User talk:Redbobblehat

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Redbobblehat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Srleffler (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)--Srleffler (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}[1]

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag but you did not post a question. Please write out your question and when you are done, place back the tag. I or someone else will be along to help. Alternatively, you can join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. (Click here for instant access). //roux 05:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Blown-highlight[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Blown-highlight, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

redirect from mis-punctuated term is not useful.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Crushed black[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Crushed black, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Redirect from strange term is not useful.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crushed blacks & blown-out highlights[edit]

Dick, I'm surprised you have never heard these terms used by photographers. Perhaps it comes from video jargon rather than film ... ? They are still on my "precise definition required" list, but they are in common use ... I quickly found several (not very explanatory) examples by googling, eg

some spiel from Sony : "The camera’s user selectable Advanced Gradation Control System (AGCS) optimizes image contrast, in order to avoid “blown out” highlights in high-contrast scenes and “crushed” blacks in low-contrast ones. AGCS evaluates the distribution of brightness and then automatically applies the appropriate gamma curve to achieve better pictures." [2]

and a typical forum post : "When i view the JPEGS in, lets say, windows picture viewer, the images look warmer and the blacks looks somewhat crushed ..." [3]

Millerson offers a clue : "highlights ... increasingly smaller tonal changes, until the lightest tones crush to an even 'white'. This gradual roll-off, which is referred to as the shoulder ..." p.369 Millerson,G Lighting for Television and Film Focal Press 1991 ISBN 0240512995 [4] ... which suggests that "crushed blacks" are caught in the toe ...

"Secondly, absolute encoding produces crushed blacks and this loss of detail decreases the quality of an image." p.65 of Kennel,G Color and Mastering for Digital Cinema: A Digital Cinema Industry Handbook Focal Press, 2007 ISBN 0240808746 [5]

google book search for "blown-out highlight" [6] ... one of them has a chapter entitled "avoid blown-out highlights" going on : "A blown-out highlight occurs when you use exposure settings that make part of the image pure white where there should be details" ...
google book search for "blown highlight"[7]

I could go on, but I won't. I still don't understand why you can't ask questions or make suggestions in a civil way through the relevant talk page, rather than using all these loud wiki templates and all-too-easy edit reverts (namely exposure (photography)) to make such seemingly trivial and unsubstantiated points. I don't mean to be rude, but your lack of communication makes it very difficult to understand what you actually want. --Redbobblehat (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the terms; I did some googling myself, and found that "crushed blacks" is common in video and TV books, and usually refers to a situation where the video voltage falls below the black level. As for "blown highlights", I realize it's pretty common; I do wonder still why you like to put the hyphen in it though. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more on terminology, and some sources, and better defs of overexposed and underexposed. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that loss of shadow or highlight detail is the proper general indicator of underexposure or overexposure. "Crushed blacks" (presumably, pure black) ultimately result from severe underexposure, and "blown highlights" (presumably, pure white) ultimately result from severe overexposure. But even then, there isn't a problem if no detail was desired in areas that go pure black or white. I don't really have a problem with the redirects if this is made more clear. The hyphen in "blown-highlights" doesn't belong; the term is not a compound adjective. The hyphen is needed in "blown-out highlights". If the article remains, it should be moved to remove the hyphen. JeffConrad (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Blown-highlight[edit]

Thanks Dick. I couldn't find the related discussion at that URL... If it's any help, I agree that the hyphen is wrong and agree that "blown highlight" is better. --Redbobblehat (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic : Blown highlight currently redirects to Clipping (photography) which I suspect might not be entirely accurate; it seems very likely that "blown highlight" originally refers to film's shoulder-compressed highlights, as distinct from video's white clipping. IMO that distinction would be important for clarifying differences between film latitude and video dynamic range, etc. It may also be worth noting that "blown" video/digital highlights are not necessarily white-clipped ... one of the problems with recovering blown highlights (from RAW etc) is peculiar colour-banding in (normally invisible) near-white extreme highlights (AFAIK due to electronic color balance clipping/maxing one or two colour channels at near white levels). Data may be recoverable from a blown highlight (risking color errors) but no data can be recovered from white clip. --Redbobblehat (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exposure compensation[edit]

Did you ever set a camera for +1 exposure compensation and have the image come out darker? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When exposure compensation is calibrated in EV, +1EV means 1 stop down. --Redbobblehat (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying about EV, but that's not how "exposure compensation" works. I'll fix it up with a reference. Dicklyon (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a terrible reference! Your point is valid but your edit was technically incorrect. I have rewritten the statement to shift the emphasis to exposure compensation calibration with a footnote caveat to satisfy people who think like this. --Redbobblehat (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Red, you can do better than just reverting me at Exposure (photography); I invited you to add alternative information if you have a source; so why not find a source and add something sourced, rather than replacing my sourced version with your unsourced version? Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit simply ignores the problem that many cameras and books do "calibrate" exposure compensation in EV, but in a way which is contrary to the APEX system EV scale (as you yourself pointed out in Jan 2007). By removing the reference to EV altogether, the statement "The setting "+1" exposure compensation commonly indicates one stop more exposure and "−1" means one stop less exposure" is banal and superfluous - of course "+1" means one more ... etc - it certainly does not require a "reliable source" to support it, nor does providing a referenced source make it relevant to the article. --Redbobblehat (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what distinction you have in mind between "EV" and "Stops"; your interpretation of the Exposure value scale, where higher values are less exposure, as being in some way related to the "EV" units of exposure compensation, is an unusual interpretation that I have not seen in a source. If you have a source for it, it will be OK to add it; otherwise, at least stop deleting the sourced information that I found to describe exposure compensation settings. Here are some books that you can consult, and report what they say about it. Also note that what I fixed in 2007 about the EV scale has little connection to the question of how EV units are used in exposure compensation – unless you find that connection in a source; WP:NOR. Dicklyon (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Exposure_(photography)#Error_in_EV_interpretation : "I fixed the lead where it said higher EV meant MORE total exposure. Actually, if all you vary is EV, that's backwards, since higher EV means faster shutter or smaller aperture, which gives you LESS exposure. This is a common confusion, since a higher EV is apppropriate when shooting a brighter (higher luminance) scene. See exposure value. ... Dicklyon 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)" --Redbobblehat (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, in this diff, I fixed an error. But for you to somehow associate that with exposure compensation is a stretch. Do any of the sources I pointed out do that? Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Jacobson reference ([8]) which I added in this edit. See below for verbatim quote of the precise statement. You seem to be suggesting that EV in exposure compensation is unrelated to the exposure value in the APEX system. Do you have any evidence for this ? -- Redbobblehat (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Exposure (photography), you will be blocked from editing. Repeatedly removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced information is not acceptable behavior; you have been advised at least twice that you can add additional information if you have a source. Please stop your disruptive editing now. Dicklyon (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for appearing to try at least, in this diff. But you still removed my sourced info, and you added stuff not supported by the sources you cited. The Photographic Lighting ref doesn't mention EV at all, but talks about stops, like I had before; and the Manual of Photography talks about EV, but nothing about what direction it applies in exposure compensation, nor any confusion about that. Here's a book that's clear about the direction, but doesn't propose anything about the confusion you're wanting to introduce. Can you try to fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources support the statements to which they are appended. The confusion is not mine. --Redbobblehat (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I got it. I kept your refs; I see you were trying to do a little WP:SYN, to conclude that the EV in the APEX scale was relevant to the EV units of exposure compensation, even though no source makes that connection explicit. The APEX scale has no concept of "+1 EV", nor even any fractional EV values, if I recall correctly. But its step size, the "EV unit" or "stop" is commonly employed. Nobody knows about APEX anyway, and there's no need to introduce a confusion about it here; note that no source does so. Talking about so-called confusions and common errors and misconceptions in wikipedia articles is one of the things I find myself fighting regularly; without a source, there's no reason to bring up the idea of such a confusion or error. In the case of exposure compensation, I've never before heard of anyone being confused about it, and never seen anything in a source. APEX and Exposure Value, on the other hand, those are confusing; they don't need to be linked in here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jacobson reference is perfectly explicit: "Finally, EV 'plus' and 'minus' scales are commonly used on the exposure compensation ... controls ...". If you are seriously suggesting they are two different kinds of exposure value in photography, you really should provide an explicit source for that ... --Redbobblehat (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added anything to the effect that there are two differnet EV scales; that's more or less what you're doing. I left your reference; what more do you want in there? Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance and clarity. --Redbobblehat (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Exposure (photography), you will be blocked from editing. Your arbitrary removal of sourced material and cited references must stop. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dick, your threats and accusations are hollow, unjustified and uncivil. Please stop cluttering my talk page with this nonsense. --Redbobblehat (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I noticed that we have another unsourced but better-expressed statement of the "confusion" you're talking about, at APEX system, added by Jeff Conrad back in 2007, "This usage can be confusing, because an exposure compensation of +1 EV actually calls for a smaller EV." What's confusing here is the APEX system, about which he also says, "The incorporation of exposure meters in many cameras in the late 1960s eliminated the need to compute exposure, so APEX saw little actual use." The idea that +1 EV represents more exposure is not confusing to anyone, but the APEX Exposure value is. I'll ask Jeff to find a source or remove the assertion that it's confusing. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one Jeff! that solves our problem! We can simply link to Exposure_value#Exposure_compensation_in_EV rather than try to cram the explanation into Exposure_(photography)#Exposure_compensation. Thank you Jeff! --Redbobblehat (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to it, but I took out the "can be confusing" bit, with a comment to bring it back if there's a source to support it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page deletions[edit]

On this edit of yours: "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages [...]" -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by "out of place junk" I meant that it was an irrelevant comment, stuck in the middle of an unrelated conversation. It was easier to remove it than to make a section for it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Basic optic geometry.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]