I look, or chimp, every shot i take.
Pentax or Nikon.
I check the histogram, overall look of the photo, etc.
I DON'T make the sound though.:-)
Dave
On 11/14/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I like chimping ;-). (Like - "I am alcoholic") But I am curious ;-).
>
> Well, s
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Waller"
Subject: Re: A question about chimping
>> I don't think that checking histograms counts as chimping, though.
>
> Could be right. I thought looking at the LCD in general, was chimping.
>
I haven't used a
self
as> and trashing a bunch I sudden realized I was only looking at a corner of
as> the frame. ugh. Probably didn't
as> have a decent shot anyway. sigh.
as> ann
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>To: pdml@pdml.net
>>
On Nov 15, 2007, at 3:16 PM, William Robb wrote:
>> How about shooting tethered to your laptop & review that way?
>
> I don't have the Remote Assistant for the K10 (is there such a beast)
> operational, and I believe I would need to upgrade the firmware and
> give up
> the ability to play with
- Original Message -
From: "David Savage"
Subject: Re: A question about chimping
>
> How about shooting tethered to your laptop & review that way?
>
I don't have the Remote Assistant for the K10 (is there such a beast)
operational, and I believe I would
> I don't think that checking histograms counts as chimping, though.
Could be right. I thought looking at the LCD in general, was chimping.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A
o my desktop cp,[iter, so I can cable USB from a powered hub to the
camera and display it on my 21" monitor.
Paul
On Nov 15, 2007, at 6:16 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Savage"
> Subject: Re: A question about chimping
>
Tom C wrote:
> It seems to me the term is now used often in a euphemistic derogatory
> sense that implies one must not be a good photographer if they need to
> look at their image to check it. [...]
While I generally agree with what you're saying, Tom, I find it quite
scary, and more than a lit
In a message dated 11/15/2007 8:50:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My point was that it's far better than having nothing to preview and can
make the difference between getting a good shot and not getting one.
Tom C.
==
Especially when one is in a locati
l
> On Nov 15, 2007, at 6:16 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Savage"
>> Subject: Re: A question about chimping
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> How about shooting tethered to your laptop & review that way?
>&g
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: A question about chimping
>
> On Nov 15, 2007, at 3:16 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
>>> How about shooting tethered to your laptop & review that way?
>>
>> I don't have the Re
>
>>
>> My point was that it's far better than having nothing to preview and can
>> make the difference between getting a good shot and not getting one.
>
> It can as easily be the difference between getting a crappy shot and an even
> crappier one, depending on what you are not photographing wh
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: A question about chimping
>
> My point was that it's far better than having nothing to preview and can
> make the difference between getting a good shot and not getting one.
It can as easily be the difference
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Blakely"
Subject: Re: A question about chimping
>I recently shot a hockey game (Ducks vs. Sharks). The first thing I did was
> shoot an example shot from my view point. This gave me the info I needed
> to:
>
> 1.Corre
is message,
but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> From: "Tom C"
> Subject: Re: A question about chimping
>>
>>, and to get it right one must see.
>
> Or one must have enoug
Ken Waller wrote:
>If you don't occasionally chimp for exposure settings (overall & R G
B),
>you're a lot better photographer then I am.
I don't think that checking histograms counts as chimping, though.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pd
If you don't occasionally chimp for exposure settings (overall & R G B),
you're a lot better photographer then I am.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: "ann sanfedele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A question
ving nothing to preview and can make
the difference between getting a good shot and not getting one.
Tom C.
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:00:22 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: A question about chimping
>
> Tom C wrote:
>
>>>>, and t
den realized I was only looking at a corner of
the frame. ugh. Probably didn't
have a decent shot anyway. sigh.
ann
>
>
>
>
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: pdml@pdml.net
>>Subject: Re: A question about chimping
>>Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:36:00 -0600
&g
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: A question about chimping
>
>, and to get it right one must see.
Or one must have enough confidence in their knowledge and abilities.
>
> You're right, it's a hallmark of many pro's to check and
William Robb wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "Tom C"
>Subject: Re: A question about chimping
>
>>, and to get it right one must see.
>>
>>
>
>Or one must have enough confidence in their knowledge and abilities.
>
>
>&g
P. J. Alling wrote:
>Chimping is a bit different from reviewing, it usually includes sound
>effects something like, "Ooh, Ooh, Ooh, looitthis. Ooh, Ooh..." ;-)
>
I think it has the looser interpretation now - the key being reviewing
the shot reight after shooting or
close to it. sometimes the w
On Nov 15, 2007 11:33 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think the review screen is as useful a tool as Polaroids, it's just
> too easy to miss stuff on the smallish screen. It's really no better than
> the viewfinder in many respects. I'm taking the files to the 21" desktop
> sc
bility to see a captured image immediately after exposure, is to a
photographer, probably the single largest advantage offered by the technology.
Tom C.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: A question about chimping
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:36:00 -0600
&
- Original Message -
From: "Axel Belinfante"
> of course, that studio usage may have been only a small part of
> the total polaroid usage.
Polaroid backs are rather big, clunky and inconvenient. They really only
worked well in studio use, where lighting tends to not change until some
> >, and to get it right one must see.
>
> Or one must have enough confidence in their knowledge and abilities.
experience, and tools/techniques that lead to reproducable results?
> > You're right, it's a hallmark of many pro's to check and review their
> > images on the spot in order to co
That's definitely monkey business. :-)
Tom C.
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:26:07 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: A question about chimping
>
> Tom C wrote:
>
>> It seems to me the term is now used often in a euphemistic dero
Reviewing the shot(s) on my digital camera is the same as shooting a Polaroid,
only more efficient!
Chimping. It sounds like a term a photo luddite would coin.
Regards,
Bob...
---
It seems to me the term is now used often in a euphemistic derogatory sense
that implies one mu
On Nov 14, 2007, at 10:09 AM, Bob Blakely wrote:
> What the hell is "chimping"?
A disparaging description of checking the LCD that arose out of film
camera users envying digital camera users the ability to check their
exposures instantaneously.
Godfrey
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PD
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 03:02:09PM -0800, Bob Blakely wrote:
> Reviewing the shot(s) on my digital camera is the same as shooting a
> Polaroid, only more efficient!
>
> Chimping. It sounds like a term a photo luddite would coin.
I believe it came from the exact opposite end of the spectrum -
a s
Chimping is a bit different from reviewing, it usually includes sound
effects something like, "Ooh, Ooh, Ooh, looitthis. Ooh, Ooh..." ;-)
Bob Blakely wrote:
> Reviewing the shot(s) on my digital camera is the same as shooting a
> Polaroid, only more efficient!
>
> Chimping. It sounds like a term
And once again, here ya go!
http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/chimping/index.html
Bob Blakely wrote:
> What the hell is "chimping"?
>
> Regards,
> Bob...
> --
> "Gort, klaatu barrada nikto!"
> -- Guess the author!
> -- Guess the source!
>
>
>
--
Th
On Nov 15, 2007 8:02 AM, Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reviewing the shot(s) on my digital camera is the same as shooting a
> Polaroid, only more efficient!
>
> Chimping. It sounds like a term a photo luddite would coin.
If the video that Cotty posted some time ago is to be believed, th
Bob Blakely wrote:
> Chimping. It sounds like a term a photo luddite would coin.
It's more obvious when you're at an event or a "happening" or something
and you see a whole group of photogs doing it all at the same time.
Definitely shades of "oohh, oohh, aahh, aahh" when you're seeing it
happe
Reviewing the shot(s) on my digital camera is the same as shooting a
Polaroid, only more efficient!
Chimping. It sounds like a term a photo luddite would coin.
Regards,
Bob...
--
"Gort, klaatu barrada nikto!"
-- Guess the author!
-- Guess the source!
From: "Boris
looking at the (digital) photos you just took to check you got it right.
the joke being if you like it you are going "oooh oooh" imitating the
sound a chimp makes.
ann
Bob Blakely wrote:
>What the hell is "chimping"?
>
>Regards,
>Bob...
>--
>"Gort, klaatu barrada n
Bob, chimping is the process of reviewing the photographs just taken on
the small screen of your digital camera. It has the same root as word
chimp-anzee...
Boris
Bob Blakely wrote:
> What the hell is "chimping"?
>
> Regards,
> Bob...
> --
> "Gort, klaatu barrada n
What the hell is "chimping"?
Regards,
Bob...
--
"Gort, klaatu barrada nikto!"
-- Guess the author!
-- Guess the source!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the li
Indeed, I often noticed that whatever is blinking on camera screen is
not blinking in the LR ;-).
Boris
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> Just FYI:
>
> The reason for this is that the histogram and saturation blinkies are
> calculated from the preview JPEG embedded in the RAW file.
>
> Godfrey
--
Just FYI:
The reason for this is that the histogram and saturation blinkies are
calculated from the preview JPEG embedded in the RAW file.
Godfrey
On Nov 14, 2007, at 7:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for this. Good info. I hadn't realized that the jpeg
> settings affected the hist
Thanks for this. Good info. I hadn't realized that the jpeg settings affected
the histogram.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Nov 14, 2007, at 2:50 AM, David Savage wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 2007 6:20 PM, Boris Liberman
On Nov 14, 2007, at 2:50 AM, David Savage wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 6:20 PM, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks. But then again what are these settings of sharpening and
>> contrast that you set so that histogram is as close as possible to
>> the
>> RAW data?
>>
>
> The in camer
On Nov 14, 2007 6:20 PM, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks. But then again what are these settings of sharpening and
> contrast that you set so that histogram is as close as possible to the
> RAW data?
>
The in camera contrast, saturation & sharpening settings?
Press Menu, and th
On Nov 14, 2007 2:30 PM, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I like chimping
Mark!
Cheers,
Dave
--
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 direc
Thanks. But then again what are these settings of sharpening and
contrast that you set so that histogram is as close as possible to the
RAW data?
Boris
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> If you leave the JPEG settings at full resolution and normal
> defaults, approximately 8-12x will be close to 1:1 p
If you leave the JPEG settings at full resolution and normal
defaults, approximately 8-12x will be close to 1:1 pixel resolution
for checking sharpness.
Since I capture exclusively in RAW format, I set JPEG settings to
minimum size, sharpening and contrast so that the histogram is as
close
46 matches
Mail list logo
