Re: Sorting photos
On Jul 8, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: On 7/8/2010 3:25 PM, paul stenquist wrote: On Jul 8, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Derby Chang wrote: Focusing doesn't seem to be an issue here at all, Larry. Nice set. Only thing I would suggest is crop a little tighter. Love that guy playing two saxes What Derby said. Well done. Nice conversions. Paul I'd gladly third what Derby and Paul said. No problems whatsoever here. In fact, it is pretty cool collection of shots, Larry. Is there a chance that you're actually /convincing/ yourself here that you have difficulty working in low light with manual focus? Because, I am sure you would outdo be fair and square with this level of technique. Thanks guys. I miss a lot of shots due to missed focus. That doesn't mean that I don't get *any* sharp. :-) It's just that to get a few sharp, I have to shoot a lot of photos. Taking my time does help, when I have the time available to to take. Our dojo is having its big annual seminar this week and I'm one of the photographers for it, and despite there being lot of light (ISO 640, f/2.8, 1/80 sec) I'm flat out missing focus on a lot of the shots, which leaves me with the same old problem of sorting photos, to find the sharpest ones, then looking through those to see which are decent shots. Or alternatively, sorting out the decent shots, and throwing out the ones where I totally blew the focus. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On Jul 9, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Jul 8, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: On 7/8/2010 3:25 PM, paul stenquist wrote: On Jul 8, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Derby Chang wrote: Focusing doesn't seem to be an issue here at all, Larry. Nice set. Only thing I would suggest is crop a little tighter. Love that guy playing two saxes What Derby said. Well done. Nice conversions. Paul I'd gladly third what Derby and Paul said. No problems whatsoever here. In fact, it is pretty cool collection of shots, Larry. Is there a chance that you're actually /convincing/ yourself here that you have difficulty working in low light with manual focus? Because, I am sure you would outdo be fair and square with this level of technique. Thanks guys. I miss a lot of shots due to missed focus. That doesn't mean that I don't get *any* sharp. :-) It's just that to get a few sharp, I have to shoot a lot of photos. Taking my time does help, when I have the time available to to take. Our dojo is having its big annual seminar this week and I'm one of the photographers for it, and despite there being lot of light (ISO 640, f/2.8, 1/80 sec) I'm flat out missing focus on a lot of the shots, which leaves me with the same old problem of sorting photos, to find the sharpest ones, then looking through those to see which are decent shots. Or alternatively, sorting out the decent shots, and throwing out the ones where I totally blew the focus. Shoot at f4, 1/40th or bump the ISO if you need the 1/80th. That f2.8 is asking a lot in terms of focus accuracy. Paul Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
Doug Franklin wrote: On 2010-07-05 21:49, P. J. Alling wrote: Raw Shooter Professional. The free product was Raw Shooter Essentials, Adobe bought them out and stopped development just when I decided to buy the Professional product. It was simple didn't lock you into any particular way of archiving and produced extremely good conversions, and promoted a very efficient work flow with batch processing.. Yep, I really loved it. It suits my way of working much better than Lightroom or Aperture, specifically because it lets me work my way. RSE came around at just the right time for me too. Wonderful workflow. There was one bug they only just squashed before Adobe bought them out - pics with clipped red channel would oddly go green (which happened often in my music pics). But for everything else, it was simple, powerful and fast. Miss it. D -- der...@iinet.net.au http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
Larry Colen wrote: Last night I was working on being more careful about my focusing, and the results seem promising: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624445835548/ Exposure under the red lights is still a challenge. The best results at JJ's seem to be quite a bit under what the camera thinks is nominal exposure. Then, if I white balance (as close as lightroom will go), the BW conversion seems to work better too. Focusing doesn't seem to be an issue here at all, Larry. Nice set. Only thing I would suggest is crop a little tighter. Love that guy playing two saxes -- der...@iinet.net.au http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On 2010-07-08 8:06, Derby Chang wrote: RSE came around at just the right time for me too. Wonderful workflow. There was one bug they only just squashed before Adobe bought them out - pics with clipped red channel would oddly go green (which happened often in my music pics). But for everything else, it was simple, powerful and fast. Miss it. Miss it? I still use it for *istD RAW files. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On Jul 8, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Derby Chang wrote: Larry Colen wrote: Last night I was working on being more careful about my focusing, and the results seem promising: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624445835548/ Exposure under the red lights is still a challenge. The best results at JJ's seem to be quite a bit under what the camera thinks is nominal exposure. Then, if I white balance (as close as lightroom will go), the BW conversion seems to work better too. Focusing doesn't seem to be an issue here at all, Larry. Nice set. Only thing I would suggest is crop a little tighter. Love that guy playing two saxes What Derby said. Well done. Nice conversions. Paul -- der...@iinet.net.au http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On 7/8/2010 3:25 PM, paul stenquist wrote: On Jul 8, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Derby Chang wrote: Focusing doesn't seem to be an issue here at all, Larry. Nice set. Only thing I would suggest is crop a little tighter. Love that guy playing two saxes What Derby said. Well done. Nice conversions. Paul I'd gladly third what Derby and Paul said. No problems whatsoever here. In fact, it is pretty cool collection of shots, Larry. Is there a chance that you're actually /convincing/ yourself here that you have difficulty working in low light with manual focus? Because, I am sure you would outdo be fair and square with this level of technique. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
Reply interspersed... On 7/6/2010 11:06 AM, Larry Colen wrote: There is some truth to this. If I'm shooting static scenes, in good light, I don't tend to take quite so many frames. If I'm shooting a static scene in challenging light, I'll bracket the hell out of it in 3 dimensions (ISO, shutter speed, AND aperture), partly to make sure that I get the shot, and partly in the hopes that I'll learn what works with that camera in that situation. Hmmm, I should say that this does seem not entirely logical to me. I kind of have in mind an idea how I'd like it to look and set my mind and camera accordingly. I rarely do many takes in the cases you described above. What I do bracket is composition - vertical, horizontal, different angles of view, etc... I also tend to shoot a lot of action shots in light that is too low for the autofocus to work properly. In theory, I could use AF to prefocus, except that people are moving and my fast primes don't have quick shift focus, so I just leave it in manual focus. And I'm afraid that if it is dark enough that I can't see the split prism in the middle of my katzeye screen, I'm pretty crappy at manual focus. I just did the first pass on my photos from tonight, and even in good light (ISO 6400 f/2 1/30 second) I'm afraid that my manual focus isn't as good as it should be. It seems that the only thing worse than my manual focusing, is the camera's auto focus. If it actually manages to focus on something in time to get the shot, chances are that it's the wood grain in the floor rather than the dancers. Yes, when light is low (talking from first hand experience yesterday) K-7 AF becomes unbearably slow for action shooting. Well, perhaps you could see if you have proper gear for using it in manual focus mode properly. I don't have many problems (up until certain degree of darkness of course) with A 50/1.2 and KE screen on my K-7. But then when it becomes darker than my own threshold it irks heck out of me. There is also the case that I'm not good enough to just click the shutter at exactly the right moment when people are dancing. I know when I'd do something cool if I was leading, but I don't always know what the person I'm photographing is going to improvise, so I shoot a lot of photos, because this might be when something cool is happening. Well, anticipation is a tough thing to master. I for one know I haven't gotten as good at it as I'd like to be. But what I've found helpful is shooting with the second eye open. Then my vision is somewhat distorted but still pretty close to normal and so if something interesting is walking into the frame, I am more ready than with the other eye closed. Although for me it works with normal lenses (50 and 43), less so with other focal lengths. When I'm photographing people (portrait sessions and such) I just plain shoot a lot, because I just can't tell when someone's smile will work well on camera. I'd rather blow an extra $.25 worth of hard drive, than miss a shot. Well, for portrait sessions you usually control the light ;-). That's not the problem. I'm just crappy at focusing quickly on moving objects in low light. I'd be happy to have software that would flag the photos where nothing is in focus. Although it does sound heretic, but perhaps going Nikon will be a good idea as their AF is said to be superior to that of Pentax. I don't know how it can look so sharp in the viewfinder and be so far out of focus on the sensor. That is very simple. Looking in VF you see something similar to the very small print. And the smaller the print the more difficult it is to tell apart in focus and out of focus objects... It probably is. I try to make up for my lack of technical skill by taking lots of shots. It is never too late to improve one's skills... Especially given how motivated you are. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On Jul 7, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: Reply interspersed... On 7/6/2010 11:06 AM, Larry Colen wrote: There is some truth to this. If I'm shooting static scenes, in good light, I don't tend to take quite so many frames. If I'm shooting a static scene in challenging light, I'll bracket the hell out of it in 3 dimensions (ISO, shutter speed, AND aperture), partly to make sure that I get the shot, and partly in the hopes that I'll learn what works with that camera in that situation. Hmmm, I should say that this does seem not entirely logical to me. I kind of have in mind an idea how I'd like it to look and set my mind and camera accordingly. I rarely do many takes in the cases you described above. What I do bracket is composition - vertical, horizontal, different angles of view, etc... At least until I learn a camera, I don't know whether I'm better off with a long exposure at a low ISO, or a short exposure with a high ISO. With my K20 it turns out that I got my best star photos at ISO 400 at 15-30 seconds. I figured that out by bracketing ISO, shutter speed and aperture. Yes, when light is low (talking from first hand experience yesterday) K-7 AF becomes unbearably slow for action shooting. Well, perhaps you could see if you have proper gear for using it in manual focus mode properly. I don't have many problems (up until certain degree of darkness of course) with A 50/1.2 and KE screen on my K-7. But then when it becomes darker than my own threshold it irks heck out of me. I've got a katzeye, which is about as good as you can get for manual focus. You just have to be able to see where the split screen is, and find a line for it to cross, which is challenging i the dark. When I'm photographing people (portrait sessions and such) I just plain shoot a lot, because I just can't tell when someone's smile will work well on camera. I'd rather blow an extra $.25 worth of hard drive, than miss a shot. Well, for portrait sessions you usually control the light ;-). So I just have to worry about getting the smiles, and the focus right. Next time I'm shooting more than one person, I'll use a lot more light, and get more DoF. That's not the problem. I'm just crappy at focusing quickly on moving objects in low light. I'd be happy to have software that would flag the photos where nothing is in focus. Although it does sound heretic, but perhaps going Nikon will be a good idea as their AF is said to be superior to that of Pentax. There are only about 2500 reasons that I don't already own a D700. It is never too late to improve one's skills... Especially given how motivated you are. Last night I was working on being more careful about my focusing, and the results seem promising: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157624445835548/ Exposure under the red lights is still a challenge. The best results at JJ's seem to be quite a bit under what the camera thinks is nominal exposure. Then, if I white balance (as close as lightroom will go), the BW conversion seems to work better too. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Doug Franklin jehosep...@mindspring.com wrote: On 2010-07-05 21:49, P. J. Alling wrote: Raw Shooter Professional. The free product was Raw Shooter Essentials, Adobe bought them out and stopped development just when I decided to buy the Professional product. It was simple didn't lock you into any particular way of archiving and produced extremely good conversions, and promoted a very efficient work flow with batch processing.. Yep, I really loved it. It suits my way of working much better than Lightroom or Aperture, specifically because it lets me work my way. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) If you aren't using it already, give CaptureOne a shot. There's a 30 day demo and then cheap and expensive versions. I'm running the cheap version right now and it's pretty damned good. Great conversions and all the basic tools are there. The Pro version adds some incredible colour correction tools as well as distortion correction and some other useful bits (including the in-focus highlighter). I'm going to upgrade at some point. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On 7/5/2010 10:09 PM, Larry Colen wrote: While I wouldn't want software to rate the artistic merits of a photo, software that would rate and sort photos by various technical criteria (focus, sharpness, exposure, ...) would save me a lot of time in post processing. Larry, I am thinking two thinks :-). Think #1: you may be overly trigger happy if you feel like an automaton that will rid you of immediate duds will be helpful. Think #2: without *knowing* what you wanted to depict, a software that checks technical criteria ought to fail miserably. Say, you made a portrait and the wrong eye is in focus and the right (as opposed to wrong, not left) eye is out of focus. How on Earth anyone but yourself can tell which is the eye to be in focus? But I think that my think #1 is more applicable in your case. No offense meant whatsoever. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On Jul 6, 2010, at 12:23 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: On 7/5/2010 10:09 PM, Larry Colen wrote: While I wouldn't want software to rate the artistic merits of a photo, software that would rate and sort photos by various technical criteria (focus, sharpness, exposure, ...) would save me a lot of time in post processing. Larry, I am thinking two thinks :-). Think #1: you may be overly trigger happy if you feel like an automaton that will rid you of immediate duds will be helpful. There is some truth to this. If I'm shooting static scenes, in good light, I don't tend to take quite so many frames. If I'm shooting a static scene in challenging light, I'll bracket the hell out of it in 3 dimensions (ISO, shutter speed, AND aperture), partly to make sure that I get the shot, and partly in the hopes that I'll learn what works with that camera in that situation. I also tend to shoot a lot of action shots in light that is too low for the autofocus to work properly. In theory, I could use AF to prefocus, except that people are moving and my fast primes don't have quick shift focus, so I just leave it in manual focus. And I'm afraid that if it is dark enough that I can't see the split prism in the middle of my katzeye screen, I'm pretty crappy at manual focus. I just did the first pass on my photos from tonight, and even in good light (ISO 6400 f/2 1/30 second) I'm afraid that my manual focus isn't as good as it should be. It seems that the only thing worse than my manual focusing, is the camera's auto focus. If it actually manages to focus on something in time to get the shot, chances are that it's the wood grain in the floor rather than the dancers. I also have problems with motion blur, when I'm too lazy, or it's too awkward to use the monopod. There is also the case that I'm not good enough to just click the shutter at exactly the right moment when people are dancing. I know when I'd do something cool if I was leading, but I don't always know what the person I'm photographing is going to improvise, so I shoot a lot of photos, because this might be when something cool is happening. When I'm photographing people (portrait sessions and such) I just plain shoot a lot, because I just can't tell when someone's smile will work well on camera. I'd rather blow an extra $.25 worth of hard drive, than miss a shot. Think #2: without *knowing* what you wanted to depict, a software that checks technical criteria ought to fail miserably. Say, you made a portrait and the wrong eye is in focus and the right (as opposed to wrong, not left) eye is out of focus. How on Earth anyone but yourself can tell which is the eye to be in focus? That's not the problem. I'm just crappy at focusing quickly on moving objects in low light. I'd be happy to have software that would flag the photos where nothing is in focus. I don't know how it can look so sharp in the viewfinder and be so far out of focus on the sensor. But I think that my think #1 is more applicable in your case. It probably is. I try to make up for my lack of technical skill by taking lots of shots. No offense meant whatsoever. None taken. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On 06/07/2010, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Larry, I am thinking two thinks :-). Think #1: you may be overly trigger happy if you feel like an automaton that will rid you of immediate duds will be helpful. Not that there's anything wrong with such an approach ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OniB0L2-U6M -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
Larry Colen wrote: I did some family portraits yesterday, and am going through and sorting them out. After making a pass to throw out all the ones that aren't perfectly, or even sufficiently in focus I wonder why I could buy a pocket camera, with a dinky embedded processor that'll find people's faces and focus on them, but I don't have something in lightroom to find people's faces and looking at edge sharpness (eyes, hair etc) rate how well focused that they are. While I wouldn't want software to rate the artistic merits of a photo, software that would rate and sort photos by various technical criteria (focus, sharpness, exposure, ...) would save me a lot of time in post processing. Sure, there are pathologic cases where you're deliberately goofing with sharpness or exposure, and there maybe some great photos that have some technical flaw, but which are still great, but for most of what I do, it would be a huge help. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est Sorry, Larry, but a big part of being a photographer is learning how to edit. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
Capture One Pro 5 has a focus filter that highlights areas of the photo that appear to be in focus. So yes, such a thing does exist. It is however notoriously hard on processing hardware. -Adam On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I did some family portraits yesterday, and am going through and sorting them out. After making a pass to throw out all the ones that aren't perfectly, or even sufficiently in focus I wonder why I could buy a pocket camera, with a dinky embedded processor that'll find people's faces and focus on them, but I don't have something in lightroom to find people's faces and looking at edge sharpness (eyes, hair etc) rate how well focused that they are. While I wouldn't want software to rate the artistic merits of a photo, software that would rate and sort photos by various technical criteria (focus, sharpness, exposure, ...) would save me a lot of time in post processing. Sure, there are pathologic cases where you're deliberately goofing with sharpness or exposure, and there maybe some great photos that have some technical flaw, but which are still great, but for most of what I do, it would be a huge help. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On Jul 5, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Doug Brewer wrote: Larry Colen wrote: I did some family portraits yesterday, and am going through and sorting them out. After making a pass to throw out all the ones that aren't perfectly, or even sufficiently in focus I wonder why I could buy a pocket camera, with a dinky embedded processor that'll find people's faces and focus on them, but I don't have something in lightroom to find people's faces and looking at edge sharpness (eyes, hair etc) rate how well focused that they are. While I wouldn't want software to rate the artistic merits of a photo, software that would rate and sort photos by various technical criteria (focus, sharpness, exposure, ...) would save me a lot of time in post processing. Sure, there are pathologic cases where you're deliberately goofing with sharpness or exposure, and there maybe some great photos that have some technical flaw, but which are still great, but for most of what I do, it would be a huge help. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est Sorry, Larry, but a big part of being a photographer is learning how to edit. A big part of being a photographer is knowing how to focus and set the exposure of your camera, how many pros do you think still shoot everything in full manual? I'm not looking for something that'll edit everything for me, I'm looking for something that'll speed up one of the most time consuming tasks, taking a pass through the photos, pixel peeping to see which ones really are sharp enough to blow up. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
The odd thing about Adobe is where they decide to put various features. The least expensive photo editing/organizing product, Photoshop Elements 8, has this feature. It does a lot of autotagging of photos in the library. One of the tags is an out of focus tag. There are several others, too bright, too dark, etc. I'm working from memory here, so the names of the tags may be slightly different. And, from my limited experience, the tags aren't 100 percent accurate. I've often wondered how much of the lightroom catalog code may be based on the PE organizer code. gs George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com www.georgesphotos.net On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I did some family portraits yesterday, and am going through and sorting them out. After making a pass to throw out all the ones that aren't perfectly, or even sufficiently in focus I wonder why I could buy a pocket camera, with a dinky embedded processor that'll find people's faces and focus on them, but I don't have something in lightroom to find people's faces and looking at edge sharpness (eyes, hair etc) rate how well focused that they are. While I wouldn't want software to rate the artistic merits of a photo, software that would rate and sort photos by various technical criteria (focus, sharpness, exposure, ...) would save me a lot of time in post processing. Sure, there are pathologic cases where you're deliberately goofing with sharpness or exposure, and there maybe some great photos that have some technical flaw, but which are still great, but for most of what I do, it would be a huge help. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Jul 5, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Doug Brewer wrote: Larry Colen wrote: I did some family portraits yesterday, and am going through and sorting them out. After making a pass to throw out all the ones that aren't perfectly, or even sufficiently in focus I wonder why I could buy a pocket camera, with a dinky embedded processor that'll find people's faces and focus on them, but I don't have something in lightroom to find people's faces and looking at edge sharpness (eyes, hair etc) rate how well focused that they are. While I wouldn't want software to rate the artistic merits of a photo, software that would rate and sort photos by various technical criteria (focus, sharpness, exposure, ...) would save me a lot of time in post processing. Sure, there are pathologic cases where you're deliberately goofing with sharpness or exposure, and there maybe some great photos that have some technical flaw, but which are still great, but for most of what I do, it would be a huge help. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est Sorry, Larry, but a big part of being a photographer is learning how to edit. A big part of being a photographer is knowing how to focus and set the exposure of your camera, how many pros do you think still shoot everything in full manual? I'm not looking for something that'll edit everything for me, I'm looking for something that'll speed up one of the most time consuming tasks, taking a pass through the photos, pixel peeping to see which ones really are sharp enough to blow up. Sharp is a judgement call. No photo is perfectly sharp. And what might be acceptably sharp for an action pic might not be acceptably shapt for a static, posed photo. And that's just the beginning. You gotta make your own calls. Software can't do that for you. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On Jul 5, 2010, at 3:01 PM, paul stenquist wrote: On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Jul 5, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Doug Brewer wrote: Larry Colen wrote: I did some family portraits yesterday, and am going through and sorting them out. After making a pass to throw out all the ones that aren't perfectly, or even sufficiently in focus I wonder why I could buy a pocket camera, with a dinky embedded processor that'll find people's faces and focus on them, but I don't have something in lightroom to find people's faces and looking at edge sharpness (eyes, hair etc) rate how well focused that they are. While I wouldn't want software to rate the artistic merits of a photo, software that would rate and sort photos by various technical criteria (focus, sharpness, exposure, ...) would save me a lot of time in post processing. Sure, there are pathologic cases where you're deliberately goofing with sharpness or exposure, and there maybe some great photos that have some technical flaw, but which are still great, but for most of what I do, it would be a huge help. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est Sorry, Larry, but a big part of being a photographer is learning how to edit. A big part of being a photographer is knowing how to focus and set the exposure of your camera, how many pros do you think still shoot everything in full manual? I'm not looking for something that'll edit everything for me, I'm looking for something that'll speed up one of the most time consuming tasks, taking a pass through the photos, pixel peeping to see which ones really are sharp enough to blow up. Sharp is a judgement call. No photo is perfectly sharp. And what might be acceptably sharp for an action pic might not be acceptably shapt for a static, posed photo. And that's just the beginning. You gotta make your own calls. Software can't do that for you. Paul Sharp enough is a judgement call. Sharpness, on the other hand, should be quantifiable. For example, there is edge detection software that can detect the edges of various shapes. If the values change completely from one pixel to another, that would be perfectly sharp. If we rate blurriness, as the inverse of sharpness as the width of the transition, we get increasingly blurry images: (just showing one dimension) blurriness 0: 255,255,255,255,000,000,000,000 blurriness 2: 255,255,255,170,085,000,000,000 blurriness 4: 255,255,200,150,100,050,000,000 blurriness 6: 255,219,182,146,109,073,036,000 So, in some cases, you might set your threshold somewhere between 02, and in other cases between 46. However, if I have a bunch of photos that are all nearly the same, it would be handy to have the machine rate them in order of blurriness, so that I could then go and look at the sharpest couple of photos and see which ones I like the best, and spend a lot less time looking at the photos below, or well below, the threshold. I can see why detecting edges in two dimensions would be a lot more work, much less measuring the edge thickness. But when a $1,000 desktop computer has enough power that it would have given Seymour Cray a priapism, not that many years ago (assuming he was still alive anyways), a two or three pass process that finds the faces, finds the edges in the faces, and measures the blurriness of those edges shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. As a photographer, what I do with that information is up to me. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
paul stenquist wrote: On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Jul 5, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Doug Brewer wrote: Larry Colen wrote: I did some family portraits yesterday, and am going through and sorting them out. After making a pass to throw out all the ones that aren't perfectly, or even sufficiently in focus I wonder why I could buy a pocket camera, with a dinky embedded processor that'll find people's faces and focus on them, but I don't have something in lightroom to find people's faces and looking at edge sharpness (eyes, hair etc) rate how well focused that they are. While I wouldn't want software to rate the artistic merits of a photo, software that would rate and sort photos by various technical criteria (focus, sharpness, exposure, ...) would save me a lot of time in post processing. Sure, there are pathologic cases where you're deliberately goofing with sharpness or exposure, and there maybe some great photos that have some technical flaw, but which are still great, but for most of what I do, it would be a huge help. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est Sorry, Larry, but a big part of being a photographer is learning how to edit. A big part of being a photographer is knowing how to focus and set the exposure of your camera, how many pros do you think still shoot everything in full manual? I'm not looking for something that'll edit everything for me, I'm looking for something that'll speed up one of the most time consuming tasks, taking a pass through the photos, pixel peeping to see which ones really are sharp enough to blow up. Sharp is a judgement call. No photo is perfectly sharp. And what might be acceptably sharp for an action pic might not be acceptably shapt for a static, posed photo. And that's just the beginning. You gotta make your own calls. Software can't do that for you. Paul Paul said more nicely than I did. Photography -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
-- From: Larry Colen Subject: Re: Sorting photos Sorry, Larry, but a big part of being a photographer is learning how to edit. A big part of being a photographer is knowing how to focus and set the exposure of your camera, how many pros do you think still shoot everything in full manual? I'm not looking for something that'll edit everything for me, I'm looking for something that'll speed up one of the most time consuming tasks, taking a pass through the photos, pixel peeping to see which ones really are sharp enough to blow up. A big part of being a technician is knowing how to set focus and exposure, and is the easiest aspect of photography. It's the quantifiable stuff. This is why so many people bitch and whine when their lens isn't perfectly sharp, or has some minor technical flaw. They've found something they can quantify. But it isn't photography. Photography is about what you see and how you translate that into something you can hold. Everything else is window dressing sent to distract us. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On 6 July 2010 07:17, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: -- From: Larry Colen Subject: Re: Sorting photos Sorry, Larry, but a big part of being a photographer is learning how to edit. A big part of being a photographer is knowing how to focus and set the exposure of your camera, how many pros do you think still shoot everything in full manual? I'm not looking for something that'll edit everything for me, I'm looking for something that'll speed up one of the most time consuming tasks, taking a pass through the photos, pixel peeping to see which ones really are sharp enough to blow up. A big part of being a technician is knowing how to set focus and exposure, and is the easiest aspect of photography. It's the quantifiable stuff. This is why so many people bitch and whine when their lens isn't perfectly sharp, or has some minor technical flaw. They've found something they can quantify. But it isn't photography. Photography is about what you see and how you translate that into something you can hold. Everything else is window dressing sent to distract us. What he said. DS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
Doug Brewer wrote: paul stenquist wrote: On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Jul 5, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Doug Brewer wrote: Larry Colen wrote: I did some family portraits yesterday, and am going through and sorting them out. After making a pass to throw out all the ones that aren't perfectly, or even sufficiently in focus I wonder why I could buy a pocket camera, with a dinky embedded processor that'll find people's faces and focus on them, but I don't have something in lightroom to find people's faces and looking at edge sharpness (eyes, hair etc) rate how well focused that they are. While I wouldn't want software to rate the artistic merits of a photo, software that would rate and sort photos by various technical criteria (focus, sharpness, exposure, ...) would save me a lot of time in post processing. Sure, there are pathologic cases where you're deliberately goofing with sharpness or exposure, and there maybe some great photos that have some technical flaw, but which are still great, but for most of what I do, it would be a huge help. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est Sorry, Larry, but a big part of being a photographer is learning how to edit. A big part of being a photographer is knowing how to focus and set the exposure of your camera, how many pros do you think still shoot everything in full manual? I'm not looking for something that'll edit everything for me, I'm looking for something that'll speed up one of the most time consuming tasks, taking a pass through the photos, pixel peeping to see which ones really are sharp enough to blow up. Sharp is a judgement call. No photo is perfectly sharp. And what might be acceptably sharp for an action pic might not be acceptably shapt for a static, posed photo. And that's just the beginning. You gotta make your own calls. Software can't do that for you. Paul Paul said more nicely than I did. Photography sorry, premature mouseclick. One of the problems with writing on one computer and reading email on the other, with one keyboard and mouse between them. Larry, I understand the frustration level, particularly now; I'm editing photos and writing essays for a book and a presentation at GFM in a scant few weeks, and I could use a shortcut or two myself. Your aspirations and methodologies may be different from mine. They probably are. But what I think is that each image deserves its own time of examination, whether on the light table or in Lightroom. It's the only way to get to know your images, and examining your images is the only way to decide what kind of photographer you are. If you let the computer decide which of your photographs are good enough for you to see, you're losing out on a very important step in your development. Hope this makes sense. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 04:18:03PM -0500, George Sinos wrote: I've often wondered how much of the lightroom catalog code may be based on the PE organizer code. Not much, if my memory serves me well. Lightroom was developed by a separate company (Macromedia), and only got renamed to Photoshop Lightroom when Adobe bought Macromedia. While the Macromedia product didn't have all the features that we find in Lightroom today, it was a complete product before any Adobe-added code found its way into the code base. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
first I've ever heard of a relationship like that, john. And counter to my direct experience with the development team in 2003-2004. On Monday, July 5, 2010, John Francis jo...@panix.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 04:18:03PM -0500, George Sinos wrote: I've often wondered how much of the lightroom catalog code may be based on the PE organizer code. Not much, if my memory serves me well. Lightroom was developed by a separate company (Macromedia), and only got renamed to Photoshop Lightroom when Adobe bought Macromedia. While the Macromedia product didn't have all the features that we find in Lightroom today, it was a complete product before any Adobe-added code found its way into the code base. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:09 PM, John Francis jo...@panix.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 04:18:03PM -0500, George Sinos wrote: I've often wondered how much of the lightroom catalog code may be based on the PE organizer code. Not much, if my memory serves me well. Lightroom was developed by a separate company (Macromedia), and only got renamed to Photoshop Lightroom when Adobe bought Macromedia. While the Macromedia product didn't have all the features that we find in Lightroom today, it was a complete product before any Adobe-added code found its way into the code base. Nope, Lightroom was developed by Adobe in-house. It was in fact developed by a large portion of the ImageReady team and is the pet project of longtime Photoshop developer Mark Hamburg who'd been working on the idea since 2002. It had nothing to do with Macromedia. The confusion comes from a RAW converter application whose developer Adobe bought out in 2006 and whose customers all got free copies of LR1 to compensate for the ending of development of the converter (paid versions included lifetime upgrades). I don't recall offhand the name of the software though. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
Raw Shooter Professional. The free product was Raw Shooter Essentials,
Adobe bought them out and stopped development just when I decided to buy
the Professional product. It was simple didn't lock you into any
particular way of archiving and produced extremely good conversions, and
promoted a very efficient work flow with batch processing..
On 7/5/2010 9:34 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:09 PM, John Francisjo...@panix.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 04:18:03PM -0500, George Sinos wrote:
I've often wondered how much of the lightroom catalog code may be
based on the PE organizer code.
Not much, if my memory serves me well.
Lightroom was developed by a separate company (Macromedia), and only
got renamed to Photoshop Lightroom when Adobe bought Macromedia.
While the Macromedia product didn't have all the features that we find
in Lightroom today, it was a complete product before any Adobe-added
code found its way into the code base.
Nope, Lightroom was developed by Adobe in-house. It was in fact
developed by a large portion of the ImageReady team and is the pet
project of longtime Photoshop developer Mark Hamburg who'd been
working on the idea since 2002. It had nothing to do with Macromedia.
The confusion comes from a RAW converter application whose developer
Adobe bought out in 2006 and whose customers all got free copies of
LR1 to compensate for the ending of development of the converter (paid
versions included lifetime upgrades). I don't recall offhand the name
of the software though.
-Adam
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
History of Lightroom development encapsulated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_Lightroom -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
That was it. I remember seriously considering buying it at the time.
Ended up going with Capture One somewhat later for much the same
reasons (No organizational lockin, VERY good conversions, very good
for bathc processing).
-Adam
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:49 PM, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
Raw Shooter Professional. The free product was Raw Shooter Essentials,
Adobe bought them out and stopped development just when I decided to buy the
Professional product. It was simple didn't lock you into any particular way
of archiving and produced extremely good conversions, and promoted a very
efficient work flow with batch processing..
On 7/5/2010 9:34 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:09 PM, John Francisjo...@panix.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 04:18:03PM -0500, George Sinos wrote:
I've often wondered how much of the lightroom catalog code may be
based on the PE organizer code.
Not much, if my memory serves me well.
Lightroom was developed by a separate company (Macromedia), and only
got renamed to Photoshop Lightroom when Adobe bought Macromedia.
While the Macromedia product didn't have all the features that we find
in Lightroom today, it was a complete product before any Adobe-added
code found its way into the code base.
Nope, Lightroom was developed by Adobe in-house. It was in fact
developed by a large portion of the ImageReady team and is the pet
project of longtime Photoshop developer Mark Hamburg who'd been
working on the idea since 2002. It had nothing to do with Macromedia.
The confusion comes from a RAW converter application whose developer
Adobe bought out in 2006 and whose customers all got free copies of
LR1 to compensate for the ending of development of the converter (paid
versions included lifetime upgrades). I don't recall offhand the name
of the software though.
-Adam
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0
Courier New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
On 2010-07-05 21:49, P. J. Alling wrote: Raw Shooter Professional. The free product was Raw Shooter Essentials, Adobe bought them out and stopped development just when I decided to buy the Professional product. It was simple didn't lock you into any particular way of archiving and produced extremely good conversions, and promoted a very efficient work flow with batch processing.. Yep, I really loved it. It suits my way of working much better than Lightroom or Aperture, specifically because it lets me work my way. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Sorting photos
Not a lot I can add to this as it feels close to complete. I'll admit in the photo pursuit, the greatest satisfaction that can be experienced is that of being immensely grateful for the process that provides the image I hold. Jack --- On Mon, 7/5/10, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: From: William Robb war...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Sorting photos To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Monday, July 5, 2010, 4:17 PM -- From: Larry Colen Subject: Re: Sorting photos Sorry, Larry, but a big part of being a photographer is learning how to edit. A big part of being a photographer is knowing how to focus and set the exposure of your camera, how many pros do you think still shoot everything in full manual? I'm not looking for something that'll edit everything for me, I'm looking for something that'll speed up one of the most time consuming tasks, taking a pass through the photos, pixel peeping to see which ones really are sharp enough to blow up. A big part of being a technician is knowing how to set focus and exposure, and is the easiest aspect of photography. It's the quantifiable stuff. This is why so many people bitch and whine when their lens isn't perfectly sharp, or has some minor technical flaw. They've found something they can quantify. But it isn't photography. Photography is about what you see and how you translate that into something you can hold. Everything else is window dressing sent to distract us. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
