A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Thirsty Moth



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 22nd 15, 04:28 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Thirsty Moth

On 7/21/2015 11:44 PM, Davoud wrote:
PeterN:

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


Here's what it /looks/ like to me. It looks
over-sharpened/over-processed. Are you using Photoshop or brand X? Mac
or an imitation? It has a lot of noise in the background, maybe from
the sharpening. The lower left quadrant has artifacts of some sort. You
marred it with a copyright notice in the ROI rather than at an edge. If
you don't want it downloaded, don't upload it!

The PP was in PS.

I know.


Finally, you failed to identify the species. It's Epargyreus clarus,
Silver-spotted Skipper http://eol.org/pages/184797/overview.


I do not know many moth or butterfly species. Most of the time I am
happy if I can tell the difference between a moth and a butterfly. I
just proved that. According to your link, should that critter have been
where I shot it? (Longwood Gardens, Kennet Square, PA.)



Nice pic, though!

Looking at it the following day, I did indeed oversharpen.
Thanks for your comments.

--
PeterN
  #12  
Old July 22nd 15, 04:34 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Thirsty Moth

On 7/22/2015 8:53 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Here's what it /looks/ like to me. It looks
| over-sharpened/over-processed. Are you using Photoshop or brand X? Mac
| or an imitation?

It's in the EXIF data:

Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D800
Softwa Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)

But that implies it was taken as JPG. I haven't
researched different cameras, but JPGs I see
seem to generally show over-compression when
viewed at full size. They look great viewed small,
but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of
data is already gone in the initial save. So even if
this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles
would probably still be visible at full size.

Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?
Wasn't that format a poor choice in the first place,
due simply to the need to have a universally supported
format for casually taken photos? Why would anyone
who's actually going to work on the photo not
shoot RAW?
I'm curious about the opinions of more experienced
people about these questions.


The original image was saved in RAW and converted to PSD. The posted
image was converted to JPEG, with a medium compression.

--
PeterN
  #13  
Old July 22nd 15, 04:35 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Thirsty Moth

On 7/22/2015 9:44 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| But that implies it was taken as JPG.
|
| no it doesn't.
| the exif data is preserved when editing.

So RAW contains EXIF data? I didn't know that.
Personally I always save anything as TIFF or BMP
until such time as I need to transfer a small file for
online use. I don't pay much attention to EXIF data.
So it hadn't occurred to me that RAW may embed
EXIF data.

So... you have EXIF data in all of your images, and
RAW contains EXIF data? Do you take most images
in RAW and save them that way until posting them
online or printing?

| I haven't
| researched different cameras, but JPGs I see
| seem to generally show over-compression when
| viewed at full size. They look great viewed small,
| but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of
| data is already gone in the initial save. So even if
| this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles
| would probably still be visible at full size.
|
| only if it's a low quality jpeg.
|
| Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?
|
| of course not.

Because JPG is by definition low quality. At the
time cameras were coming out PNG was not widely
supported, and PNG doesn't compress as well. JPG
was/is supported on all major OSs. JPG was really
designed to optimize file size with "tolerable" loss of
quality. Great for the Web, but questionable
for photographs.

I got thinking about this last week because I
was testing out some image resizing code and had
some test images. They were not top quality, but
they're pretty good:

Panasonic DMC-ZS25
4608x3456 at just under 6 MB each. I expect they'd
look fine printed as postcard size, but when zooming
in, and in some cases at normal size viewing, I can
see rectangles. I doubt that any camera taking JPGs
saves the images with no loss at all. I'm not sure it's
even possible to save a JPG with zero loss, even at the
"100" quality level. (Though I'm not certain about that.)



Unless I make a mistake, all of my images are taken in RAW. They all
have the EXIF data embedded.

--
PeterN
  #14  
Old July 22nd 15, 04:39 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Thirsty Moth

On 7/22/2015 10:15 AM, nospam wrote:



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


Which printers print directly from RAW?



--
PeterN
  #15  
Old July 22nd 15, 04:44 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Thirsty Moth

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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


Which printers print directly from RAW?


all of them.
  #16  
Old July 22nd 15, 04:47 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Thirsty Moth

On 7/22/2015 11:44 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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


Which printers print directly from RAW?


all of them.

Proof? Your statement is contrary to other comments I have heard.


--
PeterN
  #17  
Old July 22nd 15, 04:52 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Thirsty Moth

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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

Which printers print directly from RAW?


all of them.


Proof?


open raw image. choose print from the menus. collect print from printer.

optionally adjust image prior to printing.

Your statement is contrary to other comments I have heard.


then you're listening to ignorant people.
  #18  
Old July 22nd 15, 05:27 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Thirsty Moth

On 7/22/2015 11:52 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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

Which printers print directly from RAW?

all of them.


Proof?


open raw image. choose print from the menus. collect print from printer.

optionally adjust image prior to printing.


Are you saying there is no conversion prior to printing.


Your statement is contrary to other comments I have heard.


then you're listening to ignorant people.


Leave out snarky comments.

--
PeterN
  #19  
Old July 22nd 15, 05:28 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Thirsty Moth

On 2015-07-22 15:39:59 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/22/2015 10:15 AM, nospam wrote:



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


Which printers print directly from RAW?


I print adjusted NEFs, RAFs, CR2s, PSD, and TIFF from Lightroom to my
R2880. I don't have any JPEGs in Lightroom.

With both of my Epson printers I can print RAW directly from the camera
(USB) or memory card.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #20  
Old July 22nd 15, 05:45 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Thirsty Moth

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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

Which printers print directly from RAW?

all of them.

Proof?


open raw image. choose print from the menus. collect print from printer.

optionally adjust image prior to printing.


Are you saying there is no conversion prior to printing.


obviously the printer driver converts the data to whatever format the
printer needs, but that isn't anything that the user sees nor needs to
be concerned about.

whatever software you're using also converts the data to its own native
format. your camera isn't spitting out .psd files.

the user simply opens a raw image, adjusts to taste and prints. done.

they do the same thing with a text file, spreadsheet, 3d graphic or
whatever else. just open the document, adjust if desired, choose print
and collect print.

the point is there is *no* need to save as a jpeg or any other interim
format to print.

Your statement is contrary to other comments I have heard.


then you're listening to ignorant people.


Leave out snarky comments.


i'll say whatever i want.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Super Zoom's Moth Dudley Hanks[_4_] Digital Photography 1 November 18th 10 02:40 AM
Just a pretty moth Nervous Nick Digital Photography 2 April 5th 07 08:14 AM
What type of moth? [email protected] Digital Photography 8 May 30th 06 05:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.