Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: No need of RAW !!!  (Read 17412 times)
JessicaLuchesi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #60 on: December 12, 2007, 09:30:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, these are all things that also don't change with a single person stepping up against clients. This is something that changes, over time, with organization. At least, considering how everything is done here in Brazil.

We do have a association for advertisement photographers. But while asking a peer ( at the time, I was a student and she was a teacher in the same school, but not my teacher ), how that association worked, because I intended to join it, her reply was simply:

"Oh, it was good back in the days of film, because you got 15% discount on shops. Now you don't, so I left".

The I asked how they did cather for legal rights, lobbying for us in the congress, providing legal support.

"Oh no, they don't do that. All they have is a lawyer who won't get in a lawsuit for you... just give you general guidelines on what to do if you're into some sort of legal problem"

So, there you go, we have an organization who won't represent you.

Talking about working class organization in Brazil usually comes to that. Things must change? For sure, but nothing like that is done overnight. And you should have the major players in the business working with you towards a single aim. At least, that's how I feel.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 09:32:25 AM by JessicaLuchesi » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #61 on: December 12, 2007, 04:03:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Maybe its the point in question. But there's nothing new here, you could as I said, duplicated the JPEG and done edits on it OR edited till the cows come home and invoked a Save As command since Version 1 of Photoshop. FWIW, just about every other application on a computer has this functionality to allow you to edit, not save over the original and then save off an iteration. Its hardly unique or worth mentioning.
It's worth mentioning as people still don't do it or understand that opening a JPEG and resaving as a copy or a PSD it is not ruining the image. Just because you know about something, you think is obvious, doesn't mean everyone else does. As  very clearly evidenced by posts in this thread.

Quote
You're not wrecking the Raw, you're not altering the Raw. You're producing instructions that tell the converter to build a poor rendering.
Reading problems yet again. You may know your maths but you seem to be struggling with English comprehension. Wreck was written as  'wreck'  and 'wreck' referred to the "look of the RAW" and not the RAW file. Because you were not in fact wrecking the RAW image.

Quote
Maybe in YOUR Raw converter. In Lightroom and CR, the Raw data is never altered. Its simply a data point to build new pixels.
Once again I suggest you try reading posts more carefully and the context in which they were written, I was talking about altering the image to improve it and not about altering the pixels within the image itself. There is a difference.  BTW the word alter was written as 'alter'. See above point as to the difference. You may be able to pixel peep, but you certainly aren't so careful when it comes to parsing English.

Quote
If you alter the numbers in a document, there's data loss.
But I haven't, in the sense I was talking. I always work on a duplicate layer/file. The original is always there. Just like the original RAW file is always there.  And once you start to change how the RAW file looks, it is to all intents and purposes no different from editing a duplicate of an original, in that you can always resort to original.

Quote
The math is unavoidable. The film you scanned, OK, some could say its not altered (some would argue the light source has an effect but lets not go there). The scanned image undergoes data loss the second you alter an existing pixel value due to rounding errors.
Who in their right mind gives a crap about that. I'm producing photographs not measuring the speed of light, where such things are actually important.



Quote
The difference is, if you revisit the PSD, you alter the values, you degrade the data. Not the case with Raw. Now its not worth losing sleep over but its incorrect to equate rendering with pixel correction in terms of data loss or document degradation. Rendering is a different process than taking existing RGB values in a pixel editor and changing the values.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I said above I'm not changing my original, just like I'm not modifying the actual RAW data. But whether you alter levels in RAW or with a PSD adjustment layer all that is happening is the image on screen is being altered and not the actual photo underneath. I haven't touched the original pixels as such, so no degradation. And again it really doesn't matter, I tweak images to look good and don't care if there may be some rounding error at a level I cannot even detect. In fact I will at times tweak images that deliberately causes what you call degradation and so what. I think it looks nice. This is like the people who whinge about erosion of being a bad thing as it spoils the landscape, whilst completely ignoring the fact that the beautiful landscape almost invariably looks how it does - because of erosion. I love erosion in nature and I also love images that are not pixel perfect and because they are not pixel perfect.

RAW was not such a revolutionary way of working/thinking for me, it was simply an evolution of what I was already doing [I always had an untouched original] and allowed me to do essentially the same thing [even f the computer did it slightly differently], but in a more convienient manner and with more finesse as the editing tools have also improved immensely. Even so I still put all my images through PS to finish them off as RAW convertors are incapable of getting the look I want. And that not my inability to use the tool, but I use PS only techniques to achieve the image feel I want. Techniques that  apparently 'damage/degrade' the image as far as you are concerned, but to my mind, they do the opposite and improve it.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #62 on: December 12, 2007, 04:37:26 PM »
ReplyReply

As for the never giving the client your RAW files nonsense. And it's only nonsense if you say never and start being absolute about it. And is something you may expect to come from a non-professional photographer, showing their ignorance about how different photographers work.

Like some photographers never printed their own negs, some never touch Photoshop or LR. So, quite possibly it makes no difference to them if a client wants them to hand over the negs/raw files. Capturing a picture and printing/processing it are two different skills. Not all photographers have both. When I took my B+W folio around a few years back, I was asked who printed my pictures as they were quite impressed with the work. They did not even consider that I may have done them myself [I had], as it was very common for photographers to have someone else print their images. Someone like Gene Nocon was a full time printer for other photographers and was very popular as he made their work look much better.

On some shoots the photographer sets up the lights and presses the shutter, whilst the Art Director gives all the direction to the models. The camera is tethered and someone may be grading the images even before the photographer has finished the shoot and that person may be from the magazine or the Ad agency and not even the photographer's assistant. So how is that any different from handing in your RAW files? Some magazines work that way as they have a particular way of working with images to suit the magazine's house style, so if you had to process the RAW files to match that specific look anyway, does it matter if someone else does it. It's not your style anymore anyway.
If someone asked me to do a job because they liked the style of my work and asked for just the RAW files, I'd point out that the processing I give to my images is a major part of my style, so to not hire me for that would be letting me do only half a job. But if they were giving lots of money to do less work, then why turn it down?
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #63 on: December 12, 2007, 05:34:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's worth mentioning as people still don't do it or understand that opening a JPEG and resaving as a copy or a PSD it is not ruining the image.

The initial damage was done. Saving it now as a TIFF or PSD if you must simply reduces more damage from further compression after editing (which itself will produce damage).

Quote
Just because you know about something, you think is obvious, doesn't mean everyone else does.

How profound.

Quote
Wreck was written as  'wreck'  and 'wreck' referred to the "look of the RAW" and not the RAW file. Because you were not in fact wrecking the RAW image.

As I said, you simply produced an undesirable set of rendering instructions. You didn't wreck anything.

Quote
Once again I suggest you try reading posts more carefully and the context in which they were written, I was talking about altering the image to improve it and not about altering the pixels within the image itself.

How do you improve the image without altering the pixels?  

Quote
But I haven't, in the sense I was talking. I always work on a duplicate layer/file. The original is always there. Just like the original RAW file is always there.

You still don't get the significant difference. The iteration undergoes damage from the original data source if that source is pixels. That's not what happens with Raw rendering.

Quote
And once you start to change how the RAW file looks, it is to all intents and purposes no different from editing a duplicate of an original, in that you can always resort to original
.

You do not alter the Raw, that's the point. And there's a very big difference, the difference being Raw to render, no damage. Alter the rendered image (alter pixel values), damage. Alter pixel value, save a copy, damage to the new saved file. The original rendered image received the damage in the previous step.

Quote
Who in their right mind gives a crap about that. I'm producing photographs not measuring the speed of light, where such things are actually important.

People who want to understand that advantages of Raw rendering in terms of speed, control, flexibility and then damage.

Quote
As I said above I'm not changing my original, just like I'm not modifying the actual RAW data.

You already altered the original, did you forget about that step?

Quote
But whether you alter levels in RAW or with a PSD adjustment layer all that is happening is the image on screen is being altered and not the actual photo underneath.

It is, on the PSD if you print it, or flatten it. So yes, if all you want to do is view the image on screen, you've yet to use the instruction set that defines the adjustment layer to damage the image by altering the pixel values.

Quote
I haven't touched the original pixels as such, so no degradation.

The only way to not touch the pixels is to not edit them. Get it?

Quote
And again it really doesn't matter, I tweak images to look good and don't care if there may be some rounding error at a level I cannot even detect.


The concept of altering pixel values is something many of us have been doing for a very long time because its absolutely necessary to do. You should still be aware of your actions. If you can render an image and produce the desired color appearance, you're going to be in a lot better shape down the road with that data, then trying to alter pixels which does damage the image (and saving it as JPEG is another insult to injury). Its faster, its more flexible because you can alter the rendering instructions as often as you wish, even AFTER you quit the app (unlimited, timeless history). It means you can build multiple iterations from one data source, that saves a great deal of disk space and file management.

Quote
RAW was not such a revolutionary way of working/thinking for me

Obviously.

Quote
it was simply an evolution of what I was already doing [I always had an untouched original] and allowed me to do essentially the same thing [even f the computer did it slightly differently], but in a more convienient manner and with more finesse as the editing tools have also improved immensely.

That you believe this makes me believe you don't understand the differences between rendering and pixel correction.

Quote
Even so I still put all my images through PS to finish them off as RAW convertors are incapable of getting the look I want. And that not my inability to use the tool, but I use PS only techniques to achieve the image feel I want.

NO one is suggesting otherwise. But use the right tool for the right job. All global tone and color work can and should be done by rendering pixels. Selective editing (pixel editing) is Photoshop's bread and butter. No one is suggestion you should never alter pixels, I've done this to a few since 1990. Unfortunately, some people have been using Photoshop for so long, they see it as their only tool.

Quote
As for the never giving the client your RAW files nonsense. And it's only nonsense if you say never and start being absolute about it.

That deserves a big "Duh". Yes, you need to stand your ground and be consistent.

IT also doesn't mean the person who shot the job has to render the Raw data. I can name a heck of a lot of really well known, highly paid and talented photographers who never handle the Raw. That's NOT the same as suggesting they blindly hand off their Raws to their clients, none do. I didn't have to process my E6 film, I had a good lab to do it, but that didn't mean I had to hand off the film to my client to process either.

Quote
Like some photographers never printed their own negs, some never touch Photoshop or LR. So, quite possibly it makes no difference to them if a client wants them to hand over the negs/raw files.

Right, so they either have to process the Raw themselves or the only other alternative is to hand off the Raws to the client. Pretty lame analogy.

Quote
But if they were giving lots of money to do less work, then why turn it down?

Because the definition of a true professional is, you can't pay them to do a poor job. That's not limited to photography either.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #64 on: December 12, 2007, 05:47:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'd be careful - don't you know that admitting to shooting JPEGs, or worse advocating their usuage on LL is tantamount to heresy according to the pixel peepers that post on here? You are liable to be bludgeoned to death with a wealth of detailed technical analysis, that proves beyond doubt, that JPEGs are actually the tool of the Devil. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hilarious!   I actually know of at least ONE pro photographer, Lionel Deluy, who shoots primarily JPEG with his 1Ds II (I used to live next door to him.)  He shoots pics of models and celebrities that are not only in major magazines, but cover entire buildings, by the way.

I shoot RAW, but clearly either is acceptable.  
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #65 on: December 12, 2007, 08:21:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...lots of innacurate and frankly irrelevent nonsense... [not a literal quote BTW!] [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please learn to read posts properly before responding. You consistently misread, misinterpret or simply ignore what I actually write. Your ability to read English is very obviously not your best point. Though your real problem is in being so absolute and dogmatic about things, like RAW, which only shows a lack of flexibility and understanding of the real world.
What makes your arguing against me so stupid and pointless is that I've been using RAW ever since buying a digital camera and I always encourage others to do so too. But RAW is not the be all and end of of photography. You can make brilliant images without being so precious about your pixels. I have great images in my portfolio taken on an ancient 2.1M Ixus, which only produced JPEGs. I accepted and exagerated the limitations of the camera and inspite of these images being low res JPEGS in origin, they are some of the most popular images in my A3 print folio.
Tell you what, I'll keep producing imperfect pictures that people really like and you can keep your pixels perfect and unsullied. I'm even beginning to wonder if you're even a photographer as your attitude is so inflexible and absolute, which seems so anti the whole creative process.
A shame, as you are very knowledgable about some technical things, but you seem obsessively anti anything imperfect and heaven forbid someone offers an alternative viewpoint.
What amuses me most is the irony of you being a colour management expert, as you seem to see everything in Black + White!
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #66 on: December 12, 2007, 08:39:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please learn to read posts properly before responding. You consistently misread, misinterpret or simply ignore what I actually write.

You're entitled to that opinion even if I disagree.

Quote
Your ability to read English is very obviously not your best point. Though your real problem is in being so absolute and dogmatic about things, like RAW, which only shows a lack of flexibility and understanding of the real world.

Thanks so much for pointing that out!

Quote
What makes your arguing against me so stupid and pointless is that I've been using RAW ever since buying a digital camera and I always encourage others to do so too.

How long you've been using Raw or your recommendations is immaterial to the points you still don't get.

Quote
But RAW is not the be all and end of of photography.

No one said this was so, why do you feel you need to move away from the topic at hand and introduce such nonsensical statements.

Quote
You can make brilliant images without being so precious about your pixels.

This hasn't, nor shouldn't be a discussion about aesthetes. It's about a technical point you dismiss or fail to recognize.

Quote
I have great images in my portfolio taken on an ancient 2.1M Ixus, which only produced JPEGs

Pointless to THIS discussion. If you had a Raw and a JPEG, we could discuss apples and apples.

Quote
Tell you what, I'll keep producing imperfect pictures that people really like and you can keep your pixels perfect and unsullied.

Whatever blows your skirt up.

Quote
I'm even beginning to wonder if you're even a photographer as your attitude is so inflexible and absolute, which seems so anti the whole creative process.

I am but once again, you've gone way OT not to express a point but to camouflages any desire to stay on track about a technical dissuasion here.

Quote
A shame, as you are very knowledgable about some technical things, but you seem obsessively anti anything imperfect and heaven forbid someone offers an alternative viewpoint.
What amuses me most is the irony of you being a colour management expert, as you seem to see everything in Black + White!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160258\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Again, a lot of writing that is totally immaterial to THIS post. As such, I suspect you either 'don't get it' or don't want to. Until you can stay on topic, I'm going to have to assume both.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776



WWW
« Reply #67 on: December 13, 2007, 06:07:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Your thoughts on sending a client raw files is spot on, but the problem is far too many photographers, in my market at least, are now doing it.  Sad really.  I've lost three large jobs this year alone due to not releasing my raws.  My refusal caused my business to post a loss this year instead of a profit.  

The problem in my area is that a few printers have now convinced clients (mostly direct clients...not agencies) that they should be the ones to process the raw files.  I'm guessing its a way to replace that lost scanning money.  The problem with this is that a number of important post processing steps get missed, like correction of barrel or pin cushion distortion, local contrast enhancement and really good perspective correction.  And in my case it would also remove lots of the work I do to improve the images such as layering etc.  

I say no because I live by the adage that you are only as good as your last job, and I'm not about to have someone else decide how my images should look.  But it is costing me money and I wonder if I can hold out.  When I talk to other photographers in the area, the cheap guys love it.  They are taking work from photographers who produce much higher quality work and they feel good.  They don't really care who processes their files as long as a check is attached.

The trend is alarming, at least to me.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 06:11:46 AM by infocusinc » Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #68 on: December 13, 2007, 08:06:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The problem in my area is that a few printers have now convinced clients (mostly direct clients...not agencies) that they should be the ones to process the raw files.  I'm guessing its a way to replace that lost scanning money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think its time for photographers to convince their clients THEY are far better equipped to handle the CMYK conversions and post editing, in house lose color proof etc instead of the printer.

Many of these shops can hardly make decent RGB to CMYK conversions, now they are going to process your Raws? What a joke.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551


WWW
« Reply #69 on: December 13, 2007, 09:12:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think its time for photographers to convince their clients THEY are far better equipped to handle the CMYK conversions and post editing, in house lose color proof etc instead of the printer.

Many of these shops can hardly make decent RGB to CMYK conversions, now they are going to process your Raws? What a joke.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

After a couple of years of confusion (much of which was mine), I have convinced all of my magazine clients and ad agencies that I am the best equipped to do the processing and conversions, assuming I can get a decent profile from the printer. This has become vitally important to me, because I work files a fair amount and it it is the only way I can get my imaages to look the way I want them to. When I shoot something, I am seeing on the screen what is possible through processing and post processing and the Jpeg view is oftentimes far from my final vision. Half of the creativity is in the processing.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 09:27:41 AM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776



WWW
« Reply #70 on: December 13, 2007, 07:01:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think its time for photographers to convince their clients THEY are far better equipped to handle the CMYK conversions and post editing, in house lose color proof etc instead of the printer.

Many of these shops can hardly make decent RGB to CMYK conversions, now they are going to process your Raws? What a joke.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a number of clients for whom I provide the conversions and have the profles fro all of the local printers (90% of my work is printed here).  Thats how I want it to work for everyone.  Sadly there are a growing number of "peers" willing to give the farm away...these guys don't even charge the client a capture fee and give the raws at no charge.

In a market that is getting tighter ( I work for RV and Marine clients) and sales slowing, more and more of the customers are buying photography like they buy hamber...how much a pound.  It's not a good sign.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776



WWW
« Reply #71 on: December 13, 2007, 07:06:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
After a couple of years of confusion (much of which was mine), I have convinced all of my magazine clients and ad agencies that I am the best equipped to do the processing and conversions, assuming I can get a decent profile from the printer. This has become vitally important to me, because I work files a fair amount and it it is the only way I can get my imaages to look the way I want them to. When I shoot something, I am seeing on the screen what is possible through processing and post processing and the Jpeg view is oftentimes far from my final vision. Half of the creativity is in the processing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160352\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I work the same way.  Given the very tight spaces I shoot sometimes you just can't get the image you want without shooting a number of different frames and blending.  Its gotten to the point that I too plan my moves way before the image gets to post.  It's not uncommon for me to have 6-8 layers in a given file.  Thats why I have held my ground.  But it's costing me.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
JessicaLuchesi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #72 on: December 14, 2007, 04:45:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The problem in my area is that a few printers have now convinced clients (mostly direct clients...not agencies) that they should be the ones to process the raw files.  I'm guessing its a way to replace that lost scanning money.  The problem with this is that a number of important post processing steps get missed, like correction of barrel or pin cushion distortion, local contrast enhancement and really good perspective correction.  And in my case it would also remove lots of the work I do to improve the images such as layering etc. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you're right on the money. One thing I'll argument, next time I have to give in RAW files, is this:

Give in DNG files ( not the base native raw file my camera works on ), and pre-process it with the corrections I feel needed. If they dislike the processing I've done on the files, they can simply reset all DNG files back to default settings.

I have no idea what they'll say anyway. But I'll negotiate.

I have a friend who also processes TIFF files, as a guideline to show what he wants from processing his file ( well, he would like really the client to use those... but they won't, but the best they can do, is see what it would be, processed his way ). Talking with him yesterday, he was talking also, how he loved picture styles ( I was showing him my 40D, he's thinking of getting a 1DsMkIII by next year, and wanted to see one of the new gen Canon's in his hands ). And I was simply dismissing my need for picture styles ( and custom ones ) by saying "Well, but I do get to process my files afterwards on photoshop..." right? Wrong, when I have to give in raw files, I'm never given the chance to even work contrast and saturation levels to my liking. If I use picture styles, I can simply work as if I had a "high contrast film" being sent to the client. I'll play a bit with that now, having that idea in mind. It's not perfect, but one more way of having photos sent more like the way I like them done.
Logged
JessicaLuchesi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #73 on: December 14, 2007, 04:46:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I work the same way.  Given the very tight spaces I shoot sometimes you just can't get the image you want without shooting a number of different frames and blending.  Its gotten to the point that I too plan my moves way before the image gets to post.  It's not uncommon for me to have 6-8 layers in a given file.  Thats why I have held my ground.  But it's costing me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160522\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Same here.
Logged
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #74 on: December 14, 2007, 07:07:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The initial damage was done.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your post seems to be suffering, perhaps, from the same bug in the forum software that I encountered a while back.  There seems to be a limit on how many quote/close_quote pairs you can have in one post.  What I did in my case to get around the problem was to cut out the last half of the post, and then paste it into another new post.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #75 on: December 14, 2007, 08:26:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Your post seems to be suffering, perhaps, from the same bug in the forum software that I encountered a while back.  There seems to be a limit on how many quote/close_quote pairs you can have in one post.  What I did in my case to get around the problem was to cut out the last half of the post, and then paste it into another new post.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160629\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yup, I spend way too long trying to fix it using all kinds of devices until I finally said 'screw it'. So its a bug? Good to know.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #76 on: December 14, 2007, 08:35:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So its a bug? Good to know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160648\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, it's a bug to me.  The designer might call it a "design decision".
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #77 on: December 14, 2007, 08:43:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, it's a bug to me.  The designer might call it a "design decision".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160650\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I worked with a software engineer and when told about what I considered a bug, he's say "Its not a bug, it just doesn't work properly". Engineers, can't live with them, can't live without em.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8205



WWW
« Reply #78 on: December 14, 2007, 12:26:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the PC term is "undocumented feature".
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #79 on: December 14, 2007, 01:34:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I worked with a software engineer and when told about what I considered a bug, he's say "Its not a bug, it just doesn't work properly". Engineers, can't live with them, can't live without em.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I prefer to just say "functions as coded."
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad