Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT/ Woke up on Mars This morning!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    You can keep your dust or fire storms and

    As long as the wind keeps blowing in from the East we will be OK. If and when the cloud cover lifts, the rain stops and the sun shines I will be looking foprward to some beautiful sunsets from the top of Red Hill or out at Karioitahi beach.
    Now, back to the other debate......interesting.
    Last edited by speedy; 09-23-2009, 11:28 PM.
    Ken.

    Comment


    • #77
      This is what I measure Allan. Note also how the colours are fully saturated?



      BTW, it has nothing to do with the monitor as far as measuring the colours.
      Last edited by Evan; 09-23-2009, 11:35 PM.
      Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Evan
        This is what I measure Allan. Note also how the colours are fully saturated?
        Evan,

        For that particular pixel, I get the exact same reading as you posted. That's encouraging, I guess.
        Allan Ostling

        Phoenix, Arizona

        Comment


        • #79
          Evan,

          Your argument to defend your position has turned into a desperate attempt at rehabilitating credibility. You’re in a tough spot. One simply can’t expect the knowing to blindly follow what is now dubious, long distance analysis based on a self-generated and manipulated computer model. *You* simply can’t glean all-knowing understanding and information from PhotoShop’s histograms or other ancillary diagnostic tools. Celebrated photographic wizards, expertly versed in the art of photographic science, would use discretion and gracefully shy away from bold leaps as you have made. It would appear you’ve wandered beyond your pay grade in a quest to have the unknowing to blindly follow your hypothesis.

          I can’t imagine that you have access to a computer program that could possibly determine if I pre-exposed my film or used N+1 – N+2 or N-1 – N-2 processing. Nor do I believe you have the ability ascertain what meters (plural) I used much less where I chose to first assign my Zone not withstanding which end of the Zone spectrum I elected to use. Did I expose for Zone VIII and print for Zone III or did I expose for Zone II and print for Zone VII?

          You state that the image has been post processed. But of course it’s been post processed! What image isn’t? From the time the negative is introduced into the “soup” until a final print is generated from a negative (which often involves many attempts and careful exposure and chemical processing during the printing process), the image is being manipulated. For that matter my image was pre-processed before the negative was exposed to light. I began controlling my product before I “tripped the trigger”. I controlled every aspect of processing from pre-exposure to final print. If various readers of this are under the impression that the entire photographic process of conventional photography is unadulterated then the reader is sadly delusional. Even “One Hour Processing” establishments wittingly or unwittingly adulterate the final image in one measure or another. That’s an immutable fact from which there is no escape.

          Prior to digital capture, most of us, at one time or another, enjoyed marvelous, uncommon images published by National Geographic, et al. Would the readers believe that these images spontaneously sprang from the photographer’s camera? Would the readers believe that theses images are products of WYSIWYG? Surely not but if so allow me the latitude for edification. In instances such as those incredible images enjoyed when viewing publications such as National Geographic, the photographer will have likely manipulate film exposure by underexposing the image at least one-half stop …. sometimes more. This is one way we control color saturation and help to reduce burn-out. The converse is often true in poor light conditions. Once exposed, the film is presented to a highly skilled, highly trained Processor ….. an individual solely and professionally trained to eek out every drop of available information stored in the negative. This individual has likely trained for years …. and not OTJ training, rather at a specialized technical institution. He/she *will* use specific chemistry for specific results. Time and temperature will be manipulated. This is what a Processor is trained to do …. nothing else. Once the film is *processed* the film goes to the Printer ….. a different individual who will have spent years in school learning to do nothing but control final results of the photographer’s record. The Printer will process the final image. Once *processed prints* have been reviewed and accepted by the Proofer, the images are presented to the printing department or a printing firm. Their job is to do color separation of the Printer’s final product and duplicate or enhance the image for final printing. In short, the images that you enjoyed were manipulated before light ever struck the film and were continuously manipulated throughout the entire process. The photographer gets credit for all the work that was done by others behind the scene. This is the Art of Photography.

          Today’s photographers are embracing digital capture for a myriad of reasons which are beyond the scope of this discussion. Digital Darkrooms have, regrettably in some ways, replaced the art of conventional film processing. Various programs are now available the better being slightly above moderately priced. The better programs are very powerful allowing most individuals to use less complicated tools to almost expertly process their own images. However, there is a down-side to digital processing namely the monitor, calibration software & hardware, scanner, and printer. You may think you have a very good monitor but unless you have spent well in excess of $2000.00 USD for the monitor then you don’t have a good monitor for processing digital capture or digitized images. Good calibration software and hardware begins around $1800 to $5000.00. Your monitor should be allowed to warm for at least 30 minutes before you calibrate your monitor or attempt to process an image. Monitor calibration can sometimes be time intensive when using top-end systems. I calibrate my monitor every day so that I stay in step with Industrial Standards. Calibration hardware *must* be returned to the factory every year for re-calibration. If you scan film then it’s a *must* to calibrate your scanner. The ordinary home scanner, though it may scan film, is usually over rated. The minimum film scanner will begin around $2000.00. Once the scanner is calibrated (which is a pain in the A$$) then you will need to calibrate your $2000.00 to $8000.00 home printer (which is another pain in the butt). If you don’t plan to do your own printing then you had better make sure your monitor is properly calibrated because when you get your 16 X 20 image (or larger) back from a professional printing firm, color will be off and possibly unacceptable. Their system is *on the mark* and they have no problem charging you for a print that was improperly calibrated by **you**. It’s your baby …. you pack it.

          Now that you have spent untold amounts on your digital lab and your System is calibrated, you present a wonderful image for viewing on your favorite forum …. and guess what happens; everyone except you have cheap, non-calibrated monitors and each person believes their $400.00 monitor is the best that money can buy and they complain that your image is too dark or too light or too *red* so they jump on their Acme Jewel Master Digital Darkroom System and manipulate your properly calibrated image until it looks correct on their $400.00 non-calibrated monitor. When you mention that your system is calibrated, they will likely go to the web and find the name of a minimally priced calibration unit, come up with some technical jargon, and tell you that they are running a multi-million dollar system at their home and your system is inadequate.

          On a different note and to address a comment by one of the posters, he stated that no camera produces vignetting (a reduction of an image's brightness or saturation at the periphery compared to the image center). Well Sir, you are sorely mistaken. It’s rare to have a fixed lens camera that will produce vignetting but it can be done with special lenses. Few go to that trouble because it’s not worth the effort on a fixed lens camera. However, fully articulated Large Format cameras, which I use, will produce vignetting because we make a conscious choice to introduce vignetting into many of our images. I recommend that you read up on Image Circles of Large Format lenses and how to use the Image Circle to one’s advantage. Additionally, one can selectively introduce vignetting in a conventional darkroom either by the enlarger lens’s Image Circle or by dodging and burning.

          To finalize my post, of the two images that I posted, the original image was the one with blue water. The green water image was digitally manipulated. The original image was a straight scan from the print. The original scan produced a file size of roughly 200 MB. The compressed version that you are viewing should have been around 140 KB. A significant reduction in file size.

          Harold
          For those having fought for it, Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.
          Freedom is only one generation away from extinction.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Evan
            Yes, I did notice that the only shots that are really as red/orange as the photo in question are the really long shots.
            -As you show a long shot that's not. Huh. Wonder why that is.

            You know why that is don't you?
            -Certainly. It's because the sandstorm varied in intensity and wind speed, the amount of dust in the air varied with the airflow and distance from the center, and the angle of the sun changed as the day wore on.

            Or were you presupposing that every area looked exactly the same, got the same amount of dust, and that all the photos were taken at the same time of day?

            If the entire scene is orange/red, that would indicate heavy dust overhead, so everything, near and far, would take on a similar tint. If the tone gets deeper the further from the camera, that indicates dust in the air down at the level of the camera.

            There can be lots of dust overhead and little down low, or lots down low and little overhead, or lots both above and below or just a little above and below. The mix can- and will- change rapidly; when I took that photo of the Stude, that was more or less the "peak darkness". An hour before it was merely hazy, and an hour later it was much brighter but everything still had a sepia cast to it.

            The phenomena is to be expected, and explains easily why some photos are only lightly yellow while others are deeply red.

            Doc.
            Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)

            Comment


            • #81
              Certainly. It's because the sandstorm varied in intensity and wind speed, the amount of dust in the air varied with the airflow and distance from the center, and the angle of the sun changed as the day wore on.

              Or were you presupposing that every area looked exactly the same, got the same amount of dust, and that all the photos were taken at the same time of day?
              No, but you did. Major back pedalling now.

              Seems to me you just wrote " notice that you're also studiously ignoring the half-dozen other posters pointing out that their photos (or, you know, eyewitness experience) are virtually identical in tone and color to the OP photo..


              Hwingo,

              Care to explain the extreme loss of dynamic range in BOTH images?

              he stated that no camera produces vignetting (a reduction of an image's brightness or saturation at the periphery compared to the image center
              I DID NOT. I never mentioned vignetting, I made not the slightest reference to it and that is not what I wrote. I said the camera NEVER produces an area loss of dynamic range in that manner. I specifically refer to the posterization of the bottom of the image. Camera processing does not do that and even very dark areas will retain a wide range of similar but different values, not large blocks all the same. The effect shown can only result from post processing in the computer.
              Well Sir, you are sorely mistaken
              You sir are making things up to try and defend your position.
              Last edited by Evan; 09-24-2009, 06:56 AM.
              Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

              Comment


              • #82
                Getting back to the dust storm, Great day here today and when I got home from work even the grass had a coating of red dust. Opened the shed and yep, everything inside has a nice coating of red dust. Now when I say red, I mean a reddish brown sort of rusty red with a hint of bushfire smoke and a slight flavour of black particulate. Can't see any point in posting pics as I wouldn't want to start an argument.

                bollie7

                Comment


                • #83
                  It seems to me that the colour is due to iron oxide from what I recall. So, rusty red is right on the money. Speaking of bushfire smoke, we have had the disturbing experience the last couple of days of ash from not very distant fires drifting down from the sky on us. The water bombers aren't bothering to climb when they pass over our house which says it isn't very far away. Yesterday was 35 degrees which must be a record for late Sept in this area.
                  Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    All we got here was dull grey dust, no red sunsets for us which we usually only get when there is smoke in the air... I took some video of it rolling in, I will see if I can stick it on youtube at a later date..

                    But this pic here really shows it as red, and there is a tasmanian in the background

                    Last edited by .RC.; 09-24-2009, 09:22 AM.
                    Precision takes time.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X