On June 5, 2003 07:44 am, Herb Chong wrote:
oops, i meant filtering and interpolating.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 07:33
Subject: Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post
it doesn't
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it's usually the photographers technique that sets the limit of
performance not the system band-width.
Wise words indeed.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
articles from the washington post
what is the file size of the raw image?
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Mike Ignatiev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IIRC, canon raw files are just that -- 10 (or 12)
bits per pixel of CCD matrix. Losslessly
compressed.
Best,
Mishka
On 5 Jun 2003 at 20:57, Nick Zentena wrote:
Which gets us back to why digital will never equal film. Digital throws out
info it can't handle. But we keep being told it's better. That it captures
everything. Limited bandwidth is the exact opposite of capturing everything.
Hey? And 800 or
film is the same.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Nick Zentena [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 20:57
Subject: Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post
Which gets us back to why digital will never equal film. Digital throws out
info
On 4 Jun 2003 at 7:06, Nick Zentena wrote:
How big is a pixel? How big is a grain? Isn't digital interpolated? Won't it
always be? Digital won't over come that.
Well actually the Foveon concept negates the need for inter-pixel interpolation
already. And grain only comes into the equation if
Alin,
Amen! I have called it the squeaky clean look. A lack of texture.
The cartoon effect is noticeable. I had someone call to schedule a
wedding last week who asked if I shot digital. She liked my work but
wanted to make sure that I was still shooting with film. Since I am,
I got the job.
Rob Studdert wrote:
Not necessarily. I can produce some images with high global contrast
that still look flat because of low local contrast, either in luminance,
or in color discrimination. I don't say that this actually happens with
digicams, I just say that this is possible.
Sure, but it's
Its funny,the reference to 'flatness'.
Some times people at the horse shows
will discuss digital vs film with me and that i must like digital better.My main reply
is that i like both for various reasons,but i still like film as the digital looks
'flat'(my words to them)
but the colour and
Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post
Alin,
Amen! I have called it the squeaky clean look. A lack of texture.
The cartoon effect is noticeable. I had
It was always interesting that no matter how little resolution a
newspaper PJ actually needed, they were recording ore so that the
picture could always be reproduced in a better medium. One thing that
the current generation of digital does is that it encourages you to use
the minimum res needed
On June 4, 2003 09:20 am, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 4 Jun 2003 at 7:06, Nick Zentena wrote:
How big is a pixel? How big is a grain? Isn't digital interpolated?
Won't it always be? Digital won't over come that.
Well actually the Foveon concept negates the need for inter-pixel
interpolation
On Wednesday 04 June 2003 15:24, Nick Zentena wrote:
Well actually the Foveon concept negates the need for inter-pixel
interpolation already.
How does it do that? Either you've got a lot more pixels some how. Layers?
Which can't work can it? Or you've got much much smaller pixels.
layers.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Nick Zentena [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 15:24
Subject: Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post
How does it do that? Either you've got a lot more pixels some how. Layers?
Which can't work can
I wonder if some of the flatness mentioned is from 8 bit capture ? I think
as more cameras offer 12-16 bit capture you'll get less of that digital *the
skin tones don't look quite right* look.
BUTCH
Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself.
Hermann Hess (Damien)
16:54
Subject: RE: OT: 2 articles from the washington post
I can convert to 8 or 16 bit tiffs. I tested my lab and couldn't see a
difference. Skin tones look great, and is entirely attributable to the
people running the printers.
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
once in 8 bit mode, converting back to 16 won't regain the
lost information. you are extracting from Canon RAW files
though, right? it's stored internally as 12 bits i think.
I'm not sure what they are internally, but
Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
once in 8 bit mode, converting back to 16 won't regain the
lost information.
Right. But it's worth mentioning that if you're doing major levels
adjustment, it's best to work in 16-bit mode and then convert to 8-bit
for printing...even if that means
: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 17:40
Subject: RE: OT: 2 articles from the washington post
I'm not sure what they are internally, but when converting you have a
choice going to 8 or 16 bit.
On 4 Jun 2003 at 17:33, Herb Chong wrote:
i should be more specific. Canon RAW files are actually stored in a different
color model than the easy to understand RGB. the files contain the equivalent of
12-bit RGB. makes for more compact files.
The RAW file is simply the raw data as read from
Film v digital: (tv, take note to what a Bethesda wedding photographer has to
say about digital's ability to hold detail in the highlights.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60430-2003May30.html
And memory:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60428-2003May30.html
-Original Message-
From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Film v digital: (tv, take note to what a Bethesda wedding
photographer has to
say about digital's ability to hold detail in the highlights.
Weird. One of my assistants works with him. He told her he was
On Tuesday 03 June 2003 16:56, tom wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Film v digital: (tv, take note to what a Bethesda wedding
photographer has to
say about digital's ability to hold detail in the highlights.
Weird. One of my
Christian Skofteland wrote:
Film v digital: (tv, take note to what a Bethesda wedding photographer has to
say about digital's ability to hold detail in the highlights.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60430-2003May30.html
And digital has also caught up to film in terms of
Christian Skofteland wrote:
And memory:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60428-2003May30.html
ROTFL:
Olympus-toting shutterbugs, for example, can take advantage of a
panorama feature on their cameras only if they use memory cards with the
Olympus brand on them.
cheers,
caveman
On 3 Jun 2003 at 16:28, Christian Skofteland wrote:
Film v digital: (tv, take note to what a Bethesda wedding photographer has to
say about digital's ability to hold detail in the highlights.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60430-2003May30.html
The other interesting quote
On June 3, 2003 07:12 pm, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 3 Jun 2003 at 16:28, Christian Skofteland wrote:
Film v digital: (tv, take note to what a Bethesda wedding photographer
has to say about digital's ability to hold detail in the highlights.
On 4 Jun 2003 at 0:54, Caveman wrote:
Not necessarily. I can produce some images with high global contrast
that still look flat because of low local contrast, either in luminance,
or in color discrimination. I don't say that this actually happens with
digicams, I just say that this is
On June 3, 2003 11:53 pm, Rob Studdert wrote:
A good image shouldn't look like a film or digital it should stand on it's
Why not? All the people doing alt processes must want the look.
own, I would guess that was the original gist of the comment. Also the
reference was to flatness
Mike Ignatiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's more complex than a function of contrast manipulation,
but still, I don't see why digital cannot replicate exactly (er...
I mean, with any arbitrary high degree of precision) *any* analog
effect (with a little bit of effort). All this glow,
30 matches
Mail list logo
