Guest guy_mancuso Posted June 17, 2010 Share #21 Posted June 17, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Victor sorry if you think I was being rude what people don't know is we go back and forth on this all the time and i am just busting your balls since you agree than disagree and all that jazz. End of day neither one of us really cares , that is how we interact with each other. Now if someone thought I was rude than say it in private and keep your nose out of my business in public. Especially some of the trolls around here. I'm the nicest guy around believe it or not and how I interact with people sometimes folks just don't get the ripping that we all do. Fine and understandable. But let's admit Victor you know i been on this road about these files and what they are about and I am not guessing at it. Let's remember I actually teach this stuff so give me some credit for actually having knowledge in the first place. I really don't have bias or not a fanboy of anything ever. Many folks have both but sorry Leica fanboys if you don't open your eyes than you will never get balanced info. I'm the balance like me or not the end of the day it does not matter , you get the data now make use or it or not. I don't pull punchy's on this stuff. Anyway have fun , I'm on a road trip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 17, 2010 Posted June 17, 2010 Hi Guest guy_mancuso, Take a look here Question to S2 users on raw conversion. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
gogopix Posted June 17, 2010 Share #22 Posted June 17, 2010 I understand. Have a safe trip regards Victor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
c6gowin Posted June 18, 2010 Share #23 Posted June 18, 2010 Arif, you have some really nice photos on your blog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arif Posted June 18, 2010 Share #24 Posted June 18, 2010 Arif, you have some really nice photos on your blog. Thank you Mark, I enjoy what I do and hopefully it shows. The S2 has been a lot of fun and I am happy I upgraded from my previous combination. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arif Posted June 18, 2010 Share #25 Posted June 18, 2010 It is hard to visualize with the small file sizes and some sharpness is also lost but I think ACR does a fairly decent job with the raw conversion. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/123900-question-to-s2-users-on-raw-conversion/?do=findComment&comment=1355373'>More sharing options...
Arif Posted June 18, 2010 Share #26 Posted June 18, 2010 It is hard to visualize with the small file sizes and some sharpness is also lost but I think ACR does a fairly decent job with the raw conversion. I am humbled by the kindness that people have shown by not commenting that this was oversaturated so please accept my apologies for working off my laptop. Softness comes from downrezzing a 189 MB file to a 69KB file, plus using naural evening light, a softness filter, F3.4, handheld... I will refrain from posts till my skills improve. Nothing must be more frustrating for people who come here to critically evaluate S2 shots. Apologies again, Arif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
c6gowin Posted June 19, 2010 Share #27 Posted June 19, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) No need to apologize. I quite like your photo especially in the way the pretty lady pops out of the background in a 3Dish manner. Frankly, I didn't perceive the image as being oversaturated. I did find the image lacked sharpness, but chalked that up to image compression for web display. However, I see in your follow-up that you used a softening filter so that helps explain the softness as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 19, 2010 Share #28 Posted June 19, 2010 Softness comes from downrezzing a 189 MB file to a 69KB file Why did you down-res to 69kb? The max file size here is 290kb Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 19, 2010 Share #29 Posted June 19, 2010 The max file size here is 290kb ahem. 302. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 19, 2010 Share #30 Posted June 19, 2010 It always helps to leave a little bit of headroom. The file limit is higher if you are a subscriber, btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogopix Posted June 19, 2010 Share #31 Posted June 19, 2010 well this is a good pt for the perts to pipe in . :-) k=1,000 exept it seems in computer work. then some take it as 1024 so, i always see image sizes different- somtimes off by that 2 and half percent. can that be the 290 to 302 diff. actually if 1024 then a true k would be 2.4% higher so 290 or somewhere around 297 OR did the forum recognize the incr in averagec camera image size from 1 MP to around 12 so they added 12 KB? Victor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogopix Posted June 19, 2010 Share #32 Posted June 19, 2010 No need to apologize. I quite like your photo especially in the way the pretty lady pops out of the background in a 3Dish manner. Frankly, I didn't perceive the image as being oversaturated. I did find the image lacked sharpness, but chalked that up to image compression for web display. However, I see in your follow-up that you used a softening filter so that helps explain the softness as well. i agree. nice portrait, but without a bit of incease the subtle pinks and blues might be lost. intereting posture-i like that a lot. as a big 3d fan i also would want the narrower dof. maybe with selective desaturation you could get the background more pastel victor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 19, 2010 Share #33 Posted June 19, 2010 can that be the 290 to 302 diff. actually if 1024 then a true k would be 2.4% higher so 290 or somewhere around 297 OR did the forum recognize the incr in averagec camera image size from 1 MP to around 12 so they added 12 KB? The limit has been raised recently, only a few months ago. Actually, the question is a bit academic as the uploading dialog accurately shows the resulting file size after it has been uploaded. If it has been shrunk, delete it, resize it on your computer and upload again. Repeat until it fits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 19, 2010 Share #34 Posted June 19, 2010 wellthis is a good pt for the perts to pipe in . :-) k=1,000 exept it seems in computer work. then some take it as 1024 so, i always see image sizes different- somtimes off by that 2 and half percent. can that be the 290 to 302 diff. actually if 1024 then a true k would be 2.4% higher so 290 or somewhere around 297 OR did the forum recognize the incr in averagec camera image size from 1 MP to around 12 so they added 12 KB? Victor It's nothing to do with the camera image size. The rules for posting are quite clear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogopix Posted June 19, 2010 Share #35 Posted June 19, 2010 Andy.... it was a JOKE!!! :-) I guess a poor one, sorry. regards Victor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.