D300 lightning

On Dec 14, 5:22 pm, "Douglas" <j....TakeThisOut@the.group> wrote:
> The simplest way to fix it is to use something like "flo's tools" to shift
> the chroma. You can do this during the printing operation without needing
> Photoshop. To some degree chromatic aberrations can also be fixed this way.

I love the circular logic of the idiot trolls.
They say something simplistically stupid like "You don't need RAW if
you get it right in camera." Then when I point out a situation that
makes it impossible to "get it right in camera" they say, "You can
always fix it later." Or even better...."Don't shoot these scenes.."









> The fringing problem is not capture mode specific. It is condition specific
> and a jpeg can have it fixed in ACR or any of a plethora of stand alone
> applications written just for this purpose.
>
> The easiest way to "get it right in camera" is to not compose the shot with
> that much dynamic range or... Use a ND filter to lower the dynamic range or,
> turn the other cheek -- Don't shoot those scenes with the composure an
> experienced photographer should know will produce those errors. Do it right,
> not shoot from the hip. Learn when it is likely to happen and why. Then you
> can avoid it entirely.
>
> Douglas- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

Tully wrote:
>
> I think you like the combat. Otherwise you wouldn't claim to be put out
> by someone who wants to foist his favorite on you, followed by a
> commercial for your own preference.

And one, D-Macs sometime apparent ally, likes to instigate.

Corel vs. Adobe is as pointless a
> squabble as Nikon vs. Canon or Mac vs. PC.

Zackly. The correct answers are: Adobe, Canon, Mac.

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

John McWilliams wrote:
> Cynicor wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Douglas <just.RemoveThis@the.group> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Shooting in Hi quality Jpeg is more likely to render faithful
>>>>> colours Sounds clear enough to me. Carries with it the presumption
>>>>> you get it right in the camera first -- like giving up on auto WB
>>>>> and instead using custom white balance with a diffuser over the lens.
>>>>
>>>> This week's homework exercise is in one sentence to describe the
>>>> common situation in which that will give you the wrong white balance
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hmmmm. Church with tungsten lights and beams of sun shining in here
>>> and there, and a few candles thrown in??
>>
>> The correct white balance for this scene is black-and-white.
>
> Brilliant!
>
> What ISO??
>
>
>
As low as you can.. Tripod, of course
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

"Tully" <tully.albrecht.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tully.albrecht-F7EDF3.02364714122007@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...

>
> There are "photographers" snapping ID badge or driver's license photos,
> whose major creative decision is how long to let the laminator warm up.
> For those folks shooting RAW would make no sense. Why are you responding
> to my remarks about general photography with this kiosk stuff?
>
> It wouldn't be pertinent to a discussion about calligraphy pens if
> someone wrote "I have some wonderful drawings on my refrigerator door
> PROVING that crayolas are better!"
> --


You mean to say you have no Crayolas? And you call yourself creative? Boy,
my grandson could sure show you a thing or two! General photography is just
that. General. It encompasses everything from cell phone cameras to the
largest of the large, does it not?

I'll change tack here and talk about my wedding photography if it suits your
"general discussion" better. That too is mostly JPEG with only bridal
portraits shot in RAW so I can "fiddle" with them post shoot and turn them
into canvas art pieces.

Every image here:
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/previews/scott-katrina/ was shot with a
Panasonic FZ50 in JPEG mode. Shooting in RAW wouldn't have produced any
better pictures from that camera than these.

The thing is Tully, my studio employs contract camera operators. I train
many of them. My studio specialises in weddings and portraits but I produce
everything from exquisite wedding portraits, ultra large canvas landscapes
and photographs on wall paper to what you so eloquently refer to as "kiosk"
stuff along with souvenir post cards, regional calendars and everything in
between. It is "General" photography in it's most precise description.

When I offer suggestions about using JPEG in place of RAW, it is not a
blanket statement, there are times when RAW is absolutely preferred but when
you generalise, JPEG capture encourages the camera operator to concentrate
on the shot and get it right in the camera. It results in a better
photographer. If you then want to shoot RAW, you have at least discovered
how important it still is to get it right in the camera.

I'm afraid your ideal of "Pertinent" in a general sense is precisely why I
am responding - because my experience is absolutely pertinent to any
discussion about "general photography". Feel free to disagree with me. Many
do. Closed minds are everywhere. nowhere more pronounced than on Usenet.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

In article <fjtm3g$8hs$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Douglas" <just DeleteThis @the.group> wrote:

> "Tully" <tully.albrecht DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message
> news:tully.albrecht-F7EDF3.02364714122007@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
>
> >
> > There are "photographers" snapping ID badge or driver's license photos,
> > whose major creative decision is how long to let the laminator warm up.
> > For those folks shooting RAW would make no sense. Why are you responding
> > to my remarks about general photography with this kiosk stuff?
> >
> > It wouldn't be pertinent to a discussion about calligraphy pens if
> > someone wrote "I have some wonderful drawings on my refrigerator door
> > PROVING that crayolas are better!"
> > --
>
>
> You mean to say you have no Crayolas? And you call yourself creative? Boy,
> my grandson could sure show you a thing or two! General photography is just
> that. General. It encompasses everything from cell phone cameras to the
> largest of the large, does it not?
>
> I'll change tack here and talk about my wedding photography if it suits your
> "general discussion" better. That too is mostly JPEG with only bridal
> portraits shot in RAW so I can "fiddle" with them post shoot and turn them
> into canvas art pieces.

So why didn't you say way back when that you realize there is a time and
place for both formats? Instead you came out with the nukes first and
are eventually de-escalating to flyswatters.

> Every image here:
> was shot with a
> Panasonic FZ50 in JPEG mode. Shooting in RAW wouldn't have produced any
> better pictures from that camera than these.

They're very nice wedding shots. Who's Margie?

> The thing is Tully, my studio employs contract camera operators. I train
> many of them. My studio specialises in weddings and portraits but I produce
> everything from exquisite wedding portraits, ultra large canvas landscapes
> and photographs on wall paper to what you so eloquently refer to as "kiosk"
> stuff along with souvenir post cards, regional calendars and everything in
> between. It is "General" photography in it's most precise description.
>
> When I offer suggestions about using JPEG in place of RAW, it is not a
> blanket statemen...

You may not consider anything you've said in this thread "blanket
statements" but there were some opinions extrapolated from YOUR
experiences with YOUR hired shooters which you seemed to be applying
EVERYONE who uses post to get the most from a digital image.

And, since Rita will be along in a minute to critique my last sentence,
Hi there! You have certainly expressed an irrational bias against
editing, wouldn't you say?

What about this cactus wren shot? Did the PS work help or hurt the
original? How about the texture--too plastic for you?

http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iWeb/Site/Gallery-main_files/cactuswren
48_web-3.jpg
--
"It is the individual alone who is timeless. The individual's
hungers, anxieties, dreams, and preoccupations have remained
unchanged throughout the millennia." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

"Tully" <tully.albrecht.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tully.albrecht-4C1D7B.02444314122007@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <13m3lqh4gpd2190.TakeThisOut@news.supernews.com>,
> Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Tully wrote:
>>
>> > Sure! you're welcome to whatever system works for you. A flat
>> > statement that RAW is a crutch, or that JPGs are just as good, is
>> > bound to get a strong counter, don't you think? What if someone
>> > called your method "Quick & Dirty"? Wouldn't that get an emotional
>> > response? (The funny thing is, I was answering Rita's disparaging
>> > remarks about photographers using Photoshop.
>>
>> Tully, to put things in perspective, I have nothing against photographers
>> using PS. I do have a problem with people claiming to be photographers
>> passing off Photoshopped animations as photographs. I don't believe
>> there
>> is anything left of an image when 90% of the image is a PS creation.
>
> Well, I certainly agree if you're talking about (a) compositing or (b)
> transforming a "straight" photograph into a painting or pastel
> lookalike. That's a bit of a swerve in the thread, though.
>
> Come to think of it, a guy has to have eyes in the back of his head
> around here. Are you and Douglas a tag-team of sorts?
> --

No tag team about it. We just happen to have the same beliefs and
quintessentially... The same trolls trying to force feed their own version
of "the right way" on us when I at least, refuse to take it. I'm sure Rita
is big enough to speak for himself on the issue.

Do you have an opinion differing from someone else?
How do you handle it when that someone else tried to bludgeon you into
accepting their version as being "better" or more "correct" than yours? More
importantly... What if the attacker has an axe to grind and their attack is
not entirely related to the clash of opinions? Sit back and let it happen
perhaps?

Do you agree or repeat (for how many times you lose count) that you hold
different views and it's OK for somebody to voice different opinions but not
OK to attack people in pursuing them?

That's all I'm about.
I have an opinion on how best to record photographs and I object in the
extreme when someone who holds a different opinion attacks me in the
expectation I'll agree with them or their opinion will prevail over mine
when in reality, both opinions are correct under the right circumstances.
When the attack has a grudge component in it, I simply won't stand by and
let them at it.

Enjoy your Christmas Tully,

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

In article
<a3d542cc-d625-4ad8-9976-426eb5b1d108.DeleteThis@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Annika1980 <annika1980.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:

> D-Mac has produced the same number of spectacular images as you have.
> None. Zip. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.

You know you must not read rec.photo.digital.slr-systems on a regular
basis. (Looks at the group line and makes plans for another filter).
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 14, 8:59 pm, Rebecca Ore <macogoe....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Annika1980 <annika1....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> > D-Mac has produced the same number of spectacular images as you have.
> > None. Zip. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.
>
> You know you must not read rec.photo.digital.slr-systems on a regular
> basis.

Feel free to post some links to D-Mac's spectacular photos.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

John McWilliams wrote:
> Cynicor wrote:
>>> Hmmmm. Church with tungsten lights and beams of sun shining in here
>>> and there, and a few candles thrown in??
>>
>> The correct white balance for this scene is black-and-white.
>
> Brilliant!
>
> What ISO??

I dunno. A couple hundred?
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

"Tully" <tully.albrecht.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tully.albrecht-D39D13.07004214122007@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
> It's a huge turnoff to me when gadget freaks want to lecture me on why
> they think their 50/1.4 is really a better choice than my 50/1.8 after
> having "known" me for ninety seconds, and without any inquiry about what
> KIND of photography I like to do.
>
> Even worse are the geeks who only seem interested in the dollar value of
> equipment. "Oooh, a Nikon! Those are expensive, huh!" That happened a
> few times when my wife and I were doing street photography, nobody
> paying attention to her classic M3 which was worth a lot more, just
> discreetly so.
>
> But the worst, THE worst, are people who get on a soapbox about the
> evils of Photoshop.
>
> Kidding.
> --

Yeah...
I know the type. Just the other day I was sitting quietly with my laptop
while I waited for the tide to come in and this guy came up and started
lecturing me about using Photoshop and the evils of digital cameras.
Probably because I had a camera on a tripod that was tethered to the
laptop... Shooting RAW would not have got the shots I need to finish that
particular assignment! (Kidding too!)

The tide came in, I missed the pelicans and told him in no uncertain terms
he'd stuffed my day and he got the shits!

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

"Tully" <tully.albrecht.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tully.albrecht-EAB5BC.04441714122007@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <fjtm3g$8hs$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>
>> Every image here:
>> was shot with a
>> Panasonic FZ50 in JPEG mode. Shooting in RAW wouldn't have produced any
>> better pictures from that camera than these.
>
> They're very nice wedding shots. Who's Margie?
>
> You may not consider anything you've said in this thread "blanket
> statements" but there were some opinions extrapolated from YOUR
> experiences with YOUR hired shooters which you seemed to be applying
> EVERYONE who uses post to get the most from a digital image.
>

I agree with you Tully. I'd also like to explain that doing battle with
idiots (not you) has altered my perception about Aus.Photo poster's ability
and perhaps I blur the boarder between enthusiastic and experienced when I
offer some suggestions. Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. It's sort of
like a classroom where the slowest learner sets the pace for everyone.

Margie is my wife and business partner. She usually prefers an s5 Fujifilm
Pro or 5D Canon but on that day the neck strap on the s5 slipped it's buckle
and the camera hit the concrete lens first. As it turns out, she could have
changed lens and kept shooting but chose to use her backup camera instead.

We use those Panasonics (started with FZ30s) as event cameras which is where
Margie got her grounding in the industry. She knows these cameras backwards
(can change lenses and repair them too!) and they are her preferred backup
camera. We also use them as inside church cameras when silence and no flash
is required by the house rules.

It is my opinion that far too much emphasis is placed on using software to
produce a good picture and the art of photography is suffering because of
this. I use Photoshop extensively. Margie likes Adobe's lightroom and I
prefer DxO Optix Pro.

Just because I touch up crooked teeth and remove moles, sometimes changing
people around in group shots or altering the sky to produce a valuable
picture does not mean I condone the widespread use of manipulation to obtain
a picture -- That's what they become, pictures, not photographs when you do
this.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a6ydndFGT_YNQf_anZ2dnUVZ_oninZ2d@comcast.com...
> Cynicor wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Douglas <just.DeleteThis@the.group> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Shooting in Hi quality Jpeg is more likely to render faithful colours
>>>>> Sounds clear enough to me. Carries with it the presumption you get it
>>>>> right in the camera first -- like giving up on auto WB and instead
>>>>> using custom white balance with a diffuser over the lens.
>>>>
>>>> This week's homework exercise is in one sentence to describe the
>>>> common situation in which that will give you the wrong white balance
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hmmmm. Church with tungsten lights and beams of sun shining in here and
>>> there, and a few candles thrown in??
>>
>> The correct white balance for this scene is black-and-white.
>
> Brilliant!
>
> What ISO??
>
>
>
> --
> John McWilliams

6400... Let's get some texture in the scene if you going to lose the colour!
And oh... Lomo is the MF camera of choice too!

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning