Re: [opensuse] Re: Sizing ext4 partitions
On 02/19/2015 10:51 AM, Joe Zappa wrote:
Bingo. Anyone who has worked with done their own enlargements in a darkroom with film would consider deleting RAW files and keeping JPGs to be as foolish as burning your negatives, while keeping the small contact prints from a proff sheet.
That is a very goo way of putting it. The RAW files contain 12, 14, sometimes more, bit of information, whereas JPEGs only contain 8 bits. There is more metadata and what amounts to 'phase' information in RAW files. It much easier to do things like white balance, colour correction, when you have more bits to work with :-) -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On February 19, 2015 10:34:15 AM PST, Anton Aylward
On 02/19/2015 10:51 AM, Joe Zappa wrote:
Bingo. Anyone who has worked with done their own enlargements in a darkroom with film would consider deleting RAW files and keeping JPGs to be as foolish as burning your negatives, while keeping the small contact prints from a proff sheet.
That is a very goo way of putting it.
The RAW files contain 12, 14, sometimes more, bit of information, whereas JPEGs only contain 8 bits. There is more metadata and what amounts to 'phase' information in RAW files. It much easier to do things like white balance, colour correction, when you have more bits to work with :-)
Regardless, well over 80% of the shots taken will never see the light of day, and you will write them to disk and view them once and never again look at them. Unless you fancy yourself the second coming of Ansel Adams (a hubris all too common among amateurs), there is seldom a need to retain the RAW image format. Unless you do it professionally you are fooling yourself. Which of course is your right. But professionals wouldn't be obsessing over inodes. They'd just get on with the job. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Am 19.02.2015 um 19:51 schrieb John Andersen:
On February 19, 2015 10:34:15 AM PST, Anton Aylward
wrote: On 02/19/2015 10:51 AM, Joe Zappa wrote:
Bingo. Anyone who has worked with done their own enlargements in a darkroom with film would consider deleting RAW files and keeping JPGs to be as foolish as burning your negatives, while keeping the small contact prints from a proff sheet.
That is a very goo way of putting it.
The RAW files contain 12, 14, sometimes more, bit of information, whereas JPEGs only contain 8 bits. There is more metadata and what amounts to 'phase' information in RAW files. It much easier to do things like white balance, colour correction, when you have more bits to work with :-)
Regardless, well over 80% of the shots taken will never see the light of day, and you will write them to disk and view them once and never again look at them.
This is definitively not true. It is very well possible-and often the case - that with time your taste and/or your goals change. When you look at your images years later you will take another selection. And then your are happy when you can go back to the original RAW or negative or slide and you will be deadly frustrated when you don't have them anymore. In my early photo times I used to keep only the slides and negatives of "good" images. I deeply regretted abut that, many times.
Unless you fancy yourself the second coming of Ansel Adams (a hubris all too common among amateurs), there is seldom a need to retain the RAW image format.
You don't need great goals to love quality work. And if it is just for you yourself, you might love to get the best out of your images. If you stick with the jpg's produced in your camera to the taste of the cameras software developers you'd better search the web and stop taking photos at all.
Unless you do it professionally you are fooling yourself. Which of course is your right. But professionals wouldn't be obsessing over inodes. They'd just get on with the job.
Many fantastic images are taken by amateurs, often, very often, much better images than a lot of crap produced by professionals. Doing something with love (!) and dedication, trying to achieve the best possible result is very healthy and satisfying: the very contrary of somebody fooling himself. Trying to find the best solution for digital negatives is just as reasonable as getting information about the best archival solutions to store negatives without destroying them with time. While searching for an optimal solution one sometimes searches in a direction that in the end might not be useful. Maybe inodes are not that important, no idea. I myself am more worried about the proprietary formats of RAW files and the fear that in some years there will be no more software available to open them. Your statements seem to me just as if you'd ask for the best car fuel and I'd tell you, that it's stupid to have a car. Even if I am right, it's not helpful for your search. Daniel -- Daniel Bauer photographer Basel Barcelona http://www.daniel-bauer.com room in Barcelona: https://www.airbnb.es/rooms/2416137 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/19/2015 01:51 PM, John Andersen wrote:
Regardless, well over 80% of the shots taken will never see the light of day, and you will write them to disk and view them once and never again look at them.
Yes, I went though that in my 20s, learning the art. If I had one or two tolerably good shots out of a roll of 36 I was delighted. But back then I was buying my film in 100' rolls and cutting it down to canisters, paper by the 1000' roll and more cutting and had my own darkroom in the basement because my father had been a professional. The I came to Canada and had to pay for my processing and didn't have the short cut. Expense went up and up I made sure that everything was done much more carefully. I always had the feeling I never took enough shots, but I was getting an 80% or better 'acceptance' rate now. Think of it as actually applying what I'd learnt rather than the 'gay abandon' of my youth.
Unless you fancy yourself the second coming of Ansel Adams (a hubris all too common among amateurs), there is seldom a need to retain the RAW image format.
I'd say the opposite. Now I'm all digital (!sigh!) I can flip and chose. The quick shots I take, for example to sell stuff on kijiji, are all low-res jpeg, they are really 'use once and throw away'. I'm even starting to use my cell phone for that. For example I took a picture of a menu at a restaurant where I had a meal I liked, later transcribed the ingredients to a text file and threw away the JPG. Phones are great for things like that :-) The more I think about it, the more I seem to throw away the JPGS and keep the RAW. I can always reconstruct the JPGs, I have the XML files. The 'serious' stuff I use the professional grade cameras on, my Canon and the surprising high quality Fuji, are the RAW. The Architectural work for Relators always needs editing and they want it done over, which means keeping the RAW files around. Maybe even to the next time they sell that property or one next door to it :-) I also seem to take a lot of floral shots. Even those who don't win at the shows want a record of their 'babies'. Oddly, a woman who sells floral pictures for greeting cards decided she preferred mine .... If I made a few enhancements ... Which was possible because I had the RAW and darktable. People coming from FOSS should know that 'amateur' does not mean poor quality. Many of us have been though this before. We know that sometimes the dedicated 'amateur' produces better software than the 'professional' corporation.
Unless you do it professionally you are fooling yourself. Which of course is your right. But professionals wouldn't be obsessing over inodes. They'd just get on with the job.
Yes, we see that in software don't we? The professional has to work to the budget, the release date, its driven by what makes the professional different from the amateur, PROFIT. For the professional, "good enough is good enough"; if its good enough you get paid. I get paid for the stuff I sell on kijiji, but that has little to do with the quality - or not - of the photographs I take for the adverts I place there. Its a non issue. Some people sell stuff using photos out of catalogues, for ${DEITY}'s sake! -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
participants (3)
-
Anton Aylward
-
Daniel Bauer
-
John Andersen