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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |