I know of a method for "hypnotising" chickens. You do it like this:
But this trick for "putting a chicken to sleep was new to me:
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Chicken 2.0
As of April 18th I accomplished my second goal for for my chicken project. I bred chickens that I hatched from eggs (first goal) then bred and hatched the eggs from those chickens (second goal). The dam is definitely Dutches and I'm almost certain the sire of most of them is Black Beard. But it's impossible to say for sure since all three chickens, Dutches, Samson and Black Beard, were penned together. One thing is certain, any chick with tufts must be Black Beards since they can only get tufts from a tufted parent.
Things went amazingly well in the hatch. Every single one of the 10 eggs I put in the incubator hatched. 5 of the 10 chicks have tufts. Based on regular Araucana hatch statistics and taking into account the "lethal" nature of the tufts gene, my results are nothing short of miraculous. ( It's considered "normal" for 25% of an Araucana hatch to die in the shell.) They all seem to be doing pretty well now on day two also. With any luck most of them will grow up OK.
In addition to the Araucanas that I hatched from my own eggs, I acquired some "Araucana" pullets from the feed store. They are actually some type of Easter-Egg chicken. I purchased them since I wasn't sure I would be able to get any of my eggs to hatch and I wanted more hens. Now they are somewhat redundant but at least they'll add a little color to the yard.
Here is a close up of one of the new Araucana chicks.
I use the highly advanced cardboard-box-and-hand-me-down-lamp brooding method. Yeah. Only finest for my chicks.
You can see a movie of the chicks in action here: http://www.mediamax.com/lordtangent/Hosted/Chicks_2.0_day_old.MOV
I'm hatching another couple of batches before getting rid of my adult roosters. I'll decide if I want to do another generation later and figure out what to do for roosters at that point.
Things went amazingly well in the hatch. Every single one of the 10 eggs I put in the incubator hatched. 5 of the 10 chicks have tufts. Based on regular Araucana hatch statistics and taking into account the "lethal" nature of the tufts gene, my results are nothing short of miraculous. ( It's considered "normal" for 25% of an Araucana hatch to die in the shell.) They all seem to be doing pretty well now on day two also. With any luck most of them will grow up OK.
In addition to the Araucanas that I hatched from my own eggs, I acquired some "Araucana" pullets from the feed store. They are actually some type of Easter-Egg chicken. I purchased them since I wasn't sure I would be able to get any of my eggs to hatch and I wanted more hens. Now they are somewhat redundant but at least they'll add a little color to the yard.
Here is a close up of one of the new Araucana chicks.
I use the highly advanced cardboard-box-and-hand-me-down-lamp brooding method. Yeah. Only finest for my chicks.
You can see a movie of the chicks in action here: http://www.mediamax.com/lordtangent/Hosted/Chicks_2.0_day_old.MOV
I'm hatching another couple of batches before getting rid of my adult roosters. I'll decide if I want to do another generation later and figure out what to do for roosters at that point.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
My RAW Workflow
Since I "Edit" 100% of my final photos in one way or another anyway, RAW workflow doesn't add much hassle to things. At the very least I color grade the images. (Either making them "accurate" or not accurate... it's a creative choice) I use Photoshop "Adobe Camera RAW" loader.
Some people are critical of the quality of the CS2 RAW loader . I find it good enough for my uses. And the convenience of doing everything in one place outweighs any minor quality differences there might be.
JPEG / 8 bit doesn't have the bandwidth for slamming the color around too much so I usually work in 16 bit from the RAW files. "16 bits" really isn't as "accurate" as you might think simply because of how the linear output of the sensor is mapped up to your gamma corrected working color space / display. But it does carry a little extra data that would otherwise get thrown out. It's nice to hang on to that as long as possible. One good thing about working in larger color spaces like ProPhoto RGB is that less of the data is likely to be "rounded out" of even the 16 bits. Keep reading and it might start to make some sense... or none at all.
Here is break down of my process.
0. When shooting, "Expose to the right"
1. Copy RAWs to the computer on a card reader
2. Open RAW in CS2 RAW loader as 16bits/channel, ProPhoto RGB color space (it is the widest gamut color space that ships with Photoshop)
a. While in ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) I do the basic white balance and if required (as is usually the case when exposing to the right) exposure compensation.
3. Image is now in CS2
4. Edit image as required (Still in 16bits/channel, ProPhoto RGB)
5. After image editing is done I direct the output images as required.
a. Save a Photoshop format image with all data if required for later editing
b. CONVERT to sRGB THEN 8 bits per channel for web / modeles proofs
c. Convert to AdobeRGB or CMYK as per printers requirements (for print) You can leave it at 16 bits if you want. Or not. It depends on the printers pref.
The important thing to remember when working in a more advanced color space like ProPhoto is to make sure you re-map it to something usable by the target audience. The ProPhoto color space wont render correctly on 99% of most image viewers because they have no concept of color spaces. Also, 16Bits/Channel is complete overkill for almost all displays. You only need it as a working space to help reduce rounding error. And, depending on your camera, exposure, etc. the signal to noise is WAY worse the precision of 16bits anyway. You are sampling "noise" for no reason. You keep the extra bit depth around as long as possible mostly for the benefits to image processing. (less rounding error) And the slight improvement in capturing actual precision from the RAW file it gives. (There is some signal buried in that noise after all) It's often ok to throw out the extra bits once you are done with your editing. But not until you are done. It's a one way street. There is not much point in promoting 8 bit images to 16 bit because the precision is already gone.
Basically, I try to do all editing in 16bits/channel, ProPhotoRGB and only convert to the smaller gamut / bit depth as the very last step.
There you have it. All my secrets.
Some people are critical of the quality of the CS2 RAW loader . I find it good enough for my uses. And the convenience of doing everything in one place outweighs any minor quality differences there might be.
JPEG / 8 bit doesn't have the bandwidth for slamming the color around too much so I usually work in 16 bit from the RAW files. "16 bits" really isn't as "accurate" as you might think simply because of how the linear output of the sensor is mapped up to your gamma corrected working color space / display. But it does carry a little extra data that would otherwise get thrown out. It's nice to hang on to that as long as possible. One good thing about working in larger color spaces like ProPhoto RGB is that less of the data is likely to be "rounded out" of even the 16 bits. Keep reading and it might start to make some sense... or none at all.
Here is break down of my process.
0. When shooting, "Expose to the right"
1. Copy RAWs to the computer on a card reader
2. Open RAW in CS2 RAW loader as 16bits/channel, ProPhoto RGB color space (it is the widest gamut color space that ships with Photoshop)
a. While in ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) I do the basic white balance and if required (as is usually the case when exposing to the right) exposure compensation.
3. Image is now in CS2
4. Edit image as required (Still in 16bits/channel, ProPhoto RGB)
5. After image editing is done I direct the output images as required.
a. Save a Photoshop format image with all data if required for later editing
b. CONVERT to sRGB THEN 8 bits per channel for web / modeles proofs
c. Convert to AdobeRGB or CMYK as per printers requirements (for print) You can leave it at 16 bits if you want. Or not. It depends on the printers pref.
The important thing to remember when working in a more advanced color space like ProPhoto is to make sure you re-map it to something usable by the target audience. The ProPhoto color space wont render correctly on 99% of most image viewers because they have no concept of color spaces. Also, 16Bits/Channel is complete overkill for almost all displays. You only need it as a working space to help reduce rounding error. And, depending on your camera, exposure, etc. the signal to noise is WAY worse the precision of 16bits anyway. You are sampling "noise" for no reason. You keep the extra bit depth around as long as possible mostly for the benefits to image processing. (less rounding error) And the slight improvement in capturing actual precision from the RAW file it gives. (There is some signal buried in that noise after all) It's often ok to throw out the extra bits once you are done with your editing. But not until you are done. It's a one way street. There is not much point in promoting 8 bit images to 16 bit because the precision is already gone.
Basically, I try to do all editing in 16bits/channel, ProPhotoRGB and only convert to the smaller gamut / bit depth as the very last step.
There you have it. All my secrets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)