Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > HDR /and/ Kodak

Reply
Thread Tools

HDR /and/ Kodak

 
 
stuseven
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2007
+ After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
effort
on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
perfect...
for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
it was no longer economically feasible(?).

More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
range...
the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
agree
we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
itself -
to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
definitely
is photographic art though.


END

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2007
stuseven wrote:
> + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
> I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
> their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
> without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
> effort
> on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
> perfect...


WHAT? It made about 40% of my photos look impossibly bad, and the
remaining 60% merely wrong. It looked like a totally badly
done unsharp mask ... halos around everything!

Doug McDonald


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
acl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2007
On Oct 7, 7:40 pm, stuseven <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
> I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
> their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
> without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
> effort
> on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
> perfect...
> for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
> made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
> it was no longer economically feasible(?).
>
> More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
> the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
> range...
> the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
> A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
> mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
> It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
> agree
> we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
> cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
> accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
> itself -
> to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
> definitely
> is photographic art though.
>
> END


I'd say that the closest thing that I know of (for digital photos) is
DxO. I find it is not too subtle, but use it to mass-convert stuff
when I come back from a trip and so on. eg I went to Genova a couple
of months ago for work, and found time for a few shots which I then
converted using dxo (I didn't touch most of them, adjusted WB in a
few). This is the result
http://www.pbase.com/al599/genova
I think it's ok for automatic adjustments. They're ok for printing too
(but can be made much better by manual tweaking and using a better raw
conversion). There probably are other converters that have automatic
adjustments, but DxO can also do it on tiffs, jpegs etc.

The new generation of raw converters/editors (lightzone, capture NX
and possibly others I'm missing) is also making things more automatic
(or more photographic, compared to photoshop).

 
Reply With Quote
 
jerry_kean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2007
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:39:55 -0700, acl <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Oct 7, 7:40 pm, stuseven <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
>> I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
>> their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
>> without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
>> effort
>> on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
>> perfect...
>> for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
>> made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
>> it was no longer economically feasible(?).
>>
>> More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
>> the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
>> range...
>> the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
>> A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
>> mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
>> It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
>> agree
>> we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
>> cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
>> accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
>> itself -
>> to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
>> definitely
>> is photographic art though.
>>
>> END

>
>I'd say that the closest thing that I know of (for digital photos) is
>DxO. I find it is not too subtle, but use it to mass-convert stuff
>when I come back from a trip and so on. eg I went to Genova a couple
>of months ago for work, and found time for a few shots which I then
>converted using dxo (I didn't touch most of them, adjusted WB in a
>few). This is the result
>http://www.pbase.com/al599/genova
>I think it's ok for automatic adjustments. They're ok for printing too
>(but can be made much better by manual tweaking and using a better raw
>conversion). There probably are other converters that have automatic
>adjustments, but DxO can also do it on tiffs, jpegs etc.
>
>The new generation of raw converters/editors (lightzone, capture NX
>and possibly others I'm missing) is also making things more automatic
>(or more photographic, compared to photoshop).


DxO is the slowest and biggest piece of overpriced bloatware I've ever run
across in any category of software. You can get the same or better capabilities
in Mediachance's "DCE AutoEnhance Pro" for $40. It reads the EXIF info and
adjusts your photos according to your preferences from the EXIF tags and camera
make and model. The very same way that DxO does its thing. It's been around for
years before DxO. DxO only became known through their relentless spam tactics
back then. The only advantage that DxO was hoped to have had was trying to
adjust for lateral chromatic aberration by EXIF info, something that AutoEnhance
does not do. But then DxO has always failed at that task anyway. I always hoped
it would help with CA, it does not. I tested it again thoroughly about 3 months
ago to see if they ever improved it. I uninstalled it. I don't leave useless
bloatware of that size on my hard-drive. Since I have to do CA corrections
semi-manually with PTLens anyway, DxO served no purpose. DCE AutoEnhance is
smaller and faster for those rush batch jobs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
acl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2007
On Oct 8, 2:15 pm, jerry_kean <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:39:55 -0700, acl <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Oct 7, 7:40 pm, stuseven <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
> >> I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
> >> their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
> >> without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
> >> effort
> >> on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
> >> perfect...
> >> for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
> >> made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
> >> it was no longer economically feasible(?).

>
> >> More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
> >> the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
> >> range...
> >> the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
> >> A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
> >> mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
> >> It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
> >> agree
> >> we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
> >> cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
> >> accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
> >> itself -
> >> to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
> >> definitely
> >> is photographic art though.

>
> >> END

>
> >I'd say that the closest thing that I know of (for digital photos) is
> >DxO. I find it is not too subtle, but use it to mass-convert stuff
> >when I come back from a trip and so on. eg I went to Genova a couple
> >of months ago for work, and found time for a few shots which I then
> >converted using dxo (I didn't touch most of them, adjusted WB in a
> >few). This is the result
> >http://www.pbase.com/al599/genova
> >I think it's ok for automatic adjustments. They're ok for printing too
> >(but can be made much better by manual tweaking and using a better raw
> >conversion). There probably are other converters that have automatic
> >adjustments, but DxO can also do it on tiffs, jpegs etc.

>
> >The new generation of raw converters/editors (lightzone, capture NX
> >and possibly others I'm missing) is also making things more automatic
> >(or more photographic, compared to photoshop).

>
> DxO is the slowest and biggest piece of overpriced bloatware I've ever run
> across in any category of software.


Yes, it's big, slow and clunky. And overpriced.

> You can get the same or better capabilities
> in Mediachance's "DCE AutoEnhance Pro" for $40.


No, in fact you don't.

 
Reply With Quote
 
stuseven
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2007
> WHAT? It made about 40% of my photos look impossibly bad, and the
> remaining 60% merely wrong. It looked like a totally badly
> done unsharp mask ... halos around everything!
>
> Doug McDonald


+ right Doug... or, at least, in it's last dying embodiments...
various
things only retaining the name "Perfect Touch" gave any new users a
bad taste for the service, and, those - such as myself, who saved
pennies
and nickels just to afford another set of these gems - soon learned of
its
demise as a viable service - thus, indeed, my reason for lamenting
such.

Granted, it was not geared for pro photographers... in fact,
unless you
used one of their one-time-use film cameras, chances of getting
results
were severely hampered. In that sense, it is unfair to even mention
that
service in this newsgroup, but I have done so, instead, respecting the
breakthrough consumer service Kodak's Perfect Touch once represented.

 
Reply With Quote
 
stuseven
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2007

> I'd say that the closest thing that I know of (for digital photos) is
> DxO. I find it is not too subtle, but use it to mass-convert stuff
> when I come back from a trip and so on. eg I went to Genova a couple
> of months ago for work, and found time for a few shots which I then
> converted using dxo (I didn't touch most of them, adjusted WB in a
> few). This is the resulthttp://www.pbase.com/al599/genova


+ yum yum... some of the nicest out of the camera digital
conversion
Ive seen - thank you for sharing !

 
Reply With Quote
 
stuseven
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2007

> DxO is the slowest and biggest piece of overpriced bloatware I've ever run
> across in any category of software. You can get the same or better capabilities
> in Mediachance's "DCE AutoEnhance Pro" for $40. It reads the EXIF info and
> adjusts your photos according to your preferences from the EXIF tags and camera
> make and model. The very same way that DxO does its thing. It's been around for
> years before DxO. DxO only became known through their relentless spam tactics
> back then. The only advantage that DxO was hoped to have had was trying to
> adjust for lateral chromatic aberration by EXIF info, something that AutoEnhance
> does not do. But then DxO has always failed at that task anyway. I always hoped
> it would help with CA, it does not. I tested it again thoroughly about 3 months
> ago to see if they ever improved it. I uninstalled it. I don't leave useless
> bloatware of that size on my hard-drive. Since I have to do CA corrections
> semi-manually with PTLens anyway, DxO served no purpose. DCE AutoEnhance is
> smaller and faster for those rush batch jobs


+ LOL... well... OP's experience is limited to freeware and/or
drugstore processing...
its nice to know, somewhere out there, someone is actually producing
correct
enchaneware for purists and the very knowledgeable.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Newsnet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2007
Greetings Stuseven,

Actually, the technology that went into 'Perfect Touch' is not gone and is
included in the printing quality you will find at the Kodak Gallery as you
can get processing done there. Also, some of the technology that went into
the feature is included in Kodak Digital Camera Menus. You can take a
picture then review and apply the Perfect Touch option in the camera.

I agree with you that it was (is) a great option and well done feature. Go
to the following URL to find locations that offer it.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...q-locale=en_US

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



"stuseven" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>+ After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
> I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
> their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
> without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
> effort
> on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
> perfect...
> for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
> made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
> it was no longer economically feasible(?).
>
> More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
> the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
> range...
> the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
> A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
> mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
> It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
> agree
> we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
> cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
> accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
> itself -
> to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
> definitely
> is photographic art though.
>
>
> END
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
stuseven
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2007
stuseven waves to Mr. Baird...

I sometimes hear this echo in here... a living Kodak
representative...
gee, neat

Well Mr. Baird, my comments are made from experience, though,
not also expertise respecting the full range of available Kodak
services.
The "Perfect Touch" print service to which I so often refer was
something
available at several local grocery/drug store outlets... drop off one-
time-use
film camera / return in 3-5 days for delicious color prints. It
simply is
nowhere to be found in my area anymore, and Columbus (Ohio) is a major
market city.

The digital age is here, and I dont expect Kodak to revive this
film
oriented service... as I commented initially... its likely considered
a
financial liability in these times.

I will give the Kodak online digital service a try, and thank you
for
your reply.

*** cool deal... I just signed up at Kodak Gallery, and got a free 20
print offer !
end







On Oct 10, 5:31 pm, "Newsnet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Greetings Stuseven,
>
> Actually, the technology that went into 'Perfect Touch' is not gone and is
> included in the printing quality you will find at the Kodak Gallery as you
> can get processing done there. Also, some of the technology that went into
> the feature is included in Kodak Digital Camera Menus. You can take a
> picture then review and apply the Perfect Touch option in the camera.
>
> I agree with you that it was (is) a great option and well done feature. Go
> to the following URL to find locations that offer it.
>
> http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...3/9/7010/1306&...
>
> Talk to you soon,
>
> Ron Baird
> Eastman Kodak Company


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak Easy Share SW Problems, attn Kodak reps please golf Digital Photography 3 12-22-2008 02:30 AM
Kodak EasyShare Shutdown Problem for Kodak 4530 JR Berry Digital Photography 10 06-08-2004 08:17 AM
Kodak DX 6440 vs. Kodak DX 6340 Barbara Clayton Digital Photography 12 02-21-2004 02:15 AM
Kodak DX4530 or Kodak DX6340?????? eng Digital Photography 15 02-05-2004 03:44 PM
Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters? Info Digital Photography 10 11-18-2003 06:33 PM



Advertisments