On Apr 8, 2006, at 12:57 PM, William Robb wrote:
Photography died when the computer geeks got hold of it.
The moment cameras became a computer peripheral, computer geeks
suddenly became photography experts.
Resistance is futile. If it plugs into a computer, it will be
assimilated.
-
On Apr 7, 2006, at 10:54 PM, David Mann wrote:
On Apr 8, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Trying to read it straight through became a snooze real fast.
I tried that with a Javascript book once. Every lunchtime I'd read
through about half a chapter.
A few chapters in I realised
On Apr 7, 2006, at 7:20 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
Thanks for the real-world timing numbers, Godfrey.
You're welcome. I was surprised at how fast the new G5 is able to
process 100 files. I'm now itching for the next show ... :-)
That said, I bet my iMac G4 20 was about as fast as your
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
I'm of a different opinion. The question was about what a photographer
might want, which
On 8/4/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
it's all a storm in a teacup.
The PDML's catch-phrase.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08 April 2006 09:24
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On 8/4/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
it's all a storm in a teacup.
The PDML's catch-phrase.
storm
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/04/07 Fri PM 11:52:58 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Somehow I knew about Aaron's shooting situation early on. Maybe from
reading an earlier message, or from reading a message
it's all a storm in a teacup.
The PDML's catch-phrase.
storm in an eyecup, really.
Bob
LOL
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
mike
guilty as anyone
Are you a Catholic?
Bob
it's all a storm in a teacup.
The PDML's catch-phrase.
Hell, that's the slogan that should be on Dave Brook's GFM hats!
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On 8/4/06, John Forbes, discombobulated
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/04/08 Sat AM 11:25:41 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
mike
guilty as anyone
Are you a Catholic?
Bob
Depends whether it's a sin or not. Anyway, we are all Catholics. We just
On 7 Apr 2006 at 16:21, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I can't believe the comments Aaron is getting in this thread. The
original
question (which was not posed by Aaron and which has yet to be
acknowledged
or answered as far as I can see), was:
What are some typical things you'd want to
do if you
On Apr 7, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
... The question was about what a photographer
might want, which may be different in many ways from what the
program(s)
may offer. ...
The question
What are some typical things you'd want to
do if you had a RAW file and you wanted to
It will still be dozens of times faster than processing, scanning, and
printing 6x7 film. A good, automated RAW workflow makes it barely any more
work to get standard JPEGs out of the process than capturing in JPEG format
to begin with, but nets you the ability to go further when scene
On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
It simply sounds like you may have picked the wrong camera for the
job, the hot
pixel management implemented in the Pentax bodies obviously isn't
working in
your shooting scenario.
Works fine in mine. Had mine performed as poorly as Dave
On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:54 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
You asked why/when one should use RAW
Actually, no, I never did. I said that I wasn't shooting RAW, someone
asked me why, and then a bunch of people told me I was wrong in my
decision.
I actually do want to know the answer to my
On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Well-said. I really don't understand the credibility of the anti-RAW
argument that it adds a tremendous amount of work to the workflow.
Even in my linux-land, I've got an automated script to dump RAW files
from the card, apply auto
On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:54 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
You asked why/when one should use RAW
By the way, the original post was asking for help for a friend taking a
technical writing course who wanted to know what are the most common
things you'd do to a RAW file in conversion.
-Aaron
Cory, did you read my post? I said NOTHING about anti-RAW, I said that FOR
MY USE of the camera it was not the correct choice.
Yes I did... my comment was more rhetorical to the large number of
comments with that sentiment. Yours just happened to be the latest... :)
I don't think anyone
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:19:32 +0100, Aaron Reynolds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Well-said. I really don't understand the credibility of the anti-RAW
argument that it adds a tremendous amount of work to the workflow.
Even in my linux-land,
On 7/4/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
Or do you REALLY never make an error with exposure?
I never do :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
You asked why/when one should use RAW
Actually, no, I never did. I said that I wasn't shooting RAW,
someone asked me why, and then a bunch of people told me I was
wrong in my decision.
I still haven't seen the original post. I saw a
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Cory, did you read my post? I said NOTHING about anti-RAW, I said that
FOR MY USE of the camera it was not the correct choice.
Aaron, you are discussing a topic with zealots, every bit
Hi Aaron,
First off, I understand your position, and feel that your choice of
shooting JPEG is a good choice for you, in the situation that you're
shooting.
To answer your question:
I don't think it would be very time consuming. Last night I just started
to read the chapter in Bruce Fraser's
://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Cory, did you read my post? I said NOTHING about anti-RAW, I said
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
The original theme was something like getting the most out of your
DSLR. That's contrary to your suggested mode of operation.
Uh, the original theme was 'can you help my technical writer friend by
telling him what you do most often while
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:56 AM, John Forbes wrote:
Or do you REALLY never make an error with exposure?
The exposure has not changed inside the domed stadium in recent memory.
Perhaps one day they will change the lights. But in the meantime,
yes, I am pretty sure that I will not make an
On Apr 7, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I've not timed the task specifically, but I know I've done case of
200-300 RAW files, set to output to a half-rez JPEG (1000x1500 pixels)
8bit sRGB file, on an iMac G4 20 with 1.25Ghz processor and a fast
disk, and walked out of the room
This is what I do regarding RAW conversion in Capture One (C1) when
there's a batch I want to pay attention to:
1) Create a new folder
2) Inside that folder create a new RAW folder
3) Move files to the folder
4) In C1 set root as destination folder
5) Select portrait style files and rotate 90
Hello Aaron,
Even as a RAW shooter myself, I can fully understand why you would
shoot jpg. In your situation, you can dial in the exposure you want,
along with WB and be on your way. I think some venues can benefit by
shooting jpg.
--
Bruce
Friday, April 7, 2006, 5:19:32 AM, you wrote:
AR
On Apr 7, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Fernando Terrazzino wrote:
You stupid Aaron, you don't shoot raw.
PS: sorry just kidding ;o)
Hah!
-Aaron
Aaron,
This was the question to which I was responding:
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:13:23 -0700
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 6, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
He's new. He will find
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:08:42 +0100, Aaron Reynolds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:56 AM, John Forbes wrote:
Or do you REALLY never make an error with exposure?
The exposure has not changed inside the domed stadium in recent memory.
Perhaps one day they will change the
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
I've not timed the task specifically, but I know I've done case
of 200-300 RAW files, set to output to a half-rez JPEG (1000x1500
pixels) 8bit sRGB file, on an iMac G4 20 with 1.25Ghz processor
and a fast disk, and walked out of the room
On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:38 PM, John Forbes wrote:
The question was: Do you REALLY never make an error with exposure?
If the answer is yes, then go on shootig JPEG. If, on the other hand,
you are human, you might be better off with RAW. :-)
In 22 games last season I did not change the
Why don't you recommend that your friend buy a copy of Real World Camera
Raw and crib his paper from there. It is the book most of the folks on
the list learned from and it is only $25 from amazon.com.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof ==
Aaron,
This was the question to which I was responding:
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:13:23 -0700
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On Apr 6, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
He's new. He will find
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:54:07 +0100, Aaron Reynolds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:38 PM, John Forbes wrote:
The question was: Do you REALLY never make an error with exposure?
If the answer is yes, then go on shootig JPEG. If, on the other hand,
you are human, you might
It's not at all hard to accept. And I would shoot jpeg in your situation as
well, given the serious time constraints. We didn't initially know that you
use digital only for high volume shooting in stadium lighting. Some who are
picking up this thread in the early posts, still don't know. So
For those of us who are running Elements with ACR or RSE, is there any
real value in the Real World Camera Raw book for Photoshop?
dk
On 4/7/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why don't you recommend that your friend buy a copy of Real World Camera
Raw and crib his paper from there. It is
There is some value to it with Elements, as it does cover a lot of what
Elements offers, but the real value to it is with CS2+ACR.
Needless to say, apart from theoretical discussions, little applies to RSE.
-Adam
Dave Kennedy wrote:
For those of us who are running Elements with ACR or RSE,
The book is a comprehensive review of what is involved in shooting RAW.
It's essential knowledge for anyone who wants to work in that format. I
can't imagine that there could be any disagreement about the importance
or the pertinence of the information therein. Of course that
information is
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
No, it's written from the perspective of what Bruce Fraser and some other
Photoshop gurus feel that a photographer wants to do. Some photogs agree,
others may not. You cannot have one person
That's not the book, it's the Scotch. Been there, done that:-))/
Paul
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:13 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
No, it's written from the perspective of what Bruce Fraser and some
other
From the perspective of Bruce Fraser and the usual gang of suspects
associated with Adobe and Photoshop. It's an excellent book. I have it
and am learning from it. But the information contained therein may not be
all that some photographers want or consider important or essential. We
don't
Dave Kennedy wrote:
For those of us who are running Elements with ACR or RSE, is there any
real value in the Real World Camera Raw book for Photoshop?
Yes.
Although one for Photoshop Elements would be nice ...
I went through my copy of the book with a pencil and annotated In
Elements and
Yes, I've dozed off a few times while reading it, but I've also learned a
few things as well. Speaking for myself, I've found the best way for the
book to hold my interest is to read about what I want to know, or to find
an answer to a question or a problem. Trying to read it straight through
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Somehow I knew about Aaron's shooting situation early on. Maybe from
reading an earlier message, or from reading a message in this thread that
others may have missed. Regardless, even after Aaron made his situation
clear to all (perhaps even reiterating it), messages
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:25 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
\One of the things that annoyed me was that in the first two chapters
or so,
the only mention of photography was peripheral. The focus was on
digital imaging and digital capture. Looks like photography is
dead,
or at least in it's death
On 7 Apr 2006 at 16:46, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I'm of a different opinion. The question was about what a photographer
might want, which may be different in many ways from what the program(s)
may offer. A photographer may have a perfect understanding of raw
conversion, but s/he may ~want~
On 7 Apr 2006 at 16:21, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I can't believe the comments Aaron is getting in this thread. The original
question (which was not posed by Aaron and which has yet to be acknowledged
or answered as far as I can see), was:
What are some typical things you'd want to
do if you
Somehow I knew about Aaron's shooting situation early on. Maybe from
reading an earlier message, or from reading a message in this thread that
others may have missed. Regardless, even after Aaron made his situation
clear to all (perhaps even reiterating it), messages were still posted
I can't believe the comments Aaron is getting in this thread. The original
question (which was not posed by Aaron and which has yet to be acknowledged
or answered as far as I can see), was:
What are some typical things you'd want to
do if you had a RAW file and you wanted to
make sure
I agree. But you have to remember, many of the messages that are
appearing even now are in response to the initial posts in the thread.
I assumed early on that Aaron used a digital camera for more than
high-volume stadium photography. I think most others did the same. It's
very rare that
No, it's written from the perspective of what Bruce Fraser and some other
Photoshop gurus feel that a photographer wants to do. Some photogs agree,
others may not. You cannot have one person, or a small group of people
(Fraser and his buddies) determine what's right and appropriate for
everyone
It's actually easy to see how it happened, however unfortunate it may
be. I think I was the first to respond, and I did answer Aaron's
question in brief and referred him to other sources. Godfrey answered
it in detail. I expressed surprise that Aaron was shooting jpegs.
However, I didn't know
or nothing to do with the other.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 4/7/2006 4:39:19 PM
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On 7 Apr 2006 at 16:21, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I can't believe the comments Aaron
of raw
conversion, but s/he may ~want~ something more or different. One
thing has
little or nothing to do with the other.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 4/7/2006 4:39:19 PM
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On 7 Apr
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 00:21:40 +0100, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't believe the comments Aaron is getting in this thread. The
original
question (which was not posed by Aaron and which has yet to be
acknowledged
or answered as far as I can see), was:
What are some typical
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
One of the things that annoyed me was that in the first two chapters or
so,
the only mention of photography was peripheral. The focus was on
digital imaging and digital capture. Looks
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:57 PM, William Robb wrote:
Photography died when the computer geeks got hold of it.
Yawn.
On 7 Apr 2006 at 17:25, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
One of the things that annoyed me was that in the first two chapters or so,
the only mention of photography was peripheral. The focus was on
digital imaging and digital capture. Looks like photography is dead,
or at least in it's death throes.
On 4/8/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Photography died when the computer geeks got hold of it.
William Robb
Sorry Bill but that's B.S.
Dave
--
All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. -
Spike Milligan
Thanks for the real-world timing numbers, Godfrey.
Whenever I end up buying a new computer it may actually be practical
for me to shoot RAW. Still don't know that I would, but it wouldn't be
as obviously the wrong thing for me to do. ;)
Unfortunately, I'm guessing that poor Mr. G4 dual 867
It's a book about RAW image processing procedural concepts, a feature
study in the Adobe tools to deal with that, and workflow ideas to
become efficient, not photography. Just like a book on photofinishing
is not about photography, it's about installing, calibrating and
operating
That sounds familiar. It's tough to decide where to put your money. I
had to spring for the DA 12-24, because I have to shoot some interiors
for paying jobs. But it was a big outlay. I can't take the time to
stitch them all. My next biggy may be the new D, if it proves to be as
much of an
On Apr 7, 2006, at 10:34 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I need a new laptop as well, but I'm hoping they'll get me one at
work.
I needed one (broke the electrical wire that powers the backlight for
the LCD, apparently), but then I got to keep some of the props from a
job I shot in December.
painting died when mechanical engineers got hold of it.
best,
mishka
On 4/7/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Photography died when the computer geeks got hold of it.
William Robb
On Apr 8, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Trying to read it straight through became a snooze real fast.
I tried that with a Javascript book once. Every lunchtime I'd read
through about half a chapter.
A few chapters in I realised that it was too much to comprehend by
itself,
Not for me, but for a friend who sent me this appeal:
I'm taking a technical writing course in which we have to write
documentation for a piece of software. The software we're using is
Silkypix, which, if you don't know it, is a program that converts RAW
files to jpegs or tifs. And you can do
Fix focus for Frank.(sorry had to do that:-))
Dave
Quoting Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not for me, but for a friend who sent me this appeal:
I'm taking a technical writing course in which we have to write
documentation for a piece of software. The software we're using is
Silkypix,
RAW converters allow control over most variables that determine image quality.
You can set the point where shadow detail goes pure black, where highlights go
white, and the brightness and contrast of the midrange tones in between. You
can change the color of the light, alter saturation,
On Apr 6, 2006, at 2:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I'm surprised to hear that you don't shoot RAW. It's truly
enabling.
If I wanted to do work after the fact I'd be shooting 6x7 for the
superior image. I shoot digital entirely for speed.
-Aaron
.
Don't delete your RAW file! Save it! Make back-ups!
Regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: David J Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. april 2006 19:33
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
Fix focus
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
BTW, I'm surprised to hear that you don't shoot RAW. It's truly enabling.
Paul
He's new. He will find the calling soon enough Grasshopper.:-)
He found hot pixels, he will find Raw.g
Dave
-- Original message --
From: Aaron Reynolds
On Apr 6, 2006, at 2:38 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
He's new. He will find the calling soon enough Grasshopper.:-)
He found hot pixels, he will find Raw.g
I have found the calling: I'm in The Brotherhood. This digital camera
thing is for work that is about speed, not quality. Why would I
On Apr 6, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
He's new. He will find the calling soon enough Grasshopper.:-)
He found hot pixels, he will find Raw.g
I have found the calling: I'm in The Brotherhood. This digital
camera thing is for work that is about speed, not quality. Why
would
On Apr 6, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
He's new. He will find the calling soon enough Grasshopper.:-)
He found hot pixels, he will find Raw.g
I have found the calling: I'm in The Brotherhood. This digital
camera thing is for work that is about speed, not quality. Why
On Apr 6, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
For those situations when you want to get everything the DSLR can do.
It's not about increased resolution, it's about getting all the
dynamic range that the sensor can capture.
...which is significantly poorer than film.
It will still be
Why is it necessary to push a comparison with your 6x7 camera? Is it
not enough that if you want to exploit your DSLR to the best of its
capabilities, you should experiment with RAW format? I disagree with
you on several counts here, but I respect your preference for the
6x7. Whether it is
On Apr 7, 2006, at 12:46 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Why is it necessary to push a comparison with your 6x7 camera?
Because I have it and I use it for the majority of my work. We are not
talking about anyone but me here -- I have not said that no one should
shoot RAW and everyone should
On 7 Apr 2006 at 1:19, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
On Apr 7, 2006, at 12:46 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Why is it necessary to push a comparison with your 6x7 camera?
Because I have it and I use it for the majority of my work. We are not
talking about anyone but me here -- I have not said
Aaron,
I didn't say you should always shoot RAW or that you were an idiot.
You asked why/when one should use RAW, and I responded ' for those
situations when you want to exploit your DSLR to its fullest'.
'Better or worse than your 6x7' is irrelevant.
It's as simple as that. There's need
83 matches
Mail list logo
