|
|
And now for something completely different
On 7/30/15 8:37 PM, in article , "RichA" wrote: On Thursday, 30 July 2015 09:53:21 UTC-4, George Kerby wrote: On 7/29/15 5:46 PM, in article , "RichA" wrote: On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 01:36:32 UTC-4, Sandman wrote: In article , RichA wrote: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...62409/original Over-sharpened. And the deer seems very surprised by it :) -- Sandman That's Olympus. I applied no sharpening. Bull****! I applied no sharpening to their JPEG. Prove otherwise, you wizened old man. Who the hell is "their"?!? You're sayin it is not yours? No one can prove evidence of absence: If Alice bakes a pie, she then places the pie on her window-sill. She did not place a pie on her window-sill. Therefore, Alice did not bake a pie. |
And now for something completely different
On 8/1/15 8:19 PM, in article , "RichA" wrote: On Saturday, 1 August 2015 11:06:37 UTC-4, George Kerby wrote: On 7/30/15 8:37 PM, in article , "RichA" wrote: On Thursday, 30 July 2015 09:53:21 UTC-4, George Kerby wrote: On 7/29/15 5:46 PM, in article , "RichA" wrote: On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 01:36:32 UTC-4, Sandman wrote: In article , RichA wrote: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...62409/original Over-sharpened. And the deer seems very surprised by it :) -- Sandman That's Olympus. I applied no sharpening. Bull****! I applied no sharpening to their JPEG. Prove otherwise, you wizened old man. Who the hell is "their"?!? You're sayin it is not yours? "Their" meaning Olympus's in-camera treatment of JPEGs. The only thing I did to the image was downsize it from its native size, that's it. What a crappy thing to do! Thanks for the warning - no Oly products in my future!! |
And now for something completely different
On 2015-08-02 10:21, George Kerby wrote:
I applied no sharpening to their JPEG. Prove otherwise, you wizened old man. Who the hell is "their"?!? You're sayin it is not yours? "Their" meaning Olympus's in-camera treatment of JPEGs. The only thing I did to the image was downsize it from its native size, that's it. What a crappy thing to do! Thanks for the warning - no Oly products in my future!! Why would anyone serious about photography care a single whit about how JPEG's are processed in camera? |
And now for something completely different
On 8/2/2015 10:21 AM, George Kerby wrote:
On 8/1/15 8:19 PM, in article , "RichA" wrote: On Saturday, 1 August 2015 11:06:37 UTC-4, George Kerby wrote: On 7/30/15 8:37 PM, in article , "RichA" wrote: On Thursday, 30 July 2015 09:53:21 UTC-4, George Kerby wrote: On 7/29/15 5:46 PM, in article , "RichA" wrote: On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 01:36:32 UTC-4, Sandman wrote: In article , RichA wrote: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...62409/original Over-sharpened. And the deer seems very surprised by it :) -- Sandman That's Olympus. I applied no sharpening. Bull****! I applied no sharpening to their JPEG. Prove otherwise, you wizened old man. Who the hell is "their"?!? You're sayin it is not yours? "Their" meaning Olympus's in-camera treatment of JPEGs. The only thing I did to the image was downsize it from its native size, that's it. What a crappy thing to do! Thanks for the warning - no Oly products in my future!! IIRC some sharpening is incorporated in many resizing algorithms. In PS it used to be a bi-cubic formula. Not sure what it is today. -- PeterN |
And now for something completely different
"RichA" wrote in message
... On Saturday, 1 August 2015 11:06:37 UTC-4, George Kerby wrote: On 7/30/15 8:37 PM, in article , "RichA" wrote: On Thursday, 30 July 2015 09:53:21 UTC-4, George Kerby wrote: On 7/29/15 5:46 PM, in article , "RichA" wrote: On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 01:36:32 UTC-4, Sandman wrote: In article , RichA wrote: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...62409/original Over-sharpened. And the deer seems very surprised by it :) -- Sandman That's Olympus. I applied no sharpening. Bull****! I applied no sharpening to their JPEG. Prove otherwise, you wizened old man. Who the hell is "their"?!? You're sayin it is not yours? "Their" meaning Olympus's in-camera treatment of JPEGs. The only thing I did to the image was downsize it from its native size, that's it. An image should be sharpened after resizing, not before. You can't do that with an in-camera JPEG which is another reason to shoot raw. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com