[lug] Fwd: The rest of the stuff for LUG: please forward!
Jeffrey Haemer
jeffrey.haemer at gmail.com
Mon Dec 15 19:40:51 MST 2008
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist at perl.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Subject: The rest of the stuff for LUG: please forward!
To: Jeffrey Haemer <jeffrey.haemer at gmail.com>
I don't believe I did a good job answering people's questions, perhaps
because I was very overtired, perhaps because I'm less used to a circular
free-for-all with so many people, especially talking at once. When I
teach, it's either to a small group, 6-16 people, and then that isn't a
problem; or else it's a large seminar with 50-500 people, where questions
are held till the end. This was neither, and I often didn't get to finish
a particular question. This bothered me after the fact.
Hence this mail.
One thing that was interesting about the audience was that virtually
*everyone* there had experience in 35mm film photography, and a non-trivial
few had shot medium and large format as well. I'd say there were more SLRs
present than point&shoots, and one fellow had a 70-200 on a Canon body. I
had a vague impression that there may have been more Nikon's than Canon,
but I didn't bother counting. One fellow had a APS-H Canon body, the one
orphaned for lenses. Some had done undergrads in photography, but I
think none were working photographers-by-pay. I may be wrong, though.
The lecture did not run as smoothly as I should have wished, but I am by
nature something of a perfectionist. I recognize the wisdom of the adage
that the perfect is the enemy of the good, but this does little enough to
temper my inclinations.
Other than my perl-point notes (perl preprocessor on simple pod-like
markup, thence to troff and eventually PDF), I had prepared a background
slideshow of some of my better or at least, most appreciated work.
I intentionally included shots from a variety of cameras and treatments.
However, when I left from work that evening, I neglected to bring my laptop
power cable with me. Since I was working at a place with tight afterhours
security, and I was already back home when I realized, I couldn't really
fix it. The intent was to have a bit of nice work to show like a gallery
while I was doing Q&A at the end. I wanted people to know that I had some
sort of credentials other than as a programmer.
I was therefore forced, at the last moment, to gather up some of my more
respectable work into 9x12 display albums. By this, I mean that the size
of the prints was generally 8x12, not 9x12. I also had an 8x10 binder.
Both these sets were on Fuji paper, varying from glossy to luster to matte,
and done at a wet-process real lab. It was interesting how the same
picture can look different on the same paper with the same machine:
different chem calibration, I'm sure.
I also had some 8.5x11" home prints using my 8-color printer using HP
Premium-Plus paper. Often these seemed better to some people because
of the more saturated colorspace inkjets provide over wet- process.
Well, except for the blacks. You have to swap out the multi-grey for
the sooty, text-black if your photo is mostly black, and it still little
compares with wet-process.
I didn't bring along any of my larger prints (this, by accident), nor did I
waste people's time with 4x6s. I'm afraid at the 8x12 level, they didn't
much notice any difference between the luscious Lightjet work versus the
Fuji Frontier stuff. The Lightjet prints are clearly superior in color,
(micro-?)contrast, and detail even by 10x15 on the Fuji, both using Luster
finish, and I feel I can tell the difference at the 8x12 level, but I'm
used to looking for this and they are not. I have some 16x20 and 16x24
prints that are truly stunning.
The most interesting photo to people, I think, was the first I showed, the
one, which illustrated showing different focal length effects. This is at
http://67.173.243.230/easter-egg/index.html
And is a collage of many shots.
Later the next day, after my week's worth of teaching Perl was completed,
and we were doing Q&A, I did run that slide-show. There's something
about projected light versus reflected light that really makes a big
difference, and virtually the entire class stayed in rapt attention
for the duration. I was rather surprised. It was nearly an hour.
I think that says something, but don't know what.
I spent some time explaining the difference between a tiny sensor as on a
mobile-phone's camera or P&S, and larger sensors, up to and including
the (well-cooled) HUGE sensors that NASA uses.
Several people wanted to know why P&S seemed to be lower in quality than
they used to be in earlier P&S digital models, and I first asked whether
Dr Clark was in the audience (he could have been, since Denver's only a 30m
drive from Boulder) but since he wasn't (and so I couldn't pawn the
question off to Roger :-), I responded that it could be any (or all, or
none) of three things:
I: The marketing and public urge for ever-more-megapixels has driven us
into a range that a tiny sensor will not simply not accumulate enough
photons per final pixel at hand-held speeds to be very far above the
read-noise threshhold of the signal, let alone quantum fluctuation,
to provide per-pixel quality you're looking for.
II: The lenses needed on these 10,12,18x "zooms" are necessarily
compromised due to the tremendous zoom-range as compared to a 3x or
3.5x zoom. They also tend to let in much less light at the extreme
range. There's a Leica with an f/2 - f/2.8 3x zoom, and once
existed a Panny with a constant f/2.8 aperture across the zoom
range. Of course these are going to be taking better shots,
because they let in more light. Hard to find anymore.
One showed me a 2-stop attachment for his P&S, which already maxes at
f/5.7 at normal zoom. I asked how well it worked starting at f/11,
and he said it was crud and he could barely use it except on bright
days and a tripod. That was the answer I'd expected. I again and
again stressed that it was all a matter of getting enough light, and
of the right flavor, if you want a decent signal-to-noise ratio.
P&S need noise reduction even at minimal ISO they have such poor S:N.
III: Some vendors may wish a larger differentiation between their P&S
and SLR lines, since the profit margins on the former are razor
thin, and on the latter, otherwise.
I didn't point out that if they were comparing against 35mm film,
that then they might always be disappointed with P&S micro-sensor
cameras. I did explain how the laws of physics would not be abridged
for their pleasure, and that subject isolation was never going to be
possible on a micro-sensor the way it is on larger ones. I showed
some shots that couldn't be taken with P&S, and explained why.
I ranted a bit about not being able to take photos of the prismatic
spray in my living room every morning because of the 400nm cutoff
and poor response down there.
I mentioned how one of my friends had converted his D70 into an IR
camera. I added that you couldn't expect really good detail from
the long waves of IR, but perhaps that's only true of very long
waves, per thermal imaging. Amazing how many people think near IR
is thermal stuff.
Questions from the audience included:
#0 Q: What photography magazines would you recommend?
A: None. [time passes] Correction: "American Photographer",
since renamed "American PHOTO", I believe. The rest are
mostly spamvert vehicles. It runs bimonthly, or 6 per annum.
#1 Q: If I don't need more than 4mp for a good 4x6", why can't
I and why SHOULDN'T I buy something of that size and be done
with it?
A: Actually, I agree with you: you should. But you'll have to hit the
used-market. Do you realize how many megapixels it would really
take for a good 4x6 anyway? I thus encouraged them do the math of
4x6==24 sq in and 300 dpi per axis is 9kp per inch, whose answer is
a very surprising 2.16mp.
I mentioned that my Fuji P&S, the old S3000, which I'd forgotten to
bring in, took *very* nice shots with its 3+3 SuperCCD and 10x lens.
It also produced raw if I wanted, which was great; too bad Photoshop
did such a poor conversion of the S/R pixels.
Unfortunately, I forgot to mention that a used D1H could be had
for a very fair price these days, met those criteria, and would
perform marvellously better than any P&S could dream of. (Heck,
so could a D2H.)
#2 Q: Do you use dye-sub or not for your prints?
A: Well, for serious prints, I use a Lightjet, and for semi-serious
prints or sometimes casual prints, a Fuji Frontier. Both are wet-
process photography that stands up to some moisture without the
horrid inkjet schmear. Which means the issue doesn't come up there.
For pre-proofing, however, I *do* use an 8-color HP printer (9-color
is also ok; 4-color is not), but I just use the non-pigment dyes,
although pigment dyes are not available for HP. It is
indispensable that you match printer profile with photo profile with
paper profile. You will never get it right otherwise, wasting hours
when a simple vendor- vendor alignment of paper and inkjet would do.
For Lightjet work, before committing to larger prints, I ALWAYS get
a max-axis 10" proof back on the intended paper and finish to check
color and contrast. be
#3 Q: Have we now surpassed film in digital?
A: Yes and no.
A modern top-grade SLR has more detail than 35mm negative film and
more degrees of freedom in contrast than 35mm positive film.
However, color rendition is still hit and miss, due both to the
camera and the print shop alike. For one thing, the metameric
properties of human vision might not match those of the CFA dyes.
There's also a problem with toes and shoulders not looking right in
digital because when you lose one channel, going to all 0s or all
1s, you cannot know what it should have been.
I recounted how for the Boston "big-dig" project, the city
contracted a professional photographer to document the progress, and
they specified in the contract that since this was for archival, all
work was to be done on 8x10" transparencies (later to be drum-
scanned). This is a level of detail we have yet to achieve in
digital as far as I know.
I mentioned how at my local pro shop (www.pcraft.com), when you walk
in, to the left is a gorgeous and wall-sized print of the Rockies in
high summer all covered in wildflowers. It's from Yankee Boy Basin
down in the San Juans, somewhere around the 3km elevation mark. You
cannot stand too close to it: it never pixelizes. When first I saw
it, I asked "That's no 6x7 cm flat bed scan, is it: it's a 4x5" drum
scan, right?" [I wasn't sure of the aspect ratio.]
To which the reply was, "No, that's two 8x10", drum-scanned and
digitally stitched." That means it was 5:8 aspect ratio, with each
pixel real data, not CFA interpolated, due to the multipass drum
scan. Final print size was 16' x 10': it is staggering to behold.
If a 4x5 flatbed scan is at lesat 100mp, then I am guessing we're
talking at least a gigapixel of data here -- and that from only two
exposures. Not likely in digital for a while.
#4 Q: So what *would* I shoot film for instead of digital?
A: I really couldn't come up with anything apart form the sort of thing
I've just explained, and even then, I have some very amazing
panoramas shot with an array of individual 50mm or 105mm I fumbled
about in my brain trying to find some other issues that were still
missing. Good violets was one, although I mentioned Kodak's medium
format sensors seemed to have better primaries and could handle this
better. I also explained the whole RGBG contamination problem and
the blooming issue, but I couldn't pull up the logic on the fly of
why digital's sharp cut-off did nasty things with the colors
sometimes due to interpolation. Mentioned Fuji SuperCCD and the
Foveon sensor, but how passing through two layers, the red data is
pretty muddy. They asked why one couldn't juse use a dichroic
mirror to split the light, and I said Nikon had a patent on just
such a thing, but that it didn't seem economically feasible yet.
#5 Q: I am trying to put products on Ebay, using pictures taken with
this, and I just can't get the quality. (He shows me a Canon
point&shoot with a reasonable "macro" mode.)
A: I'm not really sure. The depth of field will be much easier to
achieve than with an sLR. It may be lighting. [He wasn't using
flash, but rather a homemade lightbox for diffusion, but
indoors.] I assume you're using a tripod and timed-release? [No,
he wasn't.] It'd be very expensive, but You could do better with
a 35mm camera frame (film or digital) if you used a perspective-
control aka tilt-shift lens to emulate what sort of control you
can get with a view camera's [clarified this means large format,
which means bigger than 6cm, usually at least 10cm=4"] control of
front and rear standards. Alternately, you could use a smaller
format SLR and employ what's called focus stacking, but that in
theory requires very discrete changed to the focal point; in
practice, I've friends who've done just fine with it using manual
focus control with a Nikon D90.
#6 Q: I have a bit over $200, so what camera should I buy?
A: That depends on what do you want to shoot and what you want to do
with your pictures. Indoor or outdoor mostly? People or landscapes
mostly? Action or static mostly? Do you wish to display only on a
computer monitor, or do you wish to make 4x6" (10x15cm) prints, too?
Do you want to make prints bigger than that?
He responded that he wanted to do all those things, except for
making prints larger than 4x6", so I told him that in the $200-
300 price range, nearly anything would be be good enough for
that, provided he always used a flash for indoor shots.
But no matter what, he'd have to compromise one goal for another.
I said I'd get a different camera for outdoor work than I would
for indoor work, and yet another for snorkel or scuba, but by
that time, you've trebled your investment and might as well get a
cheap camera body and several different lenses.
He said "but he didn't want to become a professional photographer",
and I was perhaps a bit too snippy when I replied that unless I was
grossly misjudging them, most if not all of the people around the
room holding SLRs wern't professional photographers either. They
just had professional cameras. :-)
I think this he took as too brusque an answer. He obviously wanted
a make and model, and I didn't give that to him. I the next day felt
especially bad for the gentleman, so sent the group a more detailed
reply on just this questiona alone.
#7 Q: Why can't I ever manage to get decent prints even on a good
printer using Linux?
A: My host fielded this one for me, explaining that even if you
used the right color profiles, there were still secret driver
instructions that only worked on Windows, and without them
you'd never do as well. He mentioned the CUPS project to try
to remedy. Someone mentioned that since there there were
drivers for Macs, that perhaps these could be used for BSD
and might make for an easier port to Linux.
For some reason, he diverted into color spaces, which I tried to
undivert, but he shushed me, and anyway, wasn't going where I was
afraid he was going, so it was ok. He tried to say that there were
unprintable colors using RGB (or complementary CMY) colorspace
alone, which is why the K was added, since in his words, no mix of
CMY could ever provide black. I had a notion this was inaccurate,
that it was more for practical concerns of having to pile so much
ink up to get to the black you wanted that it would smear or that
the drying time would be too long. But I held my tongue.
I did point out some colors were not representable on a regular
printer using subtractive color (like very saturated and very
bright neon blue or violet like at an old-style diner due to the
CIE luminance formula) and others were impossible on a monitor
due to additive color (like very dark fabric colors subtly
different in hue).
The next day, one of my students who'd been in the night talk said
how he'd just bitten his tongue so as not to blurt out that it was a
nearly hopeless project and that they should just use the provided
Windows or Mac drivers for printing, but this would have been
received with disdain at a Linux user group. I'd resisted saying
the same thing, and for the same reason.
#8 Q: Were all these [8x12 prints I showed] shot on tripod?
A: [dissembling a bit] Well, let's see... [rifling through shots] this
one wasn't, nor was this one. But ok, yes, many of them were,
except for certain event candids, and even those I tended to use a
monopod for, since I get tired anyway.
I whipped out my D200 50/1.4, let people hold it, and asked don't
you think you might get tired carrying this around all day? Some
agreed, though many of the larger fellows thought they might manage.
I admitted to using that lightweight rig for my drive-by shootings
during the day: get on a bike, set the shutter to like 1/2000, and
just zip around shooting.
I said OK fine, then what about *THIS*: and whipped out the D300,
upon which was mounted the MB-D10 motor drive, the 17-55/2.8
with hood, and the SB-800 w/sidecar battery. Well, that was
clearly a horse of a different color, and they all agreed it would
take a mighty arm to wield that all day unassisted. I certainly
can't: remember I'm only 5'7" and my hands can span only on octave
on the clavier, not even a ninth.
I showed them the right and wrong way to hold it, complaining that
due to its weight, many right-handers would grip the lens
incorrectly -- by the side or top, not placing the camera body on
the heel of the hand so you can use your fingers to manipulate
the rings and hold the rig steadier. I showed the monopod approach
with the tilt-head and how much the delightful right-angle viewfinder
really helped with that.
Then as something of a show-off, I set the ISO to 400, aperture to
f/2/8, and shutter to 1/125, and then fired an 8-FPS fusillade at my
friend who was seated close by to me. This was duly impressive, but
prompted the last question I'll here detail.
#9 Q: Does it have to make that noise?
A: Um, pretty much. It's a physical mirror, you know, flapping
up and down with each shut. [Twisted off lens, showed the mirror
and pentaprism arrangement.]
Someone said then how come their P&S merely emulated the sound?
I explained that it was a silliness, and that it was because they
were using an electronic not a mechanical shutter, and therefore
didn't need the sound at all. But that a mechanical shutter gave
better results than electronic, due to the wells overflowing and
getting blooming therefore, and what that was all about.
There was a slight digression into the high shutter speeds with the
double focal plane curtains, how this presented problems for
sync'ing to lighting (well, not FP-sync, but that's its own woe),
and how leaf-shutters didn't suffer from this. I mentioned Ansel's
famous discussion about the focal-plane shutter rendering spinning
tire-wheels as oblate toroids -- and this was an audience who didn't
require a translation into non-geek-speak for either of those words,
thank goodness. :-)
There was a minor undercurrent by the minority P&S'ers as being looked down
upon by the majority SLR people. I don't think that was actually
happening, though. I don't think the SLR holders thought that at all, that
it was more of a one-sided thing from the P&S people. I told them in
complete honesty I didn't believe in one camera for all occasions; which,
however, is not what they wanted to hear at all. I also said I didn't
believe in one lens for all occasions, which was even less well received.
I forgot to talk about the fundamental difference between contrast-
detection vs phase-detection autofocus, but I did mention that the
KatzEye split-prism would allow for manual focus again despite otherwise
cruddy viewfinders.
I directed them to Dr Clark's site for the more technically minded.
I unfortunately didn't present them with a summary of other resources as
I'd planned, including tools that work for Linux or the exquisite shooting
and setting detail that exiftool can provide. I believe I plugged it
at the very end with:
- Phil Harvey's exiftool Program and Library Module
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/<http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/%7Ephil/exiftool/>
eg:
Camera Model Name : NIKON D300
Date/Time Original : 2008:08:14 17:55:50.87
Timezone : -07:00
Daylight Savings : Yes
ISO : 400
Aperture : 5.0
Shutter Speed : 1/800
Exposure Compensation : +1
Focal Length : 105.0 mm
Focal Length In 35mm Format : 157 mm
Lens ID : AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
Vibration Reduction : On
Saturation : Normal
Sharpness : Hard
Contrast : Normal
Brightness : -1
Hue Adjustment : +1
Flash : No Flash
Exposure Program : Aperture-priority AE
Light Value : 12.3
Exposure Difference : 0
Metering Mode : Spot
Focus Mode : AF-C
Dynamic AF Area : 51 Points (3D-tracking)
Focus Distance : 3.76 m
Field Of View : 12.7 deg (0.84 m)
Depth Of Field : 0.25 m (3.64 - 3.89)
White Balance : Preset1
It's rather annoying that the EXIF data records the precise focus point(s)
in AF-C mode, but Nikon won't show them to me so I have to beg exiftool.
Very nice that it gets a decent idea of the distance and the light level.
If I'd had time, I'd've directed would-be new SLR shooters as follows:
=Your acquisition should comprise these five separate, distinct components:
1) A camera body (I'm assuming an APS-C body here)
2) A fast "prime" lens, probably a 50mm, or maybe 30 or 35mm
3) A flexible zoom lens, at least 18mm at the wide end
4) An external, hot-shoe-mounted flash (aka speedlight)
5) One or more CF or if need be, SD cards
Choosing a camera body is mostly a matter of finances, and also perhaps
size and weight. It's harder when it comes to the lens, though. The
constant but unanswerable question one always hears is "What lens should
I get?" That question has no possible answer, because it depends on
*what* you plan to shoot, which you don't know yet. That's why I say to
get a fast prime and a flexible zoom, and use these for learning what you
really end up needing. Remember also that the sharpest lens is a tripod.
Invest first in glass over bodies, as it will last longer and make a
bigger difference. A great lens on a mediocre body will produce better
shots, in general, than the other way around. And don't discredit how
important a good (view)finder is, or whether you have to dive into menus
instead of using body widgets. A used D1H is your best buy, but a new or
refurbed D40 isn't too be sneezed at: just get the Katzeye for it, though.
And "for the rest of them":
=P&S Buying Guides:
- Premium (pricey) cameras
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408premiumgroup/
- Very slim cameras
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408slimgroup/
- Cheapest cameras
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408budgetgroup/
=Body and Lens News and Reviews, also various articles
- NÆRFOTO Bjørn Rørslett (BEST)
http://www.naturfotograf.com/
- Imaging Resource
http://www.imaging-resource.com/
- Luminous Landscape
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
- DPreview (ok)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/
- For committed Nikonistas
http://www.nikonians.org/
- Thom Hogan's site (also mostly Nikon)
http://www.bythom.com/
=For technical matters, I recommended Dr Roger Clark's site:
- Dr Clark's Home Page
http://www.clarkvision.com/
- Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary (2008-10-30)
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html
- How Many Megapixels do you need? Plus Other Factors in
Choosing a Digital Camera
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/how_many_megapixels/index.html
- Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images & Comparison to Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise/index.html
- Exposure Latitude of a Digital Camera & Comparison to Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/exposure_latitude-1/index.html
- Procedures for Evaluating Digital Camera Sensor Noise, Dynamic Range,
& Full Well Capacities; Canon 1D Mark II Analysis
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-1d2
- Resolution and Other Details of the Human Eye
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
- Experiments with Pixels Per Inch (PPI) on Printed Image Sharpness
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/index.html
- Flatbed Scanners versus Drum Scan Comparisons
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners
The other PhD physicist (actually, I think Roger's may be in astro-physics,
not particle-physics) whose writings I would recommend would be Dr Emil
Martinc of the University of Chicago and the Erico Fermi institute, whose
PhD was from Moscow. For example:
- Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/<http://theory.uchicago.edu/%7Eejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/>
Other technical treatises of interest may include:
- The Ins and Outs of Focus
http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf
- The human is a blocked tetrachromat processes in biological vision
http://4colorvision.com/files/tetrachromat.htm
- Vision Science II - Monocular Sensory Aspects of Vision
Lecture 29 . Trichomacy, Munsell System, Normal Color Vision
http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~salmonto/VSII/Lecture29.pdf<http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/%7Esalmonto/VSII/Lecture29.pdf>
- Panoramic Survey Telescope and Response System
http://pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/public/design-features/cameras.html
- Photopigment optical density of the human foveola and a paradoxical
senescent increase outside the fovea.
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15733338
Other interesting galleries may include:
- Bjørn Rørslett's Flowers in Ultraviolet
Arranged by Plant Family
http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_flowers_list.html#top
- Bjørn Rørslett's IR Colour Photography
http://www.naturfotograf.com/irstart.html
- Dr Roger N Clark's personal galleries
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/index.html
- Dr Roger N Clark's work galleries at the USGS Spectroscopy Lab in Denver
http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/
- Todd Hargis's phenomenal astro-photography work
http://www.pbase.com/todd991/astrophotos
- Julian Cash's various creative galleries
http://www.supersnail.com/
- Marianne Oelund's figure-skating work
http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/
- Dr Emil Martinc's galleries
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/<http://theory.uchicago.edu/%7Eejm/pix/20d/>
- South Pole Halos and other rainbow effects
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/spsun.htm
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/bows.htm
--tom
My original, full-day outline follows:
+----------------------------------------------------+
| Title: Cameras In the Digital Age |
| |
| Description: |
| Now that everyone and their dog has some sort |
| of a digital camera, what are you supposed to |
| do with it, and how? |
+----------------------------------------------------+
NB: Attendees should please bring their own digital camera
if possible, no matter how big or small or how old or new.
+----------------+
| LONGER OUTLINE |
+----------------+
[Some Topics may be abbreviated
or re-arranged for time's sake]
* Brief History of photography
The camera oscura: perspective
19th - 20th analogue photography
Large, medium, small format photography
The role of the photo lab: now outsourced to you!
Early digitals: your tax-dollars at work via NASA
* Biological Digression
The human eye: what -- and *how* -- we "see", and what we don't
Cones and rods, cone distribution, focusing
Primary colors based on biology, not physics
Vision as a synthesized mind-function, not (just) biology
CIE color model, the luminance formula
* Current State of digital tech
Sensors: Photons become elektrons
Bayer-pattern CFA: Replicating the eye?
CFAs: CCD or CMOS?
The Foveon Sensor: pros and cons (stacked cones)
The Fuji CCD: Bayer for cones + "negative" rods for luminance
Other Possibilities
* Signal And Noise
Why "megapixels" tells you *less* than nothing
Size Matters: bigger really is better
Pixel Pitch
Bit Depth (8,12,14,16 bits *per* color)
* Different Strokes For Different Folks
Why one size camera doesn't fit all occasions,
nor ever has
Keeping a photo diary
Pros and cons on each of
Cell-phone Cameras
Pocket(able) Cameras
Interchangeable-lens cameras:
Small (half- and full-frame) format
Medium formats
Scanning backs for large-format work
* Why do digital and analogue *seem* different?
As it was in the Beginning, is Now, and Ever shall be:
EXPOSURE == APERTURE * SHUTTER SPEED * SENSITIVITY
Old Myths about Instamatics vs "Wedding-Cameras"
What's possible with digital that wasn't with analogue?
Answer: Lots and lots
What's possible with analogue that (still) isn't with digital?
Answer: Not too much, but still some
* Why can it seem so hard to do as well in digital?
Too many automatic settings
Too little understanding of basic photographic principles
Too much expectation of in hard shooting situations
Too much tinkering at your local print shop
Too little tinkering at your home print shop
* Optics
It's all about the lens
Different lenses for different scenarios
Your anti-alias filter vs your lens: sharpening
Trade-off between types of optical distortions
Post-correction in software
* Focusing Systems
Phase-shift autofocus systems
Contrast-detection autofocus systems
Manually focusing: watch that shutter button!
What about a split-collar focus prism as of old?
* The Importance of in-camera vs post-camera processing
The print vs the negative
Getting exposure right
What "white-balance" is, and isn't:
Color temperature (1 axis black-body radiation in K)
White balance (2 axis L*a*b* model of blue-yellow, green-magenta)
Spectral interpretation:
A violet by any other name shall never a purple make
The raw file as latent image = unprocessed negative/positive film
Noise (grain), sharpening, shadow/highlight recovery
New tricks on the block
* Software:
Peeking under the hood: EXIF data
Gimp vs Photoshop: no other choices?
Free Software: dcraw, libraw, exiftool, panotools
Commercial software for Linux: REALLY!
All-in-one vs dedicated tools
Synthesized Shots
for astro (for noise reduction)
for focus stacking
for stitched panoramas
How to judge correct print size?
* Organization And Backups
Now that you have 9.1e+06 photos, how to organize them?
* Hardware:
Pricing ($$$) and physical issues (weight, bulk)
Diff between photographer and snapshooter: a TRIPOD
Underwater work: aquaria, snorkelling, scuba
Astro-photography: tracking vs non-tracking
* What if you're stuck on <PLATFORM>?
* Suggested Resources (books, webs, businesses) for:
Hardware
Software
Processing
Printing
* Demonstrations
SW: Some Perl Scripts to help you through your day
HW: Tethered shooting, lighting, filters
* Q&A
* Giveaways
--
Jeffrey Haemer <jeffrey.haemer at gmail.com>
720-837-8908 [cell]
http://goyishekop.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20081215/52835a73/attachment.html>
More information about the LUG
mailing list