(July, 28th) Picture of the Week

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Daniela Rocha

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 9:34:39 AM7/28/06
to
Hi all!!

Here is my fantastic picture from this week. It's really swell isnt it!!

I hope you all love it. I think I'm getting better every week at this
photography game.

http://www.ttop.com/bfh3/photos/12_11_00/Pro%20Boner%20drinking%20bad%20beer.jpg

Fred

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 10:19:21 AM7/28/06
to
Since when did Daniel post from optusnet?

Poor attempt at humour.
It's one thing critiquing a person's pictures no matter how bad they may
be but to fake a person's ID is just not cricket.
Poor form.

Daniel Rocha

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 3:36:48 PM7/28/06
to
Daniela Rocha wrote:
(...)

Who you are, you'r a funny australian...
With no doubt.

--
<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <>
http://www.monochromatique.com


Dave E

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 6:03:14 PM7/28/06
to
"Daniela Rocha" <da...@gay.photos.com> wrote in message
news:44ca126f$0$1208$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

Hi Daniel,

despite a hint of blowout (look carefully at the girl's face) and a horizon
could possibly out by a little, some grainyness in the sky, there's not even
the slightest bit of vignetting! You've nailed a real keeper here.

For me however, next time you want to take a portrait of your parents,
perhaps get dad to look at the camera and try to keep your assistant's hands
out of the chips.

Lovely work,
Dave E (Sydney)


Mike Warren

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 6:35:47 PM7/28/06
to
Dave E wrote:
> despite a hint of blowout (look carefully at the girl's face) and a
> horizon could possibly out by a little, some grainyness in the sky,
> there's not even the slightest bit of vignetting! You've nailed a
> real keeper here.
> For me however, next time you want to take a portrait of your parents,
> perhaps get dad to look at the camera and try to keep your
> assistant's hands out of the chips.

You're being a bit picky about the blowout. You have to look really
hard to see it. The horizon and crop were probably done for artistic
reasons.

-Mike


ColinD

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 7:28:53 PM7/28/06
to

You're pulling our legs, right? perspective distortion, overexposed,
bald flash, burnt highlights - its a TERRIBLE photo! By far the worst
you've done. You've gotta be joking.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

ColinD

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 7:34:17 PM7/28/06
to

ColinD wrote:
>
> Daniela Rocha wrote:
> >
> > Hi all!!
> >
> > Here is my fantastic picture from this week. It's really swell isnt it!!
> >
> > I hope you all love it. I think I'm getting better every week at this
> > photography game.
> >
> > http://www.ttop.com/bfh3/photos/12_11_00/Pro%20Boner%20drinking%20bad%20beer.jpg
>
> You're pulling our legs, right? perspective distortion, overexposed,
> bald flash, burnt highlights - its a TERRIBLE photo! By far the worst
> you've done. You've gotta be joking.
>
> Colin D.

Pox. Sucked by a shithead. F**k these clever-dick assholes ...

Message has been deleted

^Temuchin^

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 9:03:48 PM7/28/06
to
silent lamb wrote:
> "Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-csas.net.au> wrote in
> news:44ca9146$0$498$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
> 03.brisbane.pipenetwo
> rks.com.au:
> A computer screen is no place to judge a photograph. Apple Macs'
> display 15 ~ 25% brighter images than PC screens. LCD screens cannot
> display the same range of contrast as CRT screens and even though a
> person's system may be colour balanced for their needs, there is no
> assurance it will match anyone else's colour.
>
> Any attempt to judge a photo published on the Internet for it's
> grain, colour or contrast is at best, risky. Much better to judge
> Internet images on their content and appeal.
>
> Composition is a personal thing. Some people have the rule of thirds
> so firmly ingrained in their mind, they lose sight of the appeal a
> scene may have when that rule is ignored. Likewise the horizon is
> subjective. My wife took a picture of a scene recently. She had the
> horizon at an angle.
> http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/margies/angle_horizon
>

Great pic with a lot of detail but it made me feel sea sick

Mike Warren

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 9:31:11 PM7/28/06
to
silent lamb wrote:
> Any attempt to judge a photo published on the Internet for it's
> grain, colour or contrast is at best, risky. Much better to judge
> Internet images on their content and appeal.


Hi Doug,

Thought you had blocked me.

Dave was making a joke. I just continued it.

-Mike


Noons

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 10:04:35 PM7/28/06
to
Dave E wrote:

> For me however, next time you want to take a portrait of your parents,
> perhaps get dad to look at the camera and try to keep your assistant's hands
> out of the chips.
>

Shewt! You mean his dad is *NOT* the one looking at the camera?
crap: my eyes are really deceiving me now, I must switch
to digital real soon....

Joan

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 10:37:05 PM7/28/06
to
Digital eyes, Nuno? Let me know when you find some so I can join in.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Noons" <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1154138675....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

:

Message has been deleted

silent lamb

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 11:12:33 PM7/28/06
to
"Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-csas.net.au> wrote in
news:44caba8e$0$502$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au:

Yeah... I suppose it would help if I actually looked at the site
referenced but there's been so much traffic here lately aimed at
destroying the fibre of the group - photography, I felt the need to
correct the obviously stupid assumption people here are making that you
can judge the quality of a photograph on a computer monitor...

You can't but that doesn't stop some from trying to do it for their own
entertainment at the expense of those who have gone to the trouble of
making an effort in the first place. Sorry if you and Dave got in my
field of view... Changes the perspective of the whole scene!

Dave E

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 12:40:09 AM7/29/06
to
"silent lamb" <no....@nt.use.1> wrote in message
news:Xns980F6C6EA1...@61.9.191.5...

> "Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-csas.net.au> wrote in
> news:44ca9146$0$498$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
> 03.brisbane.pipenetwo
> rks.com.au:
> A computer screen is no place to judge a photograph. Apple Macs'
> display 15 ~ 25% brighter images than PC screens. LCD screens cannot
> display the same range of contrast as CRT screens and even though a
> person's system may be colour balanced for their needs, there is no
> assurance it will match anyone else's colour.
>
> Any attempt to judge a photo published on the Internet for it's
> grain, colour or contrast is at best, risky. Much better to judge
> Internet images on their content and appeal.
>
> Composition is a personal thing. Some people have the rule of thirds
> so firmly ingrained in their mind, they lose sight of the appeal a
> scene may have when that rule is ignored. Likewise the horizon is
> subjective. My wife took a picture of a scene recently. She had the
> horizon at an angle.
> http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/margies/angle_horizon
>
> Her pic is very interesting but when you level out the horizon, it
> is not so interesting. She concentrates on the subject, composing a
> picture she likes to see without regard for any "rules of
> composition". Some of her photos are used by publishers.
>
> This is why I get quite passionate about someone making negative
> remarks about other people's photographs. Unless you are an Art
> curator in a gallery or a recognized art critic, making negative
> comments about a picture is a really poor form of entertainment.
>
> Dave my have an opinion as do I but to voice that opinion when it
> negatively impacts on someone's work is quite impolite if you have
> no qualifications to criticize.


WHOOOOOSH!

:-)

Cheers,
Dave E (Sydney)


Anthony

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 2:35:08 AM7/29/06
to
"D-Mac" <no....@nt.use.1> wrote in message
news:Xns980F83A392...@61.9.191.5...
> ColinD <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:44CA9EF9...@127.0.0.1:
...

>> Colin D.
>>
> -------------
> Almost as bad as someone claiming they can enlarge pictures in the face
> of a few wankers who say it can't be done and that someone sending a
> certain NewZealand Ex-Pro a sample to prove it can... Followed by
> months of silence from him, isn't it?
>
> I didn't mind so much sending you $70 worth of print as your total
> silence here and privately. If you thought it was crap you could have
> said so. You could have said it wasn't too, if you though that way.
>
> Seems to me this group ought to change it's charter to
> aus.ridicule.people.and.their.photos.
>
> It would be almost as appropriate as being stupid enough to think an
> (EX) Professional who has been vocal, vocal vocal about anything and
> everything photography, might make a comment or even acknowledge
> receiving a three foot long enlargement for free. I guess I've been
> wrong about a few people here.
>
> That'll change.


Shit dude, let it go. Your like a dog with a bone when it comes to your
enlargements.

Why did you feel the need to raise this point in a totally irrelevant
thread? Given your mandate about only supplying enlargements to those who
provide you with full contact details, couldn't you have raised this point
personally instead of trashing it out here? And besides... just because you
sent him some stuff doesn't mean he is obligated to comment on it in a
public forum... good or bad.

I'm sure i'll get shit hung on me for this, but you seem more intent on
proving yourself than being "vocal vocal vocal about anything and everything
photography".


Mr.T

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 4:22:50 AM7/29/06
to

"Fred" <fr...@ner.com> wrote in message news:44ca1...@x-privat.org...
> Daniela Rocha wrote:

> Since when did Daniel post from optusnet?


No, SHE claims to be Daniela :-)

MrT.


Mr.T

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 4:35:15 AM7/29/06
to

"silent lamb" <no....@nt.use.1> wrote in message
news:Xns980F6C6EA1...@61.9.191.5...

> Composition is a personal thing. Some people have the rule of thirds
> so firmly ingrained in their mind, they lose sight of the appeal a
> scene may have when that rule is ignored. Likewise the horizon is
> subjective. My wife took a picture of a scene recently. She had the
> horizon at an angle.
> http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/margies/angle_horizon
>
> Her pic is very interesting but when you level out the horizon, it
> is not so interesting.

Looks like a good case for using Photoshop to "adjust" the horizon to match
the photo IMO.


>She concentrates on the subject, composing a
> picture she likes to see without regard for any "rules of
> composition".

Sure, doen't mean she is always right though.

> Some of her photos are used by publishers.

Does that mean something special I'm not aware of? Some of the crappiest
photo's ever taken have been published due to the subject matter and/or lack
of alternatives

> This is why I get quite passionate about someone making negative
> remarks about other people's photographs. Unless you are an Art
> curator in a gallery or a recognized art critic, making negative
> comments about a picture is a really poor form of entertainment.

If you don't want others opinions, then simply don't show them your work!

> Dave my have an opinion as do I but to voice that opinion when it
> negatively impacts on someone's work is quite impolite if you have
> no qualifications to criticize.

I'm not aware of any qualification in criticism? It's up to you how much
regard you have for the comments offered.

MrT.


kosh

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 4:50:04 AM7/29/06
to

>
>
> A computer screen is no place to judge a photograph. Apple Macs'
> display 15 ~ 25% brighter images than PC screens. LCD screens cannot
> display the same range of contrast as CRT screens and even though a
> person's system may be colour balanced for their needs, there is no
> assurance it will match anyone else's colour.
>

that is crap!
The apple mac screens are re-badges of a another brand... you may
remember a recall on some mac screens about 18 months ago. It turned out
to be a fault in manufacturing by LG.

I did quite a bit of research into this some time ago, and found while
mac's tend to have good contrast ratios.... this is far from the entire
range... in fact some are whoefull compared to standard monitors.... I
found I could get an LCD off the shelf for a fraction of the price I
could have gotten the mac monitor... and they had the same contrast ratio.

I am somewhat sick of hearing the mac vs. PC debate (not the operating
system)and getting blind faith in mac's with little to actually justify
why they are so good.

1. Looks have nothing to do with the above... mac wins hands down.

2. For those MACavites out there who want to debate.... I am replying to
a post.... no more to be said about mac vs. pc ( unless you have a
really kick ass reason why they are better.... cause I have yet to hear
one that is not based on the operating system (linux is prefferable) or
someone being indoctrinated in art school!)

kosh


ColinD

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 6:14:14 AM7/29/06
to

D-Mac wrote:
>
<snip>

> Almost as bad as someone claiming they can enlarge pictures in the face
> of a few wankers who say it can't be done and that someone sending a
> certain NewZealand Ex-Pro a sample to prove it can... Followed by
> months of silence from him, isn't it?
>
> I didn't mind so much sending you $70 worth of print as your total
> silence here and privately. If you thought it was crap you could have
> said so. You could have said it wasn't too, if you though that way.
>
> Seems to me this group ought to change it's charter to
> aus.ridicule.people.and.their.photos.
>
> It would be almost as appropriate as being stupid enough to think an
> (EX) Professional who has been vocal, vocal vocal about anything and
> everything photography, might make a comment or even acknowledge
> receiving a three foot long enlargement for free. I guess I've been
> wrong about a few people here.
>
> That'll change.

Doug, I'm sorry you appear to not have received my emailed response to
your photograph. I did write an answer to you (looks back at old
emails) at this address: <douglas (at) photosbydouglas (dot) com>

The email didn't bounce, so I presume it was delivered. Here is the
source header for the email in question, which shows it was sent on 2nd
May 2006: (I have edited the actual email addresses to help fool spam
harvesting)

From - Tue May 02 21:41:30 2006
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <44572943...@xtra.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 21:41:23 +1200
From: C J Donoghue <cjdonoghue (at) xtra (dot) co (dot) nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Douglas <douglas (at) photosbydouglas (dot) com>
Subject: Re: 24 x 36 print
References: <443756DB...@xtra.co.nz> <4439FBC1.9060707 (at)
photosbydouglas (dot) com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Since the email was personal to you I haven't shown the contents here.
If your email address above is wrong, please let me know and I will
resend the letter.

Poxy

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 7:40:52 AM7/29/06
to

"kosh" <ako...@spamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0jFyg.2844$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

>
> >
> >
> > A computer screen is no place to judge a photograph. Apple Macs'
> > display 15 ~ 25% brighter images than PC screens. LCD screens cannot
> > display the same range of contrast as CRT screens and even though a
> > person's system may be colour balanced for their needs, there is no
> > assurance it will match anyone else's colour.
> >
>
> that is crap!
> The apple mac screens are re-badges of a another brand... you may
> remember a recall on some mac screens about 18 months ago. It turned out
> to be a fault in manufacturing by LG.

I think what the poster referred to is the different gamma on Macs, which is
a function of the video driver rather than the screen itself, and is an
arbitrary setting - using a tool such as Adobe Gamma Loader you can set up
your PC display to have a Mac-like gamma.

So while Mac monitors themselves are more or less identical to
non-Mac-branded monitors, and have the same black- and white-points and same
luminance, they do appear to show images "brighter" due to the different
gamma.

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 9:07:37 AM7/29/06
to
Off topic.

Far be it from me to promote a feud (O;, but Douglas has been quoting
you, Colin, as a person who has seen examples of his enlarging
algorithm at work. Douglas has said that you *agree* that it shows his
magical algorithm at work..

Check this link out for an example:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread/a4c1450faba58fe6/

There, Douglas said, and I quote:
>If you really did want to verify my claims, you would do as Colin D did and
>be polite (even something less than insulting would do) in your doubt of
>them. I sent him an interpolated 24"x 36" print for his perusal and he now
>agrees that my claims are not false at all.

He has made this claim more than once, yet it doesn't seem to tie in
with the conversation you had with him above.. Is Douglas
truth-bending again?

I'd *love* to hear your comments on Douglas' enlargement, specifically:

1. Was it on gloss, or canvas?

2. If on canvas, how would you rate its 'resolution' (my personal
opinion is that the type of canvas Doug uses would only show about
50-100 dpi at best, given its rough texture)

2.a. Does the image contain much fine detail (eg a cityscape from a
lookout, or a detailed landscape), or is it a macro of flowers, or a
portrait perhaps? (The latter type of image does not invite close
inspection and will often enlarge far more than the normal ppi limits
would suggest.)

3. Did he send you the original file, or state what camera it came
from? What was its pixel dimensions, and what was the size of the
print (was there any cropping?)

4. Are you familiar with enlargements done professionally from medium
format film at these sizes? How would Douglas' print compare to such a
print?

5. In other words, can Douglas do magic, or does he just have a big
printer...?

Those questions may seem a little over the top, but I've seen Dougie at
work with his 3-card tricks soooo many times..

And lastly, do you wanna sell Douglas' print? He won't give me one
(strangely he doesn't like me!), and I'd love to take a look at it, and
maybe scan it and show the results here. After all, HE's been using it
to promote himself...

PS I betcha Annika would love to get hold of it, too! I'll outbid him
though... (O;


ColinD wrote:
...


> Doug, I'm sorry you appear to not have received my emailed response to
> your photograph. I did write an answer to you (looks back at old
> emails) at this address: <douglas (at) photosbydouglas (dot) com>
>
> The email didn't bounce, so I presume it was delivered.

....

Noons

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 10:08:01 AM7/29/06
to

Joan wrote:
> Digital eyes, Nuno? Let me know when you find some so I can join in.
>

I'd settle to get my old (young) eyes back...
;-)

kosh

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 6:08:23 PM7/29/06
to
....which is a user set-up issue and once again leaves me asking..
what's the diff !

Poxy

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 7:52:11 PM7/29/06
to

"kosh" <ako...@spamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r%Qyg.3023$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

As I said, the "diff" is that the same image on a web page will appear
"brighter" on a Mac than it will on a PC.


Rob

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 9:14:45 AM7/29/06
to
Dave E wrote:

But Dave its a Douglas post!

kosh

unread,
Jul 30, 2006, 6:14:53 AM7/30/06
to
unless you know what you are doing and set your gamma appropriately...
again, no difference!

ColinD

unread,
Jul 30, 2006, 11:53:26 PM7/30/06
to

mark.t...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Off topic.
>
> Far be it from me to promote a feud (O;, but Douglas has been quoting
> you, Colin, as a person who has seen examples of his enlarging
> algorithm at work. Douglas has said that you *agree* that it shows his
> magical algorithm at work..
>
> Check this link out for an example:
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread/a4c1450faba58fe6/
>
> There, Douglas said, and I quote:
> >If you really did want to verify my claims, you would do as Colin D did and
> >be polite (even something less than insulting would do) in your doubt of
> >them. I sent him an interpolated 24"x 36" print for his perusal and he now
> >agrees that my claims are not false at all.

Hmmm. I hadn't seen that thread, thanks for the heads-up. I try to be
civil, if not 'polite', by not slamming something I haven't seen, even
though the claims may be on the edge of believability. But, I can get
pretty terse if the situation warrants. I'll let this one develop a bit
more before I decide.


>
> He has made this claim more than once, yet it doesn't seem to tie in
> with the conversation you had with him above.. Is Douglas
> truth-bending again?

Well, he should/must have received my email, supported by what he says
in that thread, so why he cut loose on me just now is beyond me. Has he
forgotten my reply?


>
> I'd *love* to hear your comments on Douglas' enlargement, specifically:
>
> 1. Was it on gloss, or canvas?

On Epson gloss paper, 24 x 36 inches.


>
> 2. If on canvas, how would you rate its 'resolution' (my personal
> opinion is that the type of canvas Doug uses would only show about
> 50-100 dpi at best, given its rough texture)

Without interpolation, given an 20D image on the long side of 3504
pixels, then at 24 x 36 each pixel is 0.01 inch square, so the absolute
resolution will be a theoretical 0.02 inches (as a line pair), and
practically will probably approach twice that, so I would expect no more
than 0.03 - 0.04 inches per line pair, or about 25 to 33 line pairs per
inch (1 to 1.3 line pairs per mm). That's to say, the minimum line
width on on a 24 x 36 inch print would be about half a mm. And that is
not considering the lens performance.

With interpolation, I don't see how the resolution can be any better,
without inventing detail in the interpolated pixels. An interpolated
image of 24 x 36 inches at 300 ppi will have a long side count of 10,800
pixels, up 400% from the original 3504 pixels, or in other words, three
out of four pixels have been manufactured from one original pixel. In
my book I don't think it is possible for those pixels to contain any
detail that wasn't in the original image. I understand that Douglas
claims that he can produce detail in those pixels.

So, to answer your question, I don't think the print has any detail
finer than about 0.5 mm, but notwithstanding that, it looks reasonably
sharp, which really means that resolution and sharpness are two
different things.

>
> 2.a. Does the image contain much fine detail (eg a cityscape from a
> lookout, or a detailed landscape), or is it a macro of flowers, or a
> portrait perhaps? (The latter type of image does not invite close
> inspection and will often enlarge far more than the normal ppi limits
> would suggest.)

The image is of boats in a marina or wharf area, with buildings behind.
Sharpness is good, not bitingly so, but given the degree of enlargement,
not bad at all. There is a railing in the foreground with two seabirds
sitting
on it, and they are pretty sharp, even with close viewing. The masts and
rigging on the boats are clean, with no artifacts or edginess visible.
I note a rather unusual effect, where the sharpness of an edge seems
proportional to the contrast. Where the rigging wires are in front of
the shadowed building, the transition edge is not that sharp, but where
the transition has greater contrast, like the building's roofline
against the sky, it is very sharp indeed for this size print. Perhaps
this is a characteristic of his patented algorithm?


>
> 3. Did he send you the original file, or state what camera it came
> from? What was its pixel dimensions, and what was the size of the
> print (was there any cropping?)

No information about those points. I presume the original was a digital
image from his 20D - but that's only a presumption.


>
> 4. Are you familiar with enlargements done professionally from medium
> format film at these sizes? How would Douglas' print compare to such a
> print?

Here in NZ there isn't a lot of stuff done at those sizes, but thinking
back to one or two I've seen, Doug's print is about as sharp as a MF
image, but lacking somewhat in fine definition, which is to be
expected. There's no noise or grain equivalent, except in some darker
areas.


>
> 5. In other words, can Douglas do magic, or does he just have a big
> printer...?

The print I have here is competent, but without knowing the image source
I can't say. It's not perfect, there's some sort of 'rippling' effect
in a part of the sky, and personally I find the contrast a bit low for
my liking. However, he has also claimed to be able to do this from a
scanned 4x6 print. Not having seen that either, I cannot comment,
except to say I find it hard to believe. That's not to say he can't,
but I'm somewhat sceptical. (see my remarks above).

As a comparison, I blew one of my 300D/EF-S 17-85mm USM IS lens images
up to 24 x 36, using Fred
Miranda's 'Resize Pro' photoshop plug-in, and printed an A4 segment from
it with a Canon i9950 printer to compare with Doug's print. I couldn't
match Doug's print for smoothness or sharpness, even allowing for an 8.2
MP vs 6.3 MP image difference. Whether or not he can invent detail, his
print is pretty good, and I suppose one has to say his system seems to
work.


>
> Those questions may seem a little over the top, but I've seen Dougie at
> work with his 3-card tricks soooo many times..
>
> And lastly, do you wanna sell Douglas' print? He won't give me one
> (strangely he doesn't like me!), and I'd love to take a look at it, and
> maybe scan it and show the results here. After all, HE's been using it
> to promote himself...
>
> PS I betcha Annika would love to get hold of it, too! I'll outbid him
> though... (O;
>

Ok. Tenders close this Friday NZ time {:-) Seriously, I can't sell it,
and I don't think Douglas would thank me for sending it on. Depending,
of course, how he treats me over this current little issue. If he
pisses me off sufficiently, well ...

Colin D.


> ColinD wrote:
> ...
> > Doug, I'm sorry you appear to not have received my emailed response to
> > your photograph. I did write an answer to you (looks back at old
> > emails) at this address: <douglas (at) photosbydouglas (dot) com>
> >
> > The email didn't bounce, so I presume it was delivered.
> ....

--

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 6:18:27 AM8/2/06
to
Colin, you are a scholar and a gentleman for taking such time to reply
in detail!

> Hmmm. I hadn't seen that thread, thanks for the heads-up.

Yes, I wondered if it slipped past. I think Doug was hoping it might..

> I try to be civil, if not 'polite'

Me too... well, at least I try..

> by not slamming something I haven't seen, even
> though the claims may be on the edge of believability. But, I can get
> pretty terse if the situation warrants.

Ditto. (O;

> Well, he should/must have received my email, supported by what he
says
> in that thread, so why he cut loose on me just now is beyond me. Has he
> forgotten my reply?

So it seems. Douglas conveniently forgets a lot of stuff, but let's
not quibble.

> Without interpolation, given an 20D image..then at 24 x 36 each pixel
> is 0.01 inch square
>...the absolute resolution will be ... about 25 to 33 line pairs per


> inch (1 to 1.3 line pairs per mm). That's to say, the minimum line
> width on on a 24 x 36 inch print would be about half a mm. And that is
> not considering the lens performance.

Agreed.

> With interpolation, I don't see how the resolution can be any better,
> without inventing detail in the interpolated pixels.

Which is where I take very strong issue with Douglas' claims.

> So, to answer your question, I don't think the print has any detail
> finer than about 0.5 mm, but notwithstanding that, it looks reasonably
> sharp, which really means that resolution and sharpness are two
> different things.

Agreed again. Just to clarify, I understand you to be saying that the
print *does* give detail down to about 0.5mm. As it should, given a
good lens, tripod, etc.

That resolution is, sadly for Douglas, only around 50-60 ppi. And is
exactly what I have said all along that his enlargements seem to show.
There is no evidence of interpolation, let alone successful/good
interpolation!

> > 2.a. Does the image contain much fine detail...


> The image is of boats in a marina or wharf area, with buildings behind.

I'm surprised to hear that this time he chose an image with detail.
Kudos to him!

> Sharpness is good, not bitingly so, but given the degree of enlargement,
> not bad at all.

This does not sound to me like you are endorsing his claims of being
able to add detail. Just that his shot was sharp, and the print is
good.

> The masts and
> rigging on the boats are clean, with no artifacts or edginess visible.

A vector based algorithm like Qimage should handle this stuff pretty
well - interestingly, Douglas has said he uses Qimage..

> I note a rather unusual effect, where the sharpness of an edge seems
> proportional to the contrast. Where the rigging wires are in front of
> the shadowed building, the transition edge is not that sharp, but where
> the transition has greater contrast, like the building's roofline
> against the sky, it is very sharp indeed for this size print.

Frankly, that just sounds like bad sharpening, using a too high
threshold level.

> Perhaps
> this is a characteristic of his patented algorithm?

Perhaps. (But a quick search of the Patents office reveals no such
patent.) Anyway, we shouldn't specualte, and he may not even be able
to commnet about it, because he also claimed he had sold it for a
fortune to.. Samsung. (O: I'll bet there was a secrecy clause built
in..

> > 4. Are you familiar with enlargements done professionally from medium
> > format film at these sizes? How would Douglas' print compare to such a
> > print?
>
> Here in NZ there isn't a lot of stuff done at those sizes, but thinking
> back to one or two I've seen, Doug's print is about as sharp as a MF
> image

Here I have to take with issue with you, CD. An mf print that could
only manage 50-60 ppi, at that size? I would expect at least twice
that, probably more like 4x, from print, and even more from tranny. It
should be very-, but maybe not pin-, sharp.

> The print I have here is competent, but without knowing the image source
> I can't say. It's not perfect, there's some sort of 'rippling' effect
> in a part of the sky

Some sort of weird posterisation has been noted in some *other*
enlargements of his. Clearly a feature, not a bug... (O;

> and personally I find the contrast a bit low for
> my liking.

Again, this seems to be a bit of a habit of his, along with
overexposure and burnt highlights...

> However, he has also claimed to be able to do this from a
> scanned 4x6 print. Not having seen that either, I cannot comment,
> except to say I find it hard to believe. That's not to say he can't,
> but I'm somewhat sceptical. (see my remarks above).

Oh, perhaps if it was a big detail-less soft portrait maybe, or if his
eyesight has deteriorated to a large extent..

>
> As a comparison, I blew one of my 300D/EF-S 17-85mm USM IS lens images
> up to 24 x 36, using Fred
> Miranda's 'Resize Pro' photoshop plug-in, and printed an A4 segment from
> it with a Canon i9950 printer to compare with Doug's print. I couldn't
> match Doug's print for smoothness or sharpness, even allowing for an 8.2
> MP vs 6.3 MP image difference.

I'm surprised to hear that. Keep practising because i think there is
room for improvement!! (O:

> Whether or not he can invent detail, his
> print is pretty good, and I suppose one has to say his system seems to
> work.

Oh dear - you realise you will be quoted for *ever* from now on, don't
you?

> > And lastly, do you wanna sell Douglas' print? He won't give me one..


> Ok. Tenders close this Friday NZ time {:-) Seriously, I can't sell it,
> and I don't think Douglas would thank me for sending it on.

That's ok, the request was tongue in cheek.

> Depending,
> of course, how he treats me over this current little issue. If he
> pisses me off sufficiently, well ...

I think you will be his hero for a short while, after that last
comment... Just wait for the selective quoting.. (O:

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages