Re: PhotoSlop Compared to 4 Different Editors
Alan Browne
> I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
> testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
> people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying to
> remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
>
>
> "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2775/4337905568_55c1e9cfa6_o.jpg
>
> Isn't this fun? :-)
Pointless is more like it.
IAC - wherever such charts are presented with the same overall pattern,
nobody else seems to object to the PS Granger at all. Indeed depending
on profile it seems just as useful at finding gamut/paper profile
mismatches as a more 'linear' looking Granger.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
Too Funny
I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying to
remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
"Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4337946696_8ef5e104ff_o.jpg
Lon
> I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
> testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
> people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying to
> remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
>
>
> "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
>
>
> Isn't this fun? :-)
Says unavailable. Just for grins, how does GIMP do?
Too Funny
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 10-02-07 10:52 , Too Funny wrote:
>> I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
>> testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
>> people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying to
>> remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
>>
>>
>> "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4337946696_8ef5e104ff_o.jpg
>>[URL corrected]
>>
>> Isn't this fun? :-)
>
>Pointless is more like it.
>
>IAC - wherever such charts are presented with the same overall pattern,
>nobody else seems to object to the PS Granger at all. Indeed depending
>on profile it seems just as useful at finding gamut/paper profile
>mismatches as a more 'linear' looking Granger.
Sure it does! With all those missing ranges of hues in the PhotoSlop chart,
all the colors compressed into nothingness in other areas. I'm sure you can
spot a difference in a location in the PhotoSlop chart where that color
doesn't even exist. You're a color-psychic, right?
You're not too adept at color-profiling a computer system, are you. Like
all trolls online who have never done any of this, you're just pretending
to know what you are talking about. Go educate yourself.
Too Funny
Had a minor typo in the text in the original. Had to upload a corrected
version.
Here's the corrected URL
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4337946696_8ef5e104ff_o.jpg
Didn't try GIMP, don't have it presently installed on this machine, but
wish I had. It would been another good one to add to the chart. I have no
doubts it would match the rest of the world that all see the same blue sky.
You know, unlike PhotoSlop off on its own planet. :-)
Robert Spanjaard
You can add this one I just created with GIMP. GIMP doesn't have
"Luminance" in its layer mixers, but applying "Hard Light" to the second
gradient seems to produce the same effect.
http://www.arumes.com/temp/GrangerChart.jpg
I also don't understand why the Luminance Landscape author says that the
background color must be white. The background will be gone after applying
the rainbow gradient anyway.
Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say if
the error really is created by PS instead of the original author. I've
seen more stupid errors from LL before.
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Alan Browne
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:07:01 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 10-02-07 10:52 , Too Funny wrote:
>>> I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
>>> testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
>>> people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying to
>>> remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
>>>
>>>
>>> "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
>>>
>>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4337946696_8ef5e104ff_o.jpg
>>> [URL corrected]
>>>
>>> Isn't this fun? :-)
>>
>> Pointless is more like it.
>>
>> IAC - wherever such charts are presented with the same overall pattern,
>> nobody else seems to object to the PS Granger at all. Indeed depending
>> on profile it seems just as useful at finding gamut/paper profile
>> mismatches as a more 'linear' looking Granger.
>
> Sure it does! With all those missing ranges of hues in the PhotoSlop chart,
> all the colors compressed into nothingness in other areas. I'm sure you can
> spot a difference in a location in the PhotoSlop chart where that color
> doesn't even exist. You're a color-psychic, right?
I don't think you're looking at those charts with the right approach.
But then that's your problem, not mine.
>
> You're not too adept at color-profiling a computer system, are you. Like
> all trolls online who have never done any of this, you're just pretending
> to know what you are talking about.
My system is calibrated and profiled and I use the paper profiles for
the few papers I use. The results are in the prints which are never
blocked up, nicely saturated colors and clean, crisp contrasts. The
only issue I have there is sometime with tones being a bit 'greyer' than
I'd like, but that is easily remedied.
B&W on a printer is an area where I have no real experience to date. A
book I acquired last year has a good section on that. To be explored.
> Go educate yourself.
Continuously. I'd suggest the same to you, esp. social skills.
Too Funny
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:09:40 -0600, Too Funny wrote:
>
>> [corrected URL]
>>
>> I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
>> testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
>> people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying
>> to remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
>>
>>
>> "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4337946696_8ef5e104ff_o.jpg
>>
>> Isn't this fun? :-)
>
>You can add this one I just created with GIMP. GIMP doesn't have
>"Luminance" in its layer mixers, but applying "Hard Light" to the second
>gradient seems to produce the same effect.
>
>http://www.arumes.com/temp/GrangerChart.jpg
Thanks.
Yes, I had to use that same "Hard Light" layer-blend option in one of the
editors, I think it was in PhotoImpact. And another even more inexpensive
and obscure editor worked the same (PhotoScape? or something like that),
but the chart looked a little too different from the others to include it,
it was using some "Legacy Hard Light" method or something that clipped all
the blacks and lights. But even then the colors in that program, like
yours, were a nice even spread without all those horrendous hills and
valleys of the PhotoSlop one.
>
>I also don't understand why the Luminance Landscape author says that the
>background color must be white. The background will be gone after applying
>the rainbow gradient anyway.
Not sure why. It could depend on if they have their system set to create
layers with a default transparency? Perhaps an easier way to circumvent
other settings. In either case, that's not even 1/10th his problem. :-)
>
>Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say if
>the error really is created by PS instead of the original author. I've
>seen more stupid errors from LL before.
When I spotted the difference on that page I got curious. That's why I
created that PhotoSlop Granger Chart on the comparison list I posted using
my own copy of PhotoSlop to see if he made any errors. He did not. I even
tried changing the system color profiles in PhotoSlop. I changed the
"rainbow gradient" to the true colors that they should be (they are way off
in PhotoSlop). They should be, from left to right, in 100% saturations:
Red, Magenta, Blue, Cyan, Green, Yellow, Red
At spacing increments of
0%, 16%, 33% 50%, 66%, 83%, 100%
Or if using hue-rotation degrees, then:
0, 60, 120, 180, 240, 300, 360
PhotoSlop's default "rainbow" gradient was all over the map in colors and
spacing. Further adding to any PhotoSlop user's nightmare when using this
method without correcting the gradient first. When I corrected PhotoSlop's
gradient even that didn't help. It resulted in a similar mess as what you
see in the above chart.
Alan Browne
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:09:40 -0600, Too Funny wrote:
>
>> [corrected URL]
>>
>> I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
>> testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
>> people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying
>> to remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
>>
>>
>> "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4337946696_8ef5e104ff_o.jpg
>>
>> Isn't this fun? :-)
>
> You can add this one I just created with GIMP. GIMP doesn't have
> "Luminance" in its layer mixers, but applying "Hard Light" to the second
> gradient seems to produce the same effect.
>
> http://www.arumes.com/temp/GrangerChart.jpg
>
> I also don't understand why the Luminance Landscape author says that the
> background color must be white. The background will be gone after applying
> the rainbow gradient anyway.
Agreed. Has no effect.
> Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say if
> the error really is created by PS instead of the original author. I've
> seen more stupid errors from LL before.
I get the same effect as on the LL page.
I tried the LL instructions in CS3 with various color settings, paper
profile settings (in simulate paper mode), etc. and I always get the
same general pattern at different tone levels.
What "error"? As long as the end result is correct, who cares how the G
chart looks? It's real purpose is to find dead or blocked areas, not to
create a linear look.
Too Funny
How can you find dead or blocked areas that don't exist on the PhotoSlop
Granger Chart?
[now waiting for that cartoonist's light-bulb to get drawn in above your
head]
Robert Spanjaard
>> Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say
>> if the error really is created by PS instead of the original author.
>> I've seen more stupid errors from LL before.
>
> I get the same effect as on the LL page.
>
> I tried the LL instructions in CS3 with various color settings, paper
> profile settings (in simulate paper mode), etc. and I always get the
> same general pattern at different tone levels.
>
> What "error"? As long as the end result is correct,
But is it? It this chart the correct result of combining two simple
gradient layers? Does that mean that the error is in _all_ the other
editors?
> who cares how the G chart looks? It's real purpose is to find dead or
> blocked areas, not to create a linear look.
That is the purpose of the Granger chart, and ofcourse I don't care how
that chart looks at all. But if I was a PS user, I'd be very worried about
the way PS combines two simple layers. That _does_ affect the end result.
Alan Browne
Change color settings and profiles and you will definitely see blocked
up areas.
How's the balloon above your head?
Robert Spanjaard
>>Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say
>>if the error really is created by PS instead of the original author.
>>I've seen more stupid errors from LL before.
>
> When I spotted the difference on that page I got curious. That's why I
> created that PhotoSlop Granger Chart on the comparison list I posted
> using my own copy of PhotoSlop to see if he made any errors. He did not.
> I even tried changing the system color profiles in PhotoSlop. I changed
> the "rainbow gradient" to the true colors that they should be (they are
> way off in PhotoSlop). They should be, from left to right, in 100%
> saturations:
>
> [...]
Havve you tried other blending modes in PS? Perhaps this is just the way
their Luminance blend is supposed to work.
If I convert my own chart to grayscale based on luminosity, I don't get an
even black to white gradient (which I do get with a Lightness grayscale).
So apparently a luminosity blend is different from a hard light blend. But
if I convert the PS version to grayscale based on luminosity, I also don't
get a correct black to white gradient.
Alan Browne
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:00:23 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say
>>> if the error really is created by PS instead of the original author.
>>> I've seen more stupid errors from LL before.
>>
>> I get the same effect as on the LL page.
>>
>> I tried the LL instructions in CS3 with various color settings, paper
>> profile settings (in simulate paper mode), etc. and I always get the
>> same general pattern at different tone levels.
>>
>> What "error"? As long as the end result is correct,
>
> But is it? It this chart the correct result of combining two simple
> gradient layers? Does that mean that the error is in _all_ the other
> editors?
I've been thinking exactly the same thing. But then the simple truth
comes up: people have been printing WYSIWYG (close enough) from PS (and
the others long enough that the odd looking output of PS with those two
functions does not seem to matter very much. Or much. Or at all.
>> who cares how the G chart looks? It's real purpose is to find dead or
>> blocked areas, not to create a linear look.
>
> That is the purpose of the Granger chart, and ofcourse I don't care how
> that chart looks at all. But if I was a PS user, I'd be very worried about
> the way PS combines two simple layers. That _does_ affect the end result.
It is strange, to be sure. But not so much as a color issue as a layer
tool issue. I don't use layers much with gradients however.
I looked at the linearity of the B/W and spectrum gradients, and they
seem to be straight. So in mixing they should band straight in the
vertical. The diagonals are puzzling.
Alan Browne
I've posted a question on this in the photoshop NG's. Perhaps someone
there can explain why it occurs.
Too Funny
wrote:
>
>You can add this one I just created with GIMP. GIMP doesn't have
>"Luminance" in its layer mixers, but applying "Hard Light" to the second
>gradient seems to produce the same effect.
>
>http://www.arumes.com/temp/GrangerChart.jpg
I added yours to the comparison chart. Thanks. Had to change the
perspective a little to fit but that doesn't change the overall appearance.
Here's the link to the more complete version.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4338229864_1f3767b261_o.jpg
There's room on that for 2 more editors now. Anyone else want to add their
favorite editor that's not already represented on it? :-)
Ray Fischer
>I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
Go away, asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>nobody else seems to object to the PS Granger at all. Indeed depending
>>on profile it seems just as useful at finding gamut/paper profile
>>mismatches as a more 'linear' looking Granger.
>
>Sure it does! With all those missing ranges of hues in the PhotoSlop chart,
And now the asshole troll resorts to lying outright.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Too Funny
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:58:09 -0600, Too Funny wrote:
Good thinkin'! I just tried using the Hard Light blend using PhotoSlop, and
it does indeed appear to work, most of the evidence of those grossly huge
valleys and peaks disappears. But the results look like crap. All the
colors are dulled and shifted. So does this mean they don't even know what
"Luminance" means and all the other programs do? :-) Would this also
explain why most all photos posted to the net by PhotoSlop users are so
grossly oversaturated because they have to over-compensate for each photo's
saturation on their own screen?
Paul Furman
> Too Funny wrote:
>
>>> Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say
>>> if the error really is created by PS instead of the original author.
>>> I've seen more stupid errors from LL before.
>>
>> When I spotted the difference on that page I got curious. That's why I
>> created that PhotoSlop Granger Chart on the comparison list I posted
>> using my own copy of PhotoSlop to see if he made any errors. He did not.
>> I even tried changing the system color profiles in PhotoSlop. I changed
>> the "rainbow gradient" to the true colors that they should be (they are
>> way off in PhotoSlop). They should be, from left to right, in 100%
>> saturations:
>>
>> [...]
>
> Havve you tried other blending modes in PS? Perhaps this is just the way
> their Luminance blend is supposed to work.
Screen mode gives a symmetrical chart across the colors, as well as some
other modes, hard light is similar. Immediately after choosing a mode,
hit the up/down arrow keys. Not sure why luminosity works differently in
other programs to the PS luminosity mode but as Alan said, it's still
useful for their purposes or they wouldn't have put it out there,
obviously.
Luminosity means apply the lightness/darkness to the colors, and it's
apparently counting the luminosity of the rainbow layer also, so the
dark blues move down & the light yellows move up. This is the same sort
of issue where you have to be careful what method you use for converting
to b&w.
Too Funny
wrote:
I guess this means anytime someone is using a lighten or darken
(dodge/burn) brush in PhotoSlop or creating any changes in luminosity, like
trying to recover details from shadows or highlights, they can expect all
their colors to get shifted just as badly. Nice! :-)
A good thing my copy was given to me or I wouldn't spend one cent on
something like this. The *ONLY* reason I even keep it on a computer at all
is for the one or two worthwhile plugins that are PhotoSlop dependent. Soon
as I use it for that plugin's effect and am done, it's shut down again with
the hopes that I don't have to ever run it again too soon. There's far too
many better programs out there than having to put up with its nonsense.
Paul Furman
> Paul Furmanwrote:
>> Robert Spanjaard wrote:
>>> Too Funny wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say
>>>>> if the error really is created by PS instead of the original author.
>>>>> I've seen more stupid errors from LL before.
>>>>
>>>> When I spotted the difference on that page I got curious. That's why I
>>>> created that PhotoSlop Granger Chart on the comparison list I posted
>>>> using my own copy of PhotoSlop to see if he made any errors. He did not.
>>>> I even tried changing the system color profiles in PhotoSlop. I changed
>>>> the "rainbow gradient" to the true colors that they should be (they are
>>>> way off in PhotoSlop). They should be, from left to right, in 100%
>>>> saturations:
>>>
>>> their Luminance blend is supposed to work.
>>
>> Screen mode gives a symmetrical chart across the colors, as well as some
>> other modes, hard light is similar. Immediately after choosing a mode,
>> hit the up/down arrow keys. Not sure why luminosity works differently in
>> other programs to the PS luminosity mode but as Alan said, it's still
>> useful for their purposes or they wouldn't have put it out there,
>> obviously.
>>
>> Luminosity means apply the lightness/darkness to the colors, and it's
>> apparently counting the luminosity of the rainbow layer also, so the
>> of issue where you have to be careful what method you use for converting
>> to b&w.
>
> I guess this means anytime someone is using a lighten or darken
> (dodge/burn) brush in PhotoSlop
No, the burn & dodge tools work fine on the rainbow layer. It is an odd
behavior though. I sometimes use luminosity mode on adjustment layers,
rather than going to lab mode so that contrast/levels/curves adjustments
don't effect saturation. Hmm, so yeah this does make a difference. If I
try the granger thing in lab mode (set lab before adding layers) that
makes a very different chart with much softer transitions like the gamut
chart they describe in the LL article. Do these other programs have lab
mode? CMYK mode produces yet another different effect.
I checked adjustment layers on a couple normal photos, one with oranges,
one with orages & blues, both have green backgrounds. Lab vs
luminosity-mode adj layers had very slight color shifts making the
yellows brighter, no effect on the blues. Normal mode made the
saturation increase and orange showed more effect. So anyways, yeah, it
does seem to be a bit of a problem but if you don't like the color
shift, add another adjustment layer or use another program if you like.
I've been using photoshop for 20 years so it's what I like working with
and it has a whole lot of tools for whatever needs to be done.
Photoshop is not the tool for scientific experiments & measurement.
Roger Clark found some weird rounding errors & bit depth issues when
using it to make extreme adjustments to shadow detail in raw
conversions. I forget what program he used instead, something designed
for astrophotography manipulations I think. Not the sort of program I'd
like to use for general photo editing.
These days I mostly use Lightroom for tweaking exposures, contrast etc,
which also is not perfect but it's great for workflow. If I'm actually
going to do a large print of a difficult subject, I'll take the raw file
into my old-ish version of photoshop & do fussy stuff like sharpen a
luminosity layer, etc. Otherwise I don't use photoshop unless I need to
do some serious cloning or editing like that. Lightroom is quick and
effective, letting me concentrate on what's important. If a contrast
adjustment increases saturation, I'll just tweak the saturation slider.
If the oranges pop, I'll tune that, etc.
Pete
I've spent hours attempting to understand the seemingly odd result produced
by PS. I've either explained it or I went totally insane in the process
(yeee haa).
There are a few different ways of mapping RGB to HSB:
1. HSI intensity I=R/3+G/3+B/3
2. HSV value V=MAX(R,G,B)
3. HSL lightness L=0.5*MAX(R,G,B)+0.5*MIN(R,G,B)
4. Luminance Y'601=0.3R+0.59G+0.11B
5. and many others.
My old version of PS shows H� S% B%, so what is B?
RGB 0,255,0 -> B 100%
2,70,29 -> 27%
70, 0, 0 -> 27%
I conclude B=100*MAX(R,G,B)/255. Of course, these are not linear values,
they are the 8-bit (insert colour profile name) encoded values.
Now, given our horizontal colour gradient with S=100% and H going from 359�
down to 0� left to right, what will happen when we attempt to change the
luminance from 0 at the bottom to 100% at the top?
Using Y'601 equation, we will get maximum percieved intesity of the colours
as follows:
Red around one third of the way up.
Green around two thirds of the way up.
Blue around a tenth of the way up.
That is what I see in PS and not in any of the others, therefore the others
are using a different equation for brightness (whatever each editor calls
it).
Any thoughts?
Pete
Paul Furman
> ...
> Now, given our horizontal colour gradient with S=100% and H going from 359�
> down to 0� left to right, what will happen when we attempt to change the
> luminance from 0 at the bottom to 100% at the top?
> Red around one third of the way up.
> Green around two thirds of the way up.
> Blue around a tenth of the way up.
Over my head
...but that got me thinking about lab color space and there's some
interesting similar issues involved there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab_color_space
In any case, I reproduced the chart like the others using two blending
modes, patched together:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4339700662/
see the other similarly named thread for that discussion.
Each of the blending modes does a different calculation like your
formulas. You can see a few different approaches in adjacent pics at
that link, including lab mode.
Pete
Thanks Paul.
I've been looking carefully at the Granger charts shown in this thread. For
the printer I use the PS chart shows the effect of limited gamut more
obviously than the others - meaning it takes less time to see the effect.
Certainly, the other editors are not performing a luminance blend, they must
be doing brightness, lightness, or intensity instead.
Anyone know where the original Granger chart can be found? I've nearly worn
out Google trying to find it (or just Granger's description of it).
Pete
Paul Furman
> Photoshop is not the tool for scientific experiments & measurement.
I take that back, mostly. There are probably some fine rounding error
and bit depth nitpicks but this issue turned out to be just a different
way of calculating:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157623375625518/detail/
Pete
> I've spent hours attempting to understand the seemingly odd result
> produced by PS. I've either explained it or I went totally insane in the
> process (yeee haa).
Must be insanity - I'm replying to myself. It's an update :-)
>
> There are a few different ways of mapping RGB to HSB:
> 1. HSI intensity I=R/3+G/3+B/3
> 2. HSV value V=MAX(R,G,B)
> 3. HSL lightness L=0.5*MAX(R,G,B)+0.5*MIN(R,G,B)
> 4. Luminance Y'601=0.3R+0.59G+0.11B
It's called luma.
> 5. and many others.
>
> Using Y'601 equation, we will get maximum percieved intesity of the
> colours as follows:
> Red around one third of the way up.
> Green around two thirds of the way up.
> Blue around a tenth of the way up.
I've measured the result using a 1001 high image because it's much easier to
read off the values.
PS 5.0 LE gives the values:
luma = 0.3R + 0.59G + 0.11B
which means it's actually using ITU-R Rec. BT.601 NTSC
luma Y'601 = 0.299R+0.587G+0.114B
for sRGB it should be ITU-R Rec. BT.709
luma Y'709 = 0.2126R+0.7152G+0.0722B
There are many reasons for not using ITU 709, so 601 is probably fair
enough.
=================
The other editors
=================
The version of GIMP I saw does not even have a Luminance blend mode.
PSP is confusing because later versions have two options: Luminance and
Luminance Legacy - one uses lightness the other uses luminance. Descriptions
say neither affect colour. Then it isn't using luma - luma will affect
colour.
I didn't bother looking at any of the others because its's obvious why they
all differ from PS. It seems they all used a reference such as this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blend_modes#Luminosity
which is wrong. It says "Luminosity takes its brightness... Top: B" WTF?
Then call it brigtness blending because it isn't luma.
PS is using the Luma/Chroma/Hue Model of polar-coordinate representation,
which is precisely defined for RGB in computer graphics and digital TV.
The other editors appear to be using the HSL "Double Hexcone" Model
therefore the blending mode is lightness, hence no colour shift - they
cannot produce the Granger Chart because they do not have a luma blending
mode.
This thread has shown us Confirmation Bias working at its best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_Bias
Pete
Arthur Entlich
direct knowledge I have as to why Photoshop is designed as it is, but
with a mind toward human vision.
Human vision is not linear at all. We see by two structures, rods, which
perceive luminosity without color, and cones, three forms of which each
see a different light frequency range, the "red" cones actually peak at
yellow, green cones peak at green and blue cones peak in the violet part
of the spectrum. These structures are not evenly distributed in terms
of numbers or locations. Rods are more concentrated at the edges of our
retina and are used in our peripheral vision, which has poor color
vision. Cones are more concentrated in the middle of the retina.
While the percentages of the three cone cells vary considerably between
adults, thus creating the various levels and forms of color blindness,
overall adults have very poor blue-violet color perception. We are born
with less blue cones than either the red or green. Early in life,some
are destroyed by UV light entering the eye. The UV also damages the
transparent and neutral lens of the eye, slowly yellowing it until it is
almost orange juice color as we pass middle age. While this yellowing
actually filters the UV light reaching the retina, and therefore
protects the blue cones left, it also filters out a huge amount of the
blue light that reaches the retina, so a mixture of low blue cones to
begin with, damage by UV early in life, and then a fairly heavy yellow
orange filtration, means our blue perception stinks.
While we are very attentive to reds, due to the evolutionary
significance of red to yellow, it is the second smallest number of
cones. So, while we are more aware of reds, we actually have less red
cones to see it with. Our largest number of cones are greens, in most
people by a substantial amount. This allows us to see green
differentials quite well, and is probably significant because vegetation
coloration can be important to survival.
Now, I'm not sure what Photoshop is up to with their Granger Calibration
Chart differences (yet at least - I've asked a friend who is a color
engineer if he had any comments) but as someone who has a background
with the human side of color perception, it may be that Adobe has made
some accommodation for the species who use their programs, with our
non-linear color perception.
Art
If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/
Paul Furman
> If I convert my own chart to grayscale based on luminosity, I don't get an
> even black to white gradient (which I do get with a Lightness grayscale).
Oh, I see what you mean. The odd looking asymmetrical PS version, if
converted to grayscale, goes to a perfect gradient black on bottom,
white on top. The others show dark & light vertical shapes like the
color version. BTW I did a version in lab mode and had to convert to RGB
for web... that rgb version looks very similar but doesn't go back to a
smooth gradient but if I flatten the psd and convert that to grayscale
while still in lab, it works. The lab version takes out the weird
angular components, apparently lab is designed to transition more
smoothly & match human vision better.
None of these gives the appearance of a 'true' parallel set of vertical
rainbow bands fading from black to white which one might expect from the
exercise. Optics can be similarly baffling where you correct for
spherical aberration, certain kinds of chromatic aberrations get worse
or the bokeh goes ugly, etc.
Too Funny
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 10-02-07 21:30 , Paul Furman wrote:
>> On 2/7/2010 6:03 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 10-02-07 20:22 , Me wrote:
>>>> Mike Russell wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:34:07 +1300, Me wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> >>> Can anyone shed light on this?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 1) In PS, follow the instructions at:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/test-charts.shtml and
>>>> generate the Granger chart as shown. Oddly, it has a strange
>>>> distribution given that the gradient layer is linear top-to-bottom. What
>>>> is creating those diagonals in the chart?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 2) For comparison, see;
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4337946696_8ef5e104ff_o.jpg
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> Perhaps simply because the individual gradients themselves are
>>>> non-linear, compared to gradients applied by other photo-editing
>>>> programs.
>>>> >> Gimp "colorcube analysis" shows the non-linearity of the gradients
>>>> here:
>>>> >> http://i49.tinypic.com/25jxge9.png
>>>> >> Gradients produced in Gimp (the same as gradients produced in other
>>>> programs) are on the left).
>>>> >
>>>> > Photoshop can provide linear gradients, but not by default. Use
>>>> > Photoshop's gradient editor, set the smoothing parameter to zero,
>>>> and no
>>>> > dither. Why did they do it this way? Why ask why.
>>>> >
>>>> Thanks - that works - problem solved.
>>>> Now perhaps someone can advise Ludicrous Landscape's editors with
>>>> instructions on how to make a "proper" Granger chart.
>>>
>>> Can't reply to Russell directly for some reason.
>>>
>>> Doesn't work here - I turned off dither (for spectrum and gradient) and
>>> I set the smooth to zero for both and for either one. I get the same
>>> non-linear plot.
>>
>> Me too though I only had a smoothness slider (default to 100) and
>> solid/noise option (default to solid).
>
>The dither is a checkbox on the main options bar (where you select
>gradient type).
>
>>
>> What *does* work though, is to do it with Multiply, then Screen, then
>> paste those versions together & squish them back into a square. Then it
>> looks just like the other programs' output. I've heard it advised to use
>> those two for lightening & darkening using duplicate layers. In this
>> case each is just showing the top or bottom half of the chart so they
>> looked too pale or too dark. Luminosity does some kind of different math.
>
>Couldn't get that to work perfectly, but did resolve diagonal artifacts.
>(Doesn't fade to white at the top).
>
>I'm glad I took this over to the PS group for a real PS pro like Russell
>to reply to.
>
>I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.
Do you call everyone that brings you bad news about your shit software, a
troll?
Wounds? What wounds? I'm just sitting back laughing now. Your PhotoSlop is
still proved to be crap compared to the rest of the editors in the world.
Keep trying to fit that square peg into a round hole. It's fun watching you
idiots jump all over the place, tweaking this and that to try to get a
useful chart out of your shit software. Wasting even more hours of your
life trying to apply math to why it fails so miserably.
Now you're even trying to lie in the other thread about the samples I
posted, saying they all came from the same source. Try again. The GIMP
source was most definitely donated, did you miss that part of the
discussion? And the others all have minor changes in the size of the font
used. I labeled each by using the software I was creating the chart with at
the time and didn't remember what exact Arial font point-size I had used
the last time in the previous program. Why do you think I encouraged
everyone to test their own programs rather than rely on what I posted. I
already explicitly stated that idiots like you would claim I didn't use all
those programs to create the charts. I'm always 10 steps ahead of you
idiots. Did you miss that post? Too busy trying to figure out why PhotoSlop
doesn't work right? Or is it that you are so amazingly fucking stupid that
you don't realize that the same JPG compression is applied across the whole
montage of charts and this is why you claim they all have the same
artifacts in them.
Here's the one with the chart from GIMP added to it, just in case you
missed that. You all seem to have a little problem sharing the link to the
charts that show even GIMP is far better than PhotoSlop.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4338229864_1f3767b261_o.jpg
Jump some more to try to justify why you waste your time with PhotoSlop.
This is fun! :-)
BD
> Jump some more to try to justify why you waste your time with PhotoSlop.
What's fun - trolling? Trust me - you're not that good. ;)
Alan Browne
> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:35:40 -0500, Alan Browne
>> I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.
>
> Do you call everyone that brings you bad news about your shit software, a
> troll?
Why would I call anyone who taunts with camera types, name calling, ad
hominem attacks and frequent name changes a troll? I wonder.
As intense as your mis-advised attack on the product was, you can't help
but look like a fool and a dunce. I guess you didn't think we would
spot that as odd behaviour indeed and go looking for the source, and of
course find it - with the help of PS expert on the right NG. I guess
that's a strength of NG's that will always overwhelm especially weak
trolls like you.
That embarrasses you to no end you come out swinging like a punch drunk
fighter - even after everyone has left the ring.
Does mom come down to the basement with snacks or does she make you come
up to the kitchen?
TJ
> You all seem to have a little problem sharing the link to the
> charts that show even GIMP is far better than PhotoSlop.
>
*EVEN* GIMP? *EVEN?* Your language indicates you have a problem
considering open-source software as anything but second- or third-class.
How pathetically wrong.
TJ
--
90 per cent of everything is crud.
- Theodore Sturgeon
Arthur Entlich
I'm only reading this in the comp.periphs.printers Usenet forum, and it
seems I missed the beginning of the "Problem Solved" thread here (some
people apparently are not cross-posting). I know some thing
cross-posting is a crime against nature, but in a case like this were
several newsgroups are involved in the "discussion" it would be nice to
know if someone has come up with a definitive response to this issue.
Is it possible for you to post the response which explains this.
I did correspond with a friend who is a color engineer and he explained
that he seemed to recall that Photoshop uses a splined black and white
gradient as the default black to white selection via the gradient toll
menu, while it is possible other programs do not do so, and this might
explain the Photoshop diversion from other programs.
His comments (paraphrased) were that:
1) Using certain features within Photoshop for "testing" might not be
appropriate because not all features in Photoshop are designed to be
used as a "testbed" but instead are designed for practical use for
editing images.
2) Perhaps there would be some advantage to having an optional check box
to provide a non-splined, linear version of the black to white (and
perhaps other) gradients for certain applications. He suspected that
the color gradient default may also be splined in Photoshop.
He suggests as an easy (although not fully scientific) way of showing
the splining of the black and white gradient, make the gradient, and
then posterize the results to a certain number, such as 16 or 32 units.
Then take note of the spacing or size of the grey bands, and note they
are not equal.
Based upon this, I do wonder if the engineers at Photoshop possibly took
human vision, and perhaps display methodologies into account and
adjusted these to make them respond more "linearly" to human vision,
rather than to strict mathematical linearity.
3) To quote him:
"... let me state that I am not really a fan of Granger rainbows. They
have their place, but like the proverbial wrench being used for a hammer,
they often are not being used for an appropriate task, so I come to wish
they weren't being used at all. They are highly synthetic, and focus on out
of Gamut colors, so they tend to tell you a lot about colors you'll never
capture with a camera and little about ones that you will."
As I somewhat suspected when this great "debate" came to the forefront
here, it may well be someone making a mountain out of a thoroughly
explainable molehill.
I don't believe the designers of Photoshop ever intimated or suggested
that the gradient defaults they provide in the gradient menu are exactly
linear.
Art
If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/
Too Funny
>On 02/08/2010 05:45 PM, Too Funny wrote:
>
>> You all seem to have a little problem sharing the link to the
>> charts that show even GIMP is far better than PhotoSlop.
>>
>*EVEN* GIMP? *EVEN?* Your language indicates you have a problem
>considering open-source software as anything but second- or third-class.
>How pathetically wrong.
>
>TJ
You are correct. A bad choice of words on my part. My use of "even" in that
instance was while I was thinking about their cost, not their capability. I
use many such programs. Cartes du Ciel, the best astronomy software
available. CHDK, the most comprehensive operating systems of any cameras on
earth. VirtualDub, a video editor that does more things and does it faster
than almost all others. OpenOffice. etc. etc. If I had to choose between
GIMP and PhotoSlop, I would easily choose GIMP.
Too Funny
wrote:
>Alan,
>
>I'm only reading this in the comp.periphs.printers Usenet forum, and it
>seems I missed the beginning of the "Problem Solved" thread here (some
>people apparently are not cross-posting). I know some thing
>cross-posting is a crime against nature, but in a case like this were
>several newsgroups are involved in the "discussion" it would be nice to
>know if someone has come up with a definitive response to this issue.
It wasn't a cross-posting issue. It's that the PhotoSlop fanboys were so
embarrassed by this that they tried to not let others know the convoluted
solutions they were coming up with in trying to explain it all.
>
>Is it possible for you to post the response which explains this.
I already did. That's why I included the information they finally came up
with in the first "Problem Solved" reply that you read. Which they
consequently snipped again in any further replies so nobody would see the
egg on their faces. As, I noticed, you did as well.
>
>I did correspond with a friend who is a color engineer and he explained
>that he seemed to recall that Photoshop uses a splined black and white
>gradient as the default black to white selection via the gradient toll
>menu, while it is possible other programs do not do so, and this might
>explain the Photoshop diversion from other programs.
>
>His comments (paraphrased) were that:
>
>1) Using certain features within Photoshop for "testing" might not be
>appropriate because not all features in Photoshop are designed to be
>used as a "testbed" but instead are designed for practical use for
>editing images.
As are all the other programs. Ever hear of Canvas? It's been used to
publish many magazines, among all the other things it is capable of doing.
Including cartography with a geographic coordinate system to sub-millimeter
accuracy in reference to the earth-sized GIS coordinate systems. We're not
talking about some simple red-eye removal editor that you get bundled with
your printer or camera.
>
>2) Perhaps there would be some advantage to having an optional check box
>to provide a non-splined, linear version of the black to white (and
>perhaps other) gradients for certain applications. He suspected that
>the color gradient default may also be splined in Photoshop.
It's not a spline vs. linear issue. Apparently they have a checkbox to
flatten their gradients but even that didn't help. Didn't you relay their
solution to your "color engineer" friend? You know, the part you snipped
out again. When doing my own testing I found that even their PhotoSlop's
rainbow gradient was in error. Flattened or not.
>
>He suggests as an easy (although not fully scientific) way of showing
>the splining of the black and white gradient, make the gradient, and
>then posterize the results to a certain number, such as 16 or 32 units.
>Then take note of the spacing or size of the grey bands, and note they
>are not equal.
>
>Based upon this, I do wonder if the engineers at Photoshop possibly took
>human vision, and perhaps display methodologies into account and
>adjusted these to make them respond more "linearly" to human vision,
>rather than to strict mathematical linearity.
Yes, a wonderful justification of why all the other programs in the world
work properly and PhotoSlop does not.
>
>3) To quote him:
>
>"... let me state that I am not really a fan of Granger rainbows. They
>have their place, but like the proverbial wrench being used for a hammer,
>they often are not being used for an appropriate task, so I come to wish
>they weren't being used at all. They are highly synthetic, and focus on out
>of Gamut colors, so they tend to tell you a lot about colors you'll never
>capture with a camera and little about ones that you will."
How do you know you will never capture them if you remove them in the first
place? How do you know your printer can't produce them if you remove them
in the first place? It appears that none of you are very bright. But I
guess that's why you were so easily manipulated into buying and supporting
PhotoSlop.
>
>As I somewhat suspected when this great "debate" came to the forefront
>here, it may well be someone making a mountain out of a thoroughly
>explainable molehill.
Yes, they did explain it. See the first post in this thread that you
replied to with their convoluted explanation, justification, and solution.
You know, the part that you too snipped out.
>
>I don't believe the designers of Photoshop ever intimated or suggested
>that the gradient defaults they provide in the gradient menu are exactly
>linear.
>
Good for them. I wonder what else they never tell anyone? Like they never
told anyone up until 2008 that their math platform was only 16-bit and
could have been run on Windows 3.1 all these years. It was only recently
changed into a 32-bit math platform in CS4. Something that all the other
programs have had at their core for the last decade or more. Hell, their
programmers still haven't even discovered any resampling algorithms beyond
lowly bicubic from the last century. They're precisely that archaic.
Their emperor has absolutely no clothes whatsoever. And even when shown
their emperor's nakedness, they then pursue the habit of poking their own
eyes out to make sure they don't notice.
Just clap three times with your eyes closed and keep saying to yourselves,
"I believe, I believe, I believe..."
Paul Furman
>
> I'm only reading this in the comp.periphs.printers Usenet forum, and it
> seems I missed the beginning of the "Problem Solved" thread here (some
> people apparently are not cross-posting). I know some thing
> cross-posting is a crime against nature, but in a case like this were
> several newsgroups are involved in the "discussion" it would be nice to
> know if someone has come up with a definitive response to this issue.
>
> Is it possible for you to post the response which explains this.
Arthur,
The explanation is that the programs use different math to accomplish
the task with the same name. I was able to reproduce the matching effect
in photoshop using Screen blend mode for the top half and Multiply for
the bottom half:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157623375625518/detail/
I also showed it in lab mode, which is designed to match human vision
more closely. Notice the 5th frame in that set how they convert to
grayscale and it's pretty obvious what the reasoning is for the odd
shapes. This thread also exists in two threads of nearly identical
titles but in the other thread, the math was explained. Here's a snip
from that discussion:
> On 2/7/2010 5:36 PM, Pete wrote:
>> ...
>> Now, given our horizontal colour gradient with S=100% and H going
>> from 359� down to 0� left to right, what will happen when we attempt
>> to change the luminance from 0 at the bottom to 100% at the top?
>> ...
Paul Furman
> Alan Brownewrote:
>
>> I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.
>
> still proved to be crap compared to the rest of the editors in the world.
Troll,
You have been shown to be mistaken in a very unambiguous way. Continuing
to pretend otherwise makes you look insane.
The differences show different things resulting from different math, not
errors. Photoshop can do the math like the others if that's what one
desires. It seems more likely photoshop's odd looking version of the
chart is actually more useful, though I'm not at all sure about that.
That approach is certainly useful for some goals.
Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the other
programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.
Are you able to work in lab mode with the other programs?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157623375625518/detail/
Paul Furman
The guy is a genuine troll. I don't make that accusation lightly. Don't
bother even trying to decipher his reply, he will not give up and will
just keep expanding the morass to generate bile with lies and deception.
Really, I don't say that lightly, he's the real deal.
Too Funny
wrote:
>Too Funny wrote:
Showing again your head-in-the-sand-or-elsewhere naivety. One of them
allows you to work concurrently in RGB, CMYK, Lab, HSV on any layer on the
same image as well as changing any tool's workspace to any of those, also
working with each layer's type in any combination. Your beloved PhotoSlop
is so backward and limited. You have no clue.
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157623375625518/detail/
Show us your macrophotography again where you can't even get a whole
contact-pin on a CPU in focus. You were so proud of your lame attempts that
took you days of disasters.That was a great laugh for the world. How much
did you pay for clown-college?
You're such an X-Spurt at these things.
X: The unknown quantity. Spurt: A drip working under pressure.
Too Funny
wrote:
>
>Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the other
>programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.
All of them can reproduce that effect. If you are willing to take just as
many convoluted steps as you do in trying to partially correct it in
PhotoSlop.
Paul Furman
> Paul Furmanwrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.
>>>
>>> Wounds? What wounds? I'm just sitting back laughing now. Your PhotoSlop is
>>> still proved to be crap compared to the rest of the editors in the world.
>>
>> Troll,
>> You have been shown to be mistaken in a very unambiguous way. Continuing
>> to pretend otherwise makes you look insane.
>>
>> The differences show different things resulting from different math, not
>> errors. Photoshop can do the math like the others if that's what one
>> desires. It seems more likely photoshop's odd looking version of the
>> chart is actually more useful, though I'm not at all sure about that.
>> That approach is certainly useful for some goals.
>>
>> Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the other
>> programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.
I'll take that as a no then.
>> Are you able to work in lab mode with the other programs?
>
> ...One of them
> allows you to work concurrently in RGB, CMYK, Lab, HSV on any layer on the
> same image as well as changing any tool's workspace to any of those, also
> working with each layer's type in any combination.
Nice.
What does that one cost?
> Show us your macrophotography again where you can't even get a whole
> contact-pin on a CPU in focus.
Sure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0r-HKzVpeg
I was emphasizing the shallow DOF, intentionally.
Of course I can always stop down if I want, just like a P&S:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4001765670/
Or get the most out of a full frame shallow DOF stacked:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4146875199/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=stacked&w=21068427%40N08
Paul Furman
> Paul Furmanwrote:
>
>>
>> programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.
>
> All of them can reproduce that effect.
How? What is it called? What's the purpose?
> If you are willing to take just as
> many convoluted steps as you do
Get to work, boy.
ray
> I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
> testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
> people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying
> to remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
>
>
> "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2775/4337905568_55c1e9cfa6_o.jpg
>
> Isn't this fun? :-)
I'd have thought there'd be a lot more to photo editing.
LOL!
wrote:
>Too Funny wrote:
~$75, depending on your country.
>
>> Show us your macrophotography again where you can't even get a whole
>> contact-pin on a CPU in focus.
>
>Sure:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0r-HKzVpeg
>I was emphasizing the shallow DOF, intentionally.
>
LOL!!!!!!! Of course, this was "intentional". That's not what you claimed
at the time. You were only making excuses.
>Of course I can always stop down if I want, just like a P&S:
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4001765670/
f/16 vs. f/90? Oh, that's just marvelous. Let's see what that converts to
by shutter speed ....
Well hell, that's a mere 5 EV stops difference! I'm sure that live insect
in available-light conditions in order to capture its true colors and
environment in natural detail will hang around that long for you to take
that image.
LOL!
>
>Or get the most out of a full frame shallow DOF stacked:
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4146875199/sizes/o/
>http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=stacked&w=21068427%40N08
>
I see. And NO other cameras on earth are capable of using this technique.
LOL!
However with the correct camera you wouldn't even need to. Or in extreme
cases you would have to shoot and stack far less frames. The upside of
using a CHDK capable P&S camera is that you can just hold down the shutter
(or use a USB cable release) and have it click off sub-1mm increments for
as many as you want. One CHDK script even lets you pick the near and far
focus distances and then it automatically divides-up the number of
focus-bracketed shots required so that all frames have the required amount
of DOF for consecutive frames. Then there's not even one wasted frame for
focus-stacking methods. It also takes into account the selected aperture at
the time. F/3.5 and more shots are the results. F/5.6 and you get far
fewer. What's that? You can't even take a decent macro image in available
light with f/3.5? You're right, you can't.
You really ARE an "X-Spurt"! Aren't you.
LOL!
I'd tell you of some freeware focus stacking software that beats anything
commercially available, even better than the freeware CombineZM (excellent
software, but limited). You're clearly just a beginner. I don't adopt
apprentices as low on the ranks as you.
LOL!
That money for your clown-college money was well spent.
LOL!
Alan Browne
> Alan,
>
> I'm only reading this in the comp.periphs.printers Usenet forum, and it
> seems I missed the beginning of the "Problem Solved" thread here (some
> people apparently are not cross-posting). I know some thing
> cross-posting is a crime against nature, but in a case like this were
> several newsgroups are involved in the "discussion" it would be nice to
> know if someone has come up with a definitive response to this issue.
>
> Is it possible for you to post the response which explains this.
>
It's been solved.
See the reply from Mike Russel as re-posted in rpd.slr-systems by poster
"Me" in the first instance of "Problem Solved".
The troll only managed to spot a difference in initial settings that PS
uses. Setting them differently results in a nominal Granger chart w/o
artifacts. This of course has made the widdle troll a spot upset to
judge by his recent brainless posts. Not that an improvement can be
expected.
As to crime: Stop top posting - or back in the killfile you go.
Alan Browne
Having to put on a pair of matched socks is probably "convoluted" for you.
ColinD
Without any commentary on the relative merits of the various editors you
are discussing, can I make a request for you to stop using 'photoslop'as
a derogatory play on 'photoshop'? The former really grates on me, and I
presume other posters. You've made your point often enough in this
thread that continued use of that term merely serves to advertise the
fact that you have an adolescent fixation with Photoshop that you need
to keep waving in everyone's face ad infinitum.
And I have no connection with Photoshop in any way, I just get sick of
these childish antics, akin to constant name-calling.
Colin D.
Alan Browne
> Too Funny wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:24:59 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the
>>> other programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.
>>
>> All of them can reproduce that effect. If you are willing to take just as
>> many convoluted steps as you do in trying to partially correct it in
>> PhotoSlop.
>>
>
> Without any commentary on the relative merits of the various editors you
> are discussing, can I make a request for you to stop using 'photoslop'as
> a derogatory play on 'photoshop'?
> And I have no connection with Photoshop in any way, I just get sick of
> these childish antics, akin to constant name-calling.
Collin, does the fact we've been referring to it as a troll hint at
anything to you?
Cheers,
Alan
Too Funny
Why stop using a more correct and descriptive name for PhotoSlop?
Paul Furman
> Paul Furmanwrote:
>> Too Funny wrote:
>>>> Too Funny wrote:
>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wounds? What wounds? I'm just sitting back laughing now. Your PhotoSlop is
>>>>> still proved to be crap compared to the rest of the editors in the world.
>>>>
>>>> Troll,
>>>> You have been shown to be mistaken in a very unambiguous way. Continuing
>>>> to pretend otherwise makes you look insane.
>>>>
>>>> The differences show different things resulting from different math, not
>>>> errors. Photoshop can do the math like the others if that's what one
>>>> desires. It seems more likely photoshop's odd looking version of the
>>>> chart is actually more useful, though I'm not at all sure about that.
>>>> That approach is certainly useful for some goals.
>>>>
>>>> Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the other
>>>> programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.
>>
>> I'll take that as a no then.
Right, and you still don't know why it's like that and neither do I
fully. That's what this thread is about btw. Be a hero, figure it out.
Which one is actually 'better' and for what purposes?
>>>> Are you able to work in lab mode with the other programs?
>>>
>>> ...One of them
>>> allows you to work concurrently in RGB, CMYK, Lab, HSV on any layer on the
>>> same image as well as changing any tool's workspace to any of those, also
>>> working with each layer's type in any combination.
See the next comment below. That is pretty cool that some adjustments
can be done in lab, though the file is still RGB, you can't access the
lab channels directly without converting. Still very cool though.
>> Nice.
>> What does that one cost?
>
> ~$75, depending on your country.
OK that's pretty good. Funny, I googled "photoline lab" and the second
hit is a guy struggling with frustrating workarounds for the same damn
LL charts <g>. http://www.pl32.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1434
Any chance that frustration led you to start these threads?
>>> Show us your macrophotography again where you can't even get a whole
>>> contact-pin on a CPU in focus.
>>
>> Sure:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0r-HKzVpeg
>> I was emphasizing the shallow DOF, intentionally.
>
> LOL!!!!!!! Of course, this was "intentional". That's not what you claimed
> at the time.
Is so.
Otherwise I would have simply stopped down.
> You were only making excuses.
Well yeah, why else would I use the twilight zone music? :-)
I was having fun making excuses, making the best of it by making it
worse, otherwise I would have just stopped down.
>> Of course I can always stop down if I want, just like a P&S:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4001765670/
>
> f/16 vs. f/90? Oh, that's just marvelous. Let's see what that converts to
> by shutter speed ....
All hand held. High ISO for the f/90 shots.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3964438027/in/set-72157622353514479/
ISO 6400, f/90, 1/50 sec
> Well hell, that's a mere 5 EV stops difference! I'm sure that live insect
> in available-light conditions in order to capture its true colors and
> environment in natural detail will hang around that long for you to take
> that image.
1/50 second, full sun.
You can probably get exactly the same effect with a P&S, just can't open up.
>> Or get the most out of a full frame shallow DOF stacked:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4146875199/sizes/o/
>> http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=stacked&w=21068427%40N08
>
> I see. And NO other cameras on earth are capable of using this technique.
I didn't say that. P&S should work fine for stacking. I think you might
not be able to get as large of an image but could be wrong so I only
vaguely implied that. It would take a huge effort to resolve that
question though.
> However with the correct camera you wouldn't even need to.
I can always stop down if I want. See above.
> Or in extreme cases you would have to shoot and stack far less frames.
I can always stop down if I want. See above.
> The upside of
> using a CHDK capable P&S camera is that you can just hold down the shutter
> (or use a USB cable release) and have it click off sub-1mm increments for
I don't think sub-mm is correct. Anyways that would be nice though I
sometimes step by 5 micron increments. But whatever.
� Subj. Dist. Bracket Value [0 � 100]
Set this value to enable focus bracketing. This feature is only
enabled during manual focus mode. This feature allows you to specify the
manual focus distance in millimeters. This value is multiplied by the
Value factor below to arrive at the final value
� Value factor (mm) [Off, 1, 10, 100, 1000]
Used as a multiplier for Distance bracketing value.
> as many as you want. One CHDK script even lets you pick the near and far
> focus distances and then it automatically divides-up the number of
> focus-bracketed shots required so that all frames have the required amount
> of DOF for consecutive frames. Then there's not even one wasted frame for
> focus-stacking methods. It also takes into account the selected aperture at
> the time.
Neat idea but that's bullshit, no such thing exists. Anyways that's easy
enough to figure out just looking at the live view zoomed in. OTOH, it's
quite complicated to calculate macro DOF with math with many
opportunities for going astray.
> F/3.5 and more shots are the results. F/5.6 and you get far
> fewer. What's that? You can't even take a decent macro image in available
> light with f/3.5? You're right, you can't.
I have no idea what you are rambling about. Much beyond 1:1 and it's
unlikely you'd be working with effective apertures as wide as f/3.5.
> I'd tell you of some freeware focus stacking software that beats anything
> commercially available, even better than the freeware CombineZM (excellent
> software, but limited).
Must be awesome if nobody knows about it ;-)
> You're clearly just a beginner. I don't adopt
> apprentices as low on the ranks as you.
Yes, I am an (advanced) beginner with stacking. Fun stuff.
Educating the Beginner Moron
wrote:
>LOL! wrote:
>> Paul Furmanwrote:
>>> Too Funny wrote:
>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the other
>>>>> programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.
>>>
[Answer-placeholder, that he snipped because it offended his blind worship
of PhotoSlop. Those who live a life of self-induced ignorance love nothing
better than poking their own eyes out to retain that bliss of ignorance.]
>>> I'll take that as a no then.
>
>Right, and you still don't know why it's like that and neither do I
>fully. That's what this thread is about btw. Be a hero, figure it out.
>Which one is actually 'better' and for what purposes?
>
>
>
>OK that's pretty good. Funny, I googled "photoline lab" and the second
>hit is a guy struggling with frustrating workarounds for the same damn
>LL charts <g>. http://www.pl32.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1434
>Any chance that frustration led you to start these threads?
>
That's about creating a Gamut Chart not a Granger Chart. Apparently it was
posted by someone new to using that program. I guess you couldn't see the
difference in the colors and areas between the two charts. Considering what
a mess that PhotoSlop makes of a Granger Chart, I can see why you would
have this difficulty and confusion in recognizing the difference between
the two.
>
>>
>> f/16 vs. f/90? Oh, that's just marvelous. Let's see what that converts to
>> by shutter speed ....
>
>All hand held. High ISO for the f/90 shots.
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3964438027/in/set-72157622353514479/
>ISO 6400, f/90, 1/50 sec
What a shame.
I have no problems using P&S shutter speeds over 1/500 second to stop
insects in flight in hand-held available-light macros. Without high ISO
noise nor having to quarter the image size by using pixel-binning
(effectively reducing a camera to Barbie-Cam-priced image sizes). I think
one of my favorites is of a small fly about 5mm long filling the whole
frame, stopped in flight while it was darting around some berries. A test
for myself when I was first moving into digital photography to see if I
could do it with a P&S camera, having failed at this test in the past with
my SLR gear. With them all lying about shutter-lag and all, and how useless
an EFV is all the time with all its lag too it was worth testing for
myself. Boy were they ever wrong. That's a challenge I wouldn't even
attempt with a useless DSLR today, with its limitations being no different
than an SLR. The shallow DOF and low shutter-speeds required with that
camera design would automatically preclude anyone from accomplishing this
photography challenge. Not to mention that stopping down the lens enough
would make any optical viewfinder completely useless. In order to follow an
insect that small and fast at that magnification by hand and reflexes alone
you need DOF preview at all times. An EVF allows for this. With an OVF it's
impossible. I've attempted the same in the past with my SLR gear and gave
up for the exact same reasons. I revisited my old self-made challenge with
a P&S camera and it opened my eyes to all the new possibilities. All
because I decided not to believe all the ignorant DSLR-Trolls like you.
>
>I can always stop down if I want. See above.
>
Yes, I see the dismal results and limited subject matter that creates.
Thanks for sharing.
>
>
>> as many as you want. One CHDK script even lets you pick the near and far
>> focus distances and then it automatically divides-up the number of
>> focus-bracketed shots required so that all frames have the required amount
>> of DOF for consecutive frames. Then there's not even one wasted frame for
>> focus-stacking methods. It also takes into account the selected aperture at
>> the time.
>
>Neat idea but that's bullshit, no such thing exists.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/UBASIC/Scripts:_yet_another_DOF_stacker
Getting smarter yet?
I thought not.
You're a waste of anyone's time.
Thus endeth your and my lesson of trying to drag you up out of the
primordial ooze that you are content to flounder in all your life.
"Man cannot discover new oceans unless he has the courage to lose sight of
familiar shores." - Andre' Gide
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> LOL! wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> Too Funny wrote:
>>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the other
>>>>>> programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.
>
> [Answer-placeholder, that he snipped
Huh?
You wouldn't be obfuscating would you? I snipped nothing, you snipped
though. Am I missing something?
Thanks for taking out that embarrassing part about sub mm steps.
I hardly noticed.
> Yes, I see the dismal results and limited subject matter that creates.
> Thanks for sharing.
>
>>> as many as you want. One CHDK script even lets you pick the near and far
>>> focus distances and then it automatically divides-up the number of
>>> focus-bracketed shots required so that all frames have the required amount
>>> of DOF for consecutive frames. Then there's not even one wasted frame for
>>> focus-stacking methods. It also takes into account the selected aperture at
>>> the time.
>>
>> Neat idea but that's bullshit, no such thing exists.
>
> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/UBASIC/Scripts:_yet_another_DOF_stacker
OK that's pretty cool. I stand corrected on this point only. I love the
concept of programmable cameras.
Educating the Beginner Moron
As off-topic as this is going, I'll leave the printer group in this one
more time, just because someone there might be curious about the
capabilities of inexpensive P&S digital cameras today.
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:02:21 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:
>
>
>Thanks for taking out that embarrassing part about sub mm steps.
>I hardly noticed.
I didn't address it because I didn't want to make you feel like more of an
idiot than you already are.
You forget, or just don't know nor realize, that a CHDK P&S camera can
focus manually by scripts in 1mm increments using its own lens. (Or from a
manual-focus override and focus-bracketing in burst mode in the menus, no
scripts even required.) When adding a macro-lens to it then those 65,535
available and reproducible increments get divided up into the useable focus
distance of the whole optical assembly. If your macro lens will only allow
you to focus with the camera's lens from 1cm to 3cm (3cm being infinity on
the camera alone, sans macro-lens), then you get 65,535 increments in that
available 2 cm range. That's focusing increments of 0.0003 mm from a P&S
camera, 1/3rd of a micron, each and every one of them reproducible with
that much precision. This is wholly without the encumbrances of any
expensive micrometer stage (as is on my lab microscope) and needing any
laboratory lighting, as is needed with a DSLR. Completely portable and
self-contained in one small pocketable camera for less than the price of a
micrometer stage alone. Which can also be used in any setting using only
available-light to document anything in nature as far from civilization and
tourist traps as one desires.
But I forget .... just how slow and blind you really are to what is
happening beyond the confines of that small space between your ears and
your crippling limited experiences in life with last century's camera and
photography technology. That self-induced ignorance goal of yours being the
cause of it all. How very pathetic.
Perhaps you should go buy a buggy-whip to go along with your camera, then
you can use it to drive your horse-drawn cart to where you might get some
decent photos.
ColinD
Hello Alan,
Yes, it does, but I hoped that he/it might take notice, hope springs
eternal and all that ...
Cheers
Colin D.
Educating the Beginner Moron
Now why on earth should anyone with valid information take notice of a pack
of whiney resident-trolls calling that person a troll? Resident-trolls
aren't too bright.
Arthur Entlich
Too Funny wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:06:56 -0800, Arthur Entlich <e-prin...@mvps.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Alan,
Is your name Alan?
>>
>> I'm only reading this in the comp.periphs.printers Usenet forum, and it
>> seems I missed the beginning of the "Problem Solved" thread here (some
>> people apparently are not cross-posting). I know some thing
>> cross-posting is a crime against nature, but in a case like this were
>> several newsgroups are involved in the "discussion" it would be nice to
>> know if someone has come up with a definitive response to this issue.
>
> It wasn't a cross-posting issue. It's that the PhotoSlop fanboys were so
> embarrassed by this that they tried to not let others know the convoluted
> solutions they were coming up with in trying to explain it all.
>
>> Is it possible for you to post the response which explains this.
>
> I already did. That's why I included the information they finally came up
> with in the first "Problem Solved" reply that you read. Which they
> consequently snipped again in any further replies so nobody would see the
> egg on their faces. As, I noticed, you did as well.
First of all, I wasn't addressing this to you, but to Alan Browne, who
seems like he might be stable enough to carry on a civil discussion.
The reason I asked to see the first message is because it never appeared
on the comp.periphs.printers group, at least not anywhere that I can
find it, so I didn't "edit" anything, I quoted the first reply I saw
with someone who seemed reasonable to correspond with. Why would I
request the content of the original message if I could access it?
>
>> I did correspond with a friend who is a color engineer and he explained
>> that he seemed to recall that Photoshop uses a splined black and white
>> gradient as the default black to white selection via the gradient toll
>> menu, while it is possible other programs do not do so, and this might
>> explain the Photoshop diversion from other programs.
>>
>> His comments (paraphrased) were that:
>>
>> 1) Using certain features within Photoshop for "testing" might not be
>> appropriate because not all features in Photoshop are designed to be
>> used as a "testbed" but instead are designed for practical use for
>> editing images.
>
> As are all the other programs. Ever hear of Canvas? It's been used to
> publish many magazines, among all the other things it is capable of doing.
> Including cartography with a geographic coordinate system to sub-millimeter
> accuracy in reference to the earth-sized GIS coordinate systems. We're not
> talking about some simple red-eye removal editor that you get bundled with
> your printer or camera.
A tool is designed to accomplish a specific function. Perhaps
Photoshop's designers had a different intent with their gradient tool
than to make Granger charts which show linear results.
I don't know anything about your background, but in wet photography,
most black and white papers use log curves in how they translate
exposure. It is not linear and was designed not to be, because human
vision is not linear, or a certain gamma was desired for a specific effect.
>
>> 2) Perhaps there would be some advantage to having an optional check box
>> to provide a non-splined, linear version of the black to white (and
>> perhaps other) gradients for certain applications. He suspected that
>> the color gradient default may also be splined in Photoshop.
>
> It's not a spline vs. linear issue. Apparently they have a checkbox to
> flatten their gradients but even that didn't help. Didn't you relay their
> solution to your "color engineer" friend? You know, the part you snipped
> out again. When doing my own testing I found that even their PhotoSlop's
> rainbow gradient was in error. Flattened or not.
Even if you actually have the knowledge you claim to take credit for,
you are rapidly losing my respect, as you have most everyone else on
this newsgroup, because of your manner. Once again, I did not cut
anything from anything. I did not send my friend the content of your
"Problem solved" posting because when I emailed him, it was not
published in the forum I read (and still isn't), nor were any responses
to it at that time. Simply put, it did not even exist when I emailed my
friend, so stop accusing me of trying to manipulate the discussion.
>
>> He suggests as an easy (although not fully scientific) way of showing
>> the splining of the black and white gradient, make the gradient, and
>> then posterize the results to a certain number, such as 16 or 32 units.
>> Then take note of the spacing or size of the grey bands, and note they
>> are not equal.
>>
>> Based upon this, I do wonder if the engineers at Photoshop possibly took
>> human vision, and perhaps display methodologies into account and
>> adjusted these to make them respond more "linearly" to human vision,
>> rather than to strict mathematical linearity.
>
> Yes, a wonderful justification of why all the other programs in the world
> work properly and PhotoSlop does not.
>
I am not trying to "justify" anything. I, unlike yourself, look for
understanding and explanations over arrogance and trying to prove I am
"right". To me, knowledge is about understanding as much as simple
factual inferences.
>> 3) To quote him:
>>
>> "... let me state that I am not really a fan of Granger rainbows. They
>> have their place, but like the proverbial wrench being used for a hammer,
>> they often are not being used for an appropriate task, so I come to wish
>> they weren't being used at all. They are highly synthetic, and focus on out
>> of Gamut colors, so they tend to tell you a lot about colors you'll never
>> capture with a camera and little about ones that you will."
>
> How do you know you will never capture them if you remove them in the first
> place? How do you know your printer can't produce them if you remove them
> in the first place? It appears that none of you are very bright. But I
> guess that's why you were so easily manipulated into buying and supporting
> PhotoSlop.
>
I use a number of image editing products made by about 5 different
companies. I have no interest in promoting any one product. Photoshop
appears to have a huge following, and an industry acceptance. They also
seem to be able to ask a great deal more for their products than many
other manufacturers, and have done so for many years, so one would
expect over time, if Photoshop proved to be both inaccurate or not
valuable, clients would move to other products.
My personal spin on this is that we get a lot more hung up on the
technical elements of color and lose track of its purpose, how it
interacts with our environment and ourselves, and our interpretation of
it within the chemical process our senses work under.
It makes sense to understand the science of color, but it in some ways
when we start splitting hairs, it becomes foolish, because the
individual variation people experience in color perception, even between
their own two eyes, becomes greater than the differences we are speaking
of on a color to color basis. Color is about communicating information,
ideas and aesthetics. Pixel peepers and the like, might find their joy
in these discussions, but I don't, so I won't be continuing my response
to you after this posting.
>> As I somewhat suspected when this great "debate" came to the forefront
>> here, it may well be someone making a mountain out of a thoroughly
>> explainable molehill.
>
> Yes, they did explain it. See the first post in this thread that you
> replied to with their convoluted explanation, justification, and solution.
> You know, the part that you too snipped out.
You have now mentioned that I cut something out of your posting 3 or 4
times. If you look closely at the posting I responded to, you will see
it is not your posting (or the first one in that thread). I responded
to a posting by Alan Browne and quoted it in its entirety. You will
also note that I also addressed my query for the complete posting to
him, not you, since I had no idea who wrote the original posting from
that thread. Why would I ask for the complete posting, if I already had
it available to me? If you would like me to see the original posting
you wrote under that thread, please post it again in the
comp.periphs.printers newsgroup, so I can read it. You certainly seem
to be looking for a controversy over trying to inform.
>
>> I don't believe the designers of Photoshop ever intimated or suggested
>> that the gradient defaults they provide in the gradient menu are exactly
>> linear.
>>
>
> Good for them. I wonder what else they never tell anyone? Like they never
> told anyone up until 2008 that their math platform was only 16-bit and
> could have been run on Windows 3.1 all these years. It was only recently
> changed into a 32-bit math platform in CS4. Something that all the other
> programs have had at their core for the last decade or more. Hell, their
> programmers still haven't even discovered any resampling algorithms beyond
> lowly bicubic from the last century. They're precisely that archaic.
>
> Their emperor has absolutely no clothes whatsoever. And even when shown
> their emperor's nakedness, they then pursue the habit of poking their own
> eyes out to make sure they don't notice.
>
> Just clap three times with your eyes closed and keep saying to yourselves,
> "I believe, I believe, I believe..."
>
I'm not going to argue any of this because I just don't know how
accurate your comments are. What I do know is that people who want to
inform others and to have an influence on what people use or buy or
believe use a very different approach to yours. You end up sounding
unstable with a hidden agenda. Instead, state you case, unemotionally,
compare and contrast, give references, prove your point. I'm sure a lot
of people would be pleased to find a better and less costly alternative
to Photoshop. When you come out with all guns blazing, all I hear is a
lot of noise.
If you aren't capable of doing so, then, it just becomes tiring and like
many others, I will just filter out your numerous aliases so I don't
have to be subjected to the extra hard drive space.
Art
SayWhat
wrote:
>
>If you aren't capable of doing so, then, it just becomes tiring and like
>many others, I will just filter out your numerous aliases so I don't
>have to be subjected to the extra hard drive space.
>
Now why on earth would I want to educate something as manipulative and
insecure as you?
Please do use your filters.
Arthur Entlich
I offered him the opportunity to reform his point of view in some
coherent and useful manner to prove what he wishes to, which is that
other color editing programs are superior to Photoshop and perhaps
cheaper also. I am willing to listen.
But if the diatribe continues as it has with personal attacks, false
accusations, and the like, he'll go where all good trolls go, into my
filter bucket to be tossed.
Art
If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/
Arthur Entlich
As to the top posting, better put me back in your killfile. No changes
planned there at all.
Art
If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/
Arthur Entlich
you quickly and thoroughly. I use one email address for publication on
any one newgroup or forum. That makes it simple for people to killfile
me, if they so desire. From what I can see, you have at least three
just in this one thread. Why would you find it necessary to do so? If
you want people to be able to filter you, why not stick to one address.
Sounds to me like someone who is afraid he might be killfiled or ignored.
l...@lol.org
t...@ts.info
spam...@anon.com
Any others I need to add to remove you completely from my email client?
For someone so paranoid about having his/her content manipulated or
twisted, I find it very interesting how you edited out the majority of
my comments and left just one sentence.
The type of infantilism that comes from a person who finds it necessary
to refer to other people as "things" and isn't capable of using his
"words" in a civil fashion is a discussion, let alone a debate, just
further lowers your credibility. Now that I know I do not have anything
of value to learn from you, I'll killfile you with each new alias you
generate.
I gave you adequate opportunity to rise above the stupidity and
classlessness of your postings, but I now see I overestimated you.
Bye,
Art
If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/
Arthur Entlich
Oh, and one more address:
That makes four so far.
One nice feature of Thunderbird is the ease of making a killfile
filter. A couple clicks of the mouse, and all postings form an address
do directly to the delete trash bucket.
Art
If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/
Savageduck
> Would you be kind enough to list all your many aliases, so I can filter
> you quickly and thoroughly. I use one email address for publication on
> any one newgroup or forum. That makes it simple for people to killfile
> me, if they so desire. From what I can see, you have at least three
> just in this one thread. Why would you find it necessary to do so? If
> you want people to be able to filter you, why not stick to one address.
> Sounds to me like someone who is afraid he might be killfiled or
> ignored.
>
> l...@lol.org
> t...@ts.info
> spam...@anon.com
>
> Any others I need to add to remove you completely from my email client?
Arthur,
Welcome to the club of those who have tired of the P&S troll.
The troll "who shall remain nameless" has a shopping list of nym's and
addresses. The addresses are not consistently used, and he might use
more than one nym in a thread.
Many of us who are familiar with him have learned to ignore him for the
most part. Though (and I am guilty here ) some have been drawn into
responding.
Where my "P&S troll" killfile has been effective, I still get to see
some of his ravings when others respond.
So just to demonstrate the measures he will go to, here are a few of
the nym's, along with those you are aware of, he has used in the photo
newsgroups he trolls;
NameHere <wh...@address.info>
SayWhat <spam...@anon.com>
LOL! <l...@lol.org>
Crazy Spotters Inc. <c...@miami.org>
Steve Carlson <scar...@notformail.net>
Sam-I-Am <s...@sia.org>
sheesh <sh...@whydotheybother.org>
Too Bad The Trolls Don't Know Where Their Camera Designs Came From
<tbttdk...@tbttdkwtcdcf.com>
Tiring of Being Honest <to...@tobh.com>
Reality Czech <spam...@antispam.org>
Re AL Ity <rea...@anotheraddress.com>
Better Info <bi...@binfo.com>
Troll Killer <t...@trollkillers.org>
Isaac Is An Idiot But I Won't Tell Anyone <iiai...@iiaibiwta.org>
Educating the TROLLS <E...@etts.com>
DSLR-Troll Killer <d...@trollkillers.org>
Searching For The Truth <lkharve...@yahoo.com>
Outing Trolls is FUN! <ot...@trollouters.org>
There are many others I have left out as this would scroll for pages.
Now even though you have those nym's I think you will soon learn his
writing style, which he finds difficult to change. Occasionally he will
post what appears to be a rational question or remark to bait a group,
or some innocent who has not recognized him, and then dump his usual
tirade.
There are also some distinctive markers in his message headers.
It is best to just ignore him when you can.
I would expect a comment from him regarding this post.
BTW, top posting might be your particular habit, but it is annoying,
and makes newsgroup threads difficult to follow. Top posting is an
E-mail convention which can be annoying in newsgroups.
Consider responding in newsgroups so that there is a chronological,
conversational stream to the post which does not confuse the thread.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
ROFLMAO!
And all this sage advice coming from a fool who creates tilted beginner's
panoramas with pink clouds and pink granite mountains during noon lighting.
Go ahead, show us those photos again! Show us again how you can't even see
the proper colors in your crapshots.
LOL!
You can't even use an editor to find the right white-balance let alone
anything else. And you think you have the expertise to even know what we've
been talking about concerning Granger charts, Lab and CMYK color-spaces,
etc.?
LOL!!!
Fuck are you resident idiot trolls ever a barrel of laughs. Even funnier, 8
of those addresses you claim to filter but never do aren't even ones I've
used!
ROFLMAO!
John McWilliams
> Would you be kind enough to list all your many aliases, so I can filter
> you quickly and thoroughly. I use one email address for publication on
> any one newgroup or forum. That makes it simple for people to killfile
> me, if they so desire. From what I can see, you have at least three
> just in this one thread. Why would you find it necessary to do so? If
> you want people to be able to filter you, why not stick to one address.
> Sounds to me like someone who is afraid he might be killfiled or ignored.
Experience with the nym-shifter suggests that one not bother with
killfiles, but scan quickly for amusement, and move on.
It is the replies and talking about him (as I am doing) that keeps him
going. The chances of everybody not replying is small, but growing
daily. Projected end: May 2012... oh, wait, we're all dead then!
--
john mcwilliams
Paul Furman
those, it looks like an easy way to go for smaller images at moderate
magnification. All the really heavy hitters use DSLRs or 4/3 so they can
utilize proper lenses. 4/3 is probably the way to go, FF is a challenge,
that's for sure.
So, did you figure out what's going on with the granger charts yet?
Savageduck
Good!
That means we won't have to endure a Palin Presidency in 2013.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Educating the Beginner Moron
wrote:
>OK pretty cool, although I didn't find any serious work being done with
>those, it looks like an easy way to go for smaller images at moderate
>magnification. All the really heavy hitters use DSLRs or 4/3 so they can
>utilize proper lenses. 4/3 is probably the way to go, FF is a challenge,
>that's for sure.
Holy fuck are you ever an idiot of a DSLR-Troll. After you've been shown
many links where P&S cameras now surpass the image quality of even this
year's latest DSLRs. They're even able to rival the image quality of a
medium-format Hasselblad on prints up to and perhaps larger than 13"x19".
>
>So, did you figure out what's going on with the granger charts yet?
>
Yes, I did!
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Huh?
> You wouldn't be obfuscating would you? I snipped nothing, you snipped
> though. Am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing whom you are talking to: the Slime (trolls
have a certain level of intelligence and integrity). Right now
you are feeding it, way to much. It's completely insane and
DSLRphobic while P&S is it's GOD. As any mad worshipper who'd
be willing to commit mass murder for the glory of it's god and
to slay all infidels, it's completely unconcerned about truth,
honesty or stealing DSLR shots that it claims are physically
impossible P&S shots. Better trust the worst used car salesman
on the world with all your money and your family's life ...
The worst thing for the Slime one can do is ignoring it
consequently.
>> I have no problems using P&S shutter speeds over 1/500 second to stop
>> insects in flight in hand-held available-light macros. Without high ISO
>> noise nor having to quarter the image size by using pixel-binning
You'll never see any more than a tiny 640x480 image on a by
nature temporary flickr URL stolen from some innocent account
--- and of course with no EXIF. DOF or quality will be near
impossible to judge, and it might even be a scan from a magazine.
Or, most likely, you never see anything at all, ever -- it HAS no
such image. And 1/500s is way to slow to stop many, if not most,
insects' wing beating --- which is why real people do that with
a flash. Which, of course, could theoretically be synced to
the P&S ... whereas a DSLR would likely have a slightly slower
sync speed.
-Wolfgang
ColinD
and not the adolescent variation repeated endlessly like a schoolboy
joke. Hopefully we are all adults in here, though at times the evidence
would indicate otherwise.
Since you give your moniker as 'Educating the Beginner Moron', I hope
you feel educated and somewhat less moronic now.
Colin D.
Educating the Beginner MoronS
Oh look! Another DSLR-Troll living in its mommy's basement living out a
reality invented in that small space between its ears. So desperate for any
glimpse outside of its basement-walls that it has to resort to being this
childishly manipulative to try to get someone to post a photo for it.
Well, let's not disappoint it yet again, shall we? It's tried the same
childish tactics so often now. It's getting beyond boring. Maybe this will
finally shut it the fuck up.
Here's one that I took, lit with incandescent lab lights only, on an
outdoor photography stage, hand-held, no flash. Albeit, not one of the many
marketable shots I took, the framing and composition is wrong. When I frame
with the EVF or LCD I use the full frame, no room for cropping. None of you
will ever see the good ones, they are for private sale only.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2793/4347323170_4c21955dfc_o.jpg
Shot with a P&S camera, hand-held, incandescent lights only. These insects
are primarily nocturnal (this species anyway). I had to attract it to a
large white background that I set up outside at night in some remote woods
in order to photograph it.
The only way you can possibly follow an 18mm-long (3/4-inch) insect this
fast in flight is by holding the P&S camera at half-arm's length and using
your arms as a rapid 3D boom-support system. Moving the camera rapidly in
all 3 axes of movement while viewing its flight-path in the LCD and
peripheral vision and still keeping it in focus. Another huge point in
favor of all P&S cameras for all demanding wildlife photography.
Go ahead, hunt for this exact image on the net since you useless fucking
trolls think that I always post other's photos. To make it even easier for
you useless pretend-photographer trolls it goes by the genus name of
"Nicrophorus". Species possibly "marginatus".
I was documenting the symbiotic relationship that these burying-beetles
have with a large mite species that is stored beneath their elytra when the
beetles are crawling, or beneath the folds of their carapace when in
flight. There is evidence to suggest that the better collection of mites
they have the more of a potential mating partner they might be. (Not unlike
the usual resident newsgroup-troll, but these burying beetles will have
infinitely more luck at finding a mate with *their* mites.) I have counted
up to 30-40 of these large mites on some live specimens. How they are able
to hide on the beetles' bodies so successfully while in flight is a mystery
to me. What's more of a mystery is how newborn beetles eventually obtain
their own collection of mites of the same species, never having contact
with the parent beetles anymore. This one in flight had approximately 20-25
symbiotic mite-partners that I counted when it was at rest. The mites keep
their bodies clean after the beetles' carrion-burying and egg-laying tasks.
The mites usually boil out of the beetle's body-plates and over the
beetle's head when it is feeding, taking advantage of the ready meal. The
beetles themselves never seeming to be bothered by this, they seem quite
content to let them crawl over their heads, antennae, and other body parts,
never trying to brush them away nor feed on them. The mites are so large
that if they were outside the folds of this one in flight you could easily
see them, they're a little larger than the size of the ends of the beetles'
antennae.
Here's another one (of my really bad shots, focal point was off) of their
symbiotic mites--species "Poecilochirus necrophori". Taken on another
night, another beetle. Just to prove to you that I know what I'm talking
about.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4005/4347447180_3bf1dd321a_o.jpg
Again, you'll never see any photos from me that anyone can use for profit
being posted publicly by myself. I already know what kind of useless
plagiaristic fuckheads that you are.
What do you estimate the shutter speed to be by the blur of the beetle's
wing-tips? I know the shutter speed, do you?
You're so smart, Puppygang Trollberg, you must be able to tell us all. What
is the average wing-beat frequency of an 18mm (3/4") size beetle of this
species? And then what is the speed of their wingtips so you can deduce the
shutter speed from the amount of blur? Surely, a troll as "smart" as
yourself must be able to tell us all.
You lousy, useless, piece of shit, pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll.
Where's all YOUR photos Puppygang Trollberg?
You're ALL a bunch of fuckin' crapshooting DSLR-Troll morons.
Educating the Beginner Moron
The only moron I see is you, by you thinking your behavior is in any way
more respectable. I'd spit on you if you were here. That's precisely how
much respect you deserve.
BD
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2793/4347323170_4c21955dfc_o.jpg
No EXIF data. Your argument is invalid.
Educating the Beginner Moron
>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2793/4347323170_4c21955dfc_o.jpg
>
>No EXIF data. Your argument is invalid.
No EXIF data being intentional. I want to see PuppyGang TrollBerg deduce
the wing-tip speed. You cannot sync flash with a DSLR at that fast of a
shutter speed required. I used incandescent lab lights, you can tell by the
blur. If flash was used then there'd be no blur. Ergo, shot with a
hand-held P&S camera using incandescent lights.
You're just as fuckingly stupid as the rest of the trolls in these groups.
BD
> You're just as fuckingly stupid as the rest of the trolls in these groups.
Nothin' but net...
Paul Furman
> Here's one that I took, lit with incandescent lab lights only, on an
> outdoor photography stage, hand-held, no flash. Albeit, not one of the many
> marketable shots I took, the framing and composition is wrong. When I frame
> with the EVF or LCD I use the full frame, no room for cropping. None of you
> will ever see the good ones, they are for private sale only.
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2793/4347323170_4c21955dfc_o.jpg
Wow, 560 pixels!
Good for more than a one-inch print at 300dpi.
Educating the Beginner MoronS
wrote:
>On 2/10/2010 3:52 PM, Educating the Beginner MoronS wrote:
You act as if you deserve to see the original full-scale image instead of
this greatly downsized one. Useless trolls like yourself should be grateful
for anything you get at all. Even this reply. Now say "thank-you".
When you learn to respect all others who have far greater skills than
you'll ever have in your lifetime then maybe you too will earn respect one
day. You lousy useless crapshooting cunt of a DSLR-Troll.
Now, where oh where did that PuppyGang TrollBerg go off to ... he was going
to show everyone just pathetically smart he was.... I guess it worked. It
finally shut-up that useless cunt of a pretend-photographer troll too, as
well as a few others just as insanely ignorant about photography and
cameras.
Educating the Beginner MoronS
wrote:
>On 2/10/2010 3:52 PM, Educating the Beginner MoronS wrote:
You act as if you deserve to see the original full-scale image instead of
this greatly downsized one. Useless trolls like yourself should be grateful
for anything you get at all. Even this reply. Now say "thank-you".
When you learn to respect all others who have far greater skills than
you'll ever have in your lifetime then maybe you too will earn respect one
day. You lousy useless crapshooting cunt of a DSLR-Troll.
Now, where oh where did that PuppyGang TrollBerg go off to ... he was going
to show everyone just how pathetically smart he was.... I guess it worked.
Frank ess
Paul Furman wrote:
> On 2/10/2010 3:52 PM, Educating the Beginner MoronS wrote:
>> Here's one that I took, lit with incandescent lab lights only, on
>> an outdoor photography stage, hand-held, no flash. Albeit, not one
>> of the many marketable shots I took, the framing and composition
>> is wrong. When I frame with the EVF or LCD I use the full frame,
>> no room for cropping. None of you will ever see the good ones,
>> they are for private sale only.
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2793/4347323170_4c21955dfc_o.jpg
>
/Self-portrait With Shadow/
ColinD
remain as you describe yourself, a Beginner Moron.
And if I *were* there, you would be too scared to spit on me, so that
was a moronic statement made only because you hide behind your anonymity.
You should have stayed as your earlier nym, 'Too Funny', although that
moniker applies to you as well, a real scream in fact.
That's the trouble with you trolls, you nym-shift when it suits you. I
guess *you* didn't like being pulled up on your silly childish wordplay, eh?
How about you just fuck off back where you came from? There's a good boy.
Ray Fischer
>Here's one that I took, lit with incandescent lab lights only, on an
Nobody believes lying trolls.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Educating the Beginner Moron
>
>And if I *were* there, you would be too scared to spit on me, so that
>was a moronic statement made only because you hide behind your anonymity.
Yeah, you keep believing that you useless fuckhead. I also used to tend bar
at an outlaw biker-bar whenever passing through their area. Nice bunch of
guys as long as you're on their good side. I also carry a gun without a
permit, my permit is the US Constitution, the only one needed, to more
easily deal with idiots fuckheads like you. Did you know an alligator can
consume a whole human body and there's no evidence left whatsoever? I
learned that nice solution from a community of drug-running outlaws that I
buddied-up with to document why they have to live as they do. There's a
reason I like to use micro-SD cards in an adapter, they're more easy to
toss aside in the brush to retrieve later or hidden in a shoe when
confronted by ego-broken law or outlaw mongering control-freaks. It would
probably be surprising to the likes of you that outlaws are more respectful
of the freedoms of others than those that kiss the ass of the laws
(opinions) of others.
This too is why I'm so easily welcomed into many rugged communities and
trusted in any land. I speak their language, verbally or empathetically,
and know why they are as they are. They are me, I am them.
Holy fuck are you ever naive. Your life would last about 2 minutes around
the people I know.
Do you enjoy your secluded life in your mommy's basement or on cushy couch
much? You useless cunt of a control-freak troll.
ColinD
abuse. Yes, you're the big man alright - big in all the wrong places.
All this because I requested you to use the right word. Boy, if anybody
really crossed you, you would be suicidally apoplectic. You should see
a shrink about that ego before it kills you.
Colin D.
Pete
> consume a whole human body and there's no evidence left whatsoever?
> There's a reason I like to use micro-SD cards in an adapter,
I thought you were going to say they have more chance of surviving the
journey through an alligator than larger cards.
Pete
TJ
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:52:22 -0600, Too Funny wrote:
>
>> I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
>> testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
>> people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying
>> to remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
>>
>>
>> "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2775/4337905568_55c1e9cfa6_o.jpg
>>
>> Isn't this fun? :-)
>
> I'd have thought there'd be a lot more to photo editing.
It's certainly been an education for me. Any thoughts I've had about
checking out digital photography newsgroups have been properly squashed.
Too many snobs for my taste.
It's WAY past time for a new killfile...
TJ
--
90 per cent of everything is crud.
- Theodore Sturgeon
BD
> It's certainly been an education for me. Any thoughts I've had about
> checking out digital photography newsgroups have been properly squashed.
> Too many snobs for my taste.
Actually, it's newsgroups one the whole that are more the issue, IMO.
It's kind of the lowest common denominator of discussion groups.
Lon
Its rare to find any discussion that doesnt have a few loudmouth drunks
in the room.
Some people employ their own built-in cognition filters and just watch
for the good tidbits that come under the 10% rule of Sturgeons Law.
Others head for the mommyisms of moderated forums.
Others just stick their heads in the sand and remain at their prior
level of knowledge.