Posts for: TheDman
Jul 10, 2018 00:27:17 #
Not only is that a legal use, but you have to download images on the internet to your local computer in order to view them!
Jun 24, 2018 13:54:31 #
Gene51 wrote:
However, don't expect things at infinity or 17' to be tack sharp. Something at 34' 2.1" will be tack sharp - and as you move away from that plane, you will see a gradual decay of sharpness.
However, don't expect things at infinity or 17' to be tack sharp. Something at 34' 2.1" will be tack sharp - and as you move away from that plane, you will see a gradual decay of sharpness.
Exactly. I find the concept of "acceptable focus" laughable. If it's not tack sharp, then it's not sharp.
Jun 23, 2018 12:14:08 #
Pixeldawg wrote:
RAW is a raster file.
Again, I refer you to the link I provided above. Let me know if you see raw/dng among the raster file formats.
Jun 23, 2018 07:50:54 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
No, sorry, this is not true.
While JPEG files are, as you say, raster files, so are raw files. They certainly are not vector files.
References:
https://99designs.com/blog/tips/image-file-types/#RAW
https://www.zionandzion.com/raster-vs-vector/
https://www.lynda.com/Sketch-tutorials/Vector-versus-raster-images/480956/490191-4.html
https://www.colorexpertsbd.com/blog/different-types-raster-image-file-formats
Mike
While JPEG files are, as you say, raster files, so are raw files. They certainly are not vector files.
References:
https://99designs.com/blog/tips/image-file-types/#RAW
https://www.zionandzion.com/raster-vs-vector/
https://www.lynda.com/Sketch-tutorials/Vector-versus-raster-images/480956/490191-4.html
https://www.colorexpertsbd.com/blog/different-types-raster-image-file-formats
Mike
Yes, it is true. There are more types of files than just vector and raster. None of your links say raw files are raster images, they just discuss what vector and raster images are. Go here and see if they list raw or dng files as raster file types:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats
Jun 22, 2018 00:03:29 #
shelty wrote:
Why not just go and take pictures instead of spending all of your time trying to find the infinitesimal differences between cameras. Photographers have won prize-winning pictures from all of them.
The only thing that strikes me about those charts is how incredibly small the difference is between cameras, especially with all the ranting and raving you hear online about dynamic range. It might be one of the most useless ways to compare today's cameras, especially since anyone with a modicum of skill can greatly exceed the dynamic range of a single shot anyway.
Jun 21, 2018 15:39:24 #
appealnow wrote:
Heading to Alaska in 10 days. If I can schedule it (so far, the excursion is booked solid), I want to take one of the plane flights sightseeing over Misty Fjord. I will be using my Nikon D5300 (a DX camera). What lens should for taking photos from the plane? I own a 35 mm F/1.8, 18-55mm kit lens, and a 18-300 mm F/3.5-6.3.
Cruising from Seattle?
Jun 20, 2018 10:54:48 #
You following me around? Or am I following you? :)
Was just at the Painted Hills last year, and will be heading to the Palouse on Saturday. The geology major in me can't wait to check out the area. Those floods must have been one of the most epic sights in Earth's history.
Was just at the Painted Hills last year, and will be heading to the Palouse on Saturday. The geology major in me can't wait to check out the area. Those floods must have been one of the most epic sights in Earth's history.
Jun 19, 2018 23:25:36 #
gwilliams6 wrote:
My trek was three weeks through the Scottish Highlands and Hebrides Islands
That's a sweet trip, but did you walk it?
gwilliams6 wrote:
You just dont go on an important trip with no backup, a second body and a second lens.
Been doing it every year for 13 years now, and will do it again on Saturday. I bring at least 3 lenses, all covering different focal lengths. Tripod too. Only what's necessary.
Jun 19, 2018 19:03:53 #
sirlensalot wrote:
After hauling around a backpack with 2 bodies, 4 lenses and accessories in Scotland, I vowed to reduce gear for next trip. One DSLR or MILC body, 2 lenses max, one capable of low light shooting - either a WA or UWA, and a good pocket camera are all you will need. For where you are going, I would suggest that wider is better than long zooms.
Hehe, yep! I've logged over 300 miles of hiking through the Scottish highlands, where one would have to be insane to take a second body. I always bring enough lenses to cover zoom ranges from 16-400, but have felt like chucking my 100-400 in the loch on more than one occasion. :)
Jun 19, 2018 18:55:07 #
Pixeldawg wrote:
There is really NO difference between one photo file and another with respect to this... No color space, no compression, no sharpening, JUST the data.
Well that's a difference right there, eh? JPGs can have embedded color spaces, whereas raw files do not. JPGs are raster graphics - grids of pixels. This is not what raw files are. Here's more information.
Jun 19, 2018 18:42:53 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
I am not sure what you were trying to do. That is my point. You claim to be doing some sort of comparison, but it is not clear to me what it is you are comparing, nor what the basis is for making this supposed comparison.
Page 1, post 1: "let's export a raw file at default settings as a jpg, process the raw file in Camera Raw, then make the exact same ACR edits to the jpg and see what we get"
Blenheim Orange wrote:
The claim is yours, so the burden of proof lies with you.
I just told you what I did and you claim that is not what I did, so now the burden of proof is on you. Prove that I did not PP two files, one starting from the raw file and one starting from a jpg.
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Why are you trying to dissuade people who want to cook their own from doing so?
I have absolutely no idea why you think I was trying to dissuade people from this. That is the complete opposite of my conclusion here. It seems like you really need to re-read this thread from the beginning, paying closer attention this time.
Jun 19, 2018 18:38:15 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
No, not so. The files consist of code, be they JPEG files or any other image file format. JPEG data is not an image, any more than raw file data is.
Mike
Mike
Yes, so. JPG data is simply a grid of pixels with a set number of bits to designate each pixel's color, much like all raster image files. This is not at all what a raw file is.
Jun 19, 2018 15:09:33 #
Did you try File - Open?
But seriously, it sounds like you installed Lightroom CC and not Lightroom Classic CC.
But seriously, it sounds like you installed Lightroom CC and not Lightroom Classic CC.
Jun 19, 2018 14:57:21 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Not true.
Mike
Mike
Then please, tell us all what I actually did, because apparently I don't know what I did.
Jun 19, 2018 14:56:36 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
You can't "even view an actual" JPEG fil... (show quote)
But when you're using that software to view a jpg Your looking at the actual jpg file, whereas when you open a raw file with a raw converter your looking at a bitmap representation of that would be output should you apply the currently selected settings to raw file and create a bitmap. You're not looking at the actual raw data itself. Raw data is not an image.