Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: heyrob
Page: <<prev 1 ... 227 228 229 230
Jan 26, 2013 00:14:02   #
mfeveland wrote:
mfeveland wrote:
heyrob wrote:
mfeveland wrote:
DaveHam wrote:
A serious question for the proponents of JPEG format on the camera.
Why?
Apart from the smaller file size what advantage exists in using this format? If you can produce a JPEG from a RAW image why would anyone not use RAW? Why risk an error in the shot ruining it when you can take the precaution of shooting RAM and being able to recover it? Surely this is a no-brainer?


If you have to ask the question you wouldn't understand the answer... : )


I disagree! Why not take the little extra time involved in converting to jpg from raw, and have every pixel of data saved as the camera saw it. In my mind those who advocate shooting in jpg because raw is too much trouble, are shooting themselves in the foot. Lazy always results in sub-optimal results.
quote=mfeveland quote=DaveHam A serious question... (show quote)


BTW, suboptimal isn't a hyphenated word.
The difference between JPEG and RAW is the difference between a photographer (jpeg) and an photo editor (raw).
quote=heyrob quote=mfeveland quote=DaveHam A se... (show quote)


Let me make one clafification, what I was saying, is that you don't need to be much of a photographer to shoot RAW and then do all the editing in software, where as you do need to understand photography and your equipment to get consistent jpeg results right from the camera. In other words, if someone shoots in auto and then edits to obtain the desired results, they don't need to know much about photography.
quote=mfeveland quote=heyrob quote=mfeveland q... (show quote)


What do any of your responses have to do with my comment? You've never seen any of my work, so you're making assumptions about the quality, and what if any PP I may or may not do that are completely baseless. It is the height of ignorance to criticize that which you know nothing about.

Let me enlighten you as to my point, which was that the basic quality of the initial jpg from my raw to jpg conversion software (provided by the camera mfgr.) is considerably better than what came from the camera directly. I've been a photographer for over 40 years, so I know the basics inside and out, my comment had nothing to do with PP, or fixing bad photos, it had to do with the quality of the initial data you get. Want to start with compromised data? Okay, but why not save the best you can get and go from there?
Go to
Jan 24, 2013 16:09:30   #
RogerO wrote:
I saved an image attached to an email to the Elements 10 organizer. The image was in jpg format with 4000 x 2664 pixels. But it appeared in the organizer in png format with 150 x 100 pixels. I designated jpg and did nothing to downsize it. What changes should I make to save email images in jpg format? I don't remember changing any preferences. Thanks for your help.


Do you have any photo editing software installed? If so open it and go to the preferences and make the program the default program for .jpg's is sounds to me like the Windows software is the culprit. I have it on my work PC, no admin rights to change it and I hate what it does to my photos. I'd gladly put some better photo software that I purchased on the machine, but the company is so strict it takes an act of god to change it. I work with photos here frequently for work, but they don't consider my need as enough justification for more than the Windows embedded software.

Good luck, I think you'll have better luck with some other photo software than what Windows provides.
Go to
Jan 24, 2013 11:33:46   #
Gnslngr wrote:
1. “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” said NRA President Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship who became a lawyer, praising state gun control laws in Congress. He testified before the 1938 federal gun control law passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

2. “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this [gun control] bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States,” NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth told Congress, shortly after Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy with an Italian military surplus rifle Oswald bought from a mail-order ad in the NRA’sAmerican Rifleman magazine.

3. “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” said California Gov. Ronald Reagan in May 1967, after two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill. Reagan said guns were “a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”

4. “You do know that I am a member of the NRA and my position on the right to bear arms is well known,” Reagan said, speaking out in support of the 1994 Brady bill to create new background checks and a waiting period for gun buyers. “But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady Bill and I urge Congress to enact it without further delay.”

5. “To ‘keep and bear arms’ for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; ‘Saturday night specials’ [handguns] and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles,” said retired U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade magazine, in January 1990.

6. The Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime,” Burger told PBS’ News Hour in late 1991, referring to the NRA’s claim that the U.S. Constitution included a personal right to own guns.

7. “These people are crazy,” said Alan Gura, referring to NRA critics who said he’d ceded too much to gun control arguments when he successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2008 to overturn the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and establish a Second Amendment right to a handgun at home for self-defense. “I could have, if I wanted to, stood before the Court and said, ‘Yes, [the Amendment’s clause] shall not be infringed,’ means you would never have any gun laws, and of course need to all have machine guns in case we want to overthrow the government, and while we’re at it we should have rocket launchers and stinger missiles. And that would have probably made me very popular in some cabin somewhere out there in the woods… Of course, I would have lost 9-0.”
1. “I have never believed in the general practice ... (show quote)



If the old adage is true that "Ignorance is Bliss" those on the side of gun control must be one happy bunch of fools.

I never cease to be amazed at the total ignorance of so many Americans as to the purpose and need for the 2nd amendment. First and foremost is the very fact that it is not the constitution that gives us our rights, but as stated in the Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” so in plain English, we are born with these rights and no one has the right to infringe upon them.
The Constitution is nothing more than our guarantee papers.

I’ve heard people say things like “Well the founders never dreamed of automatic weapons like the AR15, all they had were old muzzle loaders. That's right, and I guarantee that if you study the founders (as I have) they would have embraced the new technology with enthusiasm!

The second amendment, no our birth right to guns, has nothing to do with target shooting, hunting or any other recreational use. It’s about being able to keep ourselves and our country safe from those who would do us harm (foreign & domestic). You think you want gun control? Look at Washington DC and Chicago, two of the most gun restrictive cities in the country, they also have some of the highest gun crime rates in the country. By comparison, look at Kennesaw Georgia, in 1982 the city unanimously passed an ordinance requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. The results are long since in… the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide, and the rate has remained low ever since.

Robert Heinlein said it best “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” Meaning simply that if you believe that those you would attempt do do wrong to, may be able to protect themselves, you’re more likely to be very civil in your actions. I believe that Kennesaw has proved that to be true.

Besides as George Madison pointed out "...to disarm the people - that is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380). It worked for Stalin & Hitler and other tyrants throughout history. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I for one refuse to become a slave.
Go to
Jan 23, 2013 14:06:44   #
Skeezit wrote:
The other day I had a particular response on this forum that I want to save. I managed to copy it, but I don't know where it copied to. I can copy it again, but how do I find it. I really want to keep the I formation that I got close at hand, and e mail it to my daughter, who is also into photography. Thanks. Linda


I think the easiest way to save it is to copy and paste it into a word processor document such as MS Word, then save that file somewhere where you can locate it easily.
Go to
Jan 23, 2013 13:04:49   #
mfeveland wrote:
DaveHam wrote:
A serious question for the proponents of JPEG format on the camera.
Why?
Apart from the smaller file size what advantage exists in using this format? If you can produce a JPEG from a RAW image why would anyone not use RAW? Why risk an error in the shot ruining it when you can take the precaution of shooting RAM and being able to recover it? Surely this is a no-brainer?


If you have to ask the question you wouldn't understand the answer... : )


I disagree! Why not take the little extra time involved in converting to jpg from raw, and have every pixel of data saved as the camera saw it. In my mind those who advocate shooting in jpg because raw is too much trouble, are shooting themselves in the foot. Lazy always results in sub-optimal results.
Go to
Jan 23, 2013 12:58:38   #
Fab4223 wrote:
I only shoot in jpeg ,and I use Picasa to tweak my photos ..am I missing out by not shooting in raw ? My photos seem pretty sharp and colorful in jpeg.i am very happy with my results. I'm aware that processing raw files can take me to another level ..photoshop seems complicated and hard to master ??thanks on your feed back..


I keep seeing this same question pop up, but haven't weighed in till now, I used to shoot all raw and convert to jpg, but over time I got lazy and reverted to shooting just .jpg. I recently bought a new Sony A77, and for my first shots, I shot with the camera set to RAW/JPG. I came home and processed the raw into the best quality jpgs, the software allowed and then compared the exact shots, camera, vs converted raw side by side. My camera is now set back to just raw and I won't get lazy again. The difference between the camera jpg's vs the converted raw jpg's is plainly obvious. If you want the best possible digital negative, shoot raw, you won't be disappointed.
Go to
Jan 14, 2013 14:06:27   #
Linda From Maine wrote:
heyrob wrote:
#1 Yes definitely, I enjoy many photos that are not technically perfect.

#2 Though I rarely log in and comment, this question strikes a chord with me. I see this trend on many internet forums and comment boards, it seems that the anonymity of the internet is breeding a new culture of disrespect and crudeness. It's like driving, people are in their own little cocoon and therefore insulated from being civil and respectful of others. I wish we would all follow the old adage of "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
#1 Yes definitely, I enjoy many photos that are no... (show quote)


I think "constructive criticism," when requested, is a great teaching tool, but I do agree about saying it nicely!
quote=heyrob #1 Yes definitely, I enjoy many phot... (show quote)


I agree, I have no problem with CC, but there’s a difference between that done nicely, and just being rude, crude, and/or impolite.
Go to
Jan 14, 2013 11:28:27   #
Seems a 70 year old man has already become a victim of this bad idea. While away from his home he was burglarized and the two culprits went straight for is gun safe. Not much more info available when I read about this over the weekend, because it was still under investigation, but he was one of those outed by the paper. I hope he sues them blind.
Go to
Jan 14, 2013 11:04:55   #
#1 Yes definitely, I enjoy many photos that are not technically perfect.

#2 Though I rarely log in and comment, this question strikes a chord with me. I see this trend on many internet forums and comment boards, it seems that the anonymity of the internet is breeding a new culture of disrespect and crudeness. It's like driving, people are in their own little cocoon and therefore insulated from being civil and respectful of others. I wish we would all follow the old adage of "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
Go to
Nov 11, 2011 09:12:32   #
I've owned the Z980 for a couple of years now and quite honestly I rarely lug my DSLR & lenses around anymore. I own several Kodak digital P&S cameras and I find that they all have great image quality, but the SLR like settings on the Z980 give me the same creative control as my Sony without the bulk & weight. I looked at the Z990 when it came out, but until the Z980 gives up the ship or I have a need to upgrade, I couldn't justify getting it. But if you're in the market, I doubt you'll be disappointment.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 227 228 229 230
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.