converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

On 2013-12-06 08:18:06 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 20:55:46 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-12-06 04:26:42 +0000, PeterN said:

On 12/5/2013 10:58 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Is it your claim that in the film days, a good photo artist did not have
to understand the how and why of film. He did not have to understand
masking with film, the effect of various chemicals, and light sources on
things such as contrast, and grain?

my claim is that in film days, knowing how and being proficient in
darkroom work was not required.

Not require for what. Snapshots and i've been there images, you are
right. Is it your claim that a film photographer could produce art
without a thorough understanding of what he was doing?

I thought we were talking photography, not art. Photo journalists and
documentarians do not consider themselves artists, they are
photographers.
...and then there are the snapshot shooters who can on occasion be
accidental artists, or documentarians.

Just as long as it is clear: you are confining yourself to that class
of photography.

Why? We are talking about photography as a particular tool to make a
visual record of any event, object or person. esoteric aspects of art
are subjective and irrelevant in the face of the plodding technical
steps of capturing light on some medium and putting into the hands of
the viewer. The operator of that light capturing machine has little
need for knowledge of the intermediate steps when there is somebody who
can deal with that. The quality of those results was also irrelevant,
witness the millions of awful snapshots and Kodachromes.
....and it seems there are quite a few folks who are nostalgic for
photographic incompetence, I give you Instagram.

There is a reason Polaroid was right for its time & successful. There
were a bunch of folks who did not want to deal with the intermediary
steps or chemistry.


some photographers did do their own darkroom work, but as i said, it
wasn't required. many pro photographers worked with a pro lab who took
care of the details.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-12-06 08:22:17 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:16:16 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

however, they don't need to know how to fix the car or tune it to
perform the way they want. that's for the mechanics to do.

It's hard to agree, less. While you don't have to know how to design and
build a car, you can save an lot of money, if you have a basic
understanding of the principals that make it work. e.g. On my station
car the remote start stopped working and the cruise control wold not
stay on. the mechanic was ringing the register, as he suggested what
"had to be done." I asked him to test the battery, since I figured the
common denominator waas an electrical problem. Bingo!

i didn't say there weren't advantages to knowing how to fix cars.

if someone knows how, they might be able to fix things on their own and
can avoid the mechanic entirely.

however, it's not *required*.

not required for what?

to race a car.

try to keep up.

How about wing adjustments, tire pressures, suspension settings etc.
All subtle. All important.

How about front-rear brake balance, and so much more. There is stuff
which is dealt with by the engineers & mechanics in the pits, and there
is stuff the driver has to deal with in the cockpit. Auto racing today
is more than seat-of-the-pants, heel & toe work, and gear shift
stirring.
Note today's F-1 steering wheel and stuff which takes the driver into a
different realm from days past.

http://www.notasmartman.com/wp-conte...escription.jpg

....or if you prefer something other than Ferrari;
http://www.autoracing1.com/Images/Ph...auberWheel.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2013120604172540194-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

nospam:
nothing wrong with that but that's not a requirement to be a
race car driver.

Eric Stevens:
Haw!

Just imagine, two identical drivers except that one has the
above abilities and the other doesn't. Who is going to come in
first?

Sandman:
The better driver.

...and better team, which is more than the driver.

Absolutely. I just thought Eric wanted to focus on the driver only.

The team is more than the individual parts. The success of Sebastian
Vettel would not be possible without Adrian Newey.

No doubt.




--
Sandman[.net]

In article 2013120604113266019-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Eric Stevens:
even http://tinyurl.com/k33pc4h

Today he might consider something along those awful lines, but he
was able to do this with pencil, pen, ink, and a drawing table in
1937, 76 years ago, and with Wright, the current flock of architects
have some mighty footprints to follow in, even though he didn't
exactly embrace the vertical.
http://www.newyorkpanorama.com/blog/...nheim-2000.jpg

Oh stop it duck, you know perfectly well that such a thing requires a
"zillion" architect-programmed scripts. It can't be done otherwise



--
Sandman[.net]

On 12/5/2013 11:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-12-06 03:53:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 12/5/2013 12:46 PM, nospam wrote:
In article 2013120509390876599-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

The idea that a top line architect wouldn't/shouldn't have an
understanding of what he can an cannot do with the tools at his
disposal.

that's not what i said.

obviously they need to know how to *use* their tools.

what they don't need is how to *make* the tools, i.e., how to
program a
computer.

Somehow I think you guys have been using the wrong analogies for a
photo NG.
Forget about the racecar driver & architect, how about the owner of any
digital camera, compact, or DSLR?
Do they need to have a knowledge of how to operate a computer to shoot
photographs with their digital camera?

no they do not, nor did film users need to know how to process their
own film.

Is it your claim that in the film days, a good photo artist did not
have to understand the how and why of film. He did not have to
understand masking with film, the effect of various chemicals, and
light sources on things such as contrast, and grain?

Did you read "GOOD" anywhere to qualify "film users"?

My point exactly. We were discussing photography, not snapshots.




The great unwashed mass of photographers using film, shooting with
Brownies, Kodak folders, & Argus C3s would even know what hypo was let
alone being familiar with the smells of the darkroom. They probably
never had the space for a darkroom, and hadn't even considered learning
how to develop and print when there was a guy who could do it for them.

There was also a time when press photographers shooting 35mm, would just
drop courier, or mail undeveloped exposed film to the agency, or press
room for the photo editor to deal with. As a matter of fact, that is
what happened to Robert Capa's 11 D-Day shots for Life. They got screwed
up by the technician back in London. There is a rumor/myth that
technician, was soon to be a famous war photographer in his own right,
Larry Burrows.
http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html





--
PeterN

On 12/5/2013 11:51 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-12-06 04:20:30 +0000, PeterN said:

On 12/5/2013 10:53 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

: Many photographers cannot write a script in PS, to automate
simple
: tasks. And they don't want to.
:
: they don't have to write anything. record an action and let the
: computer do that for you.
:
: or, use many of the premade actions available for free and $.
:
: Whoosh!

"Whoosh!"? I thought you and nospam were more or less on the same
side of
this argument.


When in response to my statement that many artists do not even want to
know how to create as script, his response, in effect that it is easy,
shows a lack of understanding of hwat I said.

i didn't say writing scripts was easy.

what i said was if they want to automate a particular task, they don't
have to write a script at all.

they can record an action, doing what they normally would do to the
image and let the computer take care of the details. or they can use
actions already created by others. no script writing necessary.

as usual, whoosh applies to you.


would it shock you to know that most photographers do not record
actions. the artist modifies each image, individually.

Not all photographers are "artists".


Depends on whether you classify a casual snapshooter as a photographer.

--
PeterN

On 12/5/2013 11:55 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-12-06 04:26:42 +0000, PeterN said:

On 12/5/2013 10:58 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Is it your claim that in the film days, a good photo artist did not
have
to understand the how and why of film. He did not have to understand
masking with film, the effect of various chemicals, and light
sources on
things such as contrast, and grain?

my claim is that in film days, knowing how and being proficient in
darkroom work was not required.

Not require for what. Snapshots and i've been there images, you are
right. Is it your claim that a film photographer could produce art
without a thorough understanding of what he was doing?

I thought we were talking photography, not art. Photo journalists and
documentarians do not consider themselves artists, they are photographers.
...and then there are the snapshot shooters who can on occasion be
accidental artists, or documentarians.



some photographers did do their own darkroom work, but as i said, it
wasn't required. many pro photographers worked with a pro lab who took
care of the details.



Somewhere back I made it clear that I was excluding snapshots and "I've
been there" inages from my definition of photography. There is little
doubt in my mind that event photographers certainly use actions.
I stand by my original comment, which got twisted by a certain
individual, that in order to be successful, you have to have a good
understanding of the effects of the physics and craft of photography.
You need pre-visualization and sufficient knowledge to turn your vision
into the image you want.
When someone says that just sliding a few sliders is all you need ot do,
it trivializes the art of photography.

--
PeterN

On 12/6/2013 12:16 AM, nospam wrote:
In article 2013120520184410257-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Somehow I think you guys have been using the wrong analogies for a photo
NG.
Forget about the racecar driver & architect, how about the owner of any
digital camera, compact, or DSLR?
Do they need to have a knowledge of how to operate a computer to shoot
photographs with their digital camera?

no they do not, nor did film users need to know how to process their
own film.

Is it your claim that in the film days, a good photo artist did not
have to understand the how and why of film. He did not have to
understand masking with film, the effect of various chemicals, and
light sources on things such as contrast, and grain?

Did you read "GOOD" anywhere to qualify "film users"?

he adds and deletes words so he can have something to argue about.

He puts back the obvious context, to eliminate the irrelevancies, and
ambiguities introduced by intellectually dishonest arguers.


The great unwashed mass of photographers using film, shooting with
Brownies, Kodak folders, & Argus C3s would even know what hypo was let
alone being familiar with the smells of the darkroom. They probably
never had the space for a darkroom, and hadn't even considered learning
how to develop and print when there was a guy who could do it for them.

There was also a time when press photographers shooting 35mm, would
just drop courier, or mail undeveloped exposed film to the agency, or
press room for the photo editor to deal with. As a matter of fact, that
is what happened to Robert Capa's 11 D-Day shots for Life. They got
screwed up by the technician back in London. There is a rumor/myth that
technician, was soon to be a famous war photographer in his own right,
Larry Burrows.
http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html

yep.

In context your comments are meaningless.


--
PeterN

On 12/6/2013 12:16 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

would it shock you to know that most photographers do not record
actions. the artist modifies each image, individually.

wrong.

most photographers aren't creating art, they're taking snapshots of
memories.


Only if you call a snapshooter a photographer.
And, even if you do, they do not record actions.
Stop twisting. You are either deliberately ignoring my stated context,
or have forgotten how to read.

--
PeterN

On 12/6/2013 12:16 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

: Many photographers cannot write a script in PS, to automate simple
: tasks. And they don't want to.
:
: they don't have to write anything. record an action and let the
: computer do that for you.
:
: or, use many of the premade actions available for free and $.
:
: Whoosh!

"Whoosh!"? I thought you and nospam were more or less on the same side of
this argument.

he just likes to bash at any opportunity he gets, even when he hasn't
any clue.

See my reply. Your response to my statement is irrelevant, and shows a
lack of grandstanding.

actually your response shows a lack of reading comprehension and as i
said, wanting to bash at any opportunity.

see my other reply.

True to form, when you lose an argument, you accuse someone of bashing
you. You must have a bad headache from all that bashing.

more accurately, you won't admit you ****ed up.

/brilliant retort. We have yet to see some image that gives you any
credibility.

--
PeterN