mark_hanegraaff

<p>These guys are onto something...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_netpix_service_sends_unlimited?utm_source=a-section">New Netpix Service Sends Unlimited Photographs For Monthly Fee</a></p>

<h2 ><br /></h2>

<p>Yes, there are certainly genetic advantages that make the playing field uneven. People's IQ and inherent artistic vision can vary greatly from person to person. However:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...and no matter how hard some work, some folks don't have it and never will."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a self defeating statement. I believe that If anything, physical characteristics may preclude greatness on some level (I doubt you can't be a 4'11'' NFL line backer, nor can you be Nobel laureate with an IQ of 80), but anything else is fair game. As irrational as it sounds, the very lack or a "reality check" may be part of what allows some to achieve a degree greatness. By the way, when I talk about hard work, I'm really talking about a highly structured, near-obsessive dedication to one's goals; not just the 'hard work' we all do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"After I read through this thread, I went back and looked at the photos made by the people who discount natural ability as playing a big role in how one's stacks up as a photographer. Let's just say I had suspicions and they were correct in nearly 100% of the pairings."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This proves nothing other than those (we) are not trying hard enough. Did you correlate those results with those who gave weight to natural ability?</p>

<p>I think that as soon you even acknowledge that there is such thing as natural ability, then it become easy to blame any failures on your lack thereof, thus making it very hard to improve.<br /> Michelangelo summed it up nicely when he said: "If people only knew how hard I worked to gain my mastery, it wouldn't seem so wonderful at all".<br /> So yeah, if you ask me results are pretty much a matter hard work and rigor.</p>

<p>Diana, please don't take offense to what I am going to say, but your biggest mistake was to post this question in the first place. In fact a Google search of "Diana Ledo" will yield your photo.net home page as its first result. This post is literally one click away from that. It's possible your client is already aware of this thread.<br /> <br /> As far as the pictures go, I really can't add more than what's already been said. I think the posed shots are fine, but the candid ones are basically just snapshots. Overall this is a below average album.<br /> <br /> Does this warrant a refund? I don't know, but if this is what I got for $2300 I would be pretty upset too.</p>

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I would imagine the power penalty of converting from from raw to jpg in camera and then saving the smaller jpeg would be greater than just saving a raw image.

If you are going for maximum sky darkness, and the final image is in black and white then there is still value in attaching a red filter in addition to the polarizer on a digital camera. individual channels are pretty noisy, so I think you would get better results by attaching a red filter and then desaturating the final image, as opposed to just scrapping the green and blue channels.

Juan,<br>

Thanks for the link. I am a big fan of increased dynamic range when applied correctly (i.e. when you cannot tell). Lack of dynamic range has always been an inherent limitation of the medium, not a feature, so I think this technology is here to stay. It will just become more transparent to user. I would have to disagree with those who think HDR its a fad.

<br><br>

What I really like about this software is its focus blending feature and the potential it has with macro photography.

Hey Hannah,<br>

If you are interested in shooting starscapes I posted a thread a while back that shows you one way to extract stars with PS while leaving most of the noise behind. Hope this helps.<br><br>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Mwnp>starscapes</a>

Hey Gary,<br>

I don't believe any construction has started there yet. Astroland should open again for its final year starting Sunday.<p>

As far as being in the area at around that time, I would definitively not recommend that, especially if you're carrying any equipment. Coney Island is a pretty rough neighborhood.<p>

If you are looking safer places at night, I would go for Dumbo, Brooklyn Heights, even Red Hook, although that's pushing it. I have some night shots of those areas in my folder, if you are interested in seeing what's out there.

What a hilarious series.

<i>"If I set my camera and photo editor color spaces to SRGB it would eliminate the color space conversions. It would also prevent a "user error point" (forgetting to convert to SRGB for printing).</i>

<br><br>

Jay, I'm not sure if you were implying this, but setting in camera space to AdobeRGB or sRGB only affects images saved directly as Jpegs as well as the image preview on the screen. It won't make any difference to your RAW files.

If I'm not mistaken, RAW files have color spaces which are specific to the camera's capture characteristics. They are not traditional color spaces like AdobeRGB or sRGB.<br><br>

Since color spaces are defined by gamut, and gamuts are bound by the characteristics of their primaries, it would make sense to conclude that a camera's color space is tied to the characteristics of its primaries.<br><br>

Don't quote me on this. This is probably a very simplistic explanation, and I would be curious to hear what others have to say.<br><br>

There is an interesting discussion here:<br>

<a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22471">http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22471</a><br><br>

Check out Andrew Rodney's comments towards the end of the thread.

Csaba,<br>

It sounds to me as you as if just assigning a new color space rather than converting it. There is a difference.<br>

When you convert to a new color space, you are actually changing the image data to match what your original image would have looked like using your original color space. Assigning a new color space only tells your color managed applications to interpret the image data differently. That's why they look different.

<p>If you are converting from Adobe RGB to sRGB you should notice no difference whatsoever. It sounds like you are just assigning it a the new profile, which would cause the colors in your image to not be

interpreted correctly.

<p>To answer your question though, it is Ok as long as everyone is using a color managed browser. Most people don't though. One of the advantages of sRGB is that it tries to be somewhat neutral, so it will look largely the same when viewed from both a color managed application and one that isn't.

Bill, thanks. That actually makes sense.

Just to clarify though, I don't disagree with any of the statements regarding color space conversion and gamut clipping. That's a known "feature" of color management. No arguments there.

<p>This is an excellent thread, and I wish there were more of these, but I'm not sure I follow the argument made by the OP. Bit depth should not have any effect on gamut. All bit depth defines is the number of total sample points across any given color space. RAW images, as far as I understand, do not have any more dynamic range than Jpegs do, just more granularity.

<p>Actual dymanic range at the capture level is function of photosite well depth and has nothing to do with the bit depth resulting from the A/D conversion.

<p>I suspect that the reason you see so much clipping on the last histogram (minimal compression Jpeg), is due to the level of compression, which is probably flattening all near 0 values to solid black.

<p>Am I missing something?

I think Ray's clause on availability makes sense, because it covers things which are outside the photographer's control. "Scheduling conflicts" on the other sound a lot like double booking. A family emergency and a schedule conflict are very different things.

<p>"They want that "scheduling conflict" part out too!"

 

<p>I completely agree with John. If I told my employer that I'll send a replacement to work in case I'm busy, I'd be fired on the spot. There should be no reason for scheduling conflicts, unless you decide to take another gig that day, which would not be very ethical. I know I would not sign that.

"<i>Having to write the word every no more than ten photos rated is a nuisance</i>"<br>

"<i>This will keep me from rapidly rating the pictures</i>"<br>

I think that's the whole idea. The advantages of this system is that it almost completely obliterates bogus ratings, and it forces raters to look at a picture for more than a second before clicking away. If you ask me this is a win win situation for everyone.

I'm a patient man ;) Besides, the photo reordering feature will keep me entertained for quite a while. That was a nice touch.

Just do what PhotoSig does. You critique, you get points you can spend uploading pictures. If your critiques are useful, other members can award you bonus points. If your critiques are just a one line praise, other members will penalize you by taking points away.<br><br>On average you will get 2-4 useful critiques per post, but you will be forced to do the same before getting enough points to post a picture.

<i>I don't want you to move into my neighborhood." "I don't want you sitting next to me on the bus." "I don't want you teaching my kids.</i><br><br>

Comparing photographer rights to the civil rights movement? This guys is joking, right?

It's only OK if they yell "Baba Booey! Baba Booey!"

I was really that this trick was just exaggerating the noise generated by the sensor, but I was glad to find out that it was not the case...<br><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6543328">comparison with stellarium</a>