Thanks, Bruce.
I've bookmarked the page in IE.
One of the things I've found is that I'm really
starting to enjoy Aperture a lot. It's much more
photographer focused (pun intended). It's a blast
going through my dng's very quickly and easily (now
that OSX finally supports the K10D). Much, much fas
Hello Brendan,
That is one of the reasons (price is another) that I have been using
Picture Window Pro. It was designed by a photographer for
photographers. The style is much more in harmony with how you think.
You might want to download a trial and see what you think.
http://dl-c.com/content/v
Tom Simpson wrote:
> [...] my digital images simply look and print better most anything
> I have ever taken with film, and are a hell of a lot less labor-
> intensive and bother to work with. [...]
Wow, I can only agree with this. I've never done darkroom "wet"
printing, but I've scanned and pri
Brendan -
I've always felt that Photoshop was not a photographer's tool. I
started with Picture Window Pro and moved to Photoshop when I needed
to do raw conversion. I've read the latest version of Picture Window
Pro handles batches of files and does raw conversion and I'm
considering moving bac
On 14/04/07, Tom Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It occurs to me that if you push film as hard as the militant pixel
> peepers push these digital images, they start to show defects as well,
> graininess being foremost among them. And surprise, surprise, you get
> more grain when you go to high
On 14/04/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. We've become paranoid about every little defect. With film,
> we couldn't fix 'em, so we didn't worry. I refuse to agonize over
> minutiae. The only time I have problems with fringing is in the case
> you mentioned below: Backlit tre
I agree. We've become paranoid about every little defect. With film,
we couldn't fix 'em, so we didn't worry. I refuse to agonize over
minutiae. The only time I have problems with fringing is in the case
you mentioned below: Backlit tree branches in winter. Ditto for
backlit birds against t
It occurs to me that if you push film as hard as the militant pixel
peepers push these digital images, they start to show defects as well,
graininess being foremost among them. And surprise, surprise, you get
more grain when you go to higher ISO film. Seems like there is a lot of
apples=oranges
On 13/4/07, Mark Erickson, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Brendan's post and the response bring up an interesting issue that seems to
>increasingly dominate the digital photography world--pixel peeping and
>hunting for defects. It is easy to zoom up to 200% and tear apart an image,
>but how much of
On 14/04/07, Bong Manayon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with you. A picture of nothing in complete darkness with the
> highest ISO may either mean you're an astronomer or you have a badly
> exposed photo...in which case, the VPN is the least of your problems.
I know that you didn't intend
On 4/14/07, Mark Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My ultimate conclusion is, "So what?" It's like the
> old joke where the patient says, "Doctor, it hurts when I do ," and the
> doctor responds, "So don't do ".
>
> I know that blooming and CA can be pretty obvious in certain situation
Good point, Mark.
In fact, I could really care less about it except that
I've had some rejections because of it. Now, are the
inspectors looking past 100%? I have no idea, but
probably so.
For my own peace of mind, I'm trying to get to the
bottom of something that will, in the end, make me a
more
Brendan's post and the response bring up an interesting issue that seems to
increasingly dominate the digital photography world--pixel peeping and
hunting for defects. It is easy to zoom up to 200% and tear apart an image,
but how much of the defects we observe will actually show up in real world
13 matches
Mail list logo
