Thirsty Moth

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:51:00 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-24 04:15:12 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:38:37 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

--- snip ---



What I said has to do with printing from a desktop or laptop to a
standard printer.

But that's not printing directly from a raw file to a printer, which
is what this argument was originally about.


You are still lost in the minutiae of the exercise.
While a lot of computation happens when a RAW file is printed it is
irrelevant that the majority of us have no solid idea of what that
computation actually is. Most importantly it is done without some
phantom JPEG hidden in some corner of our computers.

You are welcome to change direction but I won't follow.

As I have already posted:
-------------------------------------------------------
"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.
-------------------------------------------------------

And we have gone from there. I'm not quite sure where you have got the
idea that someone said we post via jpg. I must have missed that.

Effectively a RAW file can be printed directly from a computer, or via
PICTBridge, and leave no evidence of the production of a JPEG or any
other intermediate phase.
It is not necessary for the user of the computer or camera to create a
JPEG to send RAW image data (edited/adjusted, or not), to a printer to
produce a print.
I print from NEF's, RAF's, DNG's, and Layered PSD's & TIFF's regularly.
The only JPEGs I print are the product of my iPhone.

...and there is no trace of just what happened in the dust between the
RAW image file and the print.

Very true (although there may be some temporary files or the like left
behind).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:55:52 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:15:12 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:38:37 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:27:50 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:09:32 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:09:19 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

If you take that position, then the printer also translates a .jpg
file to it's native language so it isn't printing directly from .jpg.

The printer is treating the RAW and .jpg file the same. You tell it
to print it, and it will.

Yes. I've already acknowledged that I overlooked PICTBridge.
PICTBridge amounts to the incorporation of the necessary computing
power in the camera/printer.

Why append that to my post? I'm not talking about PICTBridge. Don't
have it. Don't use it. Don't have any interest in printing straight
from the camera except for printing images from my iPhone.

What I said has to do with printing from a desktop or laptop to a
standard printer.

But that's not printing directly from a raw file to a printer, which
is what this argument was originally about.

Eric, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If a RAW
file is on your desktop or laptop, and you want to print it, any
modern printer will print the RAW file just the same as it would print
your .jpg.

No argument, but it won't print directly. That's the only point I have
been trying to make. Even if it looks direct you the raw file has to
be converted into another format and (probably) squirted through the
print spooler.

That's been the discussion all along until it was de-railed into a
discussion about PICTBridge. PICTBridge is just a utility that prints
the image from a camera.

I probably introduced PICTBridge, trying to make sense of something
Savageduck wrote, but it turned out to be the wrong answer. But
PICTBridge is the closest you will get to appearing to be able to
print a raw file directly to a printer, but even then, the appearance
is deceiving.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:20:55 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-24 00:55:52 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:15:12 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:38:37 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:27:50 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:09:32 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:09:19 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
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.

If you take that position, then the printer also translates a .jpg
file to it's native language so it isn't printing directly from .jpg.

The printer is treating the RAW and .jpg file the same. You tell it
to print it, and it will.

Yes. I've already acknowledged that I overlooked PICTBridge.
PICTBridge amounts to the incorporation of the necessary computing
power in the camera/printer.

Why append that to my post? I'm not talking about PICTBridge. Don't
have it. Don't use it. Don't have any interest in printing straight
from the camera except for printing images from my iPhone.

What I said has to do with printing from a desktop or laptop to a
standard printer.

But that's not printing directly from a raw file to a printer, which
is what this argument was originally about.

Eric, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If a RAW
file is on your desktop or laptop, and you want to print it, any
modern printer will print the RAW file just the same as it would print
your .jpg.

That's been the discussion all along until it was de-railed into a
discussion about PICTBridge. PICTBridge is just a utility that prints
the image from a camera.

I brought PICTBridge into the discussion when Eric insisted that we had
inserted PS, LR, and other software along with a computer into the
exercise.
I was just trying to demonstrate that a conventional computer and
software was not required, and that it was possible for some to print
directly from camera or memory card.

For certain values of 'directly'.

As I have said all along, a JPEG is not required to produce a print,
whether from a computer, or camera.

Did someone actually say that a print had to go via JPEG?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:53:29 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

--- snip ---

As I have said all along, a JPEG is not required to produce a print,
whether from a computer, or camera.

I don't think anyone thinks that only .jpgs can be printed. Most of
us have printed .psds, .tiffs, and other format images. I thought it
was just RAW images that Eric thinks - erroneously - cannot be
printed.

No- No - No!

I said that raw files cannot be printed ***directly*** to a printer.
No printer that I know would know what to do with a raw file.

As I have already posted, somebody 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Raw files have to be converted to whatever image description language
the printer requires.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I have difficulty imagining the need to print directly from the
camera. If you have access to your printer, you have access to your
computer. But, some people have different needs than mine.

a common scenario where this works out well is at an event, where the
photographer brings a camera and a small printer and can generate
'instant prints' on the spot.

Common, my ass. It's done, but far from common.

it's actually a very common use of directly printing from a camera. you
are once again wrong.

When it is done,
it's usually someone selling photographs or some company who is doing
it for promotional purposes.

that part is true, and it contradicts what you said above.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:45:13 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:10:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:55:52 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:15:12 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:38:37 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:27:50 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:09:32 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:09:19 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

If you take that position, then the printer also translates a .jpg
file to it's native language so it isn't printing directly from .jpg.

The printer is treating the RAW and .jpg file the same. You tell it
to print it, and it will.

Yes. I've already acknowledged that I overlooked PICTBridge.
PICTBridge amounts to the incorporation of the necessary computing
power in the camera/printer.

Why append that to my post? I'm not talking about PICTBridge. Don't
have it. Don't use it. Don't have any interest in printing straight
from the camera except for printing images from my iPhone.

What I said has to do with printing from a desktop or laptop to a
standard printer.

But that's not printing directly from a raw file to a printer, which
is what this argument was originally about.

Eric, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If a RAW
file is on your desktop or laptop, and you want to print it, any
modern printer will print the RAW file just the same as it would print
your .jpg.

No argument, but it won't print directly. That's the only point I have
been trying to make. Even if it looks direct you the raw file has to
be converted into another format and (probably) squirted through the
print spooler.

If your point is that something goes on internally within the system,
I don't know enough about the internal workings to agree or disagree.

That word "directly" is extremely ambigious in this context. It does
print directly as far as the human being is concerned. The human
being does nothing at all differently when printing a RAW file or a
.jpg.

If something goes on internally that makes you think it is not done
directly, then I suspect the same thing goes on regardless of the
image format...RAW or .jpg or .tiff or .psd.

Quite right. And a raw file is no different (except that it is
different).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 7/22/2015 2:47 PM, Davoud wrote:
Davoud:
Finally, you failed to identify the species. It's Epargyreus clarus,
Silver-spotted Skipper http://eol.org/pages/184797/overview.

PeterN:
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.)

Yes, Longwood is certainly within its wide range. I'm 73 mi (great
circle) / 118 km southwest of Longwood and I've got these by the
ton--about a half-dozen of them on my butterfly bush at any given time
on a warm summer day, along with the Delaware Skippers (Anatrytone
logan). See the map on the EOL page that I referenced.

A skipper is a type of butterfly. It gets its name from the fact that
it is skittish-looking as it feeds, spending very little time on a
flower before skipping on to the next one. Some butterflies have a
comfort zone so close that you can hold out your finger and they'll
alight on it. The Delaware Skipper, in particular, is very difficult to
approach. The skippers that I know of are smaller than most other
butterflies.

For ID I recommend http://www.bugguide.net.

Here's a 2-year-old photo of Epargyreus clarus that I just posted to
Flickr for your viewing pleasure. Creative Commons, no copyright!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/19894735066/in/photostream

Nicely done.


And if you're really into butterflies, you might like these short
videos that I made yesterday. The first was made with a DSLR and the
second with a GoPro.

https://vimeo.com/primordial/papilio-glaucus 01:16

https://vimeo.com/primordial/butterfly-dance 03:37

Thank you for the good information. It is always helpful to know exactly
what you are shooting. That information can also aid my photography, as
it will help to anticipate what the critter may do next. My only issue
is that will I get too caught up in species identification. I guess
that's a matter of personal choice.

--
PeterN

On 2015-07-25 03:35:47 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:14:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-24 01:07:53 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:55:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-23 15:42:48 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

Probbab y why it''s called RAW and like meat it needss convering so
humans can eat it, but other animals can.

There is always PICTBridge, with no computer involved, sort of RAW tartar.

There has to be computing involved: probably in both the camera and
the printer.

In this context most folks think of a "computer" as a desktop or laptop
computer, not a processor chip with PICTBridge capability in a camera,
or printer.

In a different newsgroup altogether, I have just read:

"In The Republic, Plato worried that democracy meant the rule of
the ignorant over the wise."

Fortunately, democracy is not the decider of whether or not computing
is involved.

I read your quote of a Platonic concern and your computing corollary.

Surely you could have pulled a little something that is less than 100
years old, perhaps a little something from Mencken, or this example
from de Saint-Exupery.

"The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature,
but plunges him more deeply into them."

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/23/15 PDT 5:42 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| | 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.


Wow. Stuck in the last C. and proud of it!

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:14:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-24 01:07:53 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:55:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-23 15:42:48 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

Probbab y why it''s called RAW and like meat it needss convering so
humans can eat it, but other animals can.

There is always PICTBridge, with no computer involved, sort of RAW tartar.

There has to be computing involved: probably in both the camera and
the printer.

In this context most folks think of a "computer" as a desktop or laptop
computer, not a processor chip with PICTBridge capability in a camera,
or printer.

In a different newsgroup altogether, I have just read:

"In The Republic, Plato worried that democracy meant the rule of
the ignorant over the wise."

Fortunately, democracy is not the decider of whether or not computing
is involved.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens