... Spectators can be blurred beyond recognition...with photoshop...make bystanders...look "incidentally out of focus" rather than "deliberately anonymized"...
...When using a good camera, the bigger the aperture (the smaller the f-number) the smaller the depth of focus. This also increases the amount of light hitting the film, meaning you can speed up the shutter speed...
Film? Hahahahah! And ... adjustable settings on little tiny digital cell phone camera chips and their little tiny lenses? Hahahahah!
"Good" is in the eye of the beholder, and on Wikipedia, the kind of images presented as fair use are barely 100 pixels in either dimension - about equal to 0.01 megapixels! ANY camera captures w-a-y more than that, and uploading ~100x pixel copies (even of other people's photos) as fair use reference images probably would pass muster in an encyclopedia. Does anyone know of any case law in this new field?
Regarding the presumption that cell phones aren't going to be a useful source of images, that's just blind to reality. Cell phones are just as "serious" image capture devices as any other camera. They have arrived: see National Geographic's "The Camera Phone Book" at http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/product/175/3690/122.html "... the book explains how to choose good equipment; take better pictures; and store, print, and send the best images...Featuring the technical savvy of CNet.com's Aimee Baldridge and the creative skill of National Geographic photographer Robert Clark, a camera phone pioneer, this compact yet comprehensive reference combines up-to-the-minute expertise with superb examples...this generously illustrated nuts-and-bolts guide is the first of its kind to treat these units as genuine cameras instead of novelties, and the only one to include a full-color photo-essay demonstrating the full capabilities of the latest camera phones...2007..."
PS - Off Topic - the smaller the image capture size, the greater the depth of field focus. The beauty of the cell phone camera is that it's so small that everything is in focus near to far all the time - lens aperture settings are pretty much meaningless and inaccessible. As they say, "take the picture now, you can always fix it in photoshop later!" Photoshop legit copies start ~$5US for older version on eBay and there are many free programs that offer tools to accomplish cropping, resizing, sharpening, blurring and other image tweaks functions.
On 9/27/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
... Spectators can be blurred beyond recognition...with photoshop...make bystanders...look "incidentally out of focus" rather than "deliberately anonymized"...
...When using a good camera, the bigger the aperture (the smaller the f-number) the smaller the depth of focus. This also increases the amount of light hitting the film, meaning you can speed up the shutter speed...
Film? Hahahahah! And ... adjustable settings on little tiny digital cell phone camera chips and their little tiny lenses? Hahahahah!
"Good" is in the eye of the beholder, and on Wikipedia, the kind of images presented as fair use are barely 100 pixels in either dimension - about equal to 0.01 megapixels! ANY camera captures w-a-y more than that, and uploading ~100x pixel copies (even of other people's photos) as fair use reference images probably would pass muster in an encyclopedia. Does anyone know of any case law in this new field?
Yes, but we're discussing user-created/submitted Free images, so fair use restrictions are irrelevant. Also, we want Free images in as high resolution as possible, even if they're only displayed as 250px thumbnails on the web, for later use in printed volumes.
On 9/27/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
PS - Off Topic - the smaller the image capture size, the greater the depth of field focus. The beauty of the cell phone camera is that it's so small that everything is in focus near to far all the time - lens aperture settings are pretty much meaningless and inaccessible. As they say, "take the picture now, you can always fix it in photoshop later!" Photoshop legit copies start ~$5US for older version on eBay and there are many free programs that offer tools to accomplish cropping, resizing, sharpening, blurring and other image tweaks functions.
Have you ever tried to apply an after-the-fact depth of field effect using photoshop? It's much easier to just set a bigger aperture before you take the picture. (*) And if your shutter speed is too slow or your picture is too dark (or your ISO is too high and your picture too noisy), there's not much photoshop can do to help you there (get rid of the noise and that beautiful focus is gone). Cell phones cameras have advantages, they're cheap and small, but any decent camera is going to give you the ability to use a small aperture if you really want to.
I'm not even sure this is off-topic. Teaching en.wikipedians that cell phone cameras inherently take crappy pictures is right on topic. If one person reading this is inspired to learn about the relationship of aperture/shutter speed/ISO and takes better pictures for en.wikipedia as a result, it was an enormous success.
(*) Try to produce [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f5.jpg]] from [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f32.jpg]] using photoshop and let me know how long it takes you. I don't have photoshop, so I can't do it myself. I'm sure it can be done, but not in the split-second it takes to roll a dial and set an f-stop (assuming you're in aperture-priority mode).
I just need a camera that I can change the ISO settings, shutter speed and other stuff on.
On 27/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/27/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
PS - Off Topic - the smaller the image capture size, the greater the depth of field focus. The beauty of the cell phone camera is that it's so small that everything is in focus near to far all the time - lens aperture settings are pretty much meaningless and inaccessible. As they say, "take the picture now, you can always fix it in photoshop later!" Photoshop legit copies start ~$5US for older version on eBay and there are many free programs that offer tools to accomplish cropping, resizing, sharpening, blurring and other image tweaks functions.
Have you ever tried to apply an after-the-fact depth of field effect using photoshop? It's much easier to just set a bigger aperture before you take the picture. (*) And if your shutter speed is too slow or your picture is too dark (or your ISO is too high and your picture too noisy), there's not much photoshop can do to help you there (get rid of the noise and that beautiful focus is gone). Cell phones cameras have advantages, they're cheap and small, but any decent camera is going to give you the ability to use a small aperture if you really want to.
I'm not even sure this is off-topic. Teaching en.wikipedians that cell phone cameras inherently take crappy pictures is right on topic. If one person reading this is inspired to learn about the relationship of aperture/shutter speed/ISO and takes better pictures for en.wikipedia as a result, it was an enormous success.
(*) Try to produce [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f5.jpg]] from [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f32.jpg]] using photoshop and let me know how long it takes you. I don't have photoshop, so I can't do it myself. I'm sure it can be done, but not in the split-second it takes to roll a dial and set an f-stop (assuming you're in aperture-priority mode).
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/27/07, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I just need a camera that I can change the ISO settings, shutter speed and other stuff on.
Maybe. But I found as soon as I learned about that stuff and did get a camera that can change ISO settings, shutter speed, and aperture (most low-cost digital cameras can do this), within a few weeks I realized why that cheap camera was so cheap. It gets to be an expensive hobby pretty quick.
As my obligatory on-topic section to this post, if someone *can* manage to create [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f5.jpg]] from [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f32.jpg]] using photoshop (or some other image manipulation software), the manipulated image and a description of how it was made would be a good addition to [[depth of field]].
On 27/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/27/07, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I just need a camera that I can change the ISO settings, shutter speed and other stuff on.
Maybe. But I found as soon as I learned about that stuff and did get a camera that can change ISO settings, shutter speed, and aperture (most low-cost digital cameras can do this), within a few weeks I realized why that cheap camera was so cheap. It gets to be an expensive hobby pretty quick.
Big time. I keep an ultracompact in my pocket at all times (a Canon Ixus 50) and it's good for lots of things ... but even an entry-level SLR has advantages like, ooh, a sensor bigger than a speck, and ISO above 400 that isn't complete rubbish.
(On the latter subject, I recommend:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/
- the only compact that can do high ISO as of May 2007 that isn't a lie is the Fuji F30/F31. Now I just need one of those to carry everywhere.)
As my obligatory on-topic section to this post, if someone *can* manage to create [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f5.jpg]] from [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f32.jpg]] using photoshop (or some other image manipulation software), the manipulated image and a description of how it was made would be a good addition to [[depth of field]].
That would basically require selecting bits of the image according to where in the field you think they would be, then blurring each a given amount. This is pretty artistic as image fakery goes.
About the most work I put into an image is framing it properly. Shallow depth of field is the same - there's no substitute for just taking the shot that way.
- d.
On 27/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- the only compact that can do high ISO as of May 2007 that isn't a
lie is the Fuji F30/F31. Now I just need one of those to carry everywhere.)
Oh - the article also says the F10 did very well. But their F30 review said the F10 user interface "appears to have been designed by someone with either a very cruel sense of humor or a serious sadistic streak." So, er, best avoid that one then ;-)
- d.
On 9/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
As my obligatory on-topic section to this post, if someone *can* manage to create [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f5.jpg]] from [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f32.jpg]] using photoshop (or some other image manipulation software), the manipulated image and a description of how it was made would be a good addition to [[depth of field]].
That would be heading rapidly down the path of original research and being a how-to guide.
-Matt
On 9/27/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
As my obligatory on-topic section to this post, if someone *can* manage to create [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f5.jpg]] from [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f32.jpg]] using photoshop (or some other image manipulation software), the manipulated image and a description of how it was made would be a good addition to [[depth of field]].
That would be heading rapidly down the path of original research and being a how-to guide.
Yeah, nothing like a useful paragraph to ruin a good encyclopedia entry.
"In some cases, such as landscapes, it may be desirable to have the entire image in focus, and a large DOF is appropriate."
{{fact}}
On 9/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Yeah, nothing like a useful paragraph to ruin a good encyclopedia entry.
"In some cases, such as landscapes, it may be desirable to have the entire image in focus, and a large DOF is appropriate."
{{fact}}
I'm pretty sure most such statements in Wikipedia could be sourced trivially with a few basic textbooks on the appropriate subject.
-Matt
On 9/28/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Yeah, nothing like a useful paragraph to ruin a good encyclopedia entry.
"In some cases, such as landscapes, it may be desirable to have the entire image in focus, and a large DOF is appropriate."
{{fact}}
I'm pretty sure most such statements in Wikipedia could be sourced trivially with a few basic textbooks on the appropriate subject.
I'm not, but you seem to have missed the point of my post. I was being sarcastic.