sensor elements are interpolated.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/5/2010 5:35 AM, scott wrote:
> They looked decent enough to me! And typically pros will not let the
> camera do *any* processing, and import the raw sensor data to their
> computer for manual colour, sharpness and exposure control.
Some do, some don't. I know one pro who does motorsport shooting and
never uses raw images. He wants to cram as many exposures onto his flash
card as he can, and generally knows how to nail the exposure and white
balance in-camera so he has hardly any post process to do on the image.
Wedding photogs are another group of pro's that some will do jpeg rather
than raw, simply because they want a ton of images.
Though most that don't have high volumes of images prefer raw. I prefer
raw simply because I'm a control freak.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/5/2010 3:53 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0011.html
>
> Similar deal. No contrast anywhere, half the frame is bleached white,
> and it doesn't even appear to be properly in focus in places.
Nice knotty tree. Lovely texture on that log.
What you may want to do is find out where your camera's exposure
compensation setting is and bring it down a little.
Of course, you can always try to adjust the image in post, here's an
example with the log picture. Not the greatest, but definitely gives
richer tones. (I'm using Aviary for this, which is powerful (in the
right hands) I would have preferred the Curves tool in Gimp or Photoshop.)
http://rookery9.aviary.com.s3.amazonaws.com/3855500/3855504_9d0a_625x625.jpg
>
> These images are scaled down; usually the full-res image is horribly
> grainy too. (Because, let's face it, usually it *isn't* a dazzlingly
> bright June afternoon, and my camera is supremely insensitive to light.
> If it's not blinding sunshine, it wants to use the flash...)
>
> There's no way my camera would ever capture the lush colours and sharp
> edges of the images you show.
Sure it can! Careful management of exposure, and judicious
post-processing work can make any image really pop. If your camera has a
very noisy sensor, look into something like NeatImage to clean up the
noise. I use it for extremely high ISO images (e.g. ISO 3200, or 3200
pushed 1 stop) and it works great.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> For the most part, I think they are right. The patents are in coding and
> decoding, and patent infringement does not extend to the end user.
Well, it's the end user doing the decoding. And if I upload an h.264 video
to a host and that host distributes it, the host isn't doing encoding or
decoding any more than the routers are. So while this may be business as
usual, it doesn't sound like the legal system has figured out the reality of
the situation yet.
> If the video encoder
> paid their license and the video player did as well, should they finally
> be asked to, then the video host should not be liable.
That would be my guess, yes, but this is the legal system we're talking about.
And what happens if the video transcoding is hosted where there's no
software patents? Does that make it clear to send that encoded video back to
the USA?
I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as either side makes it seem. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Same story here, except 8 used to crash about 50% of the time when I
> tried to crop an image. Got X2 now and TBH I don't remember it trying
> to index all the images on my HD (maybe I turned it off somehow, I don't
> remember).
It only does it once at the start, of course. :-) Maybe you don't have
enough images to notice, but I carry several thousand fairly large images on
my machine.
(OK, make that 40,000 images totaling 60+G. It takes a while to scan them all.)
Look in your appdata\local\corel\thumbs and see what you have there. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2010 00:24:07 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
> Second, if you're talking about the ISO setting rather than the
> exposure, that's about how much you pre-bias the electrons in the
> sensor. Basically, you load up each pixel of the sensor with some
> electrons, and if light kicks out an electron, you add one to the
> intensity of the light there. Adding more electrons makes it easier to
> get kicked out.
No, there is no pre-bias; that is not how the sensors work. The ISO
setting only affects amplification of the analogue sensor output.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> No, there is no pre-bias; that is not how the sensors work. The ISO
> setting only affects amplification of the analogue sensor output.
OK.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2010 00:56:35 +0200, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:
>
> I've actually wondered this myself - raw editing software gives you the
> option to adjust the exposure; obviously, you can't pull details out
> doing this that are completely washed out or completely underexposed, but
> it is possible to bring additional detail out by making changes to the
> exposure setting (ev) after the photo has been taken.
>
> I've done it, so clearly it's possible, I just don't understand the math
> behind it.
When the camera creates a JPEG file, part of the raw data is discarded and
the rest is then adjusted to fit in the 0-255 range. The camera picks a
black-point somewhere near the low end of the (raw) range, and all values
below that are made black (i.e. 0) in the JPEG. Similarly, a white-point
is selected, and all values above that are made white (i.e. 255). When you
edit a RAW file, you have access to the parts that would otherwise have
been cut off. If the exposure was somewhat less than perfect, there can be
useful data in those parts.
Also, the raw data has a higher bit-depth than a JPEG, typically 12 or 14
versus lossy compressed 8. This gives you more leeway for making
adjustments without getting posterization.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
