Viewing - Editing in Windows 7 Home Premium

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Don McC, Feb 26, 2011.

  1. Don McC

    Bill Graham Guest

    Ah, they come in handy when you want to crop out a background image, or get
    rid of something in the picture you don't like. I worried about that when I
    bought my full frame D700. but it turns out that I can use the 12 megapixels
    because I am not a very good composer, and I frequently have to throw a
    significant part of the picture away when I get it into Photoshop.
     
    Bill Graham, Feb 28, 2011
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Don McC

    Bill Graham Guest

    Me too. I am not a very good photographer. But the pictures I have taken
    over the years of friends, family and pets are invaluable to me, as well as
    they may be to others that I send them to, now that I can digitize them and
    send them so easily. And this is another good thing about digital
    photography. It has put easily useable cameras in the hands of people who
    would have never used cameras before. Now, every mall teenager is a
    photographer. - I think this is a good thing.
     
    Bill Graham, Feb 28, 2011
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Don McC

    Frank ess Guest

    Brucie, I do believe you don't do /anything/ "deeply", a contention
    supported ed by your unthinking, frog-reflex responses to practically any
    idea for which you can imagine a contrary position to take.
     
    Frank ess, Feb 28, 2011
    #23
  4. Don McC

    Bruce Guest


    We're back to my earlier point that people are viewing images from
    their 12 MP cameras on 2 MP monitors. Even a "Full HD" television has
    a resolution of "only" 2 MP.

    It's the same for people using LCD projectors. The highest resolution
    that is reasonably affordable is 2 MP.

    So why use a 12 MP camera?
     
    Bruce, Feb 28, 2011
    #24
  5. Indeed. Kind of like an audiophool (a not-too-bright one) playing their
    24-bit recording over a crappy MP3 player.

    Despite the bleats of derision you're getting from the rest of the choir
    here, your irony isn't lost on me.

    So to answer your last rhetorical question there: "In the [rare] event I
    want to make a decent-size print of a photo". The rest of the time those
    "extra" 10 MP or so are just ostentatiously expen$ive overkill.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Feb 28, 2011
    #25
  6. Don McC

    Bruce Guest


    It's good to have an intelligent response, David, however rare it may
    be. The "bleating choir" would have problems mustering a total IQ of
    100 between them ...


    Well, of course. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Feb 28, 2011
    #26
  7. Don McC

    Noons Guest

    Hehehe! 100% agreed. The "choir" wouldn't know how to tune a 2MP
    monitor for proper viewing, as amply demonstrated many times before...
     
    Noons, Feb 28, 2011
    #27
  8. So I see we have a quorum of the r.p.e Pariahs Group. You want to gavel
    the meeting to order, Noons?
     
    David Nebenzahl, Feb 28, 2011
    #28
  9. Don McC

    Irwell Guest

    More like the r.p.e MM Society.
     
    Irwell, Feb 28, 2011
    #29
  10. Don McC

    Pete Guest

    Well, pardon my (lack of) English. Whenever I've touched upon these
    delicate subjects, I've been shot down. Therefore, I conclude, it isn't
    the number of wasted megapixels in question, it's my lack of dexterity
    and audacity with my native tongue that set me up to be shot down :)

    Let no one be misled into thinking my politeness indicates that I'm a
    reasonable, open-minded, compassionate being regarding *all* issues. My
    physical tongue has teeth marks all over it as a result of attempting
    to be reserved while discussing such issues as 24-bit recordings played
    via MP3 on $5 headphones; 12 MP camera images displayed on a picture
    frame. As to the latter issue, I have consoled myself by generating a
    spreadsheet page to show the effective gain in ISO by performing this
    "miracle of modern engineering". Interestingly, I note, none of those
    who regularly make use of this highly advanced photographic technique
    are interested to know the helpful numbers involved, yet persist in
    moaning about camera noise and kit lens aberrations while pixel peeping.

    No wonder I'm so fucking tired all the time. Perhaps the only illness I
    suffer is the incredible energy drain resulting from attempting to see
    things from the viewpoint of others in the futile attempt to be non
    confrontational.

    Hey David, you have broken the chains that have bound me for so long. I
    never could sing in tune so my epiphany moment is deciding to leave the
    choir. Amen!
     
    Pete, Mar 1, 2011
    #30
  11. Don McC

    Better Info Guest

    You forgot to mention, that even if all those pixels are used for prints,
    much of the noise is lost in (averaged into) the printer's lower
    color-bit-depth ink dithering pattern.

    There is also an interesting effect (in print or on screen) whereby noise
    spread across more pixels in an equivalent area is less perceptible because
    it is averaged-out across the same area in much smaller data-points,
    averaging itself out spatially. The same noise-floor is there, it's just
    more difficult to see and has less impact on perception of detail.

    A simplified example (for the simple minds in these newsgroups):

    low-resolution (fewer large pixels) noise:

    3 numbers = 1 pixel

    111 999 111 999
    999 111 999 111
    111 999 111 999
    999 111 999 111

    high resolution (more small pixels) noise:

    1 number = 1 pixel

    1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9
    9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1
    1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9
    9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1

    Which of the two blocks of pixels shows more easily recognizable
    noise-value differences between them more clearly when viewed from a
    respectable distance? (Interestingly, I tried using more similar looking
    numbers in the above example, e.g. 8 & 3, but then this principle became
    even less apparent. Meaning: the greater the noise difference the more it
    gets perceptually averaged-out in smaller pixels.)

    There be tomes of cameraless trolls in these newsgroups, as well as
    printerless ones. These argumentable properties of cameras that they find
    so concrete in their minds, but actually non-existent in the real world, is
    how they so clearly reveal themselves.
     
    Better Info, Mar 1, 2011
    #31
  12. Don McC

    Noons Guest



    Look: we all gotta do our bit to keep the economy running.
    If they want a 50MP camera to show their photos at Facebook size and
    rez, who are we to complain?
    I'm sure it'll be followed by ooohs and aaaahs from the "friends", no
    matter what.

    Who knows, it might even contribute to keep a bunch of techos employed
    and us all out of a depression.
    Gotta keep up with the Joneses and all that.

    Meanwhile, I'll keep using my 5MP and 10MP cameras for FB and other
    such sites,
    while doing my prints off scanned film which is consistently 22MP.
    Ah yes, I forgot: they can "clearly" see in their 2MP monitors that
    film cannot possibly do more than 8MP.

    Yeah!
    Riiiight...
     
    Noons, Mar 1, 2011
    #32
  13. Depends what process you're trying to complete. Whenever I go out to
    photograph things I hope that I might get a really good photograph,
    good enough to feature in an exhbition at an A2 print size. It doesn't
    happen very often. But I always have that aim. So where possible I use
    photographic methods which with luck and a following wind will produce
    images of sufficient quality and detail resolution.

    I don't have to view a print to determine that. I can make a good and
    completely inclusive shortlist of high quality high resolution images
    by using my 2MP monitor. How could I possibly do that? Well, I make
    use of a little known highly esoteric feature known as zooming in,
    often ridiculed by snap shooters as "pixel peeping".

    So I can complete my selection and processing of high quality images
    using my computer. Then perhaps a year or more later I'll pick some of
    those for an exhibition and order large prints. So the print side of
    the process can take over a year to complete. But since it doesn't
    affect selection or processing it doesn't affect the immiediacy
    factor.
    No, because I find that the irony is artificial, being generated by an
    unnecessarily and peculiarly Procustean view of digital photography.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 1, 2011
    #33
  14. Don McC

    Pete Guest

    That's a very good point. I've written my thoughts below...
    Thanks very much for writing that. It's been in the back of my mind for
    ages, but I never got around to turning into something tangible.

    I'd been thinking in terms of spatial frequency response (MTF). The eye
    has a peak sensitivity around 7 lp/degree and 20/20 vision has a
    cut-off around 32 lp/degree. The trouble with pixel-peeping is that is
    down-scales the image spatial frequency in terms of lp/degree. In other
    words, the peak response of the eye coincides with much higher
    frequencies in the image, giving a totally false impression of image
    noise et al. Sorry, that wasn't worded well (my lack of language skills
    is incredibly frustrating).

    My audio analogy is listening to music played at a fraction of normal
    rate. The bass would become sub-audible and the peak response of our
    hearing (around 3 kHz) would correspond to the high-frequency treble
    region; allowing us to clearly hear noise, distortion, and aliasing (if
    present) that could not be heard at normal playback speed due to
    auditory masking.

    Thinking in terms of levels instead of MTF, I've carefully studied an
    image I had printed in a journal both while it is illuminated by
    "normal room light" and by oblique sunlight. The latter revealed
    details in the dark areas that are totally absent (just black) under
    normal viewing conditions. I conclude that the dark areas of the image,
    when illuminated normally, exhibit a similar tail characteristic to
    film image recording. If I'm correct then the increasing photon noise
    as the image gets darker is partially suppressed by this tail
    characteristic: it reduces delta contrast (or gain) as the image fades
    into the base reflectivity of the paper. I'm sure even mediocre LCDs
    have much higher contrast than prints (definitely much higher than
    canvas prints).

    Combining my MTF reasoning with my level reasoning, and assuming they
    are reasonable approximations, I can only conclude that pixel-peeping
    is useful only for determining image quality for a very limited number
    of characteristics. The most obvious two that come to my mind are that
    ink splatter will degrade: an over-sharpened image; an image with moire
    artefacts.

    If you have the time, I'd be very interested to know what you think. If
    I've written a load of crap, I'd rather know than carry on dreaming in
    fairyland.
    I will respond to that only in terms of myself. I've learnt hundreds of
    things since I joined Usenet in Nov. 2009, thanks to all the
    contributors. When I think back to my early posts (shudder), I had
    strong opinions that were based on partial knowledge of photographic
    theory. I.e. it's what I didn't know that I didn't know that made me an
    ass. That basic principle will/must always be true, but I'm learning to
    seek knowledge even though it's so much harder than holding onto a set
    of partially false beliefs.

    To the nearest whole percent, I'll only ever learn 0% of everything
    there is to know, so I'm not exactly sure why I try to understand
    things (ego, I guess) :)
     
    Pete, Mar 1, 2011
    #34
  15. Don McC

    Better Info Guest

    A good analogy, but you're falling into the same trap that all these others
    fall into. While an image (or audio recording) is the sum-total of all its
    parts, dependent on those parts, you can't look at the cells and stomata in
    a leaf on a tree and comprehend nor visualize the tree. Understanding the
    basic principles is fine and well. Especially when you want to poke holes
    in all the trolls' pedantic obsessions with pixels and numbers, but it's
    far too easy to fall into their blind-man's elephant trap.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

    A tunnel-vision audiophile (pardon the mixed references) won't bother to
    listen to the words in great speeches from the past because the recordings
    are full of hiss. Nor will they ever learn the lessons contained in them.
    Others not so blinded by details will walk away enlightened; while quietly
    laughing inside at those who remain behind, trapped in their listening to
    the quality of the underlying noise, hypnotized by the elephant's tail.
    I only use pixel-peeping when buying a new camera, to test its optics and a
    preliminary dead-pixel test. To determine if this one is a keeper or should
    be sent back, and then get another of the same make and model. (No two
    cameras that leave the same assembly-line are ever the same.) After that it
    is only used to check focus and CA before printing. The DOF (and whatever
    non-correctable CA that remains) determining the allowable size of print.
    (Do note that noise is not an issue that I use to determine the size of
    print.) Use too shallow DOF and you severely limit the size of print you
    can produce from that image. Many images taken at large apertures can often
    not be used even in 640x480 web-page graphics, because most of the
    important parts of the subject are sorely out of focus. It drastically
    detracts from, rather than enhances, the subject. An all too plague-like
    error of many snapshooters with their jewelry-cameras. Noise is often
    inconsequential, because many subjects can withstand severe noise-reduction
    (when applied with a talented hand) without detracting from appreciation of
    the subject itself. And often too, noise can be used to enhance an image. I
    bet most of these noise-freaks even wonder why every photo editor has an
    "Add Noise" filter with a whole slew of adjustable parameters. All this
    noise about noise is coming from people who don't have one clue about the
    art of photography. They are foolishly left hanging onto the elephant's
    tail without even understanding what that tail is for.
    Not a load of crap. You clearly understand the underlying principles, but
    underlying principles do not a good photo make. The blind-men each studying
    their individual part of the elephant will never be able to describe nor
    appreciate the complete elephant. Nor will they ever be able to sculpt nor
    sketch the complete elephant so long at they each remain fascinated by its
    parts. I am reminded of a recent lesson I was trying to teach to Blind
    Dudley. He was adamant that the more individual colors counted in an image,
    then the better the photograph must be. I created a color test-chart in my
    editor, threw some random noise into it, then overlaid it with rainbow
    blends in two directions. Resulting in massive amounts of unique colors in
    a small image. Blind Dudley, not being able to see, and having convinced
    himself of his erroneous assumption (that more-colors=better-image),
    thought it must be a fantastic photo because he ran it through his software
    and counted its colors. He remained convince of this until he finally
    showed the image to someone who was sighted.

    Like all the rest that go on about pixels and resolution and numbers, they
    fail to comprehend--that unless that image is depicting something
    worthwhile none of that means anything, nor can any of these base-quality
    components be used to determine the quality of the final photo. Award
    winning photographs can be taken with a Pinhole Camera, a Brownie Box
    Camera, or a Hasselblad. Much of their assumptions are based on how much
    they want to impress someone else with their camera, not their photography.
    All snapshot entries in the resident SI pastime are living proof of this.
    Keep in mind one of the most important lessons of all: "All lessons are for
    naught if the student remains at their desk." (A lesson taught to me by
    Pele when I was living off the land and ocean on one of Her South Pacific
    islands for several years, learning Her myriad and important life-lessons.
    Having found that answer I was then able to graduate from Her truly
    astounding and mesmerizing class.)

    Failure to heed that lesson and you risk becoming just another
    mommy's-basement-living, psychotic, newsgroup troll. Living life in their
    small minds only, while imagining and respewing what his not.
     
    Better Info, Mar 2, 2011
    #35
  16. Don McC

    Better Info Guest

    A good analogy, but you're falling into the same trap that all these others
    fall into. While an image (or audio recording) is the sum-total of all its
    parts, dependent on those parts, you can't look at the cells and stomata in
    a leaf on a tree and comprehend nor visualize the tree. Understanding the
    basic principles is fine and well. Especially when you want to poke holes
    in all the trolls' pedantic obsessions with pixels and numbers, but it's
    far too easy to fall into their blind-man's elephant trap.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

    A tunnel-vision audiophile (pardon the mixed references) won't bother to
    listen to the words in great speeches from the past because the recordings
    are full of hiss. Nor will they ever learn the lessons contained in them.
    Others not so blinded by details will walk away enlightened; while quietly
    laughing inside at those who remain behind, trapped in their listening to
    the quality of the underlying noise, hypnotized by the elephant's tail.
    I only use pixel-peeping when buying a new camera, to test its optics and a
    preliminary dead-pixel test. To determine if this one is a keeper or should
    be sent back, and then get another of the same make and model. (No two
    cameras that leave the same assembly-line are ever the same.) After that it
    is only used to check focus and CA before printing. The DOF (and whatever
    non-correctable CA that remains) determining the allowable size of print.
    (Do note that noise is not an issue that I use to determine the size of
    print.) Use too shallow DOF and you severely limit the size of print you
    can produce from that image. Many images taken at large apertures can often
    not be used even in 640x480 web-page graphics, because most of the
    important parts of the subject are sorely out of focus. It drastically
    detracts from, rather than enhances, the subject. An all too plague-like
    error of many snapshooters with their jewelry-cameras. Noise is often
    inconsequential, because many subjects can withstand severe noise-reduction
    (when applied with a talented hand) without detracting from appreciation of
    the subject itself. And often too, noise can be used to enhance an image. I
    bet most of these noise-freaks even wonder why every photo editor has an
    "Add Noise" filter with a whole slew of adjustable parameters. All this
    noise about noise is coming from people who don't have one clue about the
    art of photography. They are foolishly left hanging onto the elephant's
    tail without even understanding what that tail is for.
    Not a load of crap. You clearly understand the underlying principles, but
    underlying principles do not a good photo make. The blind-men each studying
    their individual part of the elephant will never be able to describe nor
    appreciate the complete elephant. Nor will they ever be able to sculpt nor
    sketch the complete elephant so long at they each remain fascinated by its
    parts. I am reminded of a recent lesson I was trying to teach to Blind
    Dudley. He was adamant that the more individual colors counted in an image,
    then the better the photograph must be. I created a color test-chart in my
    editor, threw some random noise into it, then overlaid it with rainbow
    blends in two directions. Resulting in massive amounts of unique colors in
    a small image. Blind Dudley, not being able to see, and having convinced
    himself of his erroneous assumption (that more-colors=better-image),
    thought it must be a fantastic photo because he ran it through his software
    and counted its colors. He remained convince of this until he finally
    showed the image to someone who was sighted.

    Like all the rest that go on about pixels and resolution and numbers, they
    fail to comprehend--that unless that image is depicting something
    worthwhile none of that means anything, nor can any of these base-quality
    components be used to determine the quality of the final photo. Award
    winning photographs can be taken with a Pinhole Camera, a Brownie Box
    Camera, or a Hasselblad. Much of their assumptions are based on how much
    they want to impress someone else with their camera, not their photography.
    All snapshot entries in the resident SI pastime are living proof of this.
    Keep in mind one of the most important lessons of all: "All lessons are for
    naught if the student remains at their desk." (A lesson taught to me by
    Pele when I was living off the land and ocean on one of Her South Pacific
    islands for several years, learning Her myriad and important life-lessons.
    Having found that answer I was then able to graduate from Her truly
    astounding and mesmerizing class.)

    Failure to heed that lesson and you risk becoming just another
    mommy's-basement-living, psychotic, newsgroup troll. Living life in their
    small minds only, while imagining and respewing what is not.
     
    Better Info, Mar 2, 2011
    #36
  17. Don McC

    Pete Guest

    That's great, wish I'd known it ages ago. Your link led me to also read
    about logical fallacies.
    I generally manage to avoid this trap directly, however, if I wish to
    reject something it's all too easy to find an excuse. E.g. "I don't
    like elephants because I don't like tails."

    Now that I'm aware of these traps it will be much easier to avoid them.
    Some early music CDs were recorded without the use of a dither signal:
    the misconception that "noise must be kept as low as possible" has been
    around for a long time.
    My picture taking ability isn't too hot and perhaps never will be.
    Learning some of theory has been very interesting and partially useful;
    I had assumed it was part of my photography. Now I can see that they've
    been separate hobbies.
    It would be very easy for me to become like that. Having low energy
    keeps me "stuck at my desk". I've spent my time learning because I
    figured it was better than doing more mundane things. Your reply has
    made me realize that I've been setting myself up for disaster. Doing
    more mundane things (and getting bored with them) may give me more
    energy, it will certainly give me more incentive to drag myself out
    into the real world "to see whole elephants."

    Thanks very much again for your time.
     
    Pete, Mar 2, 2011
    #37
  18. Don McC

    Better Info Guest

    Not totally separate. Math and cooking are considered very different
    interests, but knowledge from both can be used in each other. For example:
    math can be used to redefine ingredient proportions for serving more or
    less people from one recipe. (Though I confess, I never cook with measures.
    I cook only by taste, smell, and texture. I am then never at a loss for a
    good meal because I don't have a predefined "recipe" handy.) Bubbles and
    froth from common cooking ingredients can in turn be used to learn about
    fractal-geometry and thin-film technology. Consider the interests slightly
    overlapping. But don't make the mistake that theories of photography are in
    any way actual photography. When you remove the human element from
    photography and just study all the theory behind the activity, then you
    have removed the primary reason for photography. Without that human
    experience relating to what is photographed, you have nothing left but
    pixels. Perhaps this is why so many in these newsgroups only have pixels
    for friends; they are deaf, dumb, and blind to how it all relates to the
    human experience.

    As for the rest, I'm glad you understood what I was trying to say. And more
    importantly, that what I said will help to encourage you to go out and now
    put into practice all that you've learned. You will find that many of these
    mental-masturbation theories (that so many in these newsgroups can only
    live for) don't mean anything at all when put into actual practice.

    You can learn all the music theory in the world, but it'll never make you
    into a musician. You have to actually practice playing an instrument on a
    regular basis. And when you do, you'll find out that all that music theory
    that you painstakingly studied for years was only slightly helpful. Music
    theory, (or theories of photography), will never teach you how your music
    (or photos) can cause another human to laugh or cry.
     
    Better Info, Mar 2, 2011
    #38
  19. Don McC

    Bill Graham Guest

    In my case, it's just for cropping out a smaller image I like from a larger
    photograph that has a bunch of stuff in it I don't like. The extra
    resolution gives me a little something to work with. But, in general, you
    are right. there are a lot of people who never crop their images at all, and
    have little use for 12 MP resolution..... It's kind of like the horsepower
    craze of the 60's. Everyone wanted automobiles that had 300 plus horsepower,
    even though they never really needed more than one third of that to carry
    themselves and their kids to the school's soccer field......
     
    Bill Graham, Mar 4, 2011
    #39
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.