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
  #21  
Old July 22nd 15, 06:01 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Thirsty Moth

On 7/22/2015 12:45 PM, 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.


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.


So there is a conversion. Once there is a need for conversion, it is
immaterial whether the user does the conversion, or an activated app
does the conversion.


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.


Your attitude adds to your persona. You have a sick and desperate need
for attention. Looks like you have to keep convincing yourself of your
greatness. Too bad others are not so convinced.

EOD

--
PeterN
  #22  
Old July 22nd 15, 07:09 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.


So there is a conversion. Once there is a need for conversion, it is
immaterial whether the user does the conversion, or an activated app
does the conversion.


nope.

once again, you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

the raw image is converted to pixels on the display and nobody
considers that a conversion. the magnetic fields on the hard drive are
converted to electrical pulses and nobody considers that a conversion.

there's a conversion with *everything* on a computer.

the printer is just another display device that uses paper instead of a
liquid crystal (or crt). apps draw to either or both and may not even
know the difference.

again, the user opens a raw image (or whatever format, it doesn't even
need to be an image) and picks print and the computer does the rest.

that is not a conversion.

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.


Your attitude adds to your persona. You have a sick and desperate need
for attention. Looks like you have to keep convincing yourself of your
greatness. Too bad others are not so convinced.


the fact that you're resorting to insults shows that you have nothing
whatsoever to refute what i'm saying.

as i said, you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and it's
failing.
  #23  
Old July 22nd 15, 07:47 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default Thirsty Moth

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

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

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #24  
Old July 22nd 15, 08:42 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Thirsty Moth

On 7/22/2015 3:23 PM, MC wrote:
PeterN wrote:

On 7/21/2015 10:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-22 02:29:14 +0000, PeterN said:

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

Peter, Peter, Peter....
You used the TC-17 didn't you?


Yep!


Then you made the usual severe crop, over-sharpened, and you have
left noise which is neither grain nor bokeh.


A serious, but not severe crop. Oversharpen, yes, I see that now that
you point it out.



You only saw it when it was pointed out?

What? Are you serious?


Yes. There are times when I am working on an image that I concentrate
very hard on what is important to me, (composition, color, and
exposure,) that I pay no attention to things like noise and
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.



--
PeterN
  #25  
Old July 22nd 15, 09:07 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Thirsty Moth

On 2015-07-22 19:42:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/22/2015 3:23 PM, MC wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 7/21/2015 10:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-22 02:29:14 +0000, PeterN said:

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

Peter, Peter, Peter....
You used the TC-17 didn't you?

Yep!

Then you made the usual severe crop, over-sharpened, and you have
left noise which is neither grain nor bokeh.

A serious, but not severe crop. Oversharpen, yes, I see that now that
you point it out.


You only saw it when it was pointed out?

What? Are you serious?


Yes. There are times when I am working on an image that I concentrate
very hard on what is important to me, (composition, color, and
exposure,) that I pay no attention to things like noise and
oversharpening.


Noise and sharpening (oversharpening in your case) are just as
important as composition, color, and exposure in post, and you should
be paying attention to them.

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.


Not intense enough because you are using your particular (...and for me
peculiar) PP methodology which does not produce articularly pleasing
results when applied to what are good captures.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #26  
Old July 22nd 15, 11:57 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Thirsty Moth

On 2015-07-23 02:17:44 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:09:15 -0400, 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.

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.

So there is a conversion. Once there is a need for conversion, it is
immaterial whether the user does the conversion, or an activated app
does the conversion.


nope.

once again, you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

the raw image is converted to pixels on the display and nobody
considers that a conversion. the magnetic fields on the hard drive are
converted to electrical pulses and nobody considers that a conversion.

there's a conversion with *everything* on a computer.

the printer is just another display device that uses paper instead of a
liquid crystal (or crt). apps draw to either or both and may not even
know the difference.

again, the user opens a raw image ...


Opens a raw image in what?


Whatever software you are using. In our case that should be Lightroom.

... (or whatever format, it doesn't even
need to be an image) and picks print and the computer does the rest.

that is not a conversion.


Of course it is.

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.

Your attitude adds to your persona. You have a sick and desperate need
for attention. Looks like you have to keep convincing yourself of your
greatness. Too bad others are not so convinced.


the fact that you're resorting to insults shows that you have nothing
whatsoever to refute what i'm saying.

as i said, you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and it's
failing.


I don't think you are right about this.

Like me, PeterN is trying to find out how it is possible for a printer
to swallow a raw file and spit out an image. My understanding is that
this is not possible. You seem to be supporting that view by extending
the argument to 'conversion'.


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.

Next go to the print module and you will find that you should have
little trouble printing that NEF, or DNG, all without an intermediate
JPEG phase. As I said I don't have any JPEGs in Lightroom.

As to what Lightroom does as an intermediate phase I have no idea, as
it doesn't leave any evidence of sneakily creating a JPEG without my
knowledge.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #27  
Old July 23rd 15, 12:04 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Thirsty Moth

In article , Eric Stevens
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.


Open raw image in what?


any of a variety of apps, including photoshop, llightroom, dxo, nikon
or canon's own software, etc.

it's your choice.

obviously it needs to support raw from your camera. microsoft excel
would be a bad choice.
  #28  
Old July 23rd 15, 12:04 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Thirsty Moth

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the raw image is converted to pixels on the display and nobody
considers that a conversion. the magnetic fields on the hard drive are
converted to electrical pulses and nobody considers that a conversion.

there's a conversion with *everything* on a computer.

the printer is just another display device that uses paper instead of a
liquid crystal (or crt). apps draw to either or both and may not even
know the difference.

again, the user opens a raw image ...


Opens a raw image in what?


any image editing app. it's entirely your choice.

photoshop, lightroom, dxo, etc. it doesn't matter.

... (or whatever format, it doesn't even
need to be an image) and picks print and the computer does the rest.

that is not a conversion.


Of course it is.


not one that matters.

everything a computer does is a conversion. the file data is converted
to a format to send to the display and it's converted to magnetic
fields to write to a hard drive. technically those are conversions but
nobody refers to it as a conversion because it's all internal and not
something the user explicitly does.

again, open an image, pick print from the menus and collect the print
moments later. done.

I don't think you are right about this.


i am right about this.

Like me, PeterN is trying to find out how it is possible for a printer
to swallow a raw file and spit out an image. My understanding is that
this is not possible. You seem to be supporting that view by extending
the argument to 'conversion'.


i'm not extending anything.

you open the raw file in the app of your choosing and pick print.

it's so easy that a 4 year old, who has no idea what a conversion even
*means*, can do it.
  #29  
Old July 23rd 15, 12:04 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Thirsty Moth

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Like me, PeterN is trying to find out how it is possible for a printer
to swallow a raw file and spit out an image. My understanding is that
this is not possible. You seem to be supporting that view by extending
the argument to 'conversion'.


Both Lightroom and Photoshop will print a RAW file. I just tried both
using an Epson XP-410 (a low-end printer). LR just prints the RAW
file, but PS opens the RAW file in PS but it remains a RAW file.

Just for ****s and giggles, I tried to print a RAW (.dng) file using
FastStone image viewer. Prints fine.

What goes on between the software and the printer is unknown to me,
and it really doesn't interest me.


exactly.

I didn't notice any appreciable difference in how long it took to
print or the quality of the print.


there shouldn't be a noticeable difference in how long.

jpeg files are smaller so it may take slightly less time to read the
file but that's going to be a fraction of a second and will never be
noticed.
  #30  
Old July 23rd 15, 12:04 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Thirsty Moth

In article 2015072215574520614-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Like me, PeterN is trying to find out how it is possible for a printer
to swallow a raw file and spit out an image. My understanding is that
this is not possible. You seem to be supporting that view by extending
the argument to 'conversion'.


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.

Next go to the print module and you will find that you should have
little trouble printing that NEF, or DNG, all without an intermediate
JPEG phase. As I said I don't have any JPEGs in Lightroom.

As to what Lightroom does as an intermediate phase I have no idea, as
it doesn't leave any evidence of sneakily creating a JPEG without my
knowledge.


it doesn't need to create anything. all it does is render the image
based on any edits you've made and sends it to the display or printer.
 




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 12:21 AM.


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.