The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
Ryan McGinnis
Hash: SHA1
A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
with. While one can certainly defensively hold a position that there is
a line to be drawn where manipulation takes a photograph beyond truth,
it's very difficult to maintain a position in which only images farted
directly out of a camera qualify as "real" photographs.
http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html
I recently went to a talk put on by a Natty Geo photographer who went to
great lengths to describe how he never digitally corrected any of his
images (or cropped them), and how everything we saw on the screen was
right out of the camera. His audience of mostly college students ate
this crap up. As someone who used to work pre-press, it astounds me how
ignorant even top-notch first-in-their-field photographers are of how an
image goes from slide to a magazine or a digital projector screen. They
get how a camera uses light to create an image on film or a sensor, but
after that, they close their eyes and everything is Magic to them That
Must Not Be Spoken About. Unless you are holding the undeveloped slide
in your hand, the image has been processed. Scanning an image requires
processing it by definition; how it is processed is up to the scanning
technician and the scanning hardware/software. Getting images to look
good even on good a Flexo press printing on heavy slick paper requires
quite a bit of post processing -- it's just done by prepress folk, not
photographers (who merrily go on their way thinking that their 'virgin'
image remains unsullied).
- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key: 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/dJSi08 Images@Alamy: http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=+q2K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Savageduck
I have to agree. The RAW NEF files as they come from my camera are not
a representation of the reality of the scene as I see it, or as I
visualize the image I would like to present.
Manipulation of some type has always been a part of photography, from
the magnificent accident in the developing tank, and darkroom print
work, to enhancing information contained in a digital file, using
whatever tools are available to achieve a pleasing result.
As to who finds that result pleasing whether it was a result of wet or
digital processing will always be subjective.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Eric Stevens
Mr Hardwidge will be rotating in his grave. :-)
Eric Stevens
bugbear
>
> A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
> with.
Provocative|? It's stating the very obvious.
BugBear
Savageduck
Aah! The in-camera magnificent miracle, none of that silly processing
stuff for Charles.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
peter
What the f64 school means is not changing the image to add or subtract
something that was not in the original image. e.g. digitally placing an
Indian in a red canoe in the middle of that lake. That thought has been
corrupted to a point of absurdity. According to the PSA, nature
division, in a nature shot it's OK to put a cold insect on a flower and
then shoot the flower, but it's not OK to put that insect there digitally.
--
Peter
Ryan McGinnis
Hash: SHA1
One would think, but I have had long and fruitless conversations about
this topic with many people who believe that only a slide straight out
of a film camera (or worse, a JPEG straight out of a digital camera) can
truly be considered "manipulated". These folk usually have their noses
held high, and say things like "Yes, I don't have nearly as many keeper
shots over the years as a lot of people do, but I that's because I do it
the hard way instead of taking shortcuts".
- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key: 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/dJSi08 Images@Alamy: http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=N4xB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
bugbear
> On 1/18/2011 3:10 AM, bugbear wrote:
>> Ryan McGinnis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
>>> with.
>>
>> Provocative|? It's stating the very obvious.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> One would think, but I have had long and fruitless conversations about
> this topic with many people who believe that only a slide straight out
> of a film camera (or worse, a JPEG straight out of a digital camera) can
> truly be considered "manipulated".
"unmanipulated", I assume you meant ;-)
It might be an unmanipulated negative(or slide), but reality/nature/the thing
in from of the lens has already been beaten to a pulp!
w.r.t the scene, what are exposures, apertures, filters, focal lengths
if not manipulations?
Let alone (this is more journalistic than artistic)
deciding *where* to point the camera and *when* to press the shutter.
BugBear
Ryan McGinnis
> One would think, but I have had long and fruitless conversations about
> this topic with many people who believe that only a slide straight out
> of a film camera (or worse, a JPEG straight out of a digital camera) can
> truly be considered "manipulated".
Erm, "unmanipulated". Oh what a different two letters make. :)
The above post has now been manipulated.
--
Paul L
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 1/18/2011 3:10 AM, bugbear wrote:
>> Ryan McGinnis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
>>> with.
>>
>> Provocative|? It's stating the very obvious.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> One would think, but I have had long and fruitless conversations about
> this topic with many people who believe that only a slide straight out
> of a film camera (or worse, a JPEG straight out of a digital camera) can
> truly be considered "manipulated". These folk usually have their noses
> held high, and say things like "Yes, I don't have nearly as many keeper
> shots over the years as a lot of people do, but I that's because I do it
> the hard way instead of taking shortcuts".
>
> - --
> - -Ryan McGinnis
The image has always been manipulated. In the old days we would start
by deciding on film to use. E64 or K25 ? Both had their own way
with the captured image.
In the digital age, every single image we see has been manipulated, even
if it is only by the in camera JPEG processor. Purists that avoid
processing are the ones with the flat looking images :-)
Paul
Rich
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
> with. While one can certainly defensively hold a position that there is
> a line to be drawn where manipulation takes a photograph beyond truth,
> it's very difficult to maintain a position in which only images farted
> directly out of a camera qualify as "real" photographs.
>
> http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html
>
The guy could be lying. His sunset shot could very well have been as
dull as his 1st rendition was. In-fact, unless the guy is completely
clueless as to how to expose for a sunset, what his camera recorded in
RAW was what was there and he tweaked it to show more colour. We've
all done it, but it isn't realistic. Ever see those sunsets were
everything is red, including the land, people, pets? Those are all
heavily manipulated for effect. There are unembellished images, but
most find them dull. Seems like only yesterday people where
complaining about entry-level DSLRs and unrealistic, bright colours
they produced.
Paul J Gans
Not to people who think their images are unmanipulated.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
I wear glasses. Everything I look at has been manipulated.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:4d352323$0$12280$c3e8da3$f770...@news.astraweb.com...
> A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
> with. While one can certainly defensively hold a position that there is
> a line to be drawn where manipulation takes a photograph beyond truth,
> it's very difficult to maintain a position in which only images farted
> directly out of a camera qualify as "real" photographs.
>
> http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html
Had a post drafted then nuked it. Someone is just after page hits and any
discussion is just a time sink.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Ryan McGinnis
Hash: SHA1
Thanks for letting us know, we were all wondering why you started to
reply and then didn't. Also, please adjust the webcam up a bit, you're
cutting off the top of your head.
- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key: 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/dJSi08 Images@Alamy: http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNNjWJAAoJEPMySnllEV5M2b4P/0FoNAYfz4St3KxVMGUlurJN
bAXcAotBpS1lghIdyC45m31Ew2hDorkVqSTQSoanPEKAwIVNqEusq1U28APxIe/b
swd3XaRHL6JC4rpJdEM6hXhoY3gZlQuoM4yUlmMvVhzXizLN3fO7kxYEGzYkoYi5
AKuFxCP6U4hOIELqVWMuwPWfxOMS+6Z3b0B6cBs1NnR5pzbuUZIvItjXkInv2JxG
+SU9CjLqWGUyTWSu56RJ6aQDBfZppiHJYk+WTu/09DHqj6dqzxPnOoNl1pMhQg1a
Dgqp34en8zh03kad4Ow6RDncaqtuI8jmidU9wlSuc5ShtuB8HZKMr5ZXc5/AG6Sb
b11g277g7Fe7J+aFzBbghqjw5PBgVT3aRFH6gmCGgi04bF+Nu8qg55o5Qvz+7XAc
mVGVO8HVuBRkGuYz9Og885ohthUG4spjTZEb7rEL1kyuZg3/jOGL7Q6J2pabr4rq
Cw9K9MB8OQXjPCVeNlKoaRF9eWI9aOB4hRgboFhYybj6Y271YJWbVU+gtRvGBvL7
ieVgC7OtTGJewoFOXhs/0mo4CVpwD4DoSWiayCitEEG2BoZGEwLu7AQKbXhxFXcL
NPx3e99Wf2UVQOHVo5r/Uwo7wXHprHxMpReylGzbf9BpfMnR0E0y1XMl9vcZ9DcO
flCcMtxjP4uWxbmA6CCM
=PcEU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
N
Not as much as it would be if you didn't wear them.
Noons
bingo...
Whisky-dave
Everything anyone looks at sees a manipulated image as that's what our
brain
does to make sense of it. Our eyes adjust for colour correction and
brightness
to within certain limits of course. Other creatures see things
differently too.
Paul J Gans
True, but still...
Paul J Gans
Of course. As you realized, I was just trying to make the
whole "unmanipulated" discussion go away.
dickr2
to take double or even triple exposures. I have a double exposure
shot of the moon over a California sunset ... somewhere.
Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
can you take double exposures with a digital?
Just curious,
Dick
Alan Browne
I don't know of a digital camera that does.
OTOH, layers in PS (or other apps) will allow you to do so with relative
ease.
Or of course a multi flash exposure in a dark environment. Hold the
shutter open in the dark - pop flash(es) to make each exposure on the
sensor.
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
Pete
> On 2011.01.19 17:50 , dickr2 wrote:
>> Way back when I was using a Canon T90 film camera, it was easy
>> to take double or even triple exposures. I have a double exposure
>> shot of the moon over a California sunset ... somewhere.
>> Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
>> can you take double exposures with a digital?
>
> I don't know of a digital camera that does.
Mine can take up to 10, either gain adjusted or not. I have absolutely
no use for the facility, I just remember reading about it in the manual
and thinking "So what?"
> OTOH, layers in PS (or other apps) will allow you to do so with relative ease.
>
> Or of course a multi flash exposure in a dark environment. Hold the
> shutter open in the dark - pop flash(es) to make each exposure on the
> sensor.
--
Pete
Alan Browne
> On 2011-01-19 23:09:09 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>
>> On 2011.01.19 17:50 , dickr2 wrote:
>>> Way back when I was using a Canon T90 film camera, it was easy
>>> to take double or even triple exposures. I have a double exposure
>>> shot of the moon over a California sunset ... somewhere.
>>> Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
>>> can you take double exposures with a digital?
>>
>> I don't know of a digital camera that does.
>
> Mine can take up to 10, either gain adjusted or not. I have absolutely
> no use for the facility, I just remember reading about it in the manual
> and thinking "So what?"
Interesting. What camera is that?
Bill Graham
My D 700 (Nikon) will take up to ten, "Multiple exposures". I too, have
never used this feature.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I can take n-tupal exposures with my D300.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
How to express disapproval without actually addressing the topic.
Eric Stevens
David Nebenzahl
> Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
> can you take double exposures with a digital?
> Just curious,
isn't that pretty much a moot point?
After all, it's trivially easy to combine two or more digital images
with practically any image-editing software, so why would you even want
to do that in-camera?
--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:
To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.
Savageduck
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
My D300s will let me take multiple exposures.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
> On 1/19/2011 2:50 PM dickr2 spake thus:
>
>> Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
>> can you take double exposures with a digital?
>> Just curious,
>
> isn't that pretty much a moot point?
>
> After all, it's trivially easy to combine two or more digital images
> with practically any image-editing software, so why would you even want
> to do that in-camera?
Different strokes...
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Pete
Nikon D300/700/7000/D3, maybe others.
--
Pete
Whisky-dave
> Way back when I was using a Canon T90 film camera, it was easy
> to take double or even triple exposures. I have a double exposure
> shot of the moon over a California sunset ... somewhere.
I did that by accident and have a double exposure of an eclipse of the
sun
and a friend digging over my garden.
> Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
> can you take double exposures with a digital?
> Just curious,
> Dick
I don;t think so as the electronics just increments the image counter
when another shot is taken.You could just stake two images
and and use an image editor to lay one over the other in layers.
I haven't heard of a digital camera when this can be done in camera.
bugbear
> On 2011-01-19 23:09:09 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>
>> On 2011.01.19 17:50 , dickr2 wrote:
>>> Way back when I was using a Canon T90 film camera, it was easy
>>> to take double or even triple exposures. I have a double exposure
>>> shot of the moon over a California sunset ... somewhere.
>>> Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
>>> can you take double exposures with a digital?
>>
>> I don't know of a digital camera that does.
>
> Mine can take up to 10, either gain adjusted or not. I have absolutely
> no use for the facility, I just remember reading about it in the manual
> and thinking "So what?"
A marvellous example of a feature added because it was easy
and cheap to do, not because it's needed.
Because more features = better camera, right?
BugBear
bugbear
How to misunderstand someone's post.
BugBear
Floyd L. Davidson
Your lack of imagination does not mean it has no value,
only that your imagination wasn't fired.
What happens to the random noise when 8 shots are
averaged? What happens to random noise when 8 shots are
added. Those are the options provided by Nikon.
At any given ISO (using averaging) it will produce noise
equivalent to dividing the ISO by 8, or keep the same
noise but effectively allow exposures at 8 times the ISO
(with additive). That was a little astounding with a
D2X, and is just off scale with a D3S.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Pete
When I first got my D700 it seemed to have loads of features that I
would never use hence my "So what?" attitude towards them. That was due
to my lack of imagination and my inability to understand them during
the first few months of learning the basics. Now I've figured out how
to use some of the advanced functions I'm able to be more creative and
capture better images. I'd rather have too many features than not
enough.
Thanks to your explanation of the two modes, Floyd, I know exactly what
I'm going to use multiple exposure for...
--
Pete
bugbear
And all trivial as a post process.
I do understand the feature, possibly better than you,
since it's a common thing to do in astrophotography.
http://www.samirkharusi.net/sub-exposures.html
BugBear
Savageduck
Well you have to start with a camera which actually has the feature, or
one like it.
In the Nikon D300/D700/D3 this is not bracketing, HDR bracketing, or
exposure stacking, or even even the old film oriented double/triple
exposure (though it can be used that way), but something quite
different.
Certainly a similar, but not the same effect can be obtained with software.
It can be set up for 2-10 shots, with or without auto gain adjustment
(auto gain only reduces the gain, when there are dark backgrounds it is
recommended to have auto gain off). the feature resets to normal once
the series of multiple exposures are complete, so it takes a deliberate
action to activate via the shooting menu.
This is just another creative tool for the photographer, who can choose
to apply it however they want. Some have discovered it accidentally,
not having RTFM, and not comprehending its purpose, ending up with the
classic accidental double exposure "ghost" image on a single frame.
This is so much more than that.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
peter
> On 2011.01.19 17:50 , dickr2 wrote:
>> Way back when I was using a Canon T90 film camera, it was easy
>> to take double or even triple exposures. I have a double exposure
>> shot of the moon over a California sunset ... somewhere.
>> Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
>> can you take double exposures with a digital?
>
> I don't know of a digital camera that does.
Both my Nikons, D200 & D300 do it with ease.
>
> OTOH, layers in PS (or other apps) will allow you to do so with relative
> ease.
>
> Or of course a multi flash exposure in a dark environment. Hold the
> shutter open in the dark - pop flash(es) to make each exposure on the
> sensor.
>
--
Peter
peter
> On 2011-01-19 23:09:09 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>
>> On 2011.01.19 17:50 , dickr2 wrote:
>>> Way back when I was using a Canon T90 film camera, it was easy
>>> to take double or even triple exposures. I have a double exposure
>>> shot of the moon over a California sunset ... somewhere.
>>> Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
>>> can you take double exposures with a digital?
>>
>> I don't know of a digital camera that does.
>
> Mine can take up to 10, either gain adjusted or not. I have absolutely
> no use for the facility, I just remember reading about it in the manual
> and thinking "So what?"
You don't have to like the images, but this is the type of effect I use
it for:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/131370993
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/126699234
--
Peter
peter
Some of us use it. See my prior posting.
--
Peter
NameHere
55 different models of compact and superzoom CHDK cameras do this using the
RAW SUM or RAW AVG options on their menus with no limit to the number of
frames.
bugbear
Please describe/explain/link to the differences.
BugBear
Savageduck
OK.
With my D300s I have several different methods of bracketing for
exposure and/or flash level, WB, or Active D-lighting. I can select
between 2, 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots for bracketing sequence. I can choose EV
values of 1/3, 2/3, or 1. I can choose + or - 2 or 3 shot brackets
where a typical bracket might be +1/3/ 0/ +2/3, or -1/3/ -2/3/ 0.
and then there are the typical bracketing shots used for stuff such as
HDR or exposure insurance,or capture for exposure stacking, where a
typical 5 shot set might look like this -2/-1/0/+1/+2.
The multiple exposure feature does not change exposure settings. There
is the option of having the auto gain for this feature turned on or
off. All this does is lower the gain for each shot in the sequence to
control noise and other issues related to creating/building multiple
exposure images on a single RAW file (RAW is recommended)
Other than creating typical multiple exposure images with ghosting
movement of a subject. Nikon also suggests this as a method of
in-camera color and exposure enhancement, different to that achieved in
post processing.
Just more creative tools for the imaginative photographer who is
prepared to do something different.
...and yes, this is manipulation of the image by the photographer in-camera.
So if there is a camera club or competition where they demand entries
use no post processing, because the luddites controlling those clubs,
and /or competitions think they are being purists, you have another way
to screw with them within their rules.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Floyd L. Davidson
Nice try, but you still aren't engaging enough
imagination to even begin to claim you understand it,
much less better than someone else.
It may be "all trivial as a post process", but the
actual fact is that you almost certainly do not have
software to do exactly the same thing in post
processing.
If you did... you could produce a RAW file, as do the
Nikon cameras. You can't.
Eric Stevens
I've experimented with multiple exposures on the D300. I've used it
for stop-motion on machinery to enable me to track exactly what was
going on.
Then there is the blurred lace effect of a slow exposure of a river or
a waterfall. I've never succeeded in getting that effect with the
waves crashing on the shore as they are too large and move too slowly.
However, ten slowish shots at intervals turn the sea into a creamy
lumpy froth with never a sign of a wave. Eery.
Eric Stevens
Alan Browne
When the addition of features does not decrease the reliability,
usability or increase price, then it is better for some purchasers.
Eric Stevens
He expressed disapproval. He didn't address the topic. What else is
there to understand?
Eric Stevens
Bill Graham
I know my D700 has an "averaging" feature, but it also has a "multiple
exposures" feature. I didn't know these were the same feature. I can
understand the averaging and its use to reduce random noise, but the
multiple exposures seem redundant to me.
Savageduck
Actually your D700 has a "Bracketing" feature, and a "multiple
exposure" feature. They are not the same feature and serve two
different purposes.
Bracketing will adjust the exposure value above and below the 0 EV
settings. So you might have something such as -2/-1/0/+1/+2 EV as a
bracketed set. With this set there are many things you can do. You can
select a single shot from the set which might give you your most
pleasing exposure. You can use any two, or all of the set for exposure
stacking/averaging, or you can use any two, or all as the basis for an
HDR shot.
The multiple exposure feature serves a different purpose, much the same
as being able to take double, or multiple exposures with a film camera.
There is no change of any exposure values, as there is with bracketing.
How you best use this feature is entirely up to you.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
bugbear
Yes, lovely, that's all to do with creating the sub-frames, not merging them
by summing or averaging (which is just a sum, with a normalising divide down, of course)
> The multiple exposure feature does not change exposure settings. There
> is the option of having the auto gain for this feature turned on or off.
> All this does is lower the gain for each shot in the sequence to control
> noise and other issues related to creating/building multiple exposure
> images on a single RAW file (RAW is recommended)
> Other than creating typical multiple exposure images with ghosting
> movement of a subject. Nikon also suggests this as a method of in-camera
> color and exposure enhancement, different to that achieved in post
> processing.
Yes - I asked you *what* the difference was. That was the entire point of my question.
Can you quote Nikon exactly, or point to a site, so I can learn more (if there is more)?
> Just more creative tools for the imaginative photographer who is
> prepared to do something different.
>
> ...and yes, this is manipulation of the image by the photographer
> in-camera.
OK. So the actual averaging or addition of the sub-frames is the same
as would be achieved be a post process.
> So if there is a camera club or competition where they demand entries
> use no post processing, because the luddites controlling those clubs,
> and /or competitions think they are being purists, you have another way
> to screw with them within their rules.
Heh. Given the code access the CHDK toolkit (not CHDK as installed, but the kit)
gives you, a 'C' programmer could create any-damn-post-processing
they wanted, and run it in camera!
BugBear
bugbear
Not if it complicates, or just messes up, the user interface.
BugBear
bugbear
Oh really?
Even though I've used Registax, including darks and flats, and knew
what I was doing at every stage?
>
> It may be "all trivial as a post process",
indeed.
> but the
> actual fact is that you almost certainly do not have
> software to do exactly the same thing in post
> processing.
You know what's installed on my computer? - damn you're good.
You do realise the Nikon feature (as far as anyone's
told me so far) is just averaging or summing?
This is readily doable with pamarith and pamfunc from kludgy old netpbm,
let alone more modern software.
> If you did... you could produce a RAW file, as do the
> Nikon cameras. You can't.
Raw files are the input to the post processing. Having post-processed
them, a tiff, png, EXR, or JPEG would be the format of choice.
But you're quite tight - I don't have post processing software
that outputs RAW files.
BugBear
bugbear
I'll go slow.
He was pointing out that the topic IS ITSELF
a lie, and that the poster merely wants traffic.
For this POV, discussing the OP's topic is to pander
to the OP's desire for traffic, which he doesn't want to do.
BugBear
Charles E Hardwidge
news:dMydnbo4ips8xaTQ...@brightview.co.uk...
> He was pointing out that the topic IS ITSELF
> a lie, and that the poster merely wants traffic.
>
> For this POV, discussing the OP's topic is to pander
> to the OP's desire for traffic, which he doesn't want to do.
This is an astute observation.
However, dualism is a PITA in the sense that everything is useful/not
useful. That's when the trouble starts. As words heap on words the subject
becomes irrelevant, and the "truth" skitters further away like a puck.
Realisation of this is fundamental to Zen.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Savageduck
;-)
>
> You do realise the Nikon feature (as far as anyone's
> told me so far) is just averaging or summing?
Nikon's multiple exposure feature is not averaging or "summing".
>
> This is readily doable with pamarith and pamfunc from kludgy old netpbm,
> let alone more modern software.
>
>> If you did... you could produce a RAW file, as do the
>> Nikon cameras. You can't.
>
> Raw files are the input to the post processing. Having post-processed
> them, a tiff, png, EXR, or JPEG would be the format of choice.
>
> But you're quite tight - I don't have post processing software
> that outputs RAW files.
>
> BugBear
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Agreed these bracketed frames would have to be post processed with
appropriate software to achieve the intended result, be that exposure
stacking and blending, or HDR processing (they are not the same thing)
>
>> The multiple exposure feature does not change exposure settings. There
>> is the option of having the auto gain for this feature turned on or off.
>> All this does is lower the gain for each shot in the sequence to control
>> noise and other issues related to creating/building multiple exposure
>> images on a single RAW file (RAW is recommended)
>> Other than creating typical multiple exposure images with ghosting
>> movement of a subject. Nikon also suggests this as a method of in-camera
>> color and exposure enhancement, different to that achieved in post
>> processing.
>
> Yes - I asked you *what* the difference was. That was the entire point
> of my question.
> Can you quote Nikon exactly, or point to a site, so I can learn more
> (if there is more)?
OK!~ Here is some of what Nikon and a few others have to say. A little
simplistic, but there it is. I would also suggest you Google stuff such
as capturing bracketed exposures for HDR and/or exposure stacking. Also
check some other photography literature. I am not going to do all the
research for you. If you are in any way interested to look at things
differently you need to put some effort into your education.
< http://keithwiley.com/astroPhotography/imageStacking.shtml >
< http://www.outdoorexposurephoto.com/photoblog/digital-photography-tips/21/ >
<
http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/Photography-Techniques/ga5bvjav/1/Image-Overlay.html
>
>
>> Just more creative tools for the imaginative photographer who is
>> prepared to do something different.
>>
>> ...and yes, this is manipulation of the image by the photographer
>> in-camera.
>
> OK. So the actual averaging or addition of the sub-frames is the same
> as would be achieved be a post process.
Not necessarily.
>
>> So if there is a camera club or competition where they demand entries
>> use no post processing, because the luddites controlling those clubs,
>> and /or competitions think they are being purists, you have another way
>> to screw with them within their rules.
>
> Heh. Given the code access the CHDK toolkit (not CHDK as installed, but
> the kit)
> gives you, a 'C' programmer could create any-damn-post-processing
> they wanted, and run it in camera!
We are not talking add on as with CHDK, we are talking about built in features.
...and CHDK only applies to Canon compacts and Super Zooms.
>
> BugBear
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
The Nikon feature under discussion, does not complicate, or mess up the
user interface in any way.
It just adds to the creative options of the photographer, and is no
more than a simple menu selection away.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
bugbear
You appear to be missing my question. All those sites are about taking multiple
shots and post processing them. I know about this, I've been doing it for years.
I've been doing HDR, time lapse, panoramas, tourist removal, super-resolution,
and astrophotography.
What I specifically want to know is what the Nikon "in camera" feature
is doing that is different from what can be achieved by post processing.
BugBear
bugbear
>>
>> You do realise the Nikon feature (as far as anyone's
>> told me so far) is just averaging or summing?
>
> Nikon's multiple exposure feature is not averaging or "summing".
So people keep saying, thus far without useful detail.
BugBear
bugbear
From the D300 manual:
> Follow the steps below to record a series of two to ten exposures
> in a single photograph. Multiple exposures can be recorded at any
> image quality setting, and produce results with colors noticeably
> better than photographs combined in an imaging application
> because they make use of RAW data from the camera image
> sensor.
So the colour quality claim seems to be based on the assumption
than post processing would be using JPEG, whereas "multiple exposure"
can use RAW.
Clearly tosh, since external software could also
be used on RAW files, with the same benefit.
Now for the Auto gain sub-feature:
> Option / Description
> On (default)
> Gain adjusted according to number of exposures
> actually recorded (gain for each exposure is set to 1/2 for
> 2 exposures, 1/3 for 3 exposures, etc.).
> Off
> Gain is not adjusted when recording multiple exposure.
> Recommended if background is dark.
Does anyone want to try to convince me that this is not the same as
"Average" and "Sum" ?
BugBear
Charles E Hardwidge
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> What I specifically want to know is what the Nikon "in camera" feature
> is doing that is different from what can be achieved by post processing.
The only thing I can think of is it works at the Bayer matrix level.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
bugbear
Are you saying that's what it IS doing (evidence please)
or that's the only thing it COULD be doing that would make a difference?
BugBear
Charles E Hardwidge
> Clearly tosh, since external software could also be used on RAW files,
> with the same benefit.
This is true if the software is operating directly on the Bayer matrix data
rather than demosaicing it first. Most software doesn't do this but will
operate on the demosaiced images.
There's also the issue that some pre-processing may occur in the camera
prior to recording the raw image that external software doesn't have access
to even if it does operate directly on the raw image.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
Calm down, grasshopper. I've commented on the issues slightly further down
the thread. Probably better to pick it up there.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
bugbear
That's might fine bunch of speculation ya' got there.
Certainly way beyond anything Nikon are claiming
anywhere I can find.
BugBear
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> bugbear<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>> but the
>> actual fact is that you almost certainly do not have
>> software to do exactly the same thing in post
>> processing.
>
>You know what's installed on my computer? - damn you're good.
Learn to read. I have no idea what *is* installed, but
clearly have an idea of what *cannot be installed*.
...
>But you're quite tight - I don't have post processing software
>that outputs RAW files.
You did an awful lot of whining before admitting that I
was *precisely* correct. Seems you have a lot of
emotional self esteem tied up in this conversation;
which in my opinion is pretty silly on Usenet.
bugbear
> bugbear<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>> bugbear<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>> but the
>>> actual fact is that you almost certainly do not have
>>> software to do exactly the same thing in post
>>> processing.
>>
>> You know what's installed on my computer? - damn you're good.
>
> Learn to read. I have no idea what *is* installed, but
> clearly have an idea of what *cannot be installed*.
>
> ...
>
>> But you're quite tight - I don't have post processing software
>> that outputs RAW files.
>
> You did an awful lot of whining before admitting that I
> was *precisely* correct.
I think you mean *narrowly* correct?
> Seems you have a lot of
> emotional self esteem tied up in this conversation;
> which in my opinion is pretty silly on Usenet.
I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt -
I assumed that you ineterested in discussing
the important aspects of the software
(image processing, frame averaging, noise reduction)
So let me be clear on this; do you consider the output
format of this feature to be its key quality?
Or at you just point scoring?
BugBear
Ryan McGinnis
Hash: SHA1
On 1/21/2011 3:57 AM, bugbear wrote:
> I'll go slow.
>
> He was pointing out that the topic IS ITSELF
> a lie, and that the poster merely wants traffic.
>
> For this POV, discussing the OP's topic is to pander
> to the OP's desire for traffic, which he doesn't want to do.
>
> BugBear
Except, of course, that I am not the author of the article or affiliated
with the site. You're might be suffering from Internet Cynic Overload
Syndrome.
- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key: 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/dJSi08 Images@Alamy: http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=syTd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
pbromaghin
> For this POV, discussing the OP's topic is to pander
> to the OP's desire for traffic, which he doesn't want to do.
>
However, the discussion that did happen included a very informative
discussion of in-camera multiple exposure functionality and provided
new insight (at least to me) into techniques of astrophotography.
This most certainly was not a part of the OP's purpose.
bugbear
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 1/21/2011 3:57 AM, bugbear wrote:
>
>> I'll go slow.
>>
>> He was pointing out that the topic IS ITSELF
>> a lie, and that the poster merely wants traffic.
>>
>> For this POV, discussing the OP's topic is to pander
>> to the OP's desire for traffic, which he doesn't want to do.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> Except, of course, that I am not the author of the article or affiliated
> with the site. You're might be suffering from Internet Cynic Overload
> Syndrome.
No - it was a mistake on my part. I confused "OP" (you)
and the maker of the site.
Apologies.
BugBear
NameHere
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>Heh. Given the code access the CHDK toolkit (not CHDK as installed, but the kit)
>gives you, a 'C' programmer could create any-damn-post-processing
>they wanted, and run it in camera!
<http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_User_Manual#Custom_Curves>
<http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_User_Manual#RAW_develop>
The last forum link above having a thumbnail-sampler
<http://www4.pic-upload.de/07.01.10/y17s8l6p2vn.jpg> of a few of the
different curves that any end-user can create with the "Curves Editor"
utility program that is also available to any user of CHDK. The only
difference between it and the RGB curves editor in any photo-editing
software is that it is an RGGB curves editor. Extra care must be taken to
adjust the two green channels to your liking, instead of just one green
channel. You are taking control of the RGGB Bayer matrix, instead of the
simplified and interpolated RGB output in a photo-editor.
Just the tip of the "any-damn-post-processing they wanted" iceberg already
available in-camera with CHDK. Note that the "Custom Curves" is done
on-the-fly for each resulting JPG shot with very little extra time
required; and no secondary menu-option processing is needed later, as with
"RAW Develop" or "RAW SUM" and "RAW AVG" features.
BTW, Previous post correction: it's not 55 models of compact and superzoom
cameras that can do all this, it's now up to 57.
Pete
Yes.
Currently, Nikon is not an "Open Source" vendor therefore endless
discussion beyond what you and Floyd have already stated is a bit
pointless without following it up with our own test and measurement of
Nikon cameras. As I've previously said, I dismissed this camera feature
while reading about it in the user manual. You and Floyd have inspired
me to try it out for myself rather than spend time debating it.
--
Pete
Eric Stevens
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:59:43 +0000, bugbear
>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:22:50 -0000, "Charles E Hardwidge"
>>>> <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Ryan McGinnis"<digi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4d352323$0$12280$c3e8da3$f770...@news.astraweb.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
>>>>>> with. While one can certainly defensively hold a position that there is
>>>>>> a line to be drawn where manipulation takes a photograph beyond truth,
>>>>>> it's very difficult to maintain a position in which only images farted
>>>>>> directly out of a camera qualify as "real" photographs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Had a post drafted then nuked it. Someone is just after page hits and any
>>>>> discussion is just a time sink.
>>>>
>>>> How to express disapproval without actually addressing the topic.
>>>
>>> How to misunderstand someone's post.
>>>
>> He expressed disapproval. He didn't address the topic. What else is
>> there to understand?
>
>I'll go slow.
>
>He was pointing out that the topic IS ITSELF
>a lie, ...
That's interesting. How did he do that? All he wrote was "Had a post
drafted then nuked it". That doesn't express anything except,
possibly, his own actions.
> ...and that the poster merely wants traffic.
That may well be correct. But the relevance of this is ... ? In any
case, it doesn't address the topic.
>
>For this POV, discussing the OP's topic is to pander
>to the OP's desire for traffic, which he doesn't want to do.
>
But for some reason he wants to write about what he hasn't done about
it.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 1/21/2011 3:57 AM, bugbear wrote:
>
>> I'll go slow.
>>
>> He was pointing out that the topic IS ITSELF
>> a lie, and that the poster merely wants traffic.
>>
>> For this POV, discussing the OP's topic is to pander
>> to the OP's desire for traffic, which he doesn't want to do.
>>
>> BugBear
>
>Except, of course, that I am not the author of the article or affiliated
>with the site. You're might be suffering from Internet Cynic Overload
>Syndrome.
In any case, the text you quoted is relevant to a discussion (about
the demise of Kodachrome) which has recently taken place in the
photography news groups and I thought was worthy of further
discussion. Your quote expressed a view about 'dicking around' with
images contrary to that previously expressed by Charles E. Hardwidge,
and I was amused that he made his disapproving non-comment about the
article you cited.
Eric Stevens
Noons
>
> Or at you just point scoring?
I'd say this last one. This is Floyd, one of the well known trolls from a
loooong time ago. Welcome to his MO.
Don't waste too much time with this lot, bugsy. It's not worth it.
bugbear
> Just the tip of the "any-damn-post-processing they wanted" iceberg already
> available in-camera with CHDK.
I was thinking of rather more extreme stuff that a quick curves
touch up.
BugBear
whisky-dave
me too, but I was on a porn group at the time ;-)
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> If you did... you could produce a RAW file, as do the
> Nikon cameras. You can't.
Easy. Send a programmer the format description of the RAW you want
as output, the format description of the RAW you want as input
(dcraw will serve) and tell him you want to average/add/whatever
n shots AND THEN LIMIT THE RESULT TO THE 12 OR 14 BITS THE
RAW OFFERS.
Of course, a proper software would allow advanced techniques to
include/exclude pixels, recognise and mitigate hot spots and hot
pixels from black baseline shots, use the added information in
extended bit range and so on.
-Wolfgang
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> If you did... you could produce a RAW file, as do the
>> Nikon cameras. You can't.
The point of course was not if there is some convoluted way
to actually do it, but simply that no such software currently
exists on his computer and that obtaining it would not be
trivial.
You've proven the point, except for the first word because that
is not "easy".
>Easy. Send a programmer the format description of the RAW you want
>as output, the format description of the RAW you want as input
>(dcraw will serve) and tell him you want to average/add/whatever
>n shots AND THEN LIMIT THE RESULT TO THE 12 OR 14 BITS THE
>RAW OFFERS.
>
>Of course, a proper software would allow advanced techniques to
>include/exclude pixels, recognise and mitigate hot spots and hot
>pixels from black baseline shots, use the added information in
>extended bit range and so on.
>
>-Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> If you did... you could produce a RAW file, as do the
>>> Nikon cameras. You can't.
>>Easy. Send a programmer the format description of the RAW you want
>>as output, the format description of the RAW you want as input
>>(dcraw will serve) and tell him you want to average/add/whatever
>>n shots AND THEN LIMIT THE RESULT TO THE 12 OR 14 BITS THE
>>RAW OFFERS.
>>Of course, a proper software would allow advanced techniques to
>>include/exclude pixels, recognise and mitigate hot spots and hot
>>pixels from black baseline shots, use the added information in
>>extended bit range and so on.
> The point of course was not if there is some convoluted way
> to actually do it, but simply that no such software currently
> exists on his computer and that obtaining it would not be
> trivial.
> You've proven the point,
I have somehow proven that a certain type of software is NOT on
somebodys computer? Cool, next I'll be expert witness in all
the filesharing processes, proving (without even looking at the
computer in question) that there is no, was no and ever will be
no filesharing software on that computer and that no files were
shared, either.
> except for the first word because that
> is not "easy".
Maybe I should take a couple hours and write such a software,
just to prove it's easy. Sure, that may not be easy for you.
Just like driving a car on narrow roads isn't easy for someone
who has never sat in one.
-Wolfgang
Floyd L. Davidson
So for you it would not be nearly so easy, eh? It's pretty clear
that you've never "sat in one".
Take your BS somewhere else. There's a good reason I have
personally never written such software, and that nobody else
seems to have done so either. None of the people who actually
could do it seem to think it would be something they could do
in "a couple hours".
You couldn't do it in a couple decades, because you obviously
haven't got a clue what it would take to do it.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> except for the first word because that
>>> is not "easy".
>>Maybe I should take a couple hours and write such a software,
>>just to prove it's easy. Sure, that may not be easy for you.
>>Just like driving a car on narrow roads isn't easy for someone
>>who has never sat in one.
> So for you it would not be nearly so easy, eh?
*sigh*
You are right, only things that are done in 10 seconds are easy.
11 seconds is hard.
> It's pretty clear that you've never "sat in one".
The earth is a disk, the Titanic arrived in New York, the
Confederates won the war, the USA was conquered and is ruled by
the Germans and the Japanese, the grasshopper lies heavy is a
real book and I don't have the slightest idea of programming.
> Take your BS somewhere else. There's a good reason I have
> personally never written such software,
You probably cannot write software in the first place. At least
your thought of saving combined images in RAW being a good idea
doesn't indicate any experience.
> and that nobody else
> seems to have done so either.
So ... how does a camera do multi-exposure and writing RAWs?
Pixies?
Ah, you meant for Windows, right?
No one should be stupid enough to accumulate bits of information
the hard way, by layering many exposures, and then ... cut off
the information one gained. Didn't you get that?
Doesn't mean it cannot be done.
> None of the people who actually
> could do it seem to think it would be something they could do
> in "a couple hours".
Translation: Anyone who says it can be done easily you would
rate as "could not do it".
> You couldn't do it in a couple decades, because you obviously
> haven't got a clue what it would take to do it.
How about putting a new Canon 5D Mark II with battery grip
(i.e. ~2000 EUR) where your mouth is? After all, if you are so
very sure I couldn't do it ...
I guess you'll just bluster instead. In which case it's EOD.
-Wolfgang
Floyd L. Davidson
>I guess you'll just bluster instead.
It's obvious that that is all you seem to post.
The Bailey
> On 2011-01-19 15:09:09 -0800, Alan Browne
> <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
>
> > On 2011.01.19 17:50 , dickr2 wrote:
> >> Way back when I was using a Canon T90 film camera, it was easy
> >> to take double or even triple exposures. I have a double exposure
> >> shot of the moon over a California sunset ... somewhere.
> >> Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
> >> can you take double exposures with a digital?
>
> > I don't know of a digital camera that does.
>
> > OTOH, layers in PS (or other apps) will allow you to do so with relative ease.
>
> > Or of course a multi flash exposure in a dark environment. Hold the
> > shutter open in the dark - pop flash(es) to make each exposure on the
> > sensor.
>
> My D300s will let me take multiple exposures.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
- and fabulous B&W too , heheheh.
Savageduck
Every now and then I get something I can call a B&W;
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Carrizo-1005tmBWw.jpg >
Let's see what your Ilford has done recently.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>I guess you'll just bluster instead.
> It's obvious that that is all you seem to post.
Name the escrow holder holding my money and publically give the
requirements specification that has to be met to get said money.
-Wolfgang