Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: New mandate needed

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: New mandate needed

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2012
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:34:00 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-03-23 12:47:03 -0700, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:33:04 +0000, Pete A <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>> : On 2012-03-22 04:21:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
>> : > ...
>> : > My other problem is the weather. For the last two years its been
>> : > lousy. Almost never have I been able to get out on the few good
>> : > shooting days we have had. I don't expect anyone can fix this
>> : > for me.
>> :
>> : My "better" days hardly ever coincide with suitable weather. When
>> : they do, it's usually a case of having to do a bit of gardening or
>> : get the laundry hanging on the line.
>>
>> Most pictures come out better if you can take them in good weather, but
>> sometimes you have to play the cards you're dealt. And some bad-weather
>> photographs turn out remarkably well.
>>
>> Maybe that's another idea for a mandate: Bad-weather photography.
>>
>> Bob

>
>How about this for a mandate?
>Any archive shots which would have been ideal for a past mandate, but
>were never submitted because they were archive shots and ineligible.


When was an archive shot ever rejected as ineligible?

>The only restriction would be that they have never been submitted to
>the SI as an archive shot in the past.
>As part of the photographer's comment the past mandate(s) they would
>have been eligible for should be listed.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2012
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:39:40 +1300, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>For nearly all photos (not for SI specifically, but preparing my photos
>>for web display in general) I try for the point where extra size doesn't
>>bring extra goodness.

>
>I understand that. Unfortunately I seem to prefer larger photographs,
>often with lots of detail, and trying to preserve the visual impact in
>an image of small size becomes very difficult. I may have to force my
>brain to appreciate a different syle of image.
>


I can understand your desire to post your photos as you think they
should be viewed, but I've never seen comments about SI entries based
on detail lost due to size constriction. When the comments are
negative, they usually have to do with general content, composition,
or lack of an interesting subject. When the the comments are
positive, it's usually because of the interest in the subject matter.

You could have posted an image of Dame Edna performing in a beaded
gown for the "Work" mandate, and no one would have noticed all the
beads weren't sharp and clear or that his five o'clock shadow was not
pin-point defined.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2012
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:23:34 +1300, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:05:54 -0700, Savageduck
><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-03-23 18:12:18 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:34:00 -0700, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-03-23 12:47:03 -0700, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:33:04 +0000, Pete A <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> : On 2012-03-22 04:21:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
>>>>> : > ...
>>>>> : > My other problem is the weather. For the last two years its been
>>>>> : > lousy. Almost never have I been able to get out on the few good
>>>>> : > shooting days we have had. I don't expect anyone can fix this
>>>>> : > for me.
>>>>> :
>>>>> : My "better" days hardly ever coincide with suitable weather. When
>>>>> : they do, it's usually a case of having to do a bit of gardening or
>>>>> : get the laundry hanging on the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most pictures come out better if you can take them in good weather, but
>>>>> sometimes you have to play the cards you're dealt. And some bad-weather
>>>>> photographs turn out remarkably well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe that's another idea for a mandate: Bad-weather photography.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> How about this for a mandate?
>>>> Any archive shots which would have been ideal for a past mandate, but
>>>> were never submitted because they were archive shots and ineligible.
>>>
>>> When was an archive shot ever rejected as ineligible?

>>
>>Only in a participant's mind.

>
>There is no point in having rules which are not enforced.


Well, in some cases there is no point of having rules. In this
particular situation, I think "suggestions" is more appropriate than
"rules". The SI is not a competition. There are no winners or losers
or ribbons or prizes. The intent is to have a little fun in sharing
images with other people.

The "rule" about size that Alan imposes is a practical one regarding
the limitations and cost of the host: pbase. The fact that you must
adjust the image, instead of Alan doing it, is a reasonable one for a
volunteer moderator.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2012
On 2012-03-24 02:04:54 +0000, Savageduck said:

> On 2012-03-23 16:12:39 -0700, Pete A <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 2012-03-23 21:13:43 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>>
>>> On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
>>>>>> have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
>>>>>> 800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
>>>>>> JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
>>>>>> it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe 2 MB.
>>>>
>>>> I've since posted an example.
>>>
>>> Fair enough. I've since posted the same photo at 1200x800 and 300 kB.
>>> (Actually a little larger).
>>>
>>>>> Even with a high amount of detail in the image I
>>>>> rarely see anything above 500 kB or so. Reducing the quality level to 8
>>>>> or 7 (PS CS5 scale) is usually enough. I have submitted some at quality
>>>>> level 6 with little or no discernible quality loss.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry that's meaningless to non-CS users like me.
>>>
>>> See below.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Display it smaller as well as at a lower quality level. 1200x800 is
>>>>> arbitrary. And quite large compared to how most photos are shown on the
>>>>> web.
>>>>
>>>> But are the photographs intended only to be adequate on the web?
>>>> Perhaps that's my problem? I'm trying to give an impression of what it
>>>> might be like in a print.
>>>
>>> I've demonstrated that your photo can easily be edited to 1200x800, 300
>>> kB and be quite presentable (it should be noted that there is nothing
>>> particularly great about the image whether at full quality or lesser.
>>> It is "large" in JPG terms because of the patterns in the image.
>>>
>>> If you don't use PS you can use any other editor. The JPG quality
>>> scales (depending on the particular app) is typically 1 ... 10, 1...12,
>>> 1...100 all with the same relative meaning/effect.
>>>
>>> In the end they all have the same basic result: a smaller file and
>>> usually (in the upper range) little or no discernible photo degradation.

>>
>> Not wishing to be argumentative, just reiterating what has been
>> explained in great technical detail previously on Usenet photography
>> groups: there are exceedingly few JPEG encoders and decoders that do an
>> excellent job. Since late Dec. 2011, Nikon Capture NX2 now has JPEG
>> functionality that is totally unusable for serious photography - this
>> product by no means stands alone.

>
> Pete, you as a Mac user have one of the very best jpeg resizing tools
> available in "Preview".


Actually, Preview is a crap image scaler. Up to and including OS-X 10.5
(Leopard), image scaling in Preview, Safari, Finder thumbnail view, and
other applications is not gamma corrected. I don't yet know if this
error has been fixed in later versions of OS-X.

<http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html>

The two links you posted of the car picture clearly show the problem in
Safari. I opened each link in a separate tab and just let Safari scale
each image to fit the browser window. The intricate grille is much
brighter in DNC3977Afw (the smaller image) than the larger image. To a
lesser extent, the same occurs on the wheel spokes. The URL (above)
demonstrates this effect in the example of the eyes of the golden fly.

Unfortunately, the image scaler in NX2 is not gamma corrected either,
therefore I have no means of downsizing an image without losing
quality, irrespective of the JPEG compression level.

> Try this experiment:
> Process one of your NEFs with your NX2 and save the full size image at
> the highest quality NX2 jpeg. I would imagine that depending on content
> you should have a file size of 3-12 MB.
> Open that file in Preview. Select the "Resize Tool" and make the
> dimensional adjustments.
> Save as, with a a file name change and adjust the jpeg quality to a
> level you might be uncomfortable going to with what was once a huge
> file, and see what you get.


The nature of the JPEG encoder error in NX2 means that images need to
be saved as TIFF then converted to JPEG in Preview. That's no hardship,
of course, because Preview is the only application I have that
indicates the JPEG file size as the compression level slider is moved,
which is very useful.

Rather than faffing around trying to find proper image scaling software
I'll experiment with OS-X Lion - if its version of Preview has an
accurate image scaler I shall be very pleased indeed.

 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2012
On 3/23/2012 2:44 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:42:15 +0000, Bruce<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> : Robert Coe<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :>On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980<(E-Mail Removed)>
> :>wrote:
> :>: On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne<(E-Mail Removed)>
> :>: wrote:
> :>:> ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
> :>:>
> :>:> --
> :>:> The Committee.
> :>:
> :>: "The End"
> :>
> :>I don't recall you being that sarcastic when you were a regular
> :>contributor. If your point is that we can't continue without you,
> :>get over it. In many respects you may be the best photographer
> :>in the group; but no one is indispensable, not even you.
> :
> : The SI has a long history of "losing" its best contributors, many
> : of whom quote the same reason why they felt they could not continue.
>
> Refresh my memory: what reason is that?
>


I assume your response was rhetorical. You have too much sense to expect
a rational answer.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2012
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:57:22 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2012-03-24 04:35 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 20:41:55 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-03-23 20:23:34 -0700, Eric Stevens<(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:05:54 -0700, Savageduck
>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-03-23 18:12:18 -0700, tony cooper<(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:34:00 -0700, Savageduck
>>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2012-03-23 12:47:03 -0700, Robert Coe<(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:33:04 +0000, Pete A<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> : On 2012-03-22 04:21:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
>>>>>>>> :> ...
>>>>>>>> :> My other problem is the weather. For the last two years its been
>>>>>>>> :> lousy. Almost never have I been able to get out on the few good
>>>>>>>> :> shooting days we have had. I don't expect anyone can fix this
>>>>>>>> :> for me.
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> : My "better" days hardly ever coincide with suitable weather. When
>>>>>>>> : they do, it's usually a case of having to do a bit of gardening or
>>>>>>>> : get the laundry hanging on the line.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most pictures come out better if you can take them in good weather, but
>>>>>>>> sometimes you have to play the cards you're dealt. And some bad-weather
>>>>>>>> photographs turn out remarkably well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe that's another idea for a mandate: Bad-weather photography.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about this for a mandate?
>>>>>>> Any archive shots which would have been ideal for a past mandate, but
>>>>>>> were never submitted because they were archive shots and ineligible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When was an archive shot ever rejected as ineligible?
>>>>>
>>>>> Only in a participant's mind.
>>>>
>>>> There is no point in having rules which are not enforced.
>>>
>>> Read the "rulz";
>>> < http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage>
>>>
>>> While we are not encouraged to submit archive shots, they have always
>>> been an option.
>>> "When submitting an archived image (one shot at any time before the
>>> mandate was announced), then you should append "_old" to the file name."

>>
>> Tsk, tsk. That's not very nice and I thought better of you than that!
>>
>> You know very well that the rules are an ever changing feast as you
>> can confirm by a little dexterous searching of Google etc. All kinds
>> of things have been discussed at various times including whether or
>> not nudes are acceptable under the then current 'pg13' guide lines.

>
>The rul cited by the duck dates back to the beginning.
>
>I have no objection to nudity, but I'll decide if it's reasonably tasteful.
>
>http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15399112
>http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15315692
>http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3561680
>
>Would be fine in my books.


Yeah, but it should be absolutely forbidden to have "Nude
Self-Portrait" as a mandate.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew Reilly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2012
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:08:17 +0000, Pete A wrote:
> Actually, Preview is a crap image scaler. Up to and including OS-X 10.5
> (Leopard), image scaling in Preview, Safari, Finder thumbnail view, and
> other applications is not gamma corrected. I don't yet know if this
> error has been fixed in later versions of OS-X.
>
> <http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html>


Thanks for that link! It's a very nice exposition of the problem, with
good examples. I think that this situation has started to improve over
the last couple of years (when I first heard it discussed.) In
particular, Preview in OS-X 10.7 (Lion) passes the grey-Lama test with
flying colours. Sadly, none of the web browsers I have on this system
(Safari, Firefox, Chrome) do it properly, though. I guess that in
browsers, speed trumps correctness.

> Unfortunately, the image scaler in NX2 is not gamma corrected either,
> therefore I have no means of downsizing an image without losing quality,
> irrespective of the JPEG compression level.


What does NX2 do if you do the scaling on the RAW/NEF image (which is
linear), rather than a JPEG?

> Rather than faffing around trying to find proper image scaling software
> I'll experiment with OS-X Lion - if its version of Preview has an
> accurate image scaler I shall be very pleased indeed.


Prepare for slight/moderate pleasedness...

Cheers,

--
Andrew
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2012
On 2012-03-24 22:30:41 +0000, Andrew Reilly said:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:08:17 +0000, Pete A wrote:
>> Actually, Preview is a crap image scaler. Up to and including OS-X 10.5
>> (Leopard), image scaling in Preview, Safari, Finder thumbnail view, and
>> other applications is not gamma corrected. I don't yet know if this
>> error has been fixed in later versions of OS-X.
>>
>> <http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html>

>
> Thanks for that link! It's a very nice exposition of the problem, with
> good examples. I think that this situation has started to improve over
> the last couple of years (when I first heard it discussed.) In
> particular, Preview in OS-X 10.7 (Lion) passes the grey-Lama test with
> flying colours.


Thanks for the feedback, Andrew. I'm glad to hear Lion Preview will
solve my problem.

I wrote my own image viewer many years ago, which gave me a good
understanding of image processing. I opted for speed over correctness
so it would run fast enough on the old and relatively slow CPUs around
at the time. My compiler predates the MMX and SSE CPU instructions so
I've never updated the viewer.

> Sadly, none of the web browsers I have on this system
> (Safari, Firefox, Chrome) do it properly, though. I guess that in
> browsers, speed trumps correctness.


I'm surprised that Safari (at least) doesn't have an option to select
either speed or correctness.

>> Unfortunately, the image scaler in NX2 is not gamma corrected either,
>> therefore I have no means of downsizing an image without losing quality,
>> irrespective of the JPEG compression level.

>
> What does NX2 do if you do the scaling on the RAW/NEF image (which is
> linear), rather than a JPEG?


NX2 data in the editing steps is not linear, it's in the working space
colour profile, which is what causes the problem in the scaler (and
some other editing functions). Adobe Photoshop used to work this way
also, but it was eventually changed to work correctly by using linear
image data.

BTW, I do my testing with 16-bit TIFFs.


>> Rather than faffing around trying to find proper image scaling software
>> I'll experiment with OS-X Lion - if its version of Preview has an
>> accurate image scaler I shall be very pleased indeed.

>
> Prepare for slight/moderate pleasedness...


Thanks again.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2012
On 2012-03-24 13:19:52 +0000, Savageduck said:

> On 2012-03-24 05:08:17 -0700, Pete A <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 2012-03-24 02:04:54 +0000, Savageduck said:
>>
>>> On 2012-03-23 16:12:39 -0700, Pete A <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-03-23 21:13:43 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
>>>>>>>> have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
>>>>>>>> 800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
>>>>>>>> JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
>>>>>>>> it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe 2 MB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've since posted an example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough. I've since posted the same photo at 1200x800 and 300 kB.
>>>>> (Actually a little larger).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even with a high amount of detail in the image I
>>>>>>> rarely see anything above 500 kB or so. Reducing the quality level to 8
>>>>>>> or 7 (PS CS5 scale) is usually enough. I have submitted some at quality
>>>>>>> level 6 with little or no discernible quality loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry that's meaningless to non-CS users like me.
>>>>>
>>>>> See below.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Display it smaller as well as at a lower quality level. 1200x800 is
>>>>>>> arbitrary. And quite large compared to how most photos are shown on the
>>>>>>> web.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But are the photographs intended only to be adequate on the web?
>>>>>> Perhaps that's my problem? I'm trying to give an impression of what it
>>>>>> might be like in a print.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've demonstrated that your photo can easily be edited to 1200x800, 300
>>>>> kB and be quite presentable (it should be noted that there is nothing
>>>>> particularly great about the image whether at full quality or lesser.
>>>>> It is "large" in JPG terms because of the patterns in the image.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't use PS you can use any other editor. The JPG quality
>>>>> scales (depending on the particular app) is typically 1 ... 10, 1...12,
>>>>> 1...100 all with the same relative meaning/effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the end they all have the same basic result: a smaller file and
>>>>> usually (in the upper range) little or no discernible photo degradation.
>>>>
>>>> Not wishing to be argumentative, just reiterating what has been
>>>> explained in great technical detail previously on Usenet photography
>>>> groups: there are exceedingly few JPEG encoders and decoders that do an
>>>> excellent job. Since late Dec. 2011, Nikon Capture NX2 now has JPEG
>>>> functionality that is totally unusable for serious photography - this
>>>> product by no means stands alone.
>>>
>>> Pete, you as a Mac user have one of the very best jpeg resizing tools
>>> available in "Preview".

>>
>> Actually, Preview is a crap image scaler. Up to and including OS-X 10.5
>> (Leopard), image scaling in Preview, Safari, Finder thumbnail view, and
>> other applications is not gamma corrected. I don't yet know if this
>> error has been fixed in later versions of OS-X.
>>
>> <http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html>
>>
>> The two links you posted of the car picture clearly show the problem in
>> Safari. I opened each link in a separate tab and just let Safari scale
>> each image to fit the browser window. The intricate grille is much
>> brighter in DNC3977Afw (the smaller image) than the larger image. To a
>> lesser extent, the same occurs on the wheel spokes. The URL (above)
>> demonstrates this effect in the example of the eyes of the golden fly.

>
> I must be leading a less obsessive life than you. All I am doing is
> resizing an image to dimensions suitable for the SI.
> Why should I care if there is a Gamma issue with the eye of a golden
> fly after resizing?
>
> This is not rocket science, or analysis of macro images, for crying out
> loud. This is meant to be a piece of entertaining fun. What you are
> describing is pixel peeping to an extreme and has very strong OCD
> elements.
>
> There might well be times when this Gamma issue is a real problem, but
> resizing for the SI is not one of them. So what if there is a minor
> change in the brightness of the intricate grill on the resized image
> which is intended for display viewing only. This is not going to be an
> image file intended for printing, or critical pixel level comparison to
> an original. The SI is not a comparison gallery for resized vs original
> images.
> You are over complicating this issue. I thought you were trying to
> simplify some of the things in your life because of your condition.
> Just resized the damn image file, and submit it! Nobody is going to
> have the original to make the comparison. This is not a proposition of
> Wittgensteinian proportions for you to wrap your brain around. Let it
> go and have some fun.
>
>>
>> Unfortunately, the image scaler in NX2 is not gamma corrected either,
>> therefore I have no means of downsizing an image without losing
>> quality, irrespective of the JPEG compression level.

>
> Then locking into NX2 as your primary editor is not particularly
> useful. Since you are able to afford the camera equipment you use, I
> would suggest that you step up and get yourself a copy of Photoshop
> Elements 10. That should make life a bit easier for you.
>
>>
>>> Try this experiment:
>>> Process one of your NEFs with your NX2 and save the full size image at
>>> the highest quality NX2 jpeg. I would imagine that depending on content
>>> you should have a file size of 3-12 MB.
>>> Open that file in Preview. Select the "Resize Tool" and make the
>>> dimensional adjustments.
>>> Save as, with a a file name change and adjust the jpeg quality to a
>>> level you might be uncomfortable going to with what was once a huge
>>> file, and see what you get.

>>
>> The nature of the JPEG encoder error in NX2 means that images need to
>> be saved as TIFF then converted to JPEG in Preview. That's no hardship,
>> of course, because Preview is the only application I have that
>> indicates the JPEG file size as the compression level slider is moved,
>> which is very useful.
>>
>> Rather than faffing around trying to find proper image scaling software
>> I'll experiment with OS-X Lion - if its version of Preview has an
>> accurate image scaler I shall be very pleased indeed.

>
> Just buy PS Elements 10 already!
> ...or LR4, or step up to the big one, CS5 (or soon to be released CS6).


If Adobe paid me a large sum of money to use it's picture editing
software as my primary editor I still wouldn't use it. I'm not alone in
finding the the way it works infuriating for several reasons. And yes,
I use a previous version of Photoshop occasionally when I see fit.

For f..k's sake, it can't even honour the most basic camera setting:
white balance, which is the first step to get right before any further
processing becomes meaningful. This step should be set near-enough
right in the camera because it influences metering, scene recognition,
and autofocus accuracy.

Of course Adobe doesn't honour a plethora Nikon camera settings because
they are proprietary. As I've said before, I fail to see any reason to
purchase a Nikon system other than for its proprietary features. If you
don't need or want them then why buy a Nikon system - they form a not
insignificant part of the purchase cost.

Your rant shows how locked-in you are to Apple and Adobe. Sorry to have
burst your Mac-worshipping bubble by using science rather than
anecdotal evidence. Prior to OS-X Lion, there are many imaging related
things that a Mac didn't do nearly as well as it should've done during
the last decade, which is despicable. Windows XP had better imaging API
functions and default colour management for applications to use than
the far more recent OS-X Leopard. Get over it.

Capture NX2 has bugs that are causing me some (manageable) hassles and
it may soon cause D800/D4 owners serious grief. Good - either NX2 will
get it improved or it will have to be replaced by something better. The
main problem with NX2 is that its low price hasn't enabled nearly
enough consumer-funded development, unlike Adobe software.


> Stop mind ****ing!!


Your attempt at denigrating the London Metropolitan Police over the
statistically insignificant cost spent on calls to the speaking clock
was the biggest attempt at "mind ****ing" I've seen in anything other
than highly disruptive factions of the media.

I request that we revert to discussion rather than dictation.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2012
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>After 25 years of writing crime scene and investigative reports, I
>still hold the opinion that any police force depending on a "speaking
>clock" and the associated expense for checking time, to be pretty damn
>stupid. I was surprised to find that an organization with a Law
>enforcement reputation such as that held by LMP, had been micro-managed
>into such a dumb practice.
>Bear in mind it was the UK press which raised the issue in the first place.



Don't be ridiculous.

A clueless PR spokesperson who clearly had not the faintest idea how
policing works used the idea of 'checking the time of incidents' as a
very lame and completely off-the-cuff excuse for a telephone bill for
dialling the Speaking Clock. Yet the original news report detailed
much greater spending by other government departments (not in any way
related to policing) on the Speaking Clock without needing to provide
Britain's worst daily newspaper with any excuse for it.

You may recall (or you may choose not to) that I pointed out to you
that the Speaking Clock was formerly a free service. As such, it was
routinely used by millions of people to check whether their watches
and/or clocks were showing the right time, or just to check the time
on a day when they had forgotten to put on their watch. Many people
think it is still free and therefore would not hesitate to use their
employer's phone to call it.

Instead, you decided to launch into a characteristically dogmatic
demolition of the credibility of an entire police force based on your
own very personal misunderstanding of a thoroughly incompetently
written article in a newspaper that daily plumbs the depths of
Britain's lowest ever standards of journalism, based on an
off-the-cuff remark by a completely clueless PR spokesperson.

A competent policeman would never jump to conclusions based on such
flimsy evidence, distorted as it was by grossly incompetent tabloid
"journalism" that does not deserve to be called such.

I have to agree with Pete A and I applaud him for standing up to your
relentless bullying.

 
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
Re: [SI] New mandate needed tony cooper Digital Photography 5 03-21-2012 10:03 PM
Re: [SI] New mandate needed PeterN Digital Photography 2 03-20-2012 01:52 PM
Re: [SI] Mandate reminder/update & new mandate! Robert Spanjaard Digital Photography 9 04-26-2010 10:17 PM
Re: [SI] Mandate reminder/update & new mandate! Robert Coe Digital Photography 13 04-24-2010 05:47 AM
Re: Mandate reminder/update & new mandate! Annika1980 Digital Photography 3 04-17-2010 10:37 PM



Advertisments