Thirsty Moth

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:02:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Going back up the thread I can see that the subject of discussion has
become slightly twisted.

nospam originally wrote:

"posting obviously must be jpg but for printing, they're directly
printed from raw."

In the context of the discussion which lead up to this nospam
presumably meant that raw files could be directly printed (without
conversion to jpg or similar) from within whichever suitable
application it had been opened.

correct.

However PeterN then confused the issue
by asking:

"Which printers print directly from RAW?"

The correct answer is none of them.

nope. the correct answer is as i said, all of them.

All printers have their own native
print language in which the image must be supplied to from whichever
chain of applications is sending them the image to be printed. No
printer will accept a raw file format and print directly from it.

all of which happens under the hood, invisible to the user.

the user has a raw file, they open it in a suitable app and print. done.

But they can't send it the printer (Pictbridge excepted) and have the
printer print it. It has to be converted somewhere along the line
somewhere.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:46:12 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:21:08 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:


... and no option to print. Maybe you can do it on your Mac but no
Windows machine that I have seen has the ability to print straight
from a raw file. Presumably your OS has some kind of software which
Windows lacks.

Eric, back off! I just did print from a RAW file...on a PC with
Windows 7. I printed a .dng using LR, PS, and FastStone.

Tony. Please have another look. What you have done is not printing
directly from a raw file to a printer. You have sent the image through
a whole chain of software to convert the raw file into a form
acceptable to the printer.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:02:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Go to Lightroom and select any NEF or DNG you have available. If you
want to make whatever adjustments and edits you choose to (including
aspect ratio crops) in the Develop Module, or not.

But - but - but .... That is not printing directly from a raw image.

of course it is.

the image on the hard drive is in raw. lightroom displays it and/or
prints it, with optional adjustments from the user.

There is the small matter of a huge wad of LR in the way.

lightroom is not in the way.

It's in the path which the image has to follow on it's way from the
raw form to the printer's native language.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 23/07/2015 5:42 AM, PeterN wrote:

oversharpening. I have an intense power of concentration. So intensense
that I heve blocked out all sense of time, even my wife telling me that
it's dinner time.

Nownownow, that is simply NOT acceptable!
No soup for you, young man! Tuttuttut!

On 22/07/2015 12:29 PM, PeterN wrote:
Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive
comments are appreciated.
The image was saved in medium quality.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg




Waaaay overworked and over-sharpened, IMHO.
Not all images need to have this amount of PP.
(or else you might as well be using film! )

These were taken with my D200 and the SigmaApoMacro180/3.5.
No flash, no special processing. Just raw2tif in Corel Aftershot Pro2,
a touch of sharpening with Focus Magic and Lanczos resize with
Irfanview. Simple, most of it automated.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...t/_D208681.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...t/_D208683.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...t/_D208725.jpg
Of course I could go overborad with cropping and sharpening,
particularly in the third one. But quite frankly, I prefer them full
size and as natural as possible.

| | Why BMP?
| |
|
| It's a simple map of pixels with no lossiness, so
| if I'm through with RAW adjustments, or if I want
| to work on a JPG, BMP is a way to store the data.
| (On Windows.)
|
| it's a microsoft format that's not widely supported.

Spoken like a true Apple fan.
BMP is supported on all Microsoft OSs. I only use
Windows. And BMP is the most basic, brass tacks
record of pixels in an image. In the typical 24-bit usage,
aside from a tiny header recording things like width and
height, it's just a record of 3-byte color values. No
special techniques or patented methods are required
to read/alter/render a BMP. It's merely the pixels that
all other formats are once they're displayed onscreen.

So I use BMP *because* it's so widely supported.
(I don't have any Apple products...never will... and have
no intention of emailing BMP files to anyone -- they're
too big for that.) Any graphic Windows software
knows how to deal with BMPs and always will. The
Windows graphics API is based on BMPs. I expect the
Apple API is probably based on the same basic thing
with a different name. And I expect Macs probably
also have software that can handle BMPs, to convert
them to the Apple version.

| Of course I could go overborad with cropping and sharpening,
| particularly in the third one. But quite frankly, I prefer them full
| size and as natural as possible.
|

They're also mostly out of focus, though.
And there's a lack of "suchness" in the
randomness of the image. By which I mean
that, for me at least, I see a picture of a
mere rectangle of space, not an expressive
image.

I don't see anything "natural" in deciding that
the image the camera happens to give you is
what the image should be, even down to the
width and height of the rectangle captured.

The moth image is so extremely contrasted that
it looks snowy or textured. And it's even plastered
over with a copyright notice. ) Yet there's still a
drama there. I feel that I'm joining the moth's
world for a moment. And I'm intrigued by that
weird flower thing that I can't identify.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:06:07 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the user has a raw file, they open it in a suitable app and print. done.

But they can't send it the printer (Pictbridge excepted) and have the
printer print it.

sure they can. it's trivial.

It has to be converted somewhere along the line
somewhere.

which is entirely internal to the computer, where all sorts of stuff
goes on, none of which matters to the user.

are you going to argue about conversions to tcp/ip or 802.11n to send
it to the printer?

If I was going to argue (which I really don't want to) I would say
sending a raw file from a camera to be translated by LR/PS/etc before
being sent on to the printer in the printer's native language can't be
considered as a printer printing directly from raw.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:06:07 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

... and no option to print. Maybe you can do it on your Mac but no
Windows machine that I have seen has the ability to print straight
from a raw file. Presumably your OS has some kind of software which
Windows lacks.

Eric, back off! I just did print from a RAW file...on a PC with
Windows 7. I printed a .dng using LR, PS, and FastStone.

Tony. Please have another look. What you have done is not printing
directly from a raw file to a printer. You have sent the image through
a whole chain of software to convert the raw file into a form
acceptable to the printer.

it's exactly what he did.

he has a raw image, he clicked print and it printed.

Not only are you good at ignoring the bits in the middle, you even
deny that they exist.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:23:34 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:50:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:46:12 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:21:08 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:


... and no option to print. Maybe you can do it on your Mac but no
Windows machine that I have seen has the ability to print straight
from a raw file. Presumably your OS has some kind of software which
Windows lacks.

Eric, back off! I just did print from a RAW file...on a PC with
Windows 7. I printed a .dng using LR, PS, and FastStone.

Tony. Please have another look. What you have done is not printing
directly from a raw file to a printer. You have sent the image through
a whole chain of software to convert the raw file into a form
acceptable to the printer.

Perhaps I was not clear. There was no chain of software. I opened a
RAW files (.dng) in each of the three three programs listed above - at
separate times - clicked print, and printed each time from the RAW
file using a very basic Epson printer. Three prints.

Check it out. Download FastStone viewer (it's free) and view a RAW
file and then print the image. It's not just Adobe software that
handles printing from RAW. No Nikon program was used, either.

Windows 7 on a PC.

Well, LR, PS or Faststone are all software and you are not able to
print that image without using one of them (or similar).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens