Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 on: Today at 12:44:53 AM 
Started by Rajan Parrikar - Last post by Rajan Parrikar
Another report -

 on: Today at 12:43:54 AM 
Started by Praki - Last post by Rajan Parrikar
Another report -

 on: Today at 12:43:48 AM 
Started by digitaldog - Last post by supercurio
In fact, I have invited Andrew Rodney to be a Skype guest for a live interview for YouTube and a podcast. 

Another question gary,

You invite Andrew for a video interview, but at the same time you delete some his most useful comments on your youtube video.

Please explain.

 on: Today at 12:25:38 AM 
Started by digitaldog - Last post by supercurio
In fact, I have invited Andrew Rodney to be a Skype guest for a live interview for YouTube and a podcast.  He declined.  If he is so right, you would think he'd stand right up and be interviewed, and show us how wrong we are.

Simple question Gary.

Do you intend to correct the listed factual errors in videos you published earlier?
Starting with the rainbow stuff.

If you don't show any sign of effort on the quality and accuracy of your content, it's perfectly understandable Andrew doesn't trust you enough and declines you the ability to use his name and reputation, putting it in your hands.
Your channel, your video, your editing, your rules. Based on your messages here it's too likely you will misrepresent his words.

It's pretty clear you won't be taken seriously (hence the thread topic) until to do the necessary steps so it becomes possible to.

 on: Today at 12:03:00 AM 
Started by digitaldog - Last post by garyfong
Slobodan, if you go back to Gary Fong's video and watch the whole thing he undeniably exhorts people to use sRGB from capture onwards.
The fact that he has subsequently, under a lot of pressure, grudgingly admitted that AdobeRGB might be OK IF one has the hardware to handle it

Tony Jay, where do you get this from?  The video says it right from the beginning - Adobe is better if you have the hardware to handle it.  Your heated comments came after it.

I'm under pressure?  Do you think I'm under pressure from what you folks are saying?   A handful of you Colorbators saying things like this?  Do you think the handful of people here have any influence over anybody in the photography world except for the people on this board?  Because you get dinner jackets to wear for a group photo showing how superior you are?

You heard Will Crockett say it - this debate should have been put to bed a long time ago, and it's the same few names over and over again who are in love with their workflow.  I'm not calling the end to AdobeRGB, and I didn't say the print test would fail.  I said I was going to do it, and only one of you predicted that the AdobeRGB workflow print would win and A/B contest.  So, how confident are you if only one of you (not the most vocal of you all, by the way) could say for certain, that your workflow was going to win the contest? 

You do know why this thread is useful to me right?  I'm going to use this discussion in my sRGB vs AdobeRGB blog posts and videos.  If I was under pressure, would I keep this thread going?  I am collecting this stuff.  It is going to be helpful when I hear from Jeff at X-Rite if it is true when Andrew Rodney proclaims that Will is a liar about his Coloritti relationship.  He is not on the website because he doesn't want to appear on a website with Andrew Rodney on it.  I didn't get the full context of that until I spent some time on the phone with Will. 

If Andrew Rodney calls Will deceitful or misleading and is wrong he's going to have some problems soon.  And he calls me spineless, if I were spineless, I wouldn't keep this thread going.

In fact, I have invited Andrew Rodney to be a Skype guest for a live interview for YouTube and a podcast.  He declined.  If he is so right, you would think he'd stand right up and be interviewed, and show us how wrong we are.

I want to hear all about how wrong we are.  That's why this thread keeps going.  This dialog is useful to me.

 on: August 27, 2014, 11:50:38 PM 
Started by digitaldog - Last post by supercurio
Thanks GWGill and digitaldog for your follow up on why it was said a sensor (camera or scanner) don't have a gamut per say.

My instinctive understanding was that:
- you can convert from Sensor RGB to XYZ via a 3x3 matrix, for a determined illuminant
- conversely you can convert from XYZ to XYZ via a 3x3 matrix for a determined illuminant
- Sensor RGB are expressed in a finite amount of values (like 1024 for 10 bit) or within a range: 0.0 to 1.0 when converted to floating point.

The Sensor RGB to XYZ conversion is enough to get XYZ values for saturated red, saturated green, saturated blue.
Which gives primaries coordinates for a gamut, and also a color space with this gamut and a gamma of 1.

So there's that and it seems simple enough but as you point out, colors seen by the sensor depend on the spectral sensitivity of each channel, so it doesn't make as much sense.
As we know, as a result, a simple 3x3 matrix from RGB data to XYZ is sufficient to get somewhat resembling colors but not accurate one: additional correction is required (like implemented by HueSatMap in DNG specs)

I'll play with all this tomorrow and experiment. I'd like to see if we can at least compare camera's sensor like that.
It might give useful results or misleading instead, I'm curious to know and will share that in a new topic!

(and my apology for the off topic)

 on: August 27, 2014, 11:39:29 PM 
Started by Chrisso26 - Last post by David Anderson

On the Nikon/Cannon aspect, when you see a 'press pack' there is no evidence of mirrorless usage, it's all behemoth Nikon and Cannon systems. Is this because of the investment the press photographer has made in those systems, or is it a prejudice in the news organisations and press agencies?

Some of it would be service related IMO.
Both Canon and Nikon have good after sales service for pro's here in Australia.

Money would come into it as well.
It's a big finical decision to switch systems.

Still very tempted to lighten up with some of that blingy little Sony gear.. Wink

 on: August 27, 2014, 11:32:53 PM 
Started by seamus finn - Last post by David Anderson
Gritty. Cool

Agree with Bernard about the Barrel, but still dig the shot.

 on: August 27, 2014, 11:15:15 PM 
Started by digitaldog - Last post by Tony Jay
So, Tony, just to be clear, you are now attacking both the message and the explanation?
If I told you repeatedly that the reason you kept getting blurry shots shooting handheld with a 400mm f2.8 lens was because of the rotation of the earth and you could not shift me from ascribing the blurry shots to the rotation of the earth, does that in turn mean that the fact that you can come up with a very rational explanation for blurry images in that context that have nothing to do with the rotation of earth mean that you cannot differentiate the observation from the explanation?

Lets try a different tack:
If you were in West Africa right now how would you respond, knowing what you know about Ebola (perhaps not much, but enough anyhow), if I was an apparent bona fide doctor (I am by the way), if I was going around telling people in Sierra Leone, Liberia etc that their risk of acquiring Ebola was high (it is, in fact) but, the reason was that the gods were angry with them (this is false, however many of the people living in that region are animists and would find that explanation, no matter how erroneous, in fact, to be completely plausible).
You would rightly castigate me for not telling them the truth about how one really acquires Ebola.
Would you really really defend my behaviour because I got the first part correct (about the fact the their risk of acquiring Ebola was high) when my explanation was so patently wrong and could lead to the deaths of many people?

It is true that Gary Fong is promulgating information about completely different issues, and it is true that one could also argue that these issue are not life-and-death.
Nonetheless the principle is just the same.
The fact that Gary Fong says use sRGB from input to output for a simple workflow and (possibly) more predictable possible results may stand with a lot of qualification; his explanation that using AdobeRGB with hardware that cannot "handle" AdobeRGB gives bad results is so demonstrably false made even more so by his unbelievably goofy demonstration that it absolutely has to be questioned.
The people who that video is aimed at are generally in the formative stages of learning about photography in general, and colour management in particular, and so are not able to discriminate from the possibly correct proposal that sRGB may be an acceptable colourspace to use from capture to output from the completely false explanation that Gary gives as to why he recommends SRGB from capture to output.

If there is anyone who cannot separate observation from explanation it is Gary Fong!

So, In fact I am very surprised that you can draw this conclusion reading my post.
I am not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Tony Jay

 on: August 27, 2014, 10:56:06 PM 
Started by Praki - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
That is fascinating news, and quite convincing.

Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10]