If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On 2012-11-30 21:19:56 -0800, "Trevor" said:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... "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 do these all the time with JPG. I said do you have an example photo, not wives tale. Right, you can do anything with Jpeg that you can do with RAW, as long as image quality is irrelevant to you. Do you even own a DSLR? Trevor. There are a few more things that you can do with a RAW file which you cannot do with a JPEG. The first of these is apply camera and/or lens profiles. You can correct CA and fringing far more effectively than any such correction you could apply to JPEGs. There is so much more. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On 2012-11-30 21:41:04 -0800, "Gary Eickmeier" said:
"nospam" wrote in message ... 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. Interesting you said that - I stumbled upon a function of Elements that sorta converted any JPG into a RAW file and allowed you to edit it the same as any RAW image. Do you know what I mean? Gary Eickmeier You can bring a JPEG back into ACR and apply some ACR adjustments, but not all, you should note that there are some areas of adjustment that are not available to the already lossy 8-bit JPEG. There is no way to convert the JPEG into a 16-bit RAW file and restore missing information. If you believe that, you are ignorant of the nature of the file types and the operation of ACR. Converting the JPEG to a TIF can suspend the state of degradation, but information has already been lost. You have not converted a JPEG into a RAW file. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On 2012-11-30 21:45:05 -0800, "Gary Eickmeier" said:
"Trevor" wrote in message ... "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. I know what they mean by "non destructively" - that all of the edits are saved in layers and can be undone at all times. But all I am saying is that I do not edit on my JPGs and then save it back to the same JPG file I started with - I save it as a new file, a TIFF, so that the original is still there. Gary Eickmeier By starting with a JPEG you have already lost information, all you have done by saving as a TIFF is to suspend further degradation. If you are making that conversion, you have an inefficient workflow. It is far better to start with a 16-Bit full data, RAW file to adjust, than an 8-Bit TIFF which is already missing data created from an 8-Bit JPEG. You need to educate yourself with regard to file types and how various processes effect them. You are functioning under an incredible cloud of misinformation. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On 2012-11-30 22:10:17 -0800, nospam said:
In article , Gary Eickmeier wrote: 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. Interesting you said that - I stumbled upon a function of Elements that sorta converted any JPG into a RAW file and allowed you to edit it the same as any RAW image. Do you know what I mean? if you mean opening a jpeg in camera raw, that is *not* converting it to raw, it just lets you use the camera raw controls, but on jpeg. ....and not all of them. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:45:05 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote: "Trevor" wrote in message ... "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. I know what they mean by "non destructively" - that all of the edits are saved in layers and can be undone at all times. But all I am saying is that I do not edit on my JPGs and then save it back to the same JPG file I started with - I save it as a new file, a TIFF, so that the original is still there. I'm sorry Gary, but the original was the raw file. It is inherent in the nature of JPEGs that as soon as you save in that format you lose image data. http://zatz.com/connectedphotographe...n-jpeg-images/ explains it reasonably well but only recognizes the existence of RAW files of up to 12 bits. For several years there have been cameras of up to 14 bits. It is correct that as described in the article there are 16 bit JPEG files. The only problem is that only a very limited range of software is capable of reading them. In short, if you have a good camera you are restricting its capabilities by using JPEG. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:41:04 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote: "nospam" wrote in message .. . 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. Interesting you said that - I stumbled upon a function of Elements that sorta converted any JPG into a RAW file and allowed you to edit it the same as any RAW image. Do you know what I mean? Yes, but saving it in a raw file look-alike format can't restore the information that was lost in the original transformation from raw to a JPEG file. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On 01/12/2012 04:14, Trevor wrote:
[] Big improvement, like 12-14 bits Vs 8bit files for a start! Jpeg ALWAYS throws away dynamic range. Just like I don't throw away my film negatives, I don't throw away the digital "negatives" either. What you choose to do is is up to you of course. [] Trevor. The dynamic range of the 8-bit gamma-corrected JPEG is actually greater than 12-14 bit RAW, but its precision is less. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On 01/12/2012 04:19, Trevor wrote:
[] You're kidding right? A top end camera that does 14 bits RAW loses far more than 1.5 stops when saving to an 8 bit file! AND you don't have control over the default curve applied that stops you losing the full 6 stops!!! Trevor. False, because the RAW has a linear encoding, and the JPEG a gamma-corrected coding, meaning that is can represent light levels far lower than 1/256 of the white value. It's /not/ a simple 8-bit versus 14-bit comparison. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
In article 2012113023043436098-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says... There are a few more things that you can do with a RAW file which you cannot do with a JPEG. The first of these is apply camera and/or lens profiles. You can correct CA and fringing far more effectively than any such correction you could apply to JPEGs. There is so much more. But some cameras have very good JPEG engines and are very good at nailing down the white balance. With such cameras you only need to process the RAW in a small percentage of cases. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
In article , Trevor says...
Big improvement, like 12-14 bits Vs 8bit files for a start! Jpeg ALWAYS throws away dynamic range. Just like I don't throw away my film negatives, I don't throw away the digital "negatives" either. What you choose to do is is up to you of course. But you can't print a RAW image, you have to convert it to 8 bit colour anyway. Your assumption is that you are better at converting to JPEG than the camera is. That may be the case, but very often, obviously also depending on the camera, the camera is very good as well. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sony: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots | Bertram Paul | Digital Photography | 28 | June 2nd 09 03:27 PM |
Sony: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots | Bertram Paul | Digital SLR Cameras | 29 | June 2nd 09 03:27 PM |
any digital infrared shooters? sony | joe mama | Digital Photography | 4 | August 31st 06 02:14 PM |
IDIOTS. COMPLETE IDIOTS | Ret Radd | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 6th 05 05:56 AM |
IDIOTS. COMPLETE IDIOTS-Like Ray Fischer | Dennis D. Carter | Digital Photography | 0 | February 5th 05 12:36 PM |