On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 7:20 PM, steve harley wrote:
> on 2014-01-01 15:11 Aahz Maruch wrote
>>
>> Sharpness of what?Like you, I'm into macro photography, which I
>>
>> usually refer to as flower porn. I often find it difficult to decide
>> which part of the flower should be in focus (I usually sh
on 2014-01-01 15:11 Aahz Maruch wrote
Sharpness of what?Like you, I'm into macro photography, which I
usually refer to as flower porn. I often find it difficult to decide
which part of the flower should be in focus (I usually shoot wide open).
that is one of the big challenges of plant macros
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote:
>
> But still, for landscape or macro photography (which seems to be
> my main interest), I still find sharpness and correct exposure very
> important.
Sharpness of what? Like you, I'm into macro photography, which I
usually refer to as flowe
On 31/12/2013 11:05 AM, steve harley wrote:
this measure has value if you understand its limits; a simple
counterexample is a subject in front of a foliage background - if your
AF misses the subject and focuses on the foliage, the JPEG will have
lots of _undesired_ fine detail and thus it will
on 2013-12-31 7:21 Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote
Looking at the two originals (linked below), even at 100% it's
harder to decide which is sharper. However on closer inspection of
the previous two "helper" images I could conclude that 6226 has better
focus of the foreground, while 6229 has bet
on 2013-12-30 17:59 Bruce Walker wrote
By the way, the lowly JPEG that we raw image users most often throw
away actually has an unintended useful purpose. If you have taken a
few essentially identical images of a scene, grab the JPEGs and
compare their image file sizes. The one with the largest s
I'm joining the discussion late (I'm very busy these days). Lots of
good points were made before, and I also think that you are way over
thinking this and maybe you don't have the right tools. As I
understand you are using Linux, take a look at
http://www.darktable.org/ or http://rawtherapee.com/ a
For those curios about what I'm speaking about --- although I have
the feeling that I'm alone in this boat :) --- I'll highlight bellow
some outputs of my prototype.
All the outputs are available at the link below, one folder per
RAW image, and for each resulting image one JPEG (several hu
There's an article about image quality on wikipedia which contains some
references that might be useful, including one about information theoretic
approaches to image quality assessment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_quality.
There's also a link to a commercial site which offers products
On 30/12/2013 6:59 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
By the way, the lowly JPEG that we raw image users most often throw
away actually has an unintended useful purpose. If you have taken a
few essentially identical images of a scene, grab the JPEGs and
compare their image file sizes. The one with the larg
Having read your questions and after digesting most of this thread,
I'll take a stab at addressing your "technical merit meter" question.
The photography world has settled on a couple of image analysis tools
as being the most useful: the histogram and clipping indicators. All
the software tools wo
On 30/12/2013 2:57 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
Quoting Charles Robinson :
On Dec 30, 2013, at 10:13 , Ciprian Dorin Craciun
wrote:
== The questions ==
Thus my questions are the following:
(A) Which are the technical qualities I should look for in the image?
(B) What software tools
on 2013-12-30 11:02 Bob W wrote
Yes, but you've just asked the same thing in a different way, so you will get
the same answers.
Only you can decide what is optimal, based on your intentions in taking the
picture. There is no general set of rules.
my suggestion to take fewer photos aside, i t
on 2013-12-30 9:13 Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote
The problem? During the editing process, after I select which
"scenes" are the ones I like the best, I end up with a lot of "images"
of the same scene (with almost identical composition). And thus my
problem is which of the two or three "imag
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Bill wrote:
>> To keep the analogy with driving, I guess that the equivalent of
>> "artists" in the automobile world are the Formula 1 drivers (or
>> similar). However I bet that they master their controls well beyond
>> "driving more or less automatic", up-
Quoting Charles Robinson :
On Dec 30, 2013, at 10:13 , Ciprian Dorin Craciun
wrote:
== The questions ==
Thus my questions are the following:
(A) Which are the technical qualities I should look for in the image?
(B) What software tools exist out there that would help in the
asses
On 30/12/2013 1:56 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Bill wrote:
The best you can do is go through your work, first removing the obvious junk
first. The out of focus, the very badly exposed, the ones that won't make a
good print for purely technical reasons.
Aft
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> The best you can do is go through your work, first removing the obvious junk
> first. The out of focus, the very badly exposed, the ones that won't make a
> good print for purely technical reasons.
> After that, you can start culling based purely on
On Dec 30, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Paul Stenquist
> wrote:
>>> Does it sounds crazy? :)
>>
>> It's a bit over the edge. In my opinion, a trained eye can probably do a
>> better job of image evaluation than can any software.
>
>
On 30/12/2013 12:03 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Does it sounds crazy? :)
It's a bit over the edge. In my opinion, a trained eye can probably do a
better job of image evaluation than can any software.
Indeed a trained eye
Stop taking so many pictures of the same scene.
Use some higher speed ISO settings.
We have no knowledge of the image processors you're using.
You've 'painted yourself into a corner' and won't enjoy photography
until you free yourself of all your restrictions. Try things, it's free!
Regards, Bo
On 30 Dec 2013, at 17:56, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Bob W wrote:
>> Consider the following pictures, for example, which all show a Frenchman
>> riding a bicycle, but which are very different technically. Which one is the
>> best? Why?
>
>This is a
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>Does it sounds crazy? :)
>
> It's a bit over the edge. In my opinion, a trained eye can probably do a
> better job of image evaluation than can any software.
Indeed a trained eye (and brain) would be able to make a more
informed d
On 30 Dec 2013, at 17:50, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Bob W wrote:
>> Unfortunately you can't separate the technical and aesthetic properties. For
>> example, you ask
>> [...]
>>
>> And I ask in return what does "properly focused" mean? It depends on wha
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Bob W wrote:
> Consider the following pictures, for example, which all show a Frenchman
> riding a bicycle, but which are very different technically. Which one is the
> best? Why?
This is a trick question... :D
> B)
> http://metmuseum.org/Collections/sear
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Bob W wrote:
> Unfortunately you can't separate the technical and aesthetic properties. For
> example, you ask
> [...]
>
> And I ask in return what does "properly focused" mean? It depends on what you
> intend for the picture, so it cannot have a single once-and-
Unfortunately you can't separate the technical and aesthetic properties. For
example, you ask
" * Is the subject properly focused?
>* Is the image sharp "enough"?
> * Is the exposure "correct" / "optimal"? I.e. especially since I
> use ETTR (expose-to-the-right):
> * did I ov
On Dec 30, 2013, at 10:13 , Ciprian Dorin Craciun
wrote:
>
> == The questions ==
>
>Thus my questions are the following:
>
>(A) Which are the technical qualities I should look for in the image?
>
>(B) What software tools exist out there that would help in the
> assessment of thes
On Dec 30, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
wrote:
>Hello all!
>
>Before describing the problem, please let me stress that I know
> very well that the "quality" of a photograph lies more in its
> aesthetic properties than in its technical ones. However in this
> thread I don't
Hello all!
Before describing the problem, please let me stress that I know
very well that the "quality" of a photograph lies more in its
aesthetic properties than in its technical ones. However in this
thread I don't discuss about "photographs", but "images", i.e. the raw
data (pixel valu
30 matches
Mail list logo
