Took the M for a stroll

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by android, Dec 30, 2013.

  1. android

    android Guest

    I've retuned to the site with the colorchecker. Here's the CR2, jpeg
    straight out of DPP and a jpeg out of LightZone with a base profile.
    Have fun eyeballing! ;-)
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5pvktbwyihi9a9j/1NFZeJqLaK
     
    android, Jan 1, 2014
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <>,
    :
    : > On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:16:54 -0500, "Mayayana"
    : >
    : > >| I downloaded the original and found the path is
    : > >| R=98, G=97, and B=13. That's kinda bluish-gray more than purple, but
    : > >| I have trouble naming a color. I would expect an asphalt path to be
    : > >| more black than it is. Black is 0-0-0.
    : > >|
    : > >
    : > > Did you perhaps mean B=113?
    : >
    : > Yes, it is B=113. My typo.
    : >
    : > >98/97/13 (H62610D)
    : > >is something I'd call olive/bile. I find numerous hues
    : > >in about the ratio of 98/97/113. I see that as a slate
    : > >gray -- slightly bluish, as you say.
    : >
    : > I have a terrible time identifying color with words. "Olive", for
    : > example, could describe a range of green. Some might think olive is a
    : > dark green and some might think of it as a lighter green.
    : >
    : >
    : > > It's an interesting issue. First there's the problem of
    : > >different OS/monitors/monitor calibration. (I always
    : > >reduce the gamma/brightness on my monitor because
    : > >the default settings seem washed out.) Then on top
    : > >of that there's terminology. (One person's peach is
    : > >another person's coral.) Then on top of *that* there's
    : > >the eye itself. I had a friend who once took up oil
    : > >painting and was surprisingly talented. He painted odd
    : > >colors, like purple pears in a still life, for instance. But
    : > >the paintings looked right. It just looked like he had
    : > >bought some purple pears to use for subject matter.
    : > >It turned out that he was profoundly color blind and
    : > >had never known it.
    : > >
    :
    : I've retuned to the site with the colorchecker. Here's the CR2, jpeg
    : straight out of DPP and a jpeg out of LightZone with a base profile.
    : Have fun eyeballing! ;-)
    : https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5pvktbwyihi9a9j/1NFZeJqLaK

    In DPP, try the following ...
    Bring the left bar of the histogram in to about -3.8 (the beginning of the
    upslope).
    Set the strength of your unsharp mask to 5.
    Set the white balance to "Shade".
    Increase the brightness by 0.33 (a third of a stop).
    .... and see what you think.

    Have you posted the .CR2 of your original image?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 1, 2014
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. android

    android Guest

    Nope. I posted this as a favor to Tony. So that he could get his eyes
    sorted... ;-)
     
    android, Jan 1, 2014
    #43
  4. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    While I appreciate the effort, I'm not sure what to with the image.
    The asphalt is less blue-gray than in the other photos, though.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 1, 2014
    #44
  5. android

    android Guest

    Another day, another light...
     
    android, Jan 1, 2014
    #45
  6. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <>,
    :
    : >
    : > >In article <>,
    : > >
    : > >> : In article <>,
    : > >> :
    : > >> : > On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:16:54 -0500, "Mayayana"
    : > >> : >
    : > >> : > >| I downloaded the original and found the path is
    : > >> : > >| R=98, G=97, and B=13. That's kinda bluish-gray more than purple,
    : > >> : > >| but
    : > >> : > >| I have trouble naming a color. I would expect an asphalt path to
    : > >> : > >| be
    : > >> : > >| more black than it is. Black is 0-0-0.
    : > >> : > >|
    : > >> : > >
    : > >> : > > Did you perhaps mean B=113?
    : > >> : >
    : > >> : > Yes, it is B=113. My typo.
    : > >> : >
    : > >> : > >98/97/13 (H62610D)
    : > >> : > >is something I'd call olive/bile. I find numerous hues
    : > >> : > >in about the ratio of 98/97/113. I see that as a slate
    : > >> : > >gray -- slightly bluish, as you say.
    : > >> : >
    : > >> : > I have a terrible time identifying color with words. "Olive", for
    : > >> : > example, could describe a range of green. Some might think olive is a
    : > >> : > dark green and some might think of it as a lighter green.
    : > >> : >
    : > >> : >
    : > >> : > > It's an interesting issue. First there's the problem of
    : > >> : > >different OS/monitors/monitor calibration. (I always
    : > >> : > >reduce the gamma/brightness on my monitor because
    : > >> : > >the default settings seem washed out.) Then on top
    : > >> : > >of that there's terminology. (One person's peach is
    : > >> : > >another person's coral.) Then on top of *that* there's
    : > >> : > >the eye itself. I had a friend who once took up oil
    : > >> : > >painting and was surprisingly talented. He painted odd
    : > >> : > >colors, like purple pears in a still life, for instance. But
    : > >> : > >the paintings looked right. It just looked like he had
    : > >> : > >bought some purple pears to use for subject matter.
    : > >> : > >It turned out that he was profoundly color blind and
    : > >> : > >had never known it.
    : > >> : > >
    : > >> :
    : > >> : I've retuned to the site with the colorchecker. Here's the CR2, jpeg
    : > >> : straight out of DPP and a jpeg out of LightZone with a base profile.
    : > >> : Have fun eyeballing! ;-)
    : > >> : https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5pvktbwyihi9a9j/1NFZeJqLaK
    : > >>
    : > >> In DPP, try the following ...
    : > >> Bring the left bar of the histogram in to about -3.8 (the beginning of the
    : > >> upslope).
    : > >> Set the strength of your unsharp mask to 5.
    : > >> Set the white balance to "Shade".
    : > >> Increase the brightness by 0.33 (a third of a stop).
    : > >> ... and see what you think.
    : > >>
    : > >> Have you posted the .CR2 of your original image?
    : > >
    : > >Nope. I posted this as a favor to Tony. So that he could get his eyes
    : > >sorted... ;-)
    : >
    : > While I appreciate the effort, I'm not sure what to with the image.
    :
    : Oki...
    :
    : > The asphalt is less blue-gray than in the other photos, though.
    :
    : Another day, another light...

    Seriously, try the corrections in DPP that I proposed above. It'll take you
    about two minutes, and I think it helps at least as much as any of the other
    fixes that have been proposed. Just my opinion, of course.

    Whether those corrections would work as well on the original image is another
    question, of course. I can't claim that, since I haven't seen its CR2.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 1, 2014
    #46
  7. android

    android Guest

    My turn to appreciate an effort but I posted those last files as a
    courtesy and wanted Tony to have a "factory" output for reference.
    I have no plans to use DPP in my standard workflow. :)
     
    android, Jan 1, 2014
    #47
  8. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <>,
    :
    : > : In article <>,
    : > :
    : > : >
    : > : > >In article <>,
    : > : > >
    : > : > >> : In article <>,
    : > : > >> :
    : > : > >> : > On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:16:54 -0500, "Mayayana"
    : > : > >> : >
    : > : > >> : > >| I downloaded the original and found the path is
    : > : > >> : > >| R=98, G=97, and B=13. That's kinda bluish-gray more than
    : > : > >> : > >| purple,
    : > : > >> : > >| but
    : > : > >> : > >| I have trouble naming a color. I would expect an asphalt path
    : > : > >> : > >| to
    : > : > >> : > >| be
    : > : > >> : > >| more black than it is. Black is 0-0-0.
    : > : > >> : > >|
    : > : > >> : > >
    : > : > >> : > > Did you perhaps mean B=113?
    : > : > >> : >
    : > : > >> : > Yes, it is B=113. My typo.
    : > : > >> : >
    : > : > >> : > >98/97/13 (H62610D)
    : > : > >> : > >is something I'd call olive/bile. I find numerous hues
    : > : > >> : > >in about the ratio of 98/97/113. I see that as a slate
    : > : > >> : > >gray -- slightly bluish, as you say.
    : > : > >> : >
    : > : > >> : > I have a terrible time identifying color with words. "Olive", for
    : > : > >> : > example, could describe a range of green. Some might think olive
    : > : > >> : > is a
    : > : > >> : > dark green and some might think of it as a lighter green.
    : > : > >> : >
    : > : > >> : >
    : > : > >> : > > It's an interesting issue. First there's the problem of
    : > : > >> : > >different OS/monitors/monitor calibration. (I always
    : > : > >> : > >reduce the gamma/brightness on my monitor because
    : > : > >> : > >the default settings seem washed out.) Then on top
    : > : > >> : > >of that there's terminology. (One person's peach is
    : > : > >> : > >another person's coral.) Then on top of *that* there's
    : > : > >> : > >the eye itself. I had a friend who once took up oil
    : > : > >> : > >painting and was surprisingly talented. He painted odd
    : > : > >> : > >colors, like purple pears in a still life, for instance. But
    : > : > >> : > >the paintings looked right. It just looked like he had
    : > : > >> : > >bought some purple pears to use for subject matter.
    : > : > >> : > >It turned out that he was profoundly color blind and
    : > : > >> : > >had never known it.
    : > : > >> : > >
    : > : > >> :
    : > : > >> : I've retuned to the site with the colorchecker. Here's the CR2, jpeg
    : > : > >> : straight out of DPP and a jpeg out of LightZone with a base profile.
    : > : > >> : Have fun eyeballing! ;-)
    : > : > >> : https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5pvktbwyihi9a9j/1NFZeJqLaK
    : > : > >>
    : > : > >> In DPP, try the following ...
    : > : > >> Bring the left bar of the histogram in to about -3.8 (the beginning of
    : > : > >> the
    : > : > >> upslope).
    : > : > >> Set the strength of your unsharp mask to 5.
    : > : > >> Set the white balance to "Shade".
    : > : > >> Increase the brightness by 0.33 (a third of a stop).
    : > : > >> ... and see what you think.
    : > : > >>
    : > : > >> Have you posted the .CR2 of your original image?
    : > : > >
    : > : > >Nope. I posted this as a favor to Tony. So that he could get his eyes
    : > : > >sorted... ;-)
    : > : >
    : > : > While I appreciate the effort, I'm not sure what to with the image.
    : > :
    : > : Oki...
    : > :
    : > : > The asphalt is less blue-gray than in the other photos, though.
    : > :
    : > : Another day, another light...
    : >
    : > Seriously, try the corrections in DPP that I proposed above. It'll take you
    : > about two minutes, and I think it helps at least as much as any of the other
    : > fixes that have been proposed. Just my opinion, of course.
    : >
    : > Whether those corrections would work as well on the original image is another
    : > question, of course. I can't claim that, since I haven't seen its CR2.
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    : My turn to appreciate an effort but I posted those last files as a
    : courtesy and wanted Tony to have a "factory" output for reference.
    : I have no plans to use DPP in my standard workflow. :)

    That's beside the point. If a given set of corrections in DPP improves the
    image, it's a straightforward exercise to translate that into what you might
    want to do in the editor that you do use.

    You are, of course, free to accept the image as it is. But though some of the
    others may have been boorish or patronizing in their comments about it,
    fundamentally they're right: the image is technically deficient, with color
    values that are decidedly off. You must have suspected that, or you wouldn't
    have asked.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 1, 2014
    #48
  9. android

    android Guest

    I din't use DPP for the originally posted picture. Tony had an issue
    with the colors and these supplemental files showed that they were
    correctly rendered.
     
    android, Jan 2, 2014
    #49
  10. android

    Sandman Guest

    You are.

    "but the operator of the camera failed."

    Ad hominem, when he wanted comments on the photograph. Typical Tony.
     
    Sandman, Jan 2, 2014
    #50
  11. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    An "ad hominem" comment is when there is an attempt to divert the
    discussion with a negative and irrelevant personal comment. What you
    have done is an almost classic example of this.

    My comments were about the photograph, and extensively so, but you
    have snipped these to divert the discussion and included an irrelevant
    personal comment. Try looking up the term "ad hominem" so you will
    not embarrass yourself further.

    It's ironic for a post to contain both a comment about not
    understanding a language and a misuse of language by the same person.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 2, 2014
    #51
  12. android

    android Guest

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem

    I have the pulp but if you're unable to get it (the good stuff ;-))
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/merriam-webster/?src=ss
     
    android, Jan 3, 2014
    #52
  13. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Yes, that's a good, if succinct, definition. The key words in that
    definition are "rather than". In other words, instead of providing a
    rebuttal to an argument, the person who employs the ad hominem route
    attacks the person in order to divert the discussion.

    A response that legitimately addresses the point of contention, and
    also contains an insult, is not an ad hominem response.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #53
  14. android

    android Guest

    Webster:
    Definition of AD HOMINEM
    1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than
    by an answer to the contentions made
     
    android, Jan 3, 2014
    #54
  15. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    These have that "rather than" again. The intellectual argument has
    been abandoned in favor of, or rather than, an attack to the emotions.
    For ad hominem to exist, there has to be a) a point of contention that
    calls for rebuttal, and b) an attempt to divert the discussion to
    something personal instead of, or rather than, providing a rebuttal.

    It's all about diversion. Instead of addressing your
    counter-argument, I'll call you names and divert the discussion to
    your character. That's an argumentum ad hominem.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #55
  16. android

    Sandman Guest

    Exactly my point.
     
    Sandman, Jan 3, 2014
    #56
  17. android

    android Guest

    Now you've gone silly... The term comes from the latin and means
    basically "personal attack". That's has not changed.

    EOD
     
    android, Jan 3, 2014
    #57
  18. android

    J. Clarke Guest

    'fraid not. In Latin, "ad" is a preposition which can be translated as
    "toward", "to", "up to", or "in the direction of". "Hominem" is the
    accusative singular of "homo" or "person". "ad hominem" per se means
    simply "to the person", not "personal attack". "perferretque ad
    hominem" would be a message to the man for example--there is nothing in
    the phrase "ad hominem" that indicates any kind of attack. "Personal
    attack" would be more like "quod personaliter impetus".

    In the context of debate, "ad hominem" is short for "argumentum ad
    hominem", which is an "argument to the man".

    He hasn't "gone silly", what has "gone silly" is the ignorami who have
    turned "ad hominem" into a synonym for "insult".

    Lawyers say "If the law is against you, pound on the facts, if the facts
    are against you, pound on the law, if both are against you, pound on the
    table". Argumentum ad hominem is a form of "pounding on the table".
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 3, 2014
    #58
  19. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    That's part of the term. The full term is argumentum ad hominem, or
    an argument to the person. While people seem to always write "ad
    hominem", that's the short version.

    There has to be an argument for the statement to be correctly used.

    You could look it up, you know. Here's just one page:
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

    J. Clarke has nailed it in another post in this thread when he says
    that what is silly is using the term as a synonym for "insult". Only
    those ignorant of the meaning do that.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #59
  20. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Yes, I know it's your point. That demonstrates that you are using a
    term you don't understand. My post was an original comment on the
    image and not a continuation of a discussion, or argument, about the
    image. There is no way to construe my comment as an attempt to divert
    a discussion to the person.

    Your posts, though, are an attempt to divert the discussion from the
    scene chosen for the photograph to a personal discussion. While you
    don't know what an "argumentum ad hominem" means, you managed to
    create one.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.