Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!!

On Feb 21, 8:39 pm, mark.thoma... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 21, 9:52 am, Colin_D <nos... DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > mark.thoma... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> > > You neatly picked an image that is a good
> > > test for monitor calibration... The fact that you *believe* that it
> > > is over a third 'totally black' tells me two things:
> > > 1. Your screen gamma and/or blackpoint is wrongly set. You should be
> > > able to *just* make out the two figures at left. Feel free to check
> > > this on a properly calibrated screen. Maybe the kids next door might
> > > have one?
> > > 2. Spotting subleties, and understanding of low-key images are yet to
> > > be added to your repertoire. Let's just stick to snapshots for now.
> >...
> > Yep, I can see two figures in that image*, and the left one looks like
> > he is taking a leak.
>
> Nice interpretation - yes, that *is* what he looks like, now you
> mention it. I think it was just a bored Dad, watching his son try out
> his new casting technique on that sandspit.
>
> > * on my Dell laptop, no less!
>
> > Colin D.
>
> Well done Colin! Despite what some inexperienced folk think, a *lot*
> of people actually do have quite well calibrated monitors. Here, we
> found out about two that don't. (O; But they might learn something,
> so it's worthwhile.

Here's a tip Mark...
When You had a go at the God awful prints your mate got back from
"Teds" (for 19¢ each) you let it be known how little you really know.

My Print Pro calibration system (which cost more than your computer
and camera combined) calibrates all my monitors and makes ICC profiles
for my printers just fine.
Why would I care what you had to say when the professionals I employ
and print for, come to me for their prints because they get back
exactly what was on their monitor when they edited them?

Now why do you think that is Mark?
Are all Professional Photographers wrong or is Mark Thomas (Charles
Stevens actually) the one who's wrong?

Anything less (in a photograph) than 10 10 10 is so far under exposed
as to be detail worthless... Just like your photos. Art is one thing
but art is not in your photography. Get your head out of your arse and
maybe you'll discover you really don't have sunnies on at all.
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!! 

On Feb 21, 9:52 am, Colin_D <nos... DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
> mark.thoma... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 9:54 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> >> Douglas wrote:
> >>> You should aim for at
> >>> least 1/3rd totally black or totally white. This is what the rule of
> >>> thirds is all about. ROTFL.
> >> Well, Mark set the bar awfully high with this one. I'm not sure that
> >> there's a person alive that can top that one.
>
> >> Rita
>
> > Oh dear. Watch where you tread next time, as you never know what will
> > get stuck on your shoe. You neatly picked an image that is a good
> > test for monitor calibration... The fact that you *believe* that it
> > is over a third 'totally black' tells me two things:
> > 1. Your screen gamma and/or blackpoint is wrongly set. You should be
> > able to *just* make out the two figures at left. Feel free to check
> > this on a properly calibrated screen. Maybe the kids next door might
> > have one?
> > 2. Spotting subleties, and understanding of low-key images are yet to
> > be added to your repertoire. Let's just stick to snapshots for now.
>
> > But that's ok. We already have got to the point where you are
> > *listening* - you're on the high road, Rita. Just get that screen
> > adjusted - that may explain some of the problems in your postings, by
> > the way.
>
> Yep, I can see two figures in that image*, and the left one looks like
> he is taking a leak.
>
> * on my Dell laptop, no less!
>
> Colin D.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Well Colin... You missed the third person but like I said... The Rule
of thirds! ROTFL It has a bloody great dust blob in it too!
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!! 

On Feb 21, 8:54 pm, Douglas <crypto....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anything less (in a photograph) than 10 10 10 is so far under exposed
More foot in mouth.

Doug's screen calibration is not only broken, but his eyedropper is
broken too.

Just to the right of the male silhouette left-of-centre, you can
easily check and see for yourself the readings are around 30 (in the
Red channel naturally). Thats THIRTY - three times 10.

Between the two silhouettes, it drops down to 20ish. And at the
extreme left edge, near the horizon it is still up over the 17's. In
other words, just visible... *as a low-key silhouette is meant to be*.

The idea of the image is pretty obvious really - I wanted those two
figures to be *almost*, but not quite, lost in the black. Achieved.
But perhaps invisible on a computer with an uncalibrated monitor.

I know the concept of silhouettes and low-key are both foreign to
Douglas, but here's how it works - the silhouettes themselves are
*meant* to be black, or if you like, under 10's or so. OK, so far?

Now, if you want those silhouettes to be just visible, they should be
surrounded by levels around 15-30. Oh look, that is *exactly* what is
in my image. Golly gosh.

So, it's now additionally clear that Douglas hasn't a clue what a
silhouette is, what low-key means, and he doesn't even know how to
correctly measure RGB values.

Otherwise, he's doing *very well*. (O: And I guess for Douglas'
stuff, this sort of discussion is irrelevant. He has never had much
luck controlling his blacks or whites on web-posted images, and then
he blames JPG instead of his own incompetence.

PS - it was pretty clear to me that Colin had spotted the two
*additional* figures.

PPS - it's also most amusing that Doug claims that my silhouettes were
below 10 and invisible, and yet he is now seeing the extra two figures
and admonishing anyone he thinks doesn't.

Funny!
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!! 

On Feb 21, 5:54 am, Douglas <crypto....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My Print Pro calibration system (which cost more than your computer
> and camera combined) calibrates all my monitors and makes ICC profiles
> for my printers just fine.

How about treating us to some photos of this system?
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!! 

mark.thomas.7 DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 9:54 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>> Douglas wrote:
>>> You should aim for at
>>> least 1/3rd totally black or totally white. This is what the rule of
>>> thirds is all about. ROTFL.
>> Well, Mark set the bar awfully high with this one. I'm not sure that
>> there's a person alive that can top that one.
>>
>> Rita
>
> Oh dear. Watch where you tread next time, as you never know what will
> get stuck on your shoe. You neatly picked an image that is a good
> test for monitor calibration... The fact that you *believe* that it
> is over a third 'totally black' tells me two things:
> 1. Your screen gamma and/or blackpoint is wrongly set. You should be
> able to *just* make out the two figures at left. Feel free to check
> this on a properly calibrated screen. Maybe the kids next door might
> have one?
> 2. Spotting subleties, and understanding of low-key images are yet to
> be added to your repertoire. Let's just stick to snapshots for now.
>
> But that's ok. We already have got to the point where you are
> *listening* - you're on the high road, Rita. Just get that screen
> adjusted - that may explain some of the problems in your postings, by
> the way.
>

Yep, I can see two figures in that image*, and the left one looks like
he is taking a leak.

* on my Dell laptop, no less!

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!! 

On Feb 22, 4:57 am, "Ali" <m... DeleteThis @privacy.com> wrote:
> Yeah, there is a third person sitting down.
>
> I have only skimmed through the post, as it seems to have got a bit bitchy
> (which was inevitable) But just one thing to add, it also depends on
> what software you are viewing the photo with. For example, there can be a
> difference between viewing a photo in Internet Explorer to viewing it in
> Photoshop.
>
> "Douglas" <crypto... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f6701719-d4cc-4e0d-8857-8e9a36df50c8@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Well Colin... You missed the third person but like I said... The Rule
> > of thirds! ROTFL It has a bloody great dust blob in it too!

You're right Ali.
The whole issue of images for Internet viewing has to encompass the
2.2 gamma of a PC screen and the 1.8 gamma of a Mac screen and the
likelihood 80% of the screens they are seen on are straight out of the
box and not profiled. There is also the issue of whether or not to
include an embedded ICC profile (sRGB for example) or leave an image
without a profile and let the Operating system determine the colours.
Some browsers cannot read a colour profile anyway.

I suspect our friend Mark has no idea of presentation of images for a
wide audience. From his diatribe I'd say he works on the basis you
either do it his way or not at all. Usually not at all. There is
absolutely no detail whatsoever in the shapes in the darkness of his
picture. I suspect he puts these pictures up so he can launch his
spiel about how perfect his idea of calibration is. Whatever... It
doesn't work.
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!! 

On Feb 22, 1:00 am, Annika1980 <annika1... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 5:54 am, Douglas <crypto... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My Print Pro calibration system (which cost more than your computer
> > and camera combined) calibrates all my monitors and makes ICC profiles
> > for my printers just fine.
>
> How about treating us to some photos of this system?

Like you could afford one... In your dreams Bret. You'll get SFA from
me.
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!! 

Yeah, there is a third person sitting down.

I have only skimmed through the post, as it seems to have got a bit bitchy
(which was inevitable) But just one thing to add, it also depends on
what software you are viewing the photo with. For example, there can be a
difference between viewing a photo in Internet Explorer to viewing it in
Photoshop.


"Douglas" <cryptopix.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6701719-d4cc-4e0d-8857-8e9a36df50c8@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Well Colin... You missed the third person but like I said... The Rule
> of thirds! ROTFL It has a bloody great dust blob in it too!
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!! 

On Feb 22, 1:55 am, Douglas <crypto....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> For the jackass and his mates the Aussie idiots.http://www.clocksnprints.com/4thejackasses.htm

Wow, a photo of a printer. Why the tight crop?
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!! 

On Feb 22, 8:31 am, Douglas <crypto....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 4:57 am, "Ali" <m....TakeThisOut@privacy.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, there is a third person sitting down.
>
> > I have only skimmed through the post, as it seems to have got a bit bitchy
> > (which was inevitable) But just one thing to add, it also depends on
> > what software you are viewing the photo with. For example, there can be a
> > difference between viewing a photo in Internet Explorer to viewing it in
> > Photoshop.
> ...
> You're right Ali.
> The whole issue of images for Internet viewing has to encompass the
> 2.2 gamma of a PC screen and the 1.8 gamma of a Mac screen
> ...also the issue of whether or not to
> include an embedded ICC profile (sRGB for example)
> Some browsers cannot read a colour profile anyway.
>
> I suspect our friend Mark has no idea of presentation of images for a
> wide audience.

No, that would be you, Doug. I fully understand that a simple JPG
with a simple set of RGB values should be displayed in a certain way
by a well-calibrated image. As others have pointed out, there was
detail in this image that should be visible on a well-calibrated
system You missed it.

First, Doug mised the detail;, and then said anything below 10 is
useless and underexposed. At that time, he made no mention of
profiles or Mac vs PC. And he was essentially correct.

But then when it is pointed out to him that there is plenty of detail
there well above the 10's, he desperately turns it around to try to
explain his gaffe. He now tries to use the largely irrelevant mac/pc
gamma issue, and tries to excuse his error by claiming it's a profile
issue. As anyone with a clue would realise, if it's a profile issue,
it's HIS issue.

So let's reduce it to the facts. *Ali* could see the third person
too. So that just leaves Doug and Rita. As I said, this image is a
great calibration test. Doug failed it. Possibly in his haste to
post it as an example of incompetence - ironic really, isn't it? (O:

The image has a large dark low-key area that has *easily measurable
(non-profiled!) detail in the range around 17-30 (which even Doug says
should be visible). Those numbers are in terms of simple RGB values
in a 'straight' JPG file.

Now if Doug's 'calibration' and profiles have stuffed his setup so
badly that he can no longer see that detail, that's his problem. And
it explains why he thinks so many people have bad calibration. He
believes everyone has screwed their system up like his.

Nice one Doug. I think the hole has been dug so far it is now
collapsing on you. But keep going.

And you'll note I leave *my* images up and unchanged, you gutless
wonder.
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!! 

(sorry if this appears as a double post)
On Feb 22, 8:31 am, Douglas <crypto... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 4:57 am, "Ali" <m... RemoveThis @privacy.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, there is a third person sitting down.
>
> > I have only skimmed through the post, as it seems to have got a bit bitchy
> > (which was inevitable) But just one thing to add, it also depends on
> > what software you are viewing the photo with. For example, there can be a
> > difference between viewing a photo in Internet Explorer to viewing it in
> > Photoshop.
> ...
> You're right Ali.
> The whole issue of images for Internet viewing has to encompass the
> 2.2 gamma of a PC screen and the 1.8 gamma of a Mac screen
> ...also the issue of whether or not to
> include an embedded ICC profile (sRGB for example)
> Some browsers cannot read a colour profile anyway.
>
> I suspect our friend Mark has no idea of presentation of images for a
> wide audience.

No, that would be you, Doug. *I* fully understand that a simple JPG
with a simple set of RGB values should be displayed in a certain way
by a properly calibrated system. As others have pointed out, there
was detail in this image that should be visible on a well-calibrated
system You missed it.

First, Doug missed the detail and said anything below 10 is useless
and invisible. At that time, he made no mention of profiles or Mac vs
PC. And he was essentially correct. He should have stopped there.

But then when it was pointed out to him that there is plenty of detail
there well above the 10's, he suddenly regains his vision, and has to
desperately try to turn it around to explain his gaffe. He now tries
to use the largely irrelevant mac/pc gamma issue, and tries to excuse
his error by claiming it's a profile issue. As anyone with a clue
would realise, if it's a profile issue, it's HIS issue.

So let's reduce it to the facts. *Ali* could see the third person
too. So that just leaves Doug and Rita. As I said, this image is a
great calibration test. Doug failed it. Possibly in his haste to
post it as an example of *my* incompetence - ironic really, isn't it?
(O:

The image has a large dark low-key area that has *easily measurable*
(non-profiled!) detail in the range around 17-30 (which even Doug says
should be visible). Those numbers are in terms of simple RGB values
in a 'straight' JPG file.

Now if Doug's 'calibration' and profiles have stuffed his setup so
badly that he can no longer see that detail, that's his problem. And
it explains why he thinks so many people have bad calibration. He
believes everyone has screwed their system up like his.

Nice one Doug. I think the hole has been dug so far it is now
collapsing on you. But keep going.

And you'll note I leave *my* images up and unchanged, you gutless
wonder.
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!! 

Atheist Chaplain wrote:


>
> you see, that's all you had to do in the first place instead of being a
> dead prick about it, now that wasn't hard was it ??
>


Read the information on the print and see what you make of it!
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!! 

On Feb 23, 12:10 pm, "Rob." <m....TakeThisOut@mine.com.> wrote:
> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
>
> > you see, that's all you had to do in the first place instead of being a
> > dead prick about it, now that wasn't hard was it ??
>
> Read the information on the print and see what you make of it!

No need to ponder.
It's one of my advertising posters. Just to kill any conjecture before
it starts.
 >> Stay informed about: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!!