kevinconnery

One thing you can do to eliminate candidates is to avoid any LCD using TN (Twisted Nematic) technology panels. That technology is currently only 6-bit/color, and isn't optimum for photographic use--it dithers to give the <i>impression</i> of 8-bits, and has a narrower viewing angle. MVA, PVA, IPS, and S-IPS would be recommended. Samsung's 205BW is a TN-based panel, as is the 740N. (Samsung's <i>T-series</i> uses PVA panels; the rest seem to be TN-based.)

<p>

Unfortunately, most marketing literature doesn't identify the underlying panel technology used. You can get a fairly current listing of what technology is used for a given display using the <a href="http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/panelsearch_content.htm">tftcentral panelsearch</a>--or just enter IPS and see which models use that IPS or S-IPS technology in their panels.<p>

Currently, I know Dell makes 2 20" display which would be under $500 and acceptable: their 2007wfp and 2007fp units; there are other companies which have affordable models as well.

<b>Colin Southern</b>: <i>Don't forget, RAW images consist of 3 greyscale images - each pixel of which can be described in 2 bytes (16 bits, 12 to 14 used)</i><p>

Actually, most* RAW images are a single grayscale image, with each 'pixel' having been filtered R, G, or B. Even without compression, that's how a 12-14-16-bit RAW file is smaller than the resulting RGB file.<p>

* The exception being Foveon-style raw files.

In Photoshop itself (don't know about Elements), you can merge existing layers--either all of them or just the visible ones--into a new layer.

Additionally, in CS3, you can apply many filters, including sharpening, as equivalents to adjustment layers ("smart filters").

Ellis Vener wrote: <i>There is no suckh thing as a perfect shape t oa histogram --that's dependent on the content of the individual photograph</i><p>

Worth repeating.<p>

I've got a simple histogram '<a href="http://www.kevinconnery.com/classes/histogram/index.htm">quiz</a>' I use in class.

Take a look at <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/studiolighting/">this photo.net article</a> on choosing studio lights. It'll help you narrow down some of your questions.<p>

With a $500 budget, you're going to have to make some serious compromises between the various "features": power, reliability, recycle times, duty cycles, etc.

From my perspective, the biggest advantages are:

1. More channels. Since I often shoot in a school environment (photo school), being able to avoid the bottleneck helps.

2. Subchannels/zones. I can turn on/off up to 4 lights independently of each other from the PW on the camera. (Well, only 3 for me right now, but that's because I need another MMax.) Saves time in metering, and lets me decide to disable a light on-the-fly if something changes.

There's tons of other stuff, but I've never used most of it. I did use the multiple cameras + multiple flash setup twice, where one camera triggered another one *and the lights* at the same time; that gave me two angles on scenes for one series, and let me record the shoot itself on one other occasion, but it's not something I'd miss if it weren't there.

Rear-curtain sync if your camera doesn't support it? Or middle-sync, if you really wanted.

But it's mostly just the two items: channels and zones.

deWolfe gives away his opinion with: "<i>Photoshop is a <b>necessary evil</b> in the photographer?s arsenal of tools today</i>". He doesn't see it as a tool to be used or misused; he sees it--or at least labels it--as inherently evil.<p>

<b>Ellis Vener</b> wrote: "<i>I think the photoshoppedto hell (And not back) look is a trend that will pass.</i>"<p>

I hope so, but recent walk-throughs of some portrait photography conferences shows the trend increasing rather than decreasing. Yes, there's a lot of excellent photography that was either enhanced invisibly with postproduction or unretouched, and a lot that was truly enhanced by the finishing work, but the largest block of award winning images had retouching which a blind person should have seen: eyes and brighter than any specular highlight; skin (and edges) which were entirely artificial and didn't match the rest of the image, composites with mismatched perspectives, colors, and lighting, etc.<p>

<b>Michael McBlane</b> wrote: "<i>My comments were that with the this new "tool" that the work didn't seem to get better but instead got lazy and worse.</i><p>

In the mid 1980's, there was a surge of badly composed newsletters--multiple typefaces in multiple sizes, styles, and colors, bizarre layouts, etc--all because the technology had advanced enough to permit home editors the opportunity to assemble a newsletter. Previously, experience had been almost required before you could get to the position where doing that was possible, but the "lower cost of entry" enabled people to do...interesting...things.<p>

Just like YouTube today for video.<p>

deWolfe is blaming a tool for how people are using it; and for how people who are constantly being asked about it respond to those questions. Are there snake oil salesmen? Sure there are--just as there are such for camera brands and features (e.g. full frame==good vs full frame==unnecessary; CMOS vs CCD). It doesn't make the tool responsible.<p>

<b>Don E.</b> wrote: "<i>A shame Palma and Avedon couldn't download a "dragan" action to complete the effect.</i>"<p>

Overuse of technique is also nothing new. Split-toning of images where it was detrimental to the image; the insistence on a full 9-10 zones of information in a print when it wasn't useful; motion-blur for the sake of motion blur; bleaching prints to create catchlights; pencilling negatives to smooth skin...the list goes on, and started more than a century ago.<p>

<b>john kelly wrote:</b>"<i>Photoshop warrents occasional editorial comment, but it's not central to photography. </i>"

That might depend on which genre of photography, and the requirements surrounding it. Certain kinds of commercial work become practical via digital postproduction which hadn't been practical before, expanding the market (c.f. George deWolfe's original references to George Lucas and CGI). Technology serves to limit options. Sometimes that induces artistic results to work around those limits; sometimes it reduces artistic results as a direct result of those limits.<p>

Howard points out, in his blog article, that tips and tricks are heavily promoted--it's very true. But that's true for most other fields where a deep understanding is slow to come by, and <i>some</i> quick fixes can look like (or actually lead to) a big improvement in quality (for whatever definition of quality is used).<p>

As Stephen, Dave, and Pico all note, it's almost certainly a JPEG artifact. The algorithm used for JPEG breaks the image into 8x8 blocks, and each block is compressed. The areas between blocks are where the largest artifacts are likely to appear, and are much exacerbated by sharpening.

If you have the option, use Unsharp Masking with a 2-4 Threshold setting; that removes the small differences from the sharpening calculations, and will reduce the effects of sharpening-JPEG compression-more sharpening.

Better still is to avoid the pre-sharpening (turn it off in camera), and JPEG use, if/when you know you'll be making large extrapolated images. Often it won't matter, but it can occasionally cause more visible problems for some subjects than what you've shown.

CTO: Color Temperature Orange or Convert Temperature Orange. It converts 5400K light to 3400K. A Half-CTO is...half as strong, and a quarter-CTO is half of that.

I used to always keep a half-CTO gel taped to my flash, when most sites used tungsten. Now, with flourescents and other mixes, it's not as safe, but still worth considering.

BTW, I rarely used a full conversion; leaving the background a little bit warm was fine, while having it orange generally was excessive.

Ed Green wrote:

<ul><i>And please: whatever you do to get to the negative is processing, not post processing. <b>Nor is dodging and burning a print </b>(when D&B is even done)<b> ``"post procesing``.</b></i></ul>

No? That's an interesting claim. Does anyone else agree, or is it your unique definition?

Tim was quite helpful to me on another forum, and he'll probably answer soon.<p>

In the meantime, check out

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.backgroundsbymaheu.com/"><strong>Backgrounds by David Maheu</strong></a> Elegantly hand-painted muslins. I seem to recall Tim mentioning them, though I don't know if he uses them.

<li><a href="http://www.photoshowcasebackgrounds.com/"><strong>Photo Showcase</strong></a> - Elegant backgrounds by Rick and Terry Larson (Beautiful work)

<li><strong><a href="http://www.skyhighbackgrounds.com">Sky High Background</a></strong> Most famous for their vivid tie-dyed muslins, they also make a variety of more conservative ones.

</ul>

Realize that a lot of the impact comes from how those backdrops are used and lit.

<ul><i>I think this is a very mean statement [if you can't afford it, don't buy it.] So, if the gase price is $20/gallon and if I can't afford it, then I have to quit my job and stay home or walk to work? Be reasonable would you?</i> (Kelvin Phan)</ul>

If you can't buy a Rolls-Royce, you don't steal it, do you? I'm not going to discuss music, software, or video theft, but in The Real World, when something isn't affordable, it's not bought--most folks won't steal something just because they can't afford it.<p>

("Gee, the 39 megapixel back costs waaaay too much money. I think I'll steal one instead of getting a less expensive camera")<p>

That said, the business model for retail photographers (wedding, portraits, families, etc.) <i>used</i> to be a very low up-front cost, often below the actual out-of-pocket expenses, and high reprint prices. That was the standard for around 50 years.<p>

Commercial photographers used another approach: most charges were for the expertise/creativity and usage, and prints were at a slight markup. With the advent of trivial scanning, this model is becoming normal for retail as well, since so many consumers don't seem to care about violating copyright laws or bypassing the photographers.<p>

That means that there'll be less benefit from stealing photos--a well-printed original won't cost much more than a copy--but the up-front costs of hiring a photographer will go up. Right now, we're in transition: some photographers loss-lead the sitting fee, and <b>try</b> to make it up in print sales, while others use the commercial model.

<ul><i>Regarding 15-bits of image and 1-bit of noise - please tell us more in support of your "1-bit of noise" comment.<br>

[...]<br>

Where is your comment coming from?</i> (Peter Blaise Monohan)</ul>

It's been discussed for years by many of the Adobe folks on various sites, from <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2005/10/photoshop_in_th.html">John Nack</a>, Senior Product Manager of Photoshop to <a href="http://www.24help.info/adobe-photoshop/295471-16-bit-mode-6.html?pp=10">Chris Cox</a> (Photoshop developer since 1996), and various non-Adobe people (<a href="http://www.ukonehome.com/CS-16-bit-channels-are-really-15-bit-759343.html">Jeff Schewe</a>, <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/16_bit_black_and_white.html">Keith Cooper</a>, Andrew Rodney, et al.)<p>

Essentially, in the earlier versions, 16-bit was handled as a signed value--data ranging from -32767 to 32768, only used the positive values (0-32768 [or so]). Supposedly--I haven't tested it--in CS2, 16-bit uses a <i>unsigned</i> 16-bit word rather than <i>signed</i>.<p>

<ul><i>Correct. As your tests have shown, if the original data is in 8bit, the only benefit of converting to 16bit would be for editing (involving significant changes in dynamic range).</i> (Karl Martin)</ul>

Or black and white, where converting to 16-bit before converting to B/W can help avoid banding after edits which wouldn't cause any visible issues in a color file.<p>

<b>Andrew</b>: Can you verify that CS2 is "full" 16-bit?

Oops. Minor correction. 'Native' 16 bit for Photoshop before CS2 was a 16-bit file, but with 15 bits of precision. CS2 supposedly--but I haven't tested it--16-bit precision.<p>

The <i>conversion</i> from 8 to 16 adds noise.

<ul><i>Never did I imagine that I would be taking 6700 pictures so far with my Sony. So, what is the average number of pictures a camera takes before it says, please bury me, I can't do this anymore?</i> (Debbie T)</ul>

Overall camera life is variable. Shutter life is just one factor, but for the higher-end cameras, that's pretty substantial: Canon expects 100,000 for the 30D before the shutter will need to be replaced, and their 1D Mark II is 200,000 activations.<p>

Other components are less easily quantified, alas.

<ul><i>Some conversion programs have batch capability, but I have always found that curious. If you are going to automate the conversion process, why not let the camera do it and be able to store more photos on the media card itself? To me, the raw process seems like something I wouldn't want to batch since it is all about individualized fine control. But then, I've not worked digitally in a high volume professional oriented workflow, I may be missing important points on that one.</i> (Glen Barrington)</ul>

Proofing. Run a batch conversion, show the proofs, then edit the ones you want manually.<p>

Semi-batching, where you set the parameters for an image--or series of images--then convert using those parameters. If you notice, for example, that one or two shots are darker because the flash wasn't fully recharged, you can set them to be brighter, then run a batch on the whole set.<p>

There's others, but those are the most common ones I've run across.

Some cameras (I don't know about the D70) have the ability to record both the raw AND the jpg image on the media card. Though that does use up much more space on your media cards for each photo. But if your camera has the ability to do that, it may be useful to shoot a few jobs that way and experiment to see if your way of working will lend itself to an all raw workflow. This way, you would have the jpgs available to fall back on if you needed them or got caught in a time crunch.

<ul><i>I am defending what to some is an outrageous proposal, one you would not have dared make, in that you don?t have the major cajones to defend it.</i></ul>

I agree; I <b>wouldn't</b> have made such an "<i>outrageous proposal</i>". Not because I "<i>don?t have the major cajones to defend it</i>", but because I know that trying to defend something as <i>outrageous</i> as 1+1=3.14159^2 is kind of silly.<p>

I guess ignorance <b>IS</b> bliss.

Ed, your 'epiphany' is flawed. Seriously flawed. Defective. Busted. Impractical using modern technology--and I'm not even talking about electronics, but just the optic part. (The other aspects are also flawed, but I'll deal with just this issue to keep it simple.)<p>

<ul><i>Nor are there any lens specs on which you can hang your specious claims while trying to disprove what doesn?t exist (The ``Wundercaera``? It doesn`t exist).</i> (EG)</ul>

A camera with a sensor the size you want--645--will need a lens that is huge, compared to the teeny floozy 6-72mm lens. The 500mm f/4.5 example cited by Niels de Boissezon demonstrates that. That lens--not a zoom, and more than a stop slower than your stated 'wundercam' weighs 12 pounds--no zoom, slower lens, no electronics at all: the lens alone is 12 pounds.<p>

Unless you're postulating a lens that doesn't use <b>any known technology</b>--not an extention or outgrowth of the existing tech, but some <b>entirely</b> new technology--your <i>wundercam</i> not only doesn't exist, it <b>cannot</b> exist.<p>

That's why you've been getting flak: you do not seem to understand physics <b>or</b> optics.<p>

The lens on your beloved floozy works <b>within</b> the confines of known technology; there was <b>nothing</b> "new" about it from a technological perspective. The lens you want does not.<p>

<ul><i>As for ?Attack?: defending one?s proposals is the norm in academic exercises, as you certainly must know this is/was?</i> (EG)</ul>

There's a few key differences.

<ul><li>Academic exercises are based on known art and trends; you're ignoring both. <li>Academic exercises use relevant examples: you're not.<li>Academic exercises for hypotheticals use relevent analogues: what you're doing is akin to defending a Porsche as a transportation media using rubber-soled shoes.</ul>

As noted, you've failed to do any of the critical aspects of an 'academic defense'.<p>

<ul><b>And as pointed out, a zoom lens like one on your precious FZ20 scaled up for medium format coverage would be gigantic. I'm thinking something the size of a 5 gallon drum.</b> (AR)<p>

<i>An exaggeration you should know better than make.</i> (EG)</ul>

A 5 gallon drum would NOT be large enough. That's not an exaggeration, it's an understatement. But it comes from thinking about <b>glass</b>, <b>optical plastics</b>, <b>manufacturing</b>, <b>optics</b>, and the bloody definition of <i>f/</i>stop--something you've not shown any willingness to do. <p>

<ul><i>Granted, some upper end models might approach Canon XL broadcast cameras in size but even they (XL cameras) aren?t near the ``monster`` proportions you and others ludicrously propose as the dimensions for my ``Wundermcamera``*.<p>

*Because you think inside the box, as do a lot of the others.</i> (EG)</ul>

No, Ed. It's because they're <b>THINKING</b>, something you don't seem to want to do.<p>

Instead of droning on about "thinking outside the box", you might want to consider the technology inside the box--XL, XL2, XL-H1, FL20--and <b>think</b>. You might be disillusioned, but you'll at least stop lying to yourself and others.<p>

The reason those cameras and lenses can be that size is because their sensors are very small. Read that sentence again. Slowly. The reason the cameras can be that small is because their sensors are tiny. The XL-H1 has a sensor that's 1/3 inch on the diagonal and a resolution of around a 1.2 megapixels; the standard lens is 5.4mm-72mm--the same maximum as your floozy has.<p>

Once again, in case you missed it: the lens can be small <b>IF</b> the sensor is small. A large sensor <b>requires</b> a larger lens for the same angle of view.<p>

You've repeatedly claimed a 645 sensor. That's over 100 times in area as the sensors in the cameras you're comparing--as useful as comparing the size of a scale model RC airplane with a 747 and getting upset when people tell you the RC plane isn't big enough to transport full-sized people.<p>

Until you recognize that <b>fact</b>--Not opinion, not 'thinking inside the box': fact--any further discussion about it on your part is ridiculous--"<i>worthy of ridicule</i>".

Cars and Vehicles<p>

Landscapes<p>

Mark B Bartosik wrote "<i>If something is boring for one usually one has no knowledge or understanding of it.</i>", yet that's not entirely it. One can find something utterly boring, even with a vast knowledge of it.<p>

I'm fascinated by people: faces more than anything else, but people as a whole are far more interesting to me <i>in general</i> than most other genre.<p>

So I don't spend time in galleries where landscapes are emphasised, or macro shots of flowers, or insects, or....and I do spend time looking at people, both in real life and in photographs. In PNet terms, portraits, fashion, children, wedding and social, and nudes.<p>

Not surprisingly, that's also what I tend to photograph most.

I'm with Allan and Ellis.<p>

<i>Light: Science and Magic</i> for the technique and physical aspects, <i>Matters of Light and Depth</i> for the emotional, compositional, and some technical issues.<p>

Those two books are the ones I recommend--almost always as a set--to people who want to learn about lighting.

<ul>I have no idea why someone would think you can stick a 645 size sensor in a FZ body that weighs 1.5 kilos! (js bc)

<p>

<i>Of course the production weight is/was an approximation. but why not? My FZ20 only weighs 22 ounces with the adapter and lens hood attached. (EG)</i></ul>

The FZ20 has a sensor that's 5.76 x 4.29 mm. That's a <b>major</b> factor permitting the size to be what it is. That lens can have a much lower focal length (as demonstrated: 6-72mm) with a much smaller image circle.<p>

<ul>You don't mean that the 6-72mm lens designed to cover a 5.75mm x 4.3mm sensor wouldn't work on a 60mm x 45mm sensor? (KC)<p>

<i>Putting up specious (phantom) figures, positing numbers I never used, all the while trying to reach an even more misleading conclusion?</i> (EG)</ul>

Ed, those numbers are from the manufacturer; if you don't like them, tell Panasonic and/or Leica. The focal length of the lens is listed on the lens itself--6-72mm; the the sensor is for the FZ20 is 5.75mm x 4.3mm. <p>

<ul><i>Already acknowledged the sensor would be larger. What?s your point</i> (EG]</ul>

The point is that the sensor you're fantasizing about is ten times as large linearly, and <b>100 times as large</b> in area. The lens would need to be larger as well. If we go with your f/2.8 example, and maintain your oft-stated focal-length range (the angle of view a 35mm camera would give with a 36mm to 432mm lens), your larger sensor would <b>require</b> a lens of approximately the size I stated: 60-690mm. That gives a huge chunk of glass--10 inches or more in diameter.<p>

<ul><i>``Hmmm, I notice by your absurd guesses you`ve never even seen an FZ20-``humm``? </i> (EG)</ul>

Actually, I've shot with one. It's a nice little camera.<p>

That doesn't contradict anythng I've said, nor does it support any of your claims for your <i>wundercam</i>. Nor is it pertinent, but since you asked so politely, I figured I'd humor you this time.<p>

<ul>No ``entrance pupil`` on it for starters.</i> (EG) </ul>

Do you know <i>anything</i> about optics other than as a user of lenses? <b>All</b> physical lenses have an "entrance pupil".<p>David Johnson has a <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial">nice introduction to camera optics</a> here on photo.net. You might find it useful to avoid making nonsensical predictions.<p>

<ul>The same angle of view coverage on a 645 sized sensor (very roughly 60-690mm) with f/2.8 aperture would require an entrance pupil of around 245mm--nearly 10 inches. (KC)<p>

<i>Who does your math? (EG)</i><p>

<i>And even I know your ersatz math computations are suspicious. (EG)</i></ul>

Mock it if you will; the physics don't care what you <i>believe</i>.<p>

<ul><i>Next you (or someone) will say the Leica f/2.8 6-72 (36-432mm) lens isn`t ``really`` 6-72 (or a Leica), but a ``fudge`` of some kind and that the f/2.8 isn`t really a ``true`` f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. We FZ20 owners are accustomed to such derision.</i> (EG)</ul>

Specious strawman argument and <i>ad hominem</i> attack, Ed. The physical characteristics of the lens are what they are: 6-72mm (which even you admit now, after dozens of posts where you claimed it to be something else). Nobody has questioned the manufacturer. <p>

<ul><i>Check out the Brooklyn Bridge shot.</i> (EG)</ul>

If you expect someone to be able to discern anything about lens quality from a 360x480 pixel sample, it helps explain your stance.<p>

While Edward Ingold used a different baseline for 'normal', his example is essentially identical to mine: the lens required for your 645 <i>wundercam</i> will be HUGE. How much would a 10-11 inch diameter lens weigh, even if it were physically possible to make it as short as the one in your beloved floozy?<p>

<b>ED:</b> Before you mock "theory", you might find it useful to learn something--<i>anything</i> about lens design and/or sensor design and/or image processing. Postulating improvements is fine; trying to defend wild guesses on the basis of bad physics and bad electronics is...silly. You can call it "thinking outside the box" if you want, but predicting without <b>any</b> understanding of physics, optics, or electronics isn't something I'd call "thinking".

<p>

<ul>I have no idea why someone would think you can stick a 645 size sensor in a FZ body that weighs 1.5 kilos!</i> (js bc)</ul>

You don't mean that the 6-72mm lens designed to cover a 5.75mm x 4.3mm sensor wouldn't work on a 60mm x 45mm sensor? That it might have to be a little bit larger?<p>

A 6-72mm lens f/2.8, as on the Panasonic FZ7 (Ed's choice) needs a maximum physical aperture diameter ("entrance pupil") of around 25mm--roughly 1 inch. The same angle of view coverage on a 645 sized sensor (very roughly 60-690mm) with f/2.8 aperture would require an entrance pupil of around 245mm--nearly 10 inches. Even assuming that ten inches were the actual maximum diameter of the lens (not correct--it'd have to be larger), it'd clearly be, as the original post notes, a "<i>huge lens system</i>". How that's going to be created at under 1.5 kg is a puzzle to me, as long as we're using "optical lenses" (Holga fans, anyone?); energy-field focusing might permit this, but that's not something we have available even in laboratory settings.<p>

But why let physics get in the way of dreams?