«

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:53:07 -0700, John McWilliams
> <> wrote:
>
>> More to my point, I don't chimp that much, and certainly don't have the
>> time to do it even if I wanted to when shooting sports.
>
> FAIR WARNING: TOPIC SHIFT!!!
>
> I note that he definition of 'chimping' is changing. It's now become
> the mere act of looking at the LCD to review a pic.
> It used to be looking at the pic, then exclaiming, "OOH! OOH! Look at
> this one!!!"
> I like the older one better.

I'm with you, really. Chimping has never been, for me, sensible review
of the histogram and image from time to time. Doing it on every frame,
even short of the Ohh-oohohoooooh! falls into chimping in my book. Using
the + button to zoom in to see the focus is perhaps somewhere in between.

--
John McWilliams

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:13:30 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

> I'm with you, really. Chimping has never been, for me, sensible review
> of the histogram and image from time to time. Doing it on every frame,
> even short of the Ohh-oohohoooooh! falls into chimping in my book. Using
> the + button to zoom in to see the focus is perhaps somewhere in between.

And I've had the opinion that chimping isn't so much what the
photographer does, but rather what takes place when the nieces and
nephews run up to the camera and say "lemme see" and "show me that
one too", etc. A side benefit is that it makes them much more
likely to tolerate having their own pictures taken than in the olden
film days. (aka "Back in the day" for newbie youngies).

John McWilliams wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:53:07 -0700, John McWilliams
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> More to my point, I don't chimp that much, and certainly don't have
>>> the time to do it even if I wanted to when shooting sports.
>>
>> FAIR WARNING: TOPIC SHIFT!!!
>>
>> I note that he definition of 'chimping' is changing. It's now become
>> the mere act of looking at the LCD to review a pic.
>> It used to be looking at the pic, then exclaiming, "OOH! OOH! Look at
>> this one!!!"
>> I like the older one better.
>
> I'm with you, really. Chimping has never been, for me, sensible review
> of the histogram and image from time to time. Doing it on every frame,
> even short of the Ohh-oohohoooooh! falls into chimping in my book.
> Using the + button to zoom in to see the focus is perhaps somewhere
> in between.

Checking focus is simply utilizing one of the benefits of digital (assuming
you can zoom close enough to actually check). Chimping (in my mind) is the
mindless and automatic googling at EVERY shot...as if to say, "did I get
lucky?" as opposed to knowing what you're doing, and not feeling the
insatiable urge to check for boo-boos on every shot...or to congratulate
yourself. The most common times that I check are when I'm shooting
manually, or when there is subject motion and I want to check for
motion-blur. Macro is another. Sun-sets and long-exposures in dark
settings, too, where the histogram can tell you a great deal.
These are not "chimping" in my book.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Kinon O'Cann <> wrote:
> "SimonLW" <> wrote in message
> news:4510fe18$...
>> "Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
>> news:. ..
>>> Brett,
>>>
>>> Granted, this shot is not an artistic success, or even interesting, but
>>> it does illustrate the amount of detail you can capture with the 5D and a
>>> good lens:
>>>
>>> http://home.comcast.net/~xelbon/gauges.jpg
>>>
>>> This is a 2.5M file. Shot at ISO 400 RAW, processed using ACR, and some
>>> very light sharpening (25% Smart Sharpen) applied. No other adjustments.
>>> Lemme know what you think.
>>>
>>
>> Good god that photo had the living hell sharpened out of it!
>
> Uh, no it didn't. I opened it in ACR using the defaults, and then applied
> Smart Sharpen at 25% to clean up the lines a little. It is not
> oversharpened. Do you see any artifacts to indicate oversharpening?

25% blending of what pixel radius, on lens sharpening or Gaussian
sharpening? Just the percentage doesn't say anything useful. If you
used a huge (say, larger than 2.0) pixel radius, it won't matter that
you only blended it in 25% -- the artifacts will still be visible (and
I'm seeing them too, primarily around the reflections on the gauges).
Gaussian "smart sharpen" is exactly the same as USM, by the way.

My default sharpening on all but my sharpest glass is 75% of 1.0
pixels, lens sharpening, sometimes going up at most to 2.0 on my worst
lens (the 75-300 needs quite a bit of help at the long end), but using
70% of 0.6 pixels on a prime. If I resize for the web, I'll sharpen
again, Gaussian, 50% of 0.3 pixels just before saving to counteract
softness caused by the resize.

On selected images with people, I sometimes create a duplicate layer
first, sharpening the background minimally and then massively
oversharpening the duplicate, using a layer mask to blend in only the
eyes from the heavily sharpened layer. That often represents a
correction of a screwup on my part during shooting, though.

I generally don't see artifacts with those numbers, but be warned that
one of my photobuddies still thinks I'm overly aggressive on my
sharpening. He almost never sharpens past 50% of 0.5 pixels, I think,
but he also owns more L and prime glass than I do.

--
Zed Pobre <> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.

Mark² wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:53:07 -0700, John McWilliams
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> More to my point, I don't chimp that much, and certainly don't have
>>>> the time to do it even if I wanted to when shooting sports.
>>> FAIR WARNING: TOPIC SHIFT!!!
>>>
>>> I note that he definition of 'chimping' is changing. It's now become
>>> the mere act of looking at the LCD to review a pic.
>>> It used to be looking at the pic, then exclaiming, "OOH! OOH! Look at
>>> this one!!!"
>>> I like the older one better.
>> I'm with you, really. Chimping has never been, for me, sensible review
>> of the histogram and image from time to time. Doing it on every frame,
>> even short of the Ohh-oohohoooooh! falls into chimping in my book.
>> Using the + button to zoom in to see the focus is perhaps somewhere
>> in between.
>
> Checking focus is simply utilizing one of the benefits of digital (assuming
> you can zoom close enough to actually check). Chimping (in my mind) is the
> mindless and automatic googling at EVERY shot...as if to say, "did I get
> lucky?" as opposed to knowing what you're doing, and not feeling the
> insatiable urge to check for boo-boos on every shot...or to congratulate
> yourself. The most common times that I check are when I'm shooting
> manually, or when there is subject motion and I want to check for
> motion-blur. Macro is another. Sun-sets and long-exposures in dark
> settings, too, where the histogram can tell you a great deal.
> These are not "chimping" in my book.


Are you saying anything essentially different from what I've said?


--
john mcwilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

John McWilliams wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:53:07 -0700, John McWilliams
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More to my point, I don't chimp that much, and certainly don't
>>>>> have the time to do it even if I wanted to when shooting sports.
>>>> FAIR WARNING: TOPIC SHIFT!!!
>>>>
>>>> I note that he definition of 'chimping' is changing. It's now
>>>> become the mere act of looking at the LCD to review a pic.
>>>> It used to be looking at the pic, then exclaiming, "OOH! OOH! Look
>>>> at this one!!!"
>>>> I like the older one better.
>>> I'm with you, really. Chimping has never been, for me, sensible
>>> review of the histogram and image from time to time. Doing it on
>>> every frame, even short of the Ohh-oohohoooooh! falls into chimping
>>> in my book. Using the + button to zoom in to see the focus is
>>> perhaps somewhere in between.
>>
>> Checking focus is simply utilizing one of the benefits of digital
>> (assuming you can zoom close enough to actually check). Chimping
>> (in my mind) is the mindless and automatic googling at EVERY
>> shot...as if to say, "did I get lucky?" as opposed to knowing what
>> you're doing, and not feeling the insatiable urge to check for
>> boo-boos on every shot...or to congratulate yourself. The most
>> common times that I check are when I'm shooting manually, or when
>> there is subject motion and I want to check for motion-blur. Macro
>> is another. Sun-sets and long-exposures in dark settings, too,
>> where the histogram can tell you a great deal. These are not "chimping"
>> in my book.
>
>
> Are you saying anything essentially different from what I've said?

No.
I didn't post to disagree, rather simply to reflect on it a little.
-I know it's shocking to read a response that doesn't snipe or correct...but
live a little!


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson