You are losing me - I never tried to get the image “square”, and have no idea what you are talking about??? If you mean the original image wasn’t level? So what? It contained what I wanted, but my 120mm lens wasn’t long enough to crop in the camera, not to mention I had multiple bags of groceries that I was holding as I took the photo with one hand. This was irrelevant, as I already knew what I thought I wanted to do.
Sorry, I’m not at all “bullying” anybody, but we are past kindergarten, so to speak.
Why continue these ongoing fruitless discussions? Instead, focus on shooting, editing and handling in DxO software (etc.). And if I can contribute, then I will do it - and learn at the same time. Use this forum wisely.
Everyone involved in documentaries, photography competitions, etc. knows that they have certain rules to follow, but they don’t need to be talked about continuously and in detail.
But here (!), the longer it goes on, the more I actually have the impression that it is an excuse for not wanting to/cannot edit (sensibly). – And in case you like to come back with the “bullying accusation”, it happened with some members of my last photography club, who couldn’t handle editing, got overwhelmed by what others were doing (and “succeeded” in contests!), and started the same fruitless discussion.
To reiterate: Contribute (and take the chance to learn), but PLEASE don’t hold on to things that don’t help anyone.
3 Likes
I’m not aware of any “bullying” from @Wolfgang; he is one of the people here that I have learned the most from, until it got too far “over my head” and I couldn’t keep up. My problem was ME, not Wolfgang. And, my problem wasn’t that I didn’t want to “keep up”, but rather that I got lost, and didn’t understand what he wrote. That’s a “mike problem”, not a “Wolfgang problem”. Reminds me of “calculus and analytic geometry”, where I could follow the discussions only so far, before feeling overwhelmed.
When it comes to perspective corrections, follow your “gut feeling,” as you did when taking the photos mentioned above.
That is, if you needed to correct the perspective, it would have been enough to correctly adjust the one (!) vertical line on the right along the axis – and only then after to check the vertical line on the left.
And if it’s just a matter of “centering” the image to “visually stabilize” it (without perspective adjustments), just use the Horizon tool → vertical.
2 Likes
For whatever it’s worth, up until 2013 I was using Lightroom, updating every so often. During all that time, I had developed watermarks for my photos. For reasons I don’t recall, in 2013 I bought PhotoLab 3, which for me was a very steep learning curve. Gradually I got used to it, but I remember complaining that I couldn’t find a way to create Watermarks. Then, DxO fixed this:
Problem solved, and year after year, my watermarks got smaller. I’ve been using watermarks whenever possible, for as long as I can remember, and I have no desire to stop doing so. After perhaps 20 years, it’s part of “me”. My “font size” in a tiny fraction of what I used to use.
I don’t feel like discussing them - everyone has a choice, use them, or not. DxO must have had more reason to add them to PL4 than just my request. Obviously, they’re not for everyone. I wanted to post the link to their video.
Interesting video, but what they show is very much NOT what I like. I don’t plan to write much more about them, either way. It’s like “frames”; last night is the first time I figured out how to use one.
That is my plan, for “next time”.
Thankyou.
Jeroen, thanks again for the information on the B-1B Lancer bomber. Interesting that I got a better photo of it than the US AirForce official photo posted on line:
Not sure if my photo shows things that they don’t want shown, but they probably didn’t anticipate some guy sitting on his balcony photographing the plane at reasonably close range - when it put on it’s “demo” over the beach, it was much higher, and flying much faster. I still need to read more about this plane.
My photo also shows what looks like a “bomb” under the plane - I imagine that was just a “prop” for the show, over Miami Beach.
Thanks for joining the discussion - if you have any interest, maybe stick around, and perhaps post some of your own photos. Welcome aboard!!
Hi Mike!
I tried to investigate why it was impossible save a bit changed copy of your moon and plane picture. When exporting is just said “internal error”.
When trying to print instead I got a warning about a font but I can´t see any special font used in the picture and I have renamed the file from Photolab without any luck.
There where some problems in the past with his name. Try yo deselect his name.
George
I’m confused, but that’s nothing new. The “Chalkduster” font came from DxO. Maybe that’s a clue that will be helpful.
I can remove the watermark, and post it here, or mail it to you.
But, since I uploaded all three files, the original image, the .dop file, and the jpg image, can’t you open the file on your computer, and simply remove the watermark completely? (Usually I post all three files here in the forum - if for any reason I didn’t, I’ll upload everything again. If my memory is correct, @Joanna increased the size of the file.)
After today, I won’t have access to my computer until next week, so if we don’t get this resolved now, I’ll do whatever you need by next Tuesday.
What were the problems you refer to?
My memory is terrible, and it’s just downhill from now on I guess.
Not special your name but the use of a watermark.
George
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but if @Stenis opens my image file in PhotoLab, using my .dop file, can’t he delete the watermark, and save it to a new VC, and use the new files as needed, without the need for the watermark data? Am I missing something here?
Would it help if I exported a new file, after having removed the watermark from my .dop file? If Stenis exports the file from his computer, without the watermark being selected, based on my possibly flawed understanding, that “internal error” message should go away.
Or, he could open my original file, without including the .dop file being available, and his computer will create a brand new .dop file. I’m assuming of course that the original raw file, from my camera, has no reference to anything I did while editing it. Or, I can send him the file that Joanna sent me, after enlarging the image in Topaz.
That’s what I’m saying. I didn’t call it the watermark for I was not sure about the naming. Just disable it. That solved the problem then. I’m not sure if it does now.
George
OK, I think the problem is solved.
For anyone who didn’t already know this, “Chalkduster” is the name of the DxO font that I selected. I have no idea where DxO got it from. Perhaps the computer that was attempting to process the image simply did not have “DxO Chalduster” installed in its software. Last time I had an issue like this, the computer I was using just substituted a basic font, without asking or complaining.
Isn’t it terrible? Just a quick research …
But the real solution is … stop adding this watermark when you publish pics in DxO Forum.
1 Like
It was just to turn the watermark off Wolfgang.
It solved the problem.
In this special occasion that watermark was hidden, maybe it was shadowed by the black background so we couldn´t see it.
I didn´t see any text but still it was there.
Something to think of for Mike and ourselves if we try to edit his pictures.
The watermark is no real problem as long as you are aware of it and can see it.
Thanks for your help Wolfgang.
For me, I’ve been using watermarks since I first started using Adobe Lightroom. Then DxO added it, so I used it here. To me, it’s like all the other PhotoLab tools, I can use them, or ignore them, and/or learn how to use them.
Since I usually post all three files, jpg, dng, and dop, anyone downloading one of my files from here (which everyone is welcome to do) can simply turn off the watermark tool. It’s the simplest watermark I could think of (name, year). And the font I selected resembled chalk scribbling on a blackboard, the opposite of “fancy”.
Bad news - I thought I could check out the reasonably priced 80-400 lens at B&H, but when I called to ask about it, the lens is in their warehouse, not the store, it is used, “a lot”, and only condition “8”. The tech person at B&H didn’t think I would be happy with the lens, or the condition of the lens, or how slow it is for auto-focus. I gave up on this idea. It’s also “only” 400mm, which probably won’t do much for my pixelization issues. So I canceled visiting B&H. No current plans to do anything. I’ll be back to my favorite bird watching site in two weeks, and I guess I need to limit myself to birds to be within “Joanna distance” of my camera, to avoid the dreaded pixelization. Or, I can get Joanna’s 300, and a tele-extender if it works.
Let me add my two cent’s worth here.
From the Greek…
φωτός = light
γραφή = drawing
Photography = drawing with light
There is nothing in that definition to say that the light cannot be manipulated on its way to the recording medium. If I wanted, I could use a fine point light pen and trace the outline of a subject on a sheet of light-sensitive paper. But, by moving the source of light, as I would a paintbrush, I am manipulating a source of light to create an image. Strictly, that is now a photograph. It certainly wouldn’t bear any resemblance to what we now accept as a photograph, but it is irrefutably a drawing made with light and, thus, has the right to be regarded as a photograph.
On the other hand, if I use an inkjet printer to create a print of a totally unaltered digital image, that cannot be strictly called a photograph because it is “drawn” with dots of coloured ink, not light.
However, whatever the source of the original image capture, if I use a digital Lambda printer on photographic paper, to make a print from a digital file, then that has to be regarded as a true photograph because the printer used laser light to draw onto a light-sensitive paper.
Conclusion - only prints or films that have been exposed directly to light are worthy of being called photographs. According to your reasoning, a digital image can never be classified as a photograph, even if it has been digitally retouched unless it is printed on a Lambda printer.
Conversely, any image, however created (painting, drawing, iPad), digitised and printed by a Lambda printer on photo-sensitive paper has to be regarded as a photograph because it was created by drawing with light.
You see how ridiculous this meaningless restriction on manipulation becomes, when all I have to do is output it to a photo-sensitive surface, using a laser, and it instantly reverts to being a photograph.
And, I have to say, having had Ilford Harman print some of our LF negs with such a printer, I wish I could afford the money and space to install one - the results are simply stunning.
So, having now got to the stage where I can output a manipulated image in a way that demands it is called a photograph, I don’t see the problem with using an inkjet printer.
For the same reason that I use a digital sensor in the camera instead of film, which as others have pointed out is not strictly drawing with light but is, in fact, creating a bundle of digital data that has to be converted into a visible image by manipulation, I see no reason not to allow a digital file to be rendered by an inkjet printer.
The phrase “drawing with light” doesn’t preclude manipulation. That ida came about by smart-ass snobs who forgot that a final silver print from a silver negative has to be re-spotted to remove the dark spots caused by dust on the negative…
- from when the film was inserted into the darkslide,
- from when the the sheath was withdrawn from the darkslide before the shutter was released.
- from when the dark slide was re-inserted after the exposure
- from when the negative was inserted into the enlarger
Not forgetting the white spots created from when the dust fell out of the air onto the printing paper before or during the exposure. - etc.
You see, Mike, there never has been a time when, what the world recognises as a printed photograph, didn’t pass through all sorts of manipulations in order to create a beautiful print.
Except for the photographer who created the photograph, who is justified in judging such an ill-founded appellation as coming from a pretentious fool.
And you, Mike, what would you call a digital image printed by light on photo-sensitive paper? Can you really maintain your stance when such a print fully satisfies the literal meaning of the word photograph?
1 Like
Yes, fully agree!
I don´t have any problems either with AI-assisted editing but generative AI is definitely another thing.
It will be very interesting to see where all these law suits around immaterial rights will take us. Because that is really problematic. That is why C2PA and CAI are so important to safe guard authenticy and provenance.
Still the tech is really fascinating I think and the cultural, economic and philosophical impact it will have at least in the West. I guess both the Russians and the Chinese won´t give a shit about immaterial rights - as long as it isn´t their own that gets violated.
1 Like