C&P Random Thread -
#1562
The Hershey Bears, the Washington Capitals farm team is allowing all cameras into the arena tonight. If they win tonight, they win the Calder Cup, the AHL's Stanley Cup. If they lose they play again Wednesday night.
But, major props for letting people go to the game with real cameras!!!!
But, major props for letting people go to the game with real cameras!!!!
#1564
I went to the Bellagio's art gallery while I was in Vegas last week. One of the items in the current exhibition was an original Yousuf Karsh print. I'm telling you folks, there is nothing like looking like looking at an original B&W from one of the masters. I just stood there in awe for what felt like five minutes. If I had a message board on my forehead I'm pretty sure it would have been displaying "Wow...Just f*cking wow!"
#1567
I was in Vegas for a conference so I only had nights and half of one day to take in the town. My enjoyment of gambling ends with ~$20 among my immediate friends and I'm not at all a "bar person" so that takes a lot out of the town for me. I had actually never been to Vegas before. I went into the trip with the attitude of "The city holds nothing for me" and came out with the attitude "I still wouldn't come back here on vacation, but I'm glad I was here and got to see it." All the major hotels and their malls as so over-the-top in one way or another that you can't help but just walking around smiling and thinking "This is nuts!".
#1571
Well, if one blog's opinion is worth anything, this post is what finally turned me off from getting a micro four thirds camera. Especially the last sentence. Pretty much made me think "What's the point?"
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/2010/05/clouds.html
I should mention that this guy praised the living hell out of his Panny GF1 so don't think that he's bashing the m4/3 format just because of the title of his site. BTW, he also does some nice work using just compacts and ultra compact cameras.
One thing is certain though, only after you start using some good legacy lenses on the m4/3 cameras will you see their true potential. Even the highly praised 40mm Panasonic lens is very poor optically when compared to the Leica or the Voigtländer lenses. The contrast, the sharpness, the colors are all different and even my cheap Canon FD lens is superior to the native m4/3 lenses.
I should mention that this guy praised the living hell out of his Panny GF1 so don't think that he's bashing the m4/3 format just because of the title of his site. BTW, he also does some nice work using just compacts and ultra compact cameras.
#1572
hmm... so basically I need to spend a good amount on a lens to get the most out of it. I wonder how this one is?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...4_Leica_D.html
But still, it does make me wonder "what's the point" when I'm almost at the cost of a 7D body, for this small camera... I should just buy a 7D and be done with it...
I guess I'll wait for the NEX-5, in regard to a small camera. thanks B.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...4_Leica_D.html
But still, it does make me wonder "what's the point" when I'm almost at the cost of a 7D body, for this small camera... I should just buy a 7D and be done with it...
I guess I'll wait for the NEX-5, in regard to a small camera. thanks B.
#1573
I'm not familiar with the one you have - does it have an on/off switch? if so, check to make sure that is on? reason I mention it is because this has tripped me up in the past!
#1575
#1577
#1582
I noticed something today..
The file size of JPEG image converted from RAW file is smaller than JPEG image straight from the camera.
Doesn't that mean regular JPEG has better quality than RAW JPEG?
Does this even make sense to you guys? lol
The file size of JPEG image converted from RAW file is smaller than JPEG image straight from the camera.
Doesn't that mean regular JPEG has better quality than RAW JPEG?
Does this even make sense to you guys? lol
#1584
It depends how you process your image from RAW.
#1585
when you're saving as JPG make sure your quality is set to maximum (or whatever you want). I always just go maximum, file storage is so cheap these days, might as well.
#1589
#1590
it depends on what you do to it - if you do processing that adds noise to the pic - either by upping the shadows, or adding noise grain, or whatever, your file size will go up. The cleaner your image, the lower the file size. This is because, the smoother your color is (i.e. no noise) the less information the file needs to store.
#1591
OUt of the camera give you what the maker thinks you want. Though you have control has to what the camera does for jpeg. You can adjust the color, sharpness, etc. for jpeg out of the camera.
But RAW or NEF is the best way to process your images, just like having the film strip and chemicals, like the old days.
But RAW or NEF is the best way to process your images, just like having the film strip and chemicals, like the old days.
#1594
Yeah, I've been shooting in RAW+JPEG format ever since I bought my camera. But I just was not convinced to use RAW to process the image as you can do everything with JPEG + CS5 or LR3.
Now I know why people use RAW files.. I'm going to use RAW files from now on!
Now I know why people use RAW files.. I'm going to use RAW files from now on!
#1595
ok just out of curiosity since we're on the file size topic. When I convert my images to jpeg with the image quality on 10, it results in an average file size of 5-7 MB.
Out of boredom this weekend I was looking into macro stock sites, and saw that Alamy has a minimum file size of 24MB, and that they had recently downsized that from 48MB to save people from having to upsize their images all the time.
How are my file sizes so much lower than that?
Out of boredom this weekend I was looking into macro stock sites, and saw that Alamy has a minimum file size of 24MB, and that they had recently downsized that from 48MB to save people from having to upsize their images all the time.
How are my file sizes so much lower than that?
#1597
you all see this?
http://gizmodo.com/5561208/canons-in...ures-like-this
http://gizmodo.com/5561208/canons-in...ures-like-this
Canon's In-Camera HDR Patent Will Let You Take Pictures Like This
Canon's looking to change the way you take HDR pictures. Previously, in order to capture images like these, you'd have to combine photos in post. With a new patent, the process will be done in-camera, at the pixel level.
High Dynamic Range pictures are taken by capturing the same subject at varying exposure levels and then combining those images in photo editing software. The idea is to create something that's more detailed and potentially more representative of what your eye can see. You can see what HDR photos look like in one of our Shooting Challenges.
Canon's new patent wants to turn that sort of complicated process all in-camera. The way it works:
Other cameras, like the Sony A550 and A500, are capable of doing in-camera HDR but they're more of a quick chop method. Mapping out the exposure level by the pixel is far more detailed and if done correctly, has huge implications. HDR has its fair share of fans and haters but Canon's patent would give Canon cameras the ability to capture a much wider dynamic range in a single image and a stand out feature in the ever evolving camera wars. [PhotographyBay]
Canon's looking to change the way you take HDR pictures. Previously, in order to capture images like these, you'd have to combine photos in post. With a new patent, the process will be done in-camera, at the pixel level.
High Dynamic Range pictures are taken by capturing the same subject at varying exposure levels and then combining those images in photo editing software. The idea is to create something that's more detailed and potentially more representative of what your eye can see. You can see what HDR photos look like in one of our Shooting Challenges.
Canon's new patent wants to turn that sort of complicated process all in-camera. The way it works:
According to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, preliminary image capturing is performed using the image capturing unit, and the exposure time is assigned to each pixel based on the result of the preliminary image capturing. Image capturing can thus be performed with a wide dynamic range without a loss of highlight detail and a loss of shadow detail.
Other cameras, like the Sony A550 and A500, are capable of doing in-camera HDR but they're more of a quick chop method. Mapping out the exposure level by the pixel is far more detailed and if done correctly, has huge implications. HDR has its fair share of fans and haters but Canon's patent would give Canon cameras the ability to capture a much wider dynamic range in a single image and a stand out feature in the ever evolving camera wars. [PhotographyBay]
#1598
ok I just looked again, and this is what I found, so they contredicted themselves
Our required file size for submitting Jpegs seems to cause an incomprehensible amount of confusion with a high volume of photographers. Put simply, we are flabbergasted as to how many times we are asked, daily, of what format and size of images we require!
Let’s set the record straight right now. First and foremost, yes, we want you to send Jpegs. No, we don’t want you to send Tiffs.
The reason for this is that we provide our clients with Jpegs to download, not Tiffs. It’s been industry standard to work like this for a long time now and even in the days when we required you to send us Tiffs, we converted them to Jpeg for the clients. Yes we know Jpeg is a lossy format, but to the naked eye, there is no visible difference between a high quality Jpeg and a Tiff file. The client can simply download the Jpeg, save it as a Tiff, and work away on it saving as many times as they like without loss in quality. It’s really that simple!
Now that’s out of the way let’s move onto file size. Jpeg is a compressed file format. The compressed file size (size on disk) varies with picture content and should generally be ignored, as long as it’s no bigger than 25MB, which is our upper limit for Jpeg size. What’s important is the uncompressed (opened) file size. The opened file must be at least 24MB at 8 bit to get through our quality control. Typically a 24MB 8 bit Tiff file will be between 2MB and 5MB as a Jpeg if your image was shot digitally. Film scans will be larger. This is because Jpeg “sees” film grain as image detail and compresses it too. Remember, we do not want a Jpeg 24MB in size as that would be ridiculously large when uncompressed (opened)!
One thing you don’t want to do is work on your images whilst they are in Jpeg form, repeatedly saving as you go along. Saving a Jpeg as a Jpeg is pretty much a no no, as you are recompressing an already compressed file.
Now there are various ways of doing this, but an ideal workflow example for creating the required file size would be:
* Convert your image into an 8 bit Tiff file (save as, Tiff)
* In an image editing program such as Photoshop, upsize the image to a minimum of 24MB (if you need to).
* Make any alterations as needed, inspect the image carefully at 100%
* At the very last step save your image as a Jpeg and send us that Jpeg. Remember, the Jpeg is the compressed size so this will typically be between 2MB-5MB
There are a handful of digital cameras on the market that produce native uncompressed file sizes above 24MB so you will not need to do the above for those. The same goes for film scans.
Remember to also inspect your images carefully in accordance with our submission guidelines, found here:
Let’s set the record straight right now. First and foremost, yes, we want you to send Jpegs. No, we don’t want you to send Tiffs.
The reason for this is that we provide our clients with Jpegs to download, not Tiffs. It’s been industry standard to work like this for a long time now and even in the days when we required you to send us Tiffs, we converted them to Jpeg for the clients. Yes we know Jpeg is a lossy format, but to the naked eye, there is no visible difference between a high quality Jpeg and a Tiff file. The client can simply download the Jpeg, save it as a Tiff, and work away on it saving as many times as they like without loss in quality. It’s really that simple!
Now that’s out of the way let’s move onto file size. Jpeg is a compressed file format. The compressed file size (size on disk) varies with picture content and should generally be ignored, as long as it’s no bigger than 25MB, which is our upper limit for Jpeg size. What’s important is the uncompressed (opened) file size. The opened file must be at least 24MB at 8 bit to get through our quality control. Typically a 24MB 8 bit Tiff file will be between 2MB and 5MB as a Jpeg if your image was shot digitally. Film scans will be larger. This is because Jpeg “sees” film grain as image detail and compresses it too. Remember, we do not want a Jpeg 24MB in size as that would be ridiculously large when uncompressed (opened)!
One thing you don’t want to do is work on your images whilst they are in Jpeg form, repeatedly saving as you go along. Saving a Jpeg as a Jpeg is pretty much a no no, as you are recompressing an already compressed file.
Now there are various ways of doing this, but an ideal workflow example for creating the required file size would be:
* Convert your image into an 8 bit Tiff file (save as, Tiff)
* In an image editing program such as Photoshop, upsize the image to a minimum of 24MB (if you need to).
* Make any alterations as needed, inspect the image carefully at 100%
* At the very last step save your image as a Jpeg and send us that Jpeg. Remember, the Jpeg is the compressed size so this will typically be between 2MB-5MB
There are a handful of digital cameras on the market that produce native uncompressed file sizes above 24MB so you will not need to do the above for those. The same goes for film scans.
Remember to also inspect your images carefully in accordance with our submission guidelines, found here: