Posts for: Longshadow
Jun 2, 2022 21:30:48 #
Jun 2, 2022 21:17:18 #
10MPlayer wrote:
If you shoot sports photography or wildlife the small lenses and tiny sensors in phones won't cut it. For everyday snapshots to share with friends and family the phones own the market and will for the foreseeable future.
Yea, there are different niches.
Different tools based on requirements.
Jun 2, 2022 20:55:34 #
My workflow:
Tweak stuff in DPP until I like it; save as JPEG.
Tweak stuff in DPP until I like it; save as JPEG.
Jun 2, 2022 20:37:05 #
Ysarex wrote:
Also not grey. It's cyan -- measure it and you'll find the blue and green values are substantially higher than the red value.
Wow, is my monitor screwed up.
But everything else looks okay, so I guess I'll keep it.
Believe half of what you see I suppose...
Jun 2, 2022 20:19:01 #
selmslie wrote:
Neither of the indicated squares look gray to me.
Black and charcoal.
That's why I asked about the grey one.
Jun 2, 2022 20:17:31 #
Jun 2, 2022 20:15:58 #
Jun 2, 2022 20:05:06 #
therwol wrote:
If you use Vuescan for your scanner software, under TIFF options is DNG. (I didn't know that DNG is a variation on TIFF.) Anyway, I guess that's as close as you will get to RAW. BTW, I scan 35mm as 16 bit TIFF files. I once tried a 4x5 black and white negative at 2400 dpi. The file came out over a gigabyte in size, and neither Lightroom nor PS would open it. I subsequently started scanning my 4x5 negatives as jpegs.
Well that seems to answer that.
I'll stick with JPEGS.
I think I do 600DPI; wallets and 4x6s at 3x, 5x7s at 2x, and 8x10s at no enlargement.
Jun 2, 2022 20:00:07 #
larryepage wrote:
Yep, just one. Probably cpuld have solved it with a DNG instead, but the printer asked to try a TIFF.
Do you two guys not have something constructive to go and do?
Do you two guys not have something constructive to go and do?
I am!
I'm trying to drag more definitive information out of people's posts.
Jun 2, 2022 19:55:08 #
Ysarex wrote:
...
...
...
Curious, what color is the square to the left of "not grey"?
Jun 2, 2022 19:10:36 #
BebuLamar wrote:
I don't like noise but at ISO1600 to 6400 digital noise is much better than the grain at those ISO. In fact I never shot above 1600 with film and it was terrible to the point that I rather have no picture.
Wow, I shot Tri-X at 1600 one time and developed it in Accufine. Turned out fantastic for being pushed.
Jun 2, 2022 19:03:36 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Now if there were two (2) anecdotes of similar detail, we could call it a trend ....
Jun 2, 2022 19:00:56 #
larryepage wrote:
A few years ago, the Fine/Large JPEG of an image that I was having printed showed all kinds of weird artifacts wheb opened on rheir computer. We never figured out why or how to avoid it. A 16-bit TIFF solved the problem.
One oddball instance?
Jun 2, 2022 18:57:35 #
NickGee wrote:
Here's one scenario: When editing a RAW image in Lightroom (for example) and you wish to use an external editor to enhance some elements of the image (using photoshop, DxO, Nik, etc.), the file is converted by Lightroom into a TIFF file for editing. You then, finally, when finished editing in the external program, export the file as a JPG.
Good job NickGee!
You mean all editors can't do the same thing? I'm aghast!
Maybe it would help when someone says one can do <function> they include to what editor they are referring
so people don't take it as a blanket statement of what can be done with anything.
Jun 2, 2022 18:36:41 #
selmslie wrote:
Don’t take my word for it.
Take a raw shot of a Color Checker and notice the difference when you try to adjust the WB in your editor. Then do the same with the JPEG. You will see how differently they work.
Take a raw shot of a Color Checker and notice the difference when you try to adjust the WB in your editor. Then do the same with the JPEG. You will see how differently they work.
Kinda what I said, no?
JPEG editing does not afford WB adjusting as well as RAW editors.
Eye droppers or not.