vriad_lee: (Default)
[personal profile] vriad_lee
ok now i'm going to abstain from posting for as long as i can hold out. because i took a vacation to read books you know rather than post dog pictures you know. and for those interested in photography i should note that working with RAW gives you a whole dazzling lot of advantages in the way of improving poorly exposed/color-fucked-up pictures. but it increases the processing time by about the same degree. so there. be well. send my regards. last word, last word, it's my last word in a long t...

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-06 07:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zhena.livejournal.com
oh no! please reconsider and come back again with new dog pictures.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-06 07:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
that would impair my remarkable mental health!

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-06 08:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zhena.livejournal.com
considering the variety of voices and genders you speak through this lj, the health in question might not be just _that_ remarkable))
(just joking!)

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-06 08:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
ok, i agree! it's an ordinary run of the mill sort of health. but i'm still proud of it. because it's mine, mine!

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-06 07:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
you know i won't hold out too long don't you

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-06 08:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] crazy-on.livejournal.com
i'll be waiting patiently:)

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-06 08:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] signamax.livejournal.com
I like your photography
but
do whatever is good for you

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-06 09:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sylys.livejournal.com
You must be kidding, you disappeared for about two weeks only a couple of days ago ! Come back already !!

*Am about to start reading Les frêres Karamazov, feels like exile as well*

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-06 09:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
well, and i haven't finished it yet! and who's to blame? work and lj...

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-07 03:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] poemtree.livejournal.com
i was going to say "oh come on!" but then i thought: no, you're right. just as long as you do return and soon.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-07 07:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
oh, i'm so glad - i wondered if you got insulted with my cute-cute comment about teenagers

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-07 07:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wallynotorious.livejournal.com
Have a fun vacation! I'll miss your cute dog pics!!

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-07 09:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stillcarl.livejournal.com
Hmmm. So that RAW vs JPEG comment a while back was about processing the photos after you got them out of the camera, and not a setting on your camera?

If so, and your software handles PNG files, you can safely save them in that format without losing information. PNG files will still be larger than JPEGs, but nowhere near as large as RAW files. Your hard-disk will love you for not working in RAW files...

PNG uses a lossless (http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=define%3Alossless) form of compression, while JPEG doesn't. (http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=define%3Alossy) Actually, I think if you save a JPEG at 100% compression then no data is lost, but I've never looked into this so don't quote me on it.

As to whether you use PNG files on the Web though is up to you. Browsers support the format, but the files will be bigger, so...

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-07 12:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
no, it's about a camera setting. if you choose raw you get much more flexibility in the way of tuning photos, but you have to do in a special program (nikon capture), and only then resize/put final touches/save as jpeg in photoshop.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-07 08:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stillcarl.livejournal.com
I'm still not sure what you mean, but I'm assuming there's a RAW/JPEG setting in your camera, even if you need to use Nikon Capture to switch between them?

As I understand it, digital cameras capture a RAW image of what the camera sees - ie 4 (or possibly 3) bytes per pixel, thus a 1024 * 768 image uses 3145728 bytes, meaning about 3 megs. As large resolution images will eat up storage (in the camera) rather quickly, they then compress them one way or another, JPEG being one of the ways they could do so. (Which is what my cheap camera does.)

I'm assuming though that yours uses a compression method that doesn't lose any information. But that would all be in the camera, whereas your "tuning" is done in the computer, right? Or wrong... ;-)

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-07 10:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
no, Nikon Capture is used for postprocessing, and it supports only raw files. in camera, you cat choose jpg (~3 mb for best quality, largest size jpg) or raw (up to 6 mb - raw file size is varying from shot to shot). the advantage of using raw is that camera records additional info in this format, and nikon capture allows you to change many settings post factum, using controls similar to those in camera itself. like, you can choose another white balance or contrast setting and that would be like making the same shot, but with the new setting. if you shoot in jpeg, on the other hand, it's impossible to recover those alternative settings. all the alternative data is simply lost in jpeg. besides, you can change exposition, recover very dark photos without distorting colors and introducing noise, and even recover some blown out hihglights (!). in short, raw+nc gives you a waaaay more flexibility in terms of postprocessing :)

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-07 10:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stillcarl.livejournal.com
Got you now.

Though "up to 6 mb - raw file size is varying from shot to shot" must mean there's some compression there - just not lossy compression. For instance, a 2048x1536 image at 4 bytes per pixel requires over 12megs of storage, and you take photos bigger than 2048x1536, right?

Though maybe you don't choose image-size in decent digital cameras?

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-07 10:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
well, you're right, nikon uses a proprietary raw format called nef, which they claim to be a compressed but lossless - in terms of quality - version of raw. you do choose image size and quality for jpegs

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-07 02:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jekashum.livejournal.com
чо нах? ничо не поняла, кароче с наступившим, побольше фоток, возвращайся и всего хорошего:)

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-07 10:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
фоток побольше это да. УЖЕ КОПЛЮ

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-08 04:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jekashum.livejournal.com
гыгыг))) КОПИ(copy))))

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-08 12:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rhapsodical78.livejournal.com
This is unacceptable. Where will I get may daily dose of Russian street dog? I can't live without it now, you know. I'm hooked, like a cheap and desperate crack whore. I want MORE, MORE. And I want it NOW. Or at least. Quasi-regularly. Don't make me jump off a bridge.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-08 09:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
ha-ha, you're HOOOKED! HOOOKED!

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-08 12:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rhapsodical78.livejournal.com
Russia doesn't look so beautiful from that angle. Is this where you live?

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-08 09:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
not quite, but pretty-pretty close!

(no subject)

Date: 2006-01-08 09:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
...now that put the final touch to it, didn't it?

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags