Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
 

On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
ones, is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


--
Peter

Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
 

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.

Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
 

On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.

Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the
PSD.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
 

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012113015240037335-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5
stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different
editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.

Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD.

I guess that's what I meant ot say....the PSD rather than the PCD. I
usually use neither, just the RAW to TIF or RAW straight to JPG.
Tim

Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
 

On 11/30/2012 4:07 PM, Tim Conway wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.



Non-destructive editing is among the reasons I use smart objects and I
also make extensive use of layers.

--
Peter

Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
 

On 11/30/2012 6:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5
stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different
editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.

Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD.

PSD is a proprietary form of TIFF.


--
Peter

Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
 

On 11/30/2012 5:15 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:07:55 -0500, "Tim Conway"
wrote:


"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.


Maybe that's why you're having problems, Tim. Those PCD files are so
destructive that the choice to use them has been destroyed.



The use of personal Communication Devices is a fast growing field.

--
Peter

Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
 

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.

You can edit anything non-destructively. Keep trying.

Gary Eickmeier

Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
 

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"PeterN" wrote in message
One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.

You can edit anything non-destructively.

Right, but you can't save it back to Jpeg non destructively, so why start
with a lossy Jpeg in the first place?
I can't see the point myself since you can easily set up PS or LR to
automaticly apply your camera settings when you open a RAW file if that's
all you want to do. If I really needed to print direct from the camera I can
save RAW+Jpeg, never do though.

Trevor.

Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
 

In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.

You can edit anything non-destructively. Keep trying.

except that jpeg is already destructive.

you can edit non-destructively from that point on, but you can't undo
what was done to make the jpeg.