Digital photography, changing the world
Dec 6th 2004, 5:26 am
#556
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Mxsmanic
>> the best word to describe "light" is light, in fact, you are in
>> danger of creating more "heat" than light here.
>Is light visible radiation? If so, what about the invisible radiation
>to which films and sensors respond?
How does that influence the use of coloured filters on the lens v
in photoshop?
>> OK, OK, (do I really want to ask?) in what way exactly?
>I've already explained it.
Phew!
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>> the best word to describe "light" is light, in fact, you are in
>> danger of creating more "heat" than light here.
>Is light visible radiation? If so, what about the invisible radiation
>to which films and sensors respond?
How does that influence the use of coloured filters on the lens v
in photoshop?
>> OK, OK, (do I really want to ask?) in what way exactly?
>I've already explained it.
Phew!
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 6th 2004, 5:37 am
#557
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
The Reids writes:
> How does that influence the use of coloured filters on the lens v
> in photoshop?
Photoshop cannot represent anything but three color values. Filters can
adust an entire spectrum of both visible and invisible light.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> How does that influence the use of coloured filters on the lens v
> in photoshop?
Photoshop cannot represent anything but three color values. Filters can
adust an entire spectrum of both visible and invisible light.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dec 6th 2004, 8:09 am
#558
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Reids writes:
>> the best word to describe "light" is light, in fact, you are in
>> danger of creating more "heat" than light here.
> Is light visible radiation?
By definition it is, thats what visible means.
> If so, what about the invisible radiation
> to which films and sensors respond?
If it cant be seen by the human eye it is by definition invisible
Keith
news:[email protected]...
> The Reids writes:
>> the best word to describe "light" is light, in fact, you are in
>> danger of creating more "heat" than light here.
> Is light visible radiation?
By definition it is, thats what visible means.
> If so, what about the invisible radiation
> to which films and sensors respond?
If it cant be seen by the human eye it is by definition invisible
Keith
Dec 6th 2004, 8:12 am
#559
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Reids writes:
>> How does that influence the use of coloured filters on the lens v
>> in photoshop?
> Photoshop cannot represent anything but three color values. Filters can
> adust an entire spectrum of both visible and invisible light.
Filters adjust nothing, by definition they EXCLUDE certain
wavelengths , this causes some unexpected changes
with film as emulsions are sensitive to a wider range of
spectra than mammalian eyes.
Keith
news:[email protected]...
> The Reids writes:
>> How does that influence the use of coloured filters on the lens v
>> in photoshop?
> Photoshop cannot represent anything but three color values. Filters can
> adust an entire spectrum of both visible and invisible light.
Filters adjust nothing, by definition they EXCLUDE certain
wavelengths , this causes some unexpected changes
with film as emulsions are sensitive to a wider range of
spectra than mammalian eyes.
Keith
Dec 6th 2004, 10:25 am
#560
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Mxsmanic
>> How does that influence the use of coloured filters on the lens v
>> in photoshop?
>Photoshop cannot represent anything but three color values. Filters can
>adust an entire spectrum of both visible and invisible light.
That isn't really an answer to the issue under discussion.
We both know filters can deal with such things as UV light, such
issues were discarded at an earlier part of the thread, I have no
objection to the use of UV filters etc. We are talking about the
use of pre exposure colour filter v post exposure colour filter.
Do you have any further red herrings before you give up?
Thank you for making me think about colour.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>> How does that influence the use of coloured filters on the lens v
>> in photoshop?
>Photoshop cannot represent anything but three color values. Filters can
>adust an entire spectrum of both visible and invisible light.
That isn't really an answer to the issue under discussion.
We both know filters can deal with such things as UV light, such
issues were discarded at an earlier part of the thread, I have no
objection to the use of UV filters etc. We are talking about the
use of pre exposure colour filter v post exposure colour filter.
Do you have any further red herrings before you give up?
Thank you for making me think about colour.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 6th 2004, 2:16 pm
#561
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Keith Willshaw writes:
> Filters adjust nothing, by definition they EXCLUDE certain
> wavelengths, this causes some unexpected changes
> with film as emulsions are sensitive to a wider range of
> spectra than mammalian eyes.
Exactly. And they have an entire continuous spectrum of wavelengths to
filter. Photoshop does not.
Photograph a full-color scene through a narrowband yellow filter in
black and white. Then photograph the same scene in color, open the
result in Photoshop, and try to duplicate the B&W image you got with the
filter by converting the RGB image to grayscale. You'll find that it
cannot be done.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Filters adjust nothing, by definition they EXCLUDE certain
> wavelengths, this causes some unexpected changes
> with film as emulsions are sensitive to a wider range of
> spectra than mammalian eyes.
Exactly. And they have an entire continuous spectrum of wavelengths to
filter. Photoshop does not.
Photograph a full-color scene through a narrowband yellow filter in
black and white. Then photograph the same scene in color, open the
result in Photoshop, and try to duplicate the B&W image you got with the
filter by converting the RGB image to grayscale. You'll find that it
cannot be done.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dec 6th 2004, 2:19 pm
#562
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
The Reids writes:
> That isn't really an answer to the issue under discussion.
I've already explained the answer.
> We both know filters can deal with such things as UV light, such
> issues were discarded at an earlier part of the thread, I have no
> objection to the use of UV filters etc. We are talking about the
> use of pre exposure colour filter v post exposure colour filter.
> Do you have any further red herrings before you give up?
I've already given up.
I've explained this at great length and in considerable detail in many
other venues. My experience is that only a few people (particularly
those with good math or physics backgrounds) grasp the concepts behind
it. The others claim there is no difference, and spend their time
launching personal attacks against me either because they truly have no
clue as to the correctness of what I'm saying or because they know that
I'm correct but they can't understand the details.
In any case, it's a lot of effort on my part for very little gain. So I
usually don't bother these days.
This is one of those concepts that most people never quite understand,
rather like the Monty Hall problem, or the nature of digital data
representation, or things like that.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> That isn't really an answer to the issue under discussion.
I've already explained the answer.
> We both know filters can deal with such things as UV light, such
> issues were discarded at an earlier part of the thread, I have no
> objection to the use of UV filters etc. We are talking about the
> use of pre exposure colour filter v post exposure colour filter.
> Do you have any further red herrings before you give up?
I've already given up.
I've explained this at great length and in considerable detail in many
other venues. My experience is that only a few people (particularly
those with good math or physics backgrounds) grasp the concepts behind
it. The others claim there is no difference, and spend their time
launching personal attacks against me either because they truly have no
clue as to the correctness of what I'm saying or because they know that
I'm correct but they can't understand the details.
In any case, it's a lot of effort on my part for very little gain. So I
usually don't bother these days.
This is one of those concepts that most people never quite understand,
rather like the Monty Hall problem, or the nature of digital data
representation, or things like that.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dec 6th 2004, 2:49 pm
#563
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Reids writes:
>> the best word to describe "light" is light, in fact, you are in
>> danger of creating more "heat" than light here.
> Is light visible radiation? If so, what about the invisible radiation
> to which films and sensors respond?
Why don't you explain the visible manifestation of this invisible radiation?
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
> The Reids writes:
>> the best word to describe "light" is light, in fact, you are in
>> danger of creating more "heat" than light here.
> Is light visible radiation? If so, what about the invisible radiation
> to which films and sensors respond?
Why don't you explain the visible manifestation of this invisible radiation?
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Dec 6th 2004, 3:31 pm
#564
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Miguel Cruz writes:
> Why don't you explain the visible manifestation of this invisible radiation?
There isn't any. That's why it's invisible.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Why don't you explain the visible manifestation of this invisible radiation?
There isn't any. That's why it's invisible.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dec 6th 2004, 7:51 pm
#565
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:19:30 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> I've explained this at great length and in considerable detail in many
> other venues. My experience is that only a few people (particularly
> those with good math or physics backgrounds) grasp the concepts behind
> it.
The blind leading the blind ?
--
Tim C.
> I've explained this at great length and in considerable detail in many
> other venues. My experience is that only a few people (particularly
> those with good math or physics backgrounds) grasp the concepts behind
> it.
The blind leading the blind ?
--
Tim C.
Dec 6th 2004, 7:53 pm
#566
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:19:30 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> In any case, it's a lot of effort on my part for very little gain. So I
> usually don't bother these days.
You seem to be putting a lot of effort in to saying "it's too hard for you,
you wouldn't understand" but without actually trying to explain it.
Have you been taking snobbery lessons from IconoClast ?
--
Tim C.
> In any case, it's a lot of effort on my part for very little gain. So I
> usually don't bother these days.
You seem to be putting a lot of effort in to saying "it's too hard for you,
you wouldn't understand" but without actually trying to explain it.
Have you been taking snobbery lessons from IconoClast ?
--
Tim C.
Dec 6th 2004, 7:55 pm
#567
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:09:44 -0000, Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The Reids writes:
>>> the best word to describe "light" is light, in fact, you are in
>>> danger of creating more "heat" than light here.
>> Is light visible radiation?
>
> By definition it is, thats what visible means.
Only by everybody else's definition. Not Mixi's
> > If so, what about the invisible radiation
>> to which films and sensors respond?
>
> If it cant be seen by the human eye it is by definition invisible
Ditto as above. You're backing the wrong horse there, using actual
definitions against Mixi, Keith.
--
Tim C.
> "Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The Reids writes:
>>> the best word to describe "light" is light, in fact, you are in
>>> danger of creating more "heat" than light here.
>> Is light visible radiation?
>
> By definition it is, thats what visible means.
Only by everybody else's definition. Not Mixi's
> > If so, what about the invisible radiation
>> to which films and sensors respond?
>
> If it cant be seen by the human eye it is by definition invisible
Ditto as above. You're backing the wrong horse there, using actual
definitions against Mixi, Keith.
--
Tim C.
Dec 6th 2004, 7:56 pm
#568
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 05:31:47 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Miguel Cruz writes:
>
>> Why don't you explain the visible manifestation of this invisible radiation?
>
> There isn't any. That's why it's invisible.
So it has no effect on the film then?
--
Tim C.
> Miguel Cruz writes:
>
>> Why don't you explain the visible manifestation of this invisible radiation?
>
> There isn't any. That's why it's invisible.
So it has no effect on the film then?
--
Tim C.
Dec 6th 2004, 8:46 pm
#569
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Mxsmanic
>Exactly. And they have an entire continuous spectrum of wavelengths to
>filter. Photoshop does not.
Neither does film, which is the point.
>Photograph a full-color scene through a narrowband yellow filter in
>black and white. Then photograph the same scene in color, open the
>result in Photoshop, and try to duplicate the B&W image you got with the
>filter by converting the RGB image to grayscale. You'll find that it
>cannot be done.
Not by that method, its simplistic, as you know. You could get a
close approximation by doing it properly, but at the end of the
day it does not matter. Why should Photoshop produce the same
false image as yellow filtered black and white? Why should a
digital camera produce the same variations on reality as a given
film stock? This is all a nonsense and nothing to do with
pre/post filtering colour film..
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>Exactly. And they have an entire continuous spectrum of wavelengths to
>filter. Photoshop does not.
Neither does film, which is the point.
>Photograph a full-color scene through a narrowband yellow filter in
>black and white. Then photograph the same scene in color, open the
>result in Photoshop, and try to duplicate the B&W image you got with the
>filter by converting the RGB image to grayscale. You'll find that it
>cannot be done.
Not by that method, its simplistic, as you know. You could get a
close approximation by doing it properly, but at the end of the
day it does not matter. Why should Photoshop produce the same
false image as yellow filtered black and white? Why should a
digital camera produce the same variations on reality as a given
film stock? This is all a nonsense and nothing to do with
pre/post filtering colour film..
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 6th 2004, 8:54 pm
#570
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Mxsmanic
>I've already given up.
Really?
>I've explained this at great length and in considerable detail in many
>other venues. My experience is that only a few people (particularly
>those with good math or physics backgrounds) grasp the concepts behind
>it. The others claim there is no difference,
Where did I do that? I don't have a maths or physics background,
you don't need it to understand the point you are/were making.
>and spend their time
>launching personal attacks against me
Where did I do that?
>either because they truly have no
>clue as to the correctness of what I'm saying or because they know that
>I'm correct but they can't understand the details.
The point is that the differences are small and academic, neither
is "right", both are equally valid as photographic results. There
is no photographic "truth" when you examine the detail.
>In any case, it's a lot of effort on my part for very little gain. So I
>usually don't bother these days.
I have not noticed this trait Mixi!
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>I've already given up.
Really?
>I've explained this at great length and in considerable detail in many
>other venues. My experience is that only a few people (particularly
>those with good math or physics backgrounds) grasp the concepts behind
>it. The others claim there is no difference,
Where did I do that? I don't have a maths or physics background,
you don't need it to understand the point you are/were making.
>and spend their time
>launching personal attacks against me
Where did I do that?
>either because they truly have no
>clue as to the correctness of what I'm saying or because they know that
>I'm correct but they can't understand the details.
The point is that the differences are small and academic, neither
is "right", both are equally valid as photographic results. There
is no photographic "truth" when you examine the detail.
>In any case, it's a lot of effort on my part for very little gain. So I
>usually don't bother these days.
I have not noticed this trait Mixi!
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
