🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 7, 10:47 pm, f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> >Good, because that was the only point I was trying to make :)
>
> Keep in mind that it can be both meaningful and *useless*!
>
> Most of us want adjustments that are beneficial.

And now you're changing direction just to be argumentative.

Ray

On Jun 8, 1:03 am, "Marc Sabatella" <m...@outsideshore.com> wrote:

> Which is to say, by the time you've converted to JPEG, you've lost
> detail in the blue channel you aren't going to get back by altering the
> color after the fact.

That's an issue with overall "RAW vs JPEG", not an issue with white
balance.  You will lose data and detail converting from 12/16 bit to 8
bit.  I know this, and it's an advantage RAW has over JPEG, I'm not
arguing that.

It's an issue whether you're playing with white balance or not.  But
it's not enough of an issue to make JPEG completely worthless outside
of playing with white balance, and it's not that big a deal when
playing with white balance either.  Yes, RAW gives you more room to
move when processing, but this extra room is far from essential to
produce decent photographs, otherwise arguments on RAW vs JPEG
wouldn't happen, everyone would use RAW.  And the same argument
applies with processing an images white balance as well.

> Depending on how you define "meaningful", I'd agree.  You can certainly
> get *some* results - better than nothing - working from JPEG.  But you
> can often get far *better* results working from RAW.

You can get better results, not always far better results.  I convert
my JPEGs to 16 bit LAB mode, do my processing, including adjusting the
white balance, and then convert back to JPEG.  There is certainly no
way of eyeballing an image processed like that and being able to tell
that the white balance was adjusted from a JPEG instead of a RAW.
Yes, you could probably tell by poking around at the histogram, but
you can't easily tell with the straight human eye, and to me, that's
why it's a difference between "better" results and "far better
results".

> And this isn't
> just an accident of software UI - it's inherent in the formats.

You still haven't qualified that statement.  Both image formats record
pixels with a colour temperature that is off.  In the RAW, this is
every single photo as it's raw data.  With JPEG, it's the result of
the camera getting the white balance guess wrong when it does its in
camera processing.  Whatever the case, you end up with an image that
is too warm or too cool.

You then adjust each of these pixels by the same amount in the same
direction.  You aren't altering brightness, you aren't adding or
removing dynamic range, your histogram won't slide all over the place
and transform itself.  I simply can't see the difference between a
white balance adjusted in RAW and one adjusted in JPEG, and I can't
see any fundamental technical differences either.

If I'm missing something, please spell it out to me by means of an
actual explanation rather than an analogy.  I know JPEG has less bit
data and dynamic range, I know it has processing done in camera before
effectively being "flattened" so that you can't undo it.  I also know
that you face all of those issues when turning a RAW in to a JPEG to
print or use it, thus making all of these issues real, but of minimal
importance to some people.

If the RAW vs JPEG white balance issue is based on something different
to that, I'd love to hear a description of how it differs, because to
the best of my admittedly non comprehensive knowledge, it shouldn't be
that different

If you simply want to get across the point that RAW is the technically
superior format, you don't need to.  I admit that, and it's not what
I'm arguing...

Ray

Ray Macey <raymacey@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 7, 10:47 pm, f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> >Good, because that was the only point I was trying to make :)
>>
>> Keep in mind that it can be both meaningful and *useless*!
>>
>> Most of us want adjustments that are beneficial.
>
>And now you're changing direction just to be argumentative.

No, you are being obtuse and trying to stretch a definition into
something that was not said.  You've made that clear in another
post, to which I'll respond rather than here.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

On Jun 8, 9:35 am, f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
> No, you are being obtuse and trying to stretch a definition into
> something that was not said.  You've made that clear in another
> post, to which I'll respond rather than here.

So you're seriously arguing that someone can perform a meaningful
adjustment on the white balance in JPEG that is at the same time
completely useless?

I'm honestly confused by that statement if it's a genuine summary of
your stance...

Ray

Ray Macey <raymacey@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 8, 9:35 am, f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>
>> No, you are being obtuse and trying to stretch a definition into
>> something that was not said.  You've made that clear in another
>> post, to which I'll respond rather than here.
>
>So you're seriously arguing that someone can perform a meaningful
>adjustment on the white balance in JPEG that is at the same time
>completely useless?

If you can make a significant change, that is "meaningful".

If it does not provide the correct white balance, it
might well be meaningful, but not useful.

>I'm honestly confused by that statement if it's a genuine summary of
>your stance...
>
>Ray

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                      floyd@apaflo.com

On Jun 8, 2:50 pm, "Marc Sabatella" <m...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
> I agree it's not comletely worthless.  But its value does go up
> considerably if you get the WB right before taking the shot.

I guess it's a matter of the all important degrees then.  Because to
me, you couldn't eyeball that difference and spot it most of the time,
and the extra work involved in getting to that level isn't worth an
improvement that is hard to spot

> > I convert
> > my JPEGs to 16 bit LAB mode, do my processing, including adjusting the
> > white balance, and then convert back to JPEG.
>
> Just curious - why do you prefer going to all this trouble over simply
> shooting RAW and having it be easier as well as produce better results?

Because I don't post process all of my shots, because I can't sustain
a high fps for as long with RAW and RAW files take up WAY too much
space.  Yes, I could batch convert them all to JPEG using default
settings when I import them, but that would defeat the purpose of
shooting in RAW...

> I would claim at least some of the time there would be.  One might not
> be able to say looking at a single image which it was, but if you posted
> two otherwsie similar images - one adjusted from JPEG, one from RAW -
> I'll bet quite a few poeple could tell.

Yeah, you're probably spot on there.  I just don't know that that
level of difference warrants the extra effort though...

Ray

> I guess it's a matter of the all important degrees then.  Because to
> me, you couldn't eyeball that difference and spot it most of the time,
> and the extra work involved in getting to that level isn't worth an
> improvement that is hard to spot

I agree it is a matter of degrees, and depending on your needs and the 
type of work you are doing, it *might* not be important.

However, I would also observe that my workflow is such that shooting RAW 
actually makes things considerably *easier* than shooting JPEG.  That 
goes for the entire workflow, not just the specific task of adjusting 
WB, which most software out there also makes easier when shooting RAW, 
even if that is just an accident of the UI design as you have stated.

The main thing that makes RAW far easier me to deal with workflow-wise 
is that almost everything I do in PP can be done non-destructively, 
meaning I don't need to generate and manage separate versions of my 
files just to handle this.  The fact that it is easier to make exposure 
and WB look the way I want without introducing obvious artifacts is also 
worth mentioning, even if in theory one could could make the controls 
work the same way, and programs like Lightroom try to do just that.

As for the size difference, while RAW does fill up my card faster, I 
have big enough cards that I virtually never fill one in a day, and once 
I download to my computer and convert to compressed to DNG (a process 
automated by the free ImageIngester, so this doesn't count as extra 
work, either), the file size isn't *that* much bigger than the JPEG's - 
maybe around 2X.  For the 5,000 - 10,000 images per year I shoot, I 
figure the difference in cost to store is on the order of $10-$20, and 
that's at *today's* storage prices, which are surely higher than they 
will be in a few years.  So I'm not losing sleep over the increased 
storage demand.

> Yes, I could batch convert them all to JPEG using default
> settings when I import them, but that would defeat the purpose of
> shooting in RAW...

Indeed.  But consider a workflow that goes like this:

- import RAW, convert to DNG
- Do your PP (including WB, but also exposure) losslessly on the DNG 
files
no need to save files as you go - just tweak and move on
most modern RAW software makes it easy to apply settings like WB to 
multpile images at once
- when satisfied, batch convert everything to JPEG
this assumes you have software that will apply each file's individual 
settings
most modern RAW processing software can do this
- if you need to do further editing (tings that can not be done in RAW 
processing)
you can do them in place on the converted JPEG's without worrying about 
overwriting your DNG originals
- archive the DNG's and delete them as necessary to free up space on 
your primary hard drive

I'd still claim that such a workflow can be more efficient as well as 
more effective than one based on shooting JPEG.  Especially if, like me, 
a *lot* of your work is in difficult lighting conditions that make PP 
beneficial even for those of us who really don't care for the idea of 
doing so, and in which the differences in effectiveness between working 
with RAW and JPEG is pretty apparent.

In any case, my aim here isn't to convince anyone to shoot RAW who isn't 
seeing any benefit to doing so (I might argue that elsewhere, 
though...).  I was simply trying to address your comments about the 
difference between JPEG and RAW with respect to WB.  There really *is* a 
difference here that can be fairly obvious when dealing with images shot 
in highly colored light, because the process of converting to JPEG may 
well be throwing out significant data from the complementary 
channel(s) - eg, blue channel data lost when shooting in orange light. 
Did my previous example make sense (and with that in mind, can you see 
how my baking analogy applies: -)?

---------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com

Music, art,  & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

On Jun 12, 4:37 am, "Marc Sabatella" <m...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed.  But consider a workflow that goes like this:
>
> - import RAW, convert to DNG
> - Do your PP (including WB, but also exposure) losslessly on the DNG
> files
> no need to save files as you go - just tweak and move on
> most modern RAW software makes it easy to apply settings like WB to
> multpile images at once
> - when satisfied, batch convert everything to JPEG
> this assumes you have software that will apply each file's individual
> settings
> most modern RAW processing software can do this
> - if you need to do further editing (tings that can not be done in RAW
> processing)
> you can do them in place on the converted JPEG's without worrying about
> overwriting your DNG originals
> - archive the DNG's and delete them as necessary to free up space on
> your primary hard drive

Do you know something that can batch tag EXIF data to DNG files?  I
keyword tag all of my photos, and batch tag generic descriptions to
entire days of shooting, and that's something I've had trouble
achieving with RAW.  In fact, in all of my searching to get a tool
that does it in for JPEGs, I only found one that worked as I wanted
(spaces in keywords, and the ability to batch append new keywords
rather than over-write)

Ray

Ray Macey wrote:
> On Jun 12, 4:37 am, "Marc Sabatella" <m...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>> Indeed.  But consider a workflow that goes like this:
>>
>> - import RAW, convert to DNG
>> - Do your PP (including WB, but also exposure) losslessly on the DNG
>> files
>> no need to save files as you go - just tweak and move on
>> most modern RAW software makes it easy to apply settings like WB to
>> multpile images at once
>> - when satisfied, batch convert everything to JPEG
>> this assumes you have software that will apply each file's individual
>> settings
>> most modern RAW processing software can do this
>> - if you need to do further editing (tings that can not be done in RAW
>> processing)
>> you can do them in place on the converted JPEG's without worrying about
>> overwriting your DNG originals
>> - archive the DNG's and delete them as necessary to free up space on
>> your primary hard drive
> 
> Do you know something that can batch tag EXIF data to DNG files?  I
> keyword tag all of my photos, and batch tag generic descriptions to
> entire days of shooting, and that's something I've had trouble
> achieving with RAW.  In fact, in all of my searching to get a tool
> that does it in for JPEGs, I only found one that worked as I wanted
> (spaces in keywords, and the ability to batch append new keywords
> rather than over-write)

Photoshop and Lightroom do this, and a great deal more.

-- 
john mcwilliams

On Jun 11, 2:37 pm, "Marc Sabatella" <m...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
> > I guess it's a matter of the all important degrees then.  Because to
> > me, you couldn't eyeball that difference and spot it most of the time,
> > and the extra work involved in getting to that level isn't worth an
> > improvement that is hard to spot
>
> I agree it is a matter of degrees, and depending on your needs and the
> type of work you are doing, it *might* not be important.
>
> However, I would also observe that my workflow is such that shooting RAW
> actually makes things considerably *easier* than shooting JPEG.  That
> goes for the entire workflow, not just the specific task of adjusting
> WB, which most software out there also makes easier when shooting RAW,
> even if that is just an accident of the UI design as you have stated.
>
> The main thing that makes RAW far easier me to deal with workflow-wise
> is that almost everything I do in PP can be done non-destructively,
> meaning I don't need to generate and manage separate versions of my
> files just to handle this.  The fact that it is easier to make exposure
> and WB look the way I want without introducing obvious artifacts is also
> worth mentioning, even if in theory one could could make the controls
> work the same way, and programs like Lightroom try to do just that.
>
> As for the size difference, while RAW does fill up my card faster, I
> have big enough cards that I virtually never fill one in a day, and once
> I download to my computer and convert to compressed to DNG (a process
> automated by the free ImageIngester, so this doesn't count as extra
> work, either), the file size isn't *that* much bigger than the JPEG's -
> maybe around 2X.  For the 5,000 - 10,000 images per year I shoot, I
> figure the difference in cost to store is on the order of $10-$20, and
> that's at *today's* storage prices, which are surely higher than they
> will be in a few years.  So I'm not losing sleep over the increased
> storage demand.
>
> > Yes, I could batch convert them all to JPEG using default
> > settings when I import them, but that would defeat the purpose of
> > shooting in RAW...
>
> Indeed.  But consider a workflow that goes like this:
>
> - import RAW, convert to DNG
> - Do your PP (including WB, but also exposure) losslessly on the DNG
> files
> no need to save files as you go - just tweak and move on
> most modern RAW software makes it easy to apply settings like WB to
> multpile images at once
> - when satisfied, batch convert everything to JPEG
> this assumes you have software that will apply each file's individual
> settings
> most modern RAW processing software can do this
> - if you need to do further editing (tings that can not be done in RAW
> processing)
> you can do them in place on the converted JPEG's without worrying about
> overwriting your DNG originals
> - archive the DNG's and delete them as necessary to free up space on
> your primary hard drive
>
> I'd still claim that such a workflow can be more efficient as well as
> more effective than one based on shooting JPEG.  Especially if, like me,
> a *lot* of your work is in difficult lighting conditions that make PP
> beneficial even for those of us who really don't care for the idea of
> doing so, and in which the differences in effectiveness between working
> with RAW and JPEG is pretty apparent.
>
> In any case, my aim here isn't to convince anyone to shoot RAW who isn't
> seeing any benefit to doing so (I might argue that elsewhere,
> though...).  I was simply trying to address your comments about the
> difference between JPEG and RAW with respect to WB.  There really *is* a
> difference here that can be fairly obvious when dealing with images shot
> in highly colored light, because the process of converting to JPEG may
> well be throwing out significant data from the complementary
> channel(s) - eg, blue channel data lost when shooting in orange light.
> Did my previous example make sense (and with that in mind, can you see
> how my baking analogy applies: -)?
>
> ---------------
> Marc Sabatella
> m...@outsideshore.com
>
> Music, art,  & educational materials
> Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"http://www.outsideshore.com/


An interesting post.  Agree with it to the extend that the decision to
use RAW or JPG is work-flow dependent.  You use whatever gives you the
result that you need with the simplest workflow.

For the workflow you are doing, RAW makes sense.  For the workflow I
use, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

My workflow for youth sports is:
 -- Set the camera and lighting up right.
 -- Take the pictures, already adjusted.
 -- Copy the images to the hard drive
 -- Burn the images to a CD
 -- Send the envelopes and the CD to the lab
 -- Deliver the prints
 -- Done.

No cropping.  No tweaking.  No rotating.  No nuthin -- not even
editing out the "bad" pictures (they are just skipped in processing).
Do it all in the camera as you shoot.  But, there are specific rules
re head placement, crop ends, etc. that must be followed or you screw
it up beyond all recognition.

This is the "film" workflow.  Believe it or not, it works much better
than the digital workflow option.

But as I said, it depends on your circumstance and workflow.

"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message 
news:1181598713.449058.215800@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> An interesting post.  Agree with it to the extend that the decision to
> use RAW or JPG is work-flow dependent.

No, you're completely ignoring Marc's point about white balance, it's not 
just work-flow dependent it's also environment dependent amongst other 
things.

Greg
-- 
Ticketbastard tax tracker:
http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html
"Run over your friends in stolen Volkswagens
And tell them I sent you, and tell them I sent ... you" - Mclusky

On Jun 12, 6:52 am, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > (spaces in keywords, and the ability to batch append new keywords
> > rather than over-write)
>
> Photoshop and Lightroom do this, and a great deal more.

How do you batch edit exif (appending tags, not replacing) data in
Photoshop?  I must say I've never seen that functionality.  I know
Elements kinda has the functionality, but it requires that you select
the tag from a list rather than typing them, which gets very hard to
manage once the master list of tags grows.

I tried Bridge, but it doesn't do spaces very well, and is also
inclined to overwrite existing tags rather than adding them.

Also, would someone mind changing the topic for this branch of
conversation?  I'm using google groups at work, and it doesn't have
the functionality...

Ray

Ray Macey wrote:
> On Jun 12, 6:52 am, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>>> (spaces in keywords, and the ability to batch append new keywords
>>> rather than over-write)
>> Photoshop and Lightroom do this, and a great deal more.
> 
> How do you batch edit exif (appending tags, not replacing) data in
> Photoshop?  I must say I've never seen that functionality.  I know
> Elements kinda has the functionality, but it requires that you select
> the tag from a list rather than typing them, which gets very hard to
> manage once the master list of tags grows.
> 
> I tried Bridge, but it doesn't do spaces very well, and is also
> inclined to overwrite existing tags rather than adding them.
> 
> Also, would someone mind changing the topic for this branch of
> conversation?  I'm using google groups at work, and it doesn't have
> the functionality...

I've not used Bridge extensively for that, but I may later try some 
experiments with it. CS3, that is- is that your version?

Sorry, I should have said PS's Bridge, to be clearer.

-- 
John McWilliams

> Do you know something that can batch tag EXIF data to DNG files?  I
> keyword tag all of my photos, and batch tag generic descriptions to
> entire days of shooting, and that's something I've had trouble
> achieving with RAW.

Normally, this would be done via IPTC rather than EXIF, but yes, there 
are applications that can do this.  iView and IDimager come to mind.  In 
other applications such as Adobe Bridge, the use model is to generate 
sidecar XMP files to hold the metadata for the original RAW files, and 
then run the DNG converter to generate DNG that incorporates this.

> (spaces in keywords, and the ability to batch append new keywords
> rather than over-write)

The distinction between appending new keywords and overwriting begings 
to disappear if the keywords are stored in a database as they are in 
iView & IDimager - the applications knows what keywords are already 
there and will happily rewrite them as well as any new ones you are 
trying to add.

It is also worht noting that you would not often be delivering DNG to 
anyone else - they are going to want JPEG or TIFF files.  So it suffices 
to enter all your keywords and so forth for the DNG files into the 
database but *not* write these into the DNG files, if you can then batch 
generate JPEG or TIFF files from the DNG that inherit the same database 
info, and then batch write out the database to the latter files.  This 
is the approach I use when working with ACDSee Pro, which does not 
currently support writing to DNG directly.

---------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com

Music, art,  & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

> This is the "film" workflow.  Believe it or not, it works much better
> than the digital workflow option.

Oh, I believe it works fine, if you are always willing to settle for the 
results generated without PP.  I would say I am willing to do so 95% of 
the time, but for the other 5%, I am glad of the option to improve the 
photos.  Most of the time, these are photos taken in difficult lighting 
situations outside of my control, but in those cases, it might be more 
like 50% that really benefit from PP.

---------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com

Music, art,  & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

>> Do you know something that can batch tag EXIF data to DNG files?
> ...
> Photoshop and Lightroom do this, and a great deal more.

I don't believe this quite accurate - as fas as I know, they both 
generate sidecar XMP files rather than write directly to DNG.  But this 
may be just as good, considering you can merge them into DNG later with 
the DNG converter if you wish.

---------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com

Music, art,  & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

On Jun 12, 2:45 pm, "Marc Sabatella" <m...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
> I don't believe this quite accurate - as fas as I know, they both
> generate sidecar XMP files rather than write directly to DNG.  But this
> may be just as good, considering you can merge them into DNG later with
> the DNG converter if you wish.

Sidecar files would be fine.  It's the functionality of inputting the
data I'm more concerned about...

Ray

"Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>> This is the "film" workflow.  Believe it or not, it works much better
>> than the digital workflow option.

The film workflow involves using a color meter to measure the color 
temperature of the light, and selecting the color correction filter for the 
film used and light at hand. And then using a spot or incident meter to 
accurately set the exposure. I'd be surprised if even one or two people in 
this thread own color correction filters (I don't).

Since in-camera AWB can't possibly work (it can't tell the difference 
between a white shirt in pink light and a pink shirt in white light), a 
color temperature measurement (aka "custom white balance") is also required 
for digital, if one is claiming no postprocessing.

> Oh, I believe it works fine, if you are always willing to settle for the 
> results generated without PP.  I would say I am willing to do so 95% of 
> the time, but for the other 5%, I am glad of the option to improve the 
> photos.  Most of the time, these are photos taken in difficult lighting 
> situations outside of my control, but in those cases, it might be more 
> like 50% that really benefit from PP.

Shooting raw and then adjusting WB in the raw converter avoids losing even 
more dynamic range (than shooting jpeg and correcting wrong color balances 
later), but if you really care about your dynamic range, you'll use color 
correction filters so that all three channels are "exposed to the right" as 
much as possible.

But no one uses color correction filters with digital...

(In real life, a lot of lighting is so dizzy that WB adjustment simply can't 
handle it*. But I'm certainly not one to let real life interfere with my 
theorizing.)

*: For example, outdoor scenes where part of the scene is in open shadow and 
the rest in full sun. You can't correct both. Tungsten lighting is often so 
red that there's simply not enough blue to form an image (other than a 
grossly noisey one).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Ray Macey wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2:45 pm, "Marc Sabatella" <m...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>> I don't believe this quite accurate - as fas as I know, they both
>> generate sidecar XMP files rather than write directly to DNG.  But this
>> may be just as good, considering you can merge them into DNG later with
>> the DNG converter if you wish.
> 
> Sidecar files would be fine.  It's the functionality of inputting the
> data I'm more concerned about...
> 

In any event both PS and LR can write directly to DNG files.

-- 
john mcwilliams

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:f4l9gh$pfa$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>I'd be surprised if even one or two people in
> this thread own color correction filters (I don't).

I do, 80A, 81A, 85B, FLD, does "skylight" count?
And I'd be surprised if there isn't a lot more than one other person who
owns at least one or two.

MrT.

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>>I'd be surprised if even one or two people in
>> this thread own color correction filters (I don't).
>
> I do, 80A, 81A, 85B, FLD, does "skylight" count?
> And I'd be surprised if there isn't a lot more than one other person who
> owns at least one or two.

Skylight doesn't count, but maybe you're right.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Jun 11, 6:06 pm, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
> news:1181598713.449058.215800@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > An interesting post.  Agree with it to the extend that the decision to
> > use RAW or JPG is work-flow dependent.
>
> No, you're completely ignoring Marc's point about white balance, it's not
> just work-flow dependent it's also environment dependent amongst other
> things.

Duh, that's part of setting up for the shoot.

>
> Greg
> --
> Ticketbastard tax tracker:http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html
> "Run over your friends in stolen Volkswagens
> And tell them I sent you, and tell them I sent ... you" - Mclusky

On Jun 12, 12:44 am, "Marc Sabatella" <m...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
> > This is the "film" workflow.  Believe it or not, it works much better
> > than the digital workflow option.
>
> Oh, I believe it works fine, if you are always willing to settle for the
> results generated without PP.  I would say I am willing to do so 95% of
> the time, but for the other 5%, I am glad of the option to improve the
> photos.  Most of the time, these are photos taken in difficult lighting
> situations outside of my control, but in those cases, it might be more
> like 50% that really benefit from PP.

Yes, I think we are in agreement.  For some large percentage of shots,
JPG from the camera is fine.  When the lighting gets tricky, then RAW
is the only way to go.

>> No, you're completely ignoring Marc's point about white balance, it's 
>> not
>> just work-flow dependent it's also environment dependent amongst 
>> other
>> things.
>
> Duh, that's part of setting up for the shoot.

I'm not sure if that was meant as sarcasm or not, but since of course it 
*is* valid observation, I would point out that this brings us first 
circle: yes, if you set things up properly in the first place - and in 
particular, get the WB as accurate as possible, so little or no PP is 
necessary - then JPEG can indeed be just as good as RAW for most 
purposes.  This particular thread of the discussion began when it was 
claimed that getting the WB right was no more important for JPEG than 
for RAW.  Taking into account the recent observations on this thread, I 
would certainly agree that putting appropriate filters on the lens is an 
acceptable way of "getting the WB right".  Anything that results in the 
colors recorded in the JPEG files being *close* to correct.  Because you 
just can't get get a whole lot of graduated color out of a JPEG that is 
essentially monochromatic because the color of the light so dominated 
the local colors in the scene.

---------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com

Music, art,  & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

Pat wrote:
> On Jun 11, 6:06 pm, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1181598713.449058.215800@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> An interesting post.  Agree with it to the extend that the decision to
>>> use RAW or JPG is work-flow dependent.
>> No, you're completely ignoring Marc's point about white balance, it's not
>> just work-flow dependent it's also environment dependent amongst other
>> things.
> 
> Duh, that's part of setting up for the shoot.
> 

Sure, dude, you always have control of lighting?  You just said "I own a 
few color correction filters.  I'm not exactly sure where they
are but I own them."  Or do you live in a magical world where you 
control the environment at all times?

Greg
-- 
The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:f4l9gh$pfa$1@nnrp.gol.com...
|



| The film workflow involves using a color meter to measure the color
| temperature of the light, and selecting the color correction filter for
the
| film used and light at hand. And then using a spot or incident meter to
| accurately set the exposure. I'd be surprised if even one or two people in
| this thread own color correction filters (I don't).
|
| Since in-camera AWB can't possibly work (it can't tell the difference
| between a white shirt in pink light and a pink shirt in white light), a
| color temperature measurement (aka "custom white balance") is also
required
| for digital, if one is claiming no postprocessing.


| Shooting raw and then adjusting WB in the raw converter avoids losing even
| more dynamic range (than shooting jpeg and correcting wrong color balances
| later), but if you really care about your dynamic range, you'll use color
| correction filters so that all three channels are "exposed to the right"
as
| much as possible.
|
| But no one uses color correction filters with digital...

exactly!

btw, I have aside from the usual CC filters (80's, 81's, FL's etc) a full
set of Y, M & C optical gel filters in 0.05D steps

but then I'm a film shooter ;)

k

"k" <fellafel@PING.com> wrote in message
news:46779c1a$0$22457$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> btw, I have aside from the usual CC filters (80's, 81's, FL's etc) a full
> set of Y, M & C optical gel filters in 0.05D steps

Me too, but those are only for the enlarger :-)

MrT.

k wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
> news:f4l9gh$pfa$1@nnrp.gol.com...
> |
> 
> 
> 
> | The film workflow involves using a color meter to measure the color
> | temperature of the light, and selecting the color correction filter for
> the
> | film used and light at hand. And then using a spot or incident meter to
> | accurately set the exposure. I'd be surprised if even one or two people in
> | this thread own color correction filters (I don't).
> |
> | Since in-camera AWB can't possibly work (it can't tell the difference
> | between a white shirt in pink light and a pink shirt in white light), a
> | color temperature measurement (aka "custom white balance") is also
> required
> | for digital, if one is claiming no postprocessing.
> 
> 
> | Shooting raw and then adjusting WB in the raw converter avoids losing even
> | more dynamic range (than shooting jpeg and correcting wrong color balances
> | later), but if you really care about your dynamic range, you'll use color
> | correction filters so that all three channels are "exposed to the right"
> as
> | much as possible.
> |
> | But no one uses color correction filters with digital...
> 
> exactly!
> 
> btw, I have aside from the usual CC filters (80's, 81's, FL's etc) a full
> set of Y, M & C optical gel filters in 0.05D steps
> 
> but then I'm a film shooter ;)
> 
> k
> 

Hey - I use filters with my digital camera.

I have a considerable number of Kodak gel filters if anyone is 
interested Ill list them.

rm

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message 
news:46779f5d$0$14183$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "k" <fellafel@PING.com> wrote in message
> news:46779c1a$0$22457$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> btw, I have aside from the usual CC filters (80's, 81's, FL's etc) a full
>> set of Y, M & C optical gel filters in 0.05D steps
>
> Me too, but those are only for the enlarger :-)

I have a dichroic head on mine.. its a bit like using the sliders in PS. ;-)

I gave up developing when I became allergic to the chemicals but I still 
have all the kit.. who knows it might end up in a museum in thirty years 
time alongside macs and pcs. Someone is bound to make a digital picture 
frame where you can edit the pictures (or at least alter their cropping, 
colour, contrast, etc. and that will do everything most users want.

dennis@home wrote:
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message 
> news:46779f5d$0$14183$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "k" <fellafel@PING.com> wrote in message
>> news:46779c1a$0$22457$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> btw, I have aside from the usual CC filters (80's, 81's, FL's etc) a full
>>> set of Y, M & C optical gel filters in 0.05D steps
>> Me too, but those are only for the enlarger :-)
> 
> I have a dichroic head on mine.. its a bit like using the sliders in PS. ;-)
> 
> I gave up developing when I became allergic to the chemicals but I still 
> have all the kit.. who knows it might end up in a museum in thirty years 
> time alongside macs and pcs. Someone is bound to make a digital picture 
> frame where you can edit the pictures (or at least alter their cropping, 
> colour, contrast, etc. and that will do everything most users want.
> 
> 
> 
And attach to your photo printer and your camera(s) wirelessly.

Mmm what a device.

Richard Polhill wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message 
>> news:46779f5d$0$14183$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> "k" <fellafel@PING.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46779c1a$0$22457$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> btw, I have aside from the usual CC filters (80's, 81's, FL's etc) a 
>>>> full
>>>> set of Y, M & C optical gel filters in 0.05D steps
>>> Me too, but those are only for the enlarger :-)
>>
>> I have a dichroic head on mine.. its a bit like using the sliders in 
>> PS. ;-)
>>
>> I gave up developing when I became allergic to the chemicals but I 
>> still have all the kit.. who knows it might end up in a museum in 
>> thirty years time alongside macs and pcs. Someone is bound to make a 
>> digital picture frame where you can edit the pictures (or at least 
>> alter their cropping, colour, contrast, etc. and that will do 
>> everything most users want.
>>
>>
>>
> And attach to your photo printer and your camera(s) wirelessly.

Ooo and your home entertainment monitor, too.
> 
> Mmm what a device.

"Richard Polhill" <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote in message 
news:af884$4677bb1e$3e18e6cb$11885@news.vispa.com...
> Richard Polhill wrote:
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message 
>>> news:46779f5d$0$14183$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>> "k" <fellafel@PING.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:46779c1a$0$22457$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> btw, I have aside from the usual CC filters (80's, 81's, FL's etc) a 
>>>>> full
>>>>> set of Y, M & C optical gel filters in 0.05D steps
>>>> Me too, but those are only for the enlarger :-)
>>>
>>> I have a dichroic head on mine.. its a bit like using the sliders in PS. 
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> I gave up developing when I became allergic to the chemicals but I still 
>>> have all the kit.. who knows it might end up in a museum in thirty years 
>>> time alongside macs and pcs. Someone is bound to make a digital picture 
>>> frame where you can edit the pictures (or at least alter their cropping, 
>>> colour, contrast, etc. and that will do everything most users want.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> And attach to your photo printer and your camera(s) wirelessly.
>
> Ooo and your home entertainment monitor, too.

Printers and cameras via Bluetooth is easy (as in already been done easy).
Sending pictures to the entertainment centre should be easy (at least to a 
linux based one like the Acer AT3705-MGW or an mce system, I have doubts 
about an Apple TV one as you have to get it into iTunes first, I will leave 
that as an exercise for the reader).

>>
>> Mmm what a device.
>

The nearest I have is PS on an HP TC4200, its way OTT though. 

dennis@home wrote:
> "Richard Polhill" <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:af884$4677bb1e$3e18e6cb$11885@news.vispa.com...
>> Richard Polhill wrote:
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message 
>>>> news:46779f5d$0$14183$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>> "k" <fellafel@PING.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:46779c1a$0$22457$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>> btw, I have aside from the usual CC filters (80's, 81's, FL's etc) a 
>>>>>> full
>>>>>> set of Y, M & C optical gel filters in 0.05D steps
>>>>> Me too, but those are only for the enlarger :-)
>>>> I have a dichroic head on mine.. its a bit like using the sliders in PS. 
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I gave up developing when I became allergic to the chemicals but I still 
>>>> have all the kit.. who knows it might end up in a museum in thirty years 
>>>> time alongside macs and pcs. Someone is bound to make a digital picture 
>>>> frame where you can edit the pictures (or at least alter their cropping, 
>>>> colour, contrast, etc. and that will do everything most users want.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And attach to your photo printer and your camera(s) wirelessly.
>> Ooo and your home entertainment monitor, too.
> 
> Printers and cameras via Bluetooth is easy (as in already been done easy).
> Sending pictures to the entertainment centre should be easy (at least to a 
> linux based one like the Acer AT3705-MGW or an mce system, I have doubts 
> about an Apple TV one as you have to get it into iTunes first, I will leave 
> that as an exercise for the reader).
> 
>>> Mmm what a device.
> 
> The nearest I have is PS on an HP TC4200, its way OTT though. 
> 
> 
Yeah I think we'll see a packaged consumer device within a year or two.

While the technology is available I haven't seen very many BlueTooth cameras 
around yet, and the protocols probably need some work yet.

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message 
news:f58gl8$pgg$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Richard Polhill" <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:af884$4677bb1e$3e18e6cb$11885@news.vispa.com...
>> Richard Polhill wrote:
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message 
>>>> news:46779f5d$0$14183$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>> "k" <fellafel@PING.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:46779c1a$0$22457$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>> btw, I have aside from the usual CC filters (80's, 81's, FL's etc) a 
>>>>>> full
>>>>>> set of Y, M & C optical gel filters in 0.05D steps
>>>>> Me too, but those are only for the enlarger :-)
>>>>
>>>> I have a dichroic head on mine.. its a bit like using the sliders in 
>>>> PS. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I gave up developing when I became allergic to the chemicals but I 
>>>> still have all the kit.. who knows it might end up in a museum in 
>>>> thirty years time alongside macs and pcs. Someone is bound to make a 
>>>> digital picture frame where you can edit the pictures (or at least 
>>>> alter their cropping, colour, contrast, etc. and that will do 
>>>> everything most users want.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And attach to your photo printer and your camera(s) wirelessly.
>>
>> Ooo and your home entertainment monitor, too.
>
> Printers and cameras via Bluetooth is easy (as in already been done easy).
> Sending pictures to the entertainment centre should be easy (at least to a 
> linux based one like the Acer AT3705-MGW or an mce system, I have doubts 
> about an Apple TV one as you have to get it into iTunes first, I will 
> leave that as an exercise for the reader).
>
>>>
>>> Mmm what a device.
>>
>
> The nearest I have is PS on an HP TC4200, its way OTT though.
>

My Canon 5200R printer has wireless, USB and ethernet. ;-)

Pete D wrote:
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message 
> news:f58gl8$pgg$1@news.datemas.de...
>> "Richard Polhill" <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:af884$4677bb1e$3e18e6cb$11885@news.vispa.com...
>>> Richard Polhill wrote:
>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:46779f5d$0$14183$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>>> "k" <fellafel@PING.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:46779c1a$0$22457$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>> btw, I have aside from the usual CC filters (80's, 81's, FL's etc) a 
>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>> set of Y, M & C optical gel filters in 0.05D steps
>>>>>> Me too, but those are only for the enlarger :-)
>>>>> I have a dichroic head on mine.. its a bit like using the sliders in 
>>>>> PS. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I gave up developing when I became allergic to the chemicals but I 
>>>>> still have all the kit.. who knows it might end up in a museum in 
>>>>> thirty years time alongside macs and pcs. Someone is bound to make a 
>>>>> digital picture frame where you can edit the pictures (or at least 
>>>>> alter their cropping, colour, contrast, etc. and that will do 
>>>>> everything most users want.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And attach to your photo printer and your camera(s) wirelessly.
>>> Ooo and your home entertainment monitor, too.
>> Printers and cameras via Bluetooth is easy (as in already been done easy).
>> Sending pictures to the entertainment centre should be easy (at least to a 
>> linux based one like the Acer AT3705-MGW or an mce system, I have doubts 
>> about an Apple TV one as you have to get it into iTunes first, I will 
>> leave that as an exercise for the reader).
>>
>>>> Mmm what a device.
>> The nearest I have is PS on an HP TC4200, its way OTT though.
>>
> 
> My Canon 5200R printer has wireless, USB and ethernet. ;-)
> 
> 
Well done!

Your point being?

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:40:40 +0100, Richard Polhill wrote:

> Richard Polhill wrote:
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message 
>>> news:46779f5d$0$14183$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>> "k" <fellafel@PING.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:46779c1a$0$22457$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> btw, I have aside from the usual CC filters (80's, 81's, FL's etc) a 
>>>>> full
>>>>> set of Y, M & C optical gel filters in 0.05D steps
>>>> Me too, but those are only for the enlarger :-)
>>>
>>> I have a dichroic head on mine.. its a bit like using the sliders in 
>>> PS. ;-)
>>>
>>> I gave up developing when I became allergic to the chemicals but I 
>>> still have all the kit.. who knows it might end up in a museum in 
>>> thirty years time alongside macs and pcs. Someone is bound to make a 
>>> digital picture frame where you can edit the pictures (or at least 
>>> alter their cropping, colour, contrast, etc. and that will do 
>>> everything most users want.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> And attach to your photo printer and your camera(s) wirelessly.
> 
> Ooo and your home entertainment monitor, too.
>> 
>> Mmm what a device.

And free anti-cancer drugs?

-- 
Neil

In article <af884$4677bb1e$3e18e6cb$11885@news.vispa.com>, 
richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid says...
 
> Ooo and your home entertainment monitor, too.

My old laptop hangs on the wall behind my flat-screen TV as a wireless 
picture server.  Works great, though I look forward to the day when all 
that is included in a toaster-sized fireproof case that includes the 
home RAID backup server and wireless router.

-- 
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>

>>> leave that as an exercise for the reader).
>>>
>>>>> Mmm what a device.
>>> The nearest I have is PS on an HP TC4200, its way OTT though.
>>>
>>
>> My Canon 5200R printer has wireless, USB and ethernet. ;-)
>>
>>
> Well done!
>
> Your point being?

That wireless printing is already here??? 

Pete D wrote:
>>>> leave that as an exercise for the reader).
>>>>
>>>>>> Mmm what a device.
>>>> The nearest I have is PS on an HP TC4200, its way OTT though.
>>>>
>>> My Canon 5200R printer has wireless, USB and ethernet. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Well done!
>>
>> Your point being?
> 
> That wireless printing is already here??? 
> 
> 
Heh. And how many cameras have WiFi?

Do you not understand the difference between wireless peripheral connections 
and wireless networks? Ok, fine.

Just accept it'd need bluetooth on both the camera and the printer.

This does not give you the device we were talking about however: a device that 
stores ALL your photos, allows basic editing, exporting and printing as well 
as display on a home entertainment system.

The technology is all there, but does not involve WiFi. And certainly does not 
involve Ethernet or USB, 'cause, get this: They're WIRED.

I don't want a networked camera; the overhead in setting up, securing and 
administering is ridiculous. Not to mention the power consumption.

As I already said: the technology is all available, although none of it 
offered by your printer, just not been packaged up into something you can buy yet.

"Richard Polhill" <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote in message 
news:bda06$4678ce75$3e18e6cb$26536@news.vispa.com...
> Pete D wrote:
>>>>> leave that as an exercise for the reader).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mmm what a device.
>>>>> The nearest I have is PS on an HP TC4200, its way OTT though.
>>>>>
>>>> My Canon 5200R printer has wireless, USB and ethernet. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well done!
>>>
>>> Your point being?
>>
>> That wireless printing is already here???
> Heh. And how many cameras have WiFi?
>
> Do you not understand the difference between wireless peripheral 
> connections and wireless networks? Ok, fine.
>
> Just accept it'd need bluetooth on both the camera and the printer.
>
> This does not give you the device we were talking about however: a device 
> that stores ALL your photos, allows basic editing, exporting and printing 
> as well as display on a home entertainment system.
>
> The technology is all there, but does not involve WiFi. And certainly does 
> not involve Ethernet or USB, 'cause, get this: They're WIRED.
>
> I don't want a networked camera; the overhead in setting up, securing and 
> administering is ridiculous. Not to mention the power consumption.
>
> As I already said: the technology is all available, although none of it 
> offered by your printer, just not been packaged up into something you can 
> buy yet.

LOL, perhaps a red pill will make you feel better. 

Pete D wrote:

> 
> LOL, perhaps a red pill will make you feel better. 
> 
> 

Pushing drugs now?

"Richard Polhill" <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote in message 
news:bda06$4678ce75$3e18e6cb$26536@news.vispa.com...
> Pete D wrote:
>>>>> leave that as an exercise for the reader).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mmm what a device.
>>>>> The nearest I have is PS on an HP TC4200, its way OTT though.
>>>>>
>>>> My Canon 5200R printer has wireless, USB and ethernet. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well done!
>>>
>>> Your point being?
>>
>> That wireless printing is already here???
> Heh. And how many cameras have WiFi?

A few ATM.

Canon, kodak, nikon, sony, samsung make them.. there may be others.

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message 
news:f5asua$foo$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Richard Polhill" <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:bda06$4678ce75$3e18e6cb$26536@news.vispa.com...
>> Pete D wrote:
>>>>>> leave that as an exercise for the reader).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mmm what a device.
>>>>>> The nearest I have is PS on an HP TC4200, its way OTT though.
>>>>>>
>>>>> My Canon 5200R printer has wireless, USB and ethernet. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well done!
>>>>
>>>> Your point being?
>>>
>>> That wireless printing is already here???
>> Heh. And how many cameras have WiFi?
>
> A few ATM.
>
> Canon, kodak, nikon, sony, samsung make them.. there may be others.
>
>

Don't you be giving facts now, it seems to be confusing some here. ;-) 

On Jun 12, 6:52 am, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Do you know something that can batch tag EXIF data to DNG files?  I
> > keyword tag all of my photos, and batch tag generic descriptions to
> > entire days of shooting, and that's something I've had trouble
> > achieving with RAW.  In fact, in all of my searching to get a tool
> > that does it in for JPEGs, I only found one that worked as I wanted
> > (spaces in keywords, and the ability to batch append new keywords
> > rather than over-write)
>
> Photoshop and Lightroom do this, and a great deal more.

I'm giving Lightroom a go now with the 30 day trial, and I must say
I'm impressed at its ability to handle keywords.  Heirachial keywords,
synonyms, batch appending (rather than over-writing).  It works on all
the RAW files I've thrown at it (mostly using sidecar files, but
that's fine with me) as well as JPEGs.  Now if only I could make it
create copies of the original file it jpeg format rather than TIFF or
photoshop format when I'm trying to post process a file, it would be
literally perfect...

Ray

Lightroom's pretty good. I like it too. How about Export to create a JPEG?

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Ray Macey wrote:
> On Jun 12, 6:52 am, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Do you know something that can batch tag EXIF data to DNG files?  I
>>> keyword tag all of my photos, and batch tag generic descriptions to
>>> entire days of shooting, and that's something I've had trouble
>>> achieving with RAW.  In fact, in all of my searching to get a tool
>>> that does it in for JPEGs, I only found one that worked as I wanted
>>> (spaces in keywords, and the ability to batch append new keywords
>>> rather than over-write)
>> Photoshop and Lightroom do this, and a great deal more.
> 
> I'm giving Lightroom a go now with the 30 day trial, and I must say
> I'm impressed at its ability to handle keywords.  Heirachial keywords,
> synonyms, batch appending (rather than over-writing).  It works on all
> the RAW files I've thrown at it (mostly using sidecar files, but
> that's fine with me) as well as JPEGs.  Now if only I could make it
> create copies of the original file it jpeg format rather than TIFF or
> photoshop format when I'm trying to post process a file, it would be
> literally perfect...
> 
> Ray
> 

On Jun 1, 9:08 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this topic:http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> --
> Wayne J. Cosshall
> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/



I use film; so should you, you moron.

UC wrote:
> On Jun 1, 9:08 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this topic:http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>> --
>> Wayne J. Cosshall
>> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
>> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
>> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
>> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/
> 
> 
> 
> I use film; so should you, you moron.
> 
What part of rec.photo.DIGITAL? Now tell us who's the moron.

On Jul 3, 11:37 am, Allen <a...@nothere.net> wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 9:08 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
> >> Hi All,
>
> >> My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this topic:http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html
>
> >> Cheers,
>
> >> Wayne
>
> >> --
> >> Wayne J. Cosshall
> >> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
> >> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
> >> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
> >> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/
>
> > I use film; so should you, you moron.
>
> What part of rec.photo.DIGITAL? Now tell us who's the moron.


This is in alt.photography, ASSHOLE!

The only idiot here is you if you believe that only film constitutes 
photography. Go away and learn something about what you do, if you 
actually do any photography. Photography is photography, whatever the 
capture device is.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



UC wrote:
> On Jul 3, 11:37 am, Allen <a...@nothere.net> wrote:
>> UC wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 9:08 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this topic:http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Wayne
>>>> --
>>>> Wayne J. Cosshall
>>>> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
>>>> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
>>>> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
>>>> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/
>>> I use film; so should you, you moron.
>> What part of rec.photo.DIGITAL? Now tell us who's the moron.
> 
> 
> This is in alt.photography, ASSHOLE!
> 

"UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1183477208.705162.278270@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 11:37 am, Allen <a...@nothere.net> wrote:
>> UC wrote:
>> > On Jun 1, 9:08 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi All,
>>
>> >> My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this 
>> >> topic:http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html
>>
>> >> Cheers,
>>
>> >> Wayne
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Wayne J. Cosshall
>> >> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
>> >> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
>> >> Publisher, Experimental Digital 
>> >> Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
>> >> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/
>>
>> > I use film; so should you, you moron.
>>
>> What part of rec.photo.DIGITAL? Now tell us who's the moron.
>
>
> This is in alt.photography, ASSHOLE!
>

And yet you managed to post to:
alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

You are looking a bit silly now I think perhaps if you are not an "ASSHOLE" 
you will apologise?

Over to you red leader!!

Cheers.

Pete