Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 2012-12-01 07:00:16 -0800, Alfred Molon said:

In article , Alan Browne
says...
The in-camera JPEG conversion, however, is straight-jacketed and cannot
be corrected very much whereas the raw offers much more latitude to
correction, saturation, blackpoint setting and much, much more. The JPG
has thrown away too much info to allow very much correction (or for that
matter liberal manipulation).

And of course when you open the raw (say in ACR) you can open it "per
camera settings" so as a minimum you get a starting point similar to
what the in-camera JPG provides but without the limitations of the JPG.

I'm not disagreeing with what you or Savageduck are writing, but it
seems that we are talking past each other.

My point is that some cameras have very good JPEG engines, i.e. produce
very good JPEG output which needs no further optimisation in many cases.
Not in all cases obviously, which is why you should shoot RAW+JPEG.

I think that most of us recognize that, and your work demonstrates that
you are aware of what it takes to deal with problematic images.
However, I believe what most of what all of us have said in this
sub-thread has been for the benefit of "Gary Eickmeier", who is
complaining about the "time consuming RAW workflow, but is prepared to
add steps such as conversion of JPEG to TIFF and then returning to ACR
where he does not have the full benefit of a RAW file. Now if there was
ever a waste of time he using it. I would wager that if he actually did
a study of the two processes/workflows, the RAW workflow would waste
less time than the one he is currently employing.

Note that he is still processing his image files in PSE rather than
depending on the product of the camera JPEG engine. So any benefit of
time savings he would have had from taking his SD or CF card to a
printing service has evaporated.

He is just not thinking from the mindset held by a darkroom
photographer, be it the wet darkroom or the digital darkroom. In
another time he would have been using an Instamatic, 110, or Polaroid,
maybe even a decent 35mm, and would have been very happy with the
result he had been presented with from the processing service.
....and there is nothing wrong with that.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"PeterN" wrote in message
...

If you are happy with the results, fine. If you cannot see the difference,
fine. I create images for my enjoyment and hate JPEG artifacts. In my
workflow, RAW is better. If you prefer JPEG, so be it. Far be it for me to
dictate your taste.

If you have the need to get snippy about it, then you have other issues,
which I will not get involved with. I only say what I do and why. Enjoy
your images.

Hey, many people are happy working in an sRGB color space. I am not.
I frequently do my color adjustments using LAB, and will make 12 x 18
images of a portion of the image. While you can also do color adjustments
in the RGB color space, for me, it's easier in LAB. You obviously do not
feel the need to do make the type of images I do. There is simply not
enough information in a JPEG file. If I am wrong, and you care to share, I
am all ears.

I keep asking to see an example of the superiority of RAW. Well, maybe it is
not all that obvious in a normal, well-shot image. But would the most
critical test be a shot of a smooth gradation from black to white test
chart? Anyone have one? RAW should look smoother, JPG should look like it is
in steps.

Right?

Gary Eickmeier

"Alan Browne" wrote in message ...
On 2012.11.30 22:58 , Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I have used the a100 for over 5 years now, and now the a35. I use
both the Photoshop Elements RAW programs and ACR and Lightroom. But
if I ever could discern any big improvement with RAW, I would shudder
at the thought of going through all that processing for each and
every image I shot at a wedding. I do process all of the JPGs, but it
is a lot easier than going through all that RAW rigamarole.

What rigamarole? You open the raw. Get a raw import screen. Adjust
(and for most photos you can "finish" the look right there with 2
controls: exposure and black point). "Accept" the changes and you're in
your editor for cropping, re-sizing. Done.

Better, you can apply the same changes in 1 go to a lot of photos at
once. For example, if you took 25 photos in the same lighting
conditions but all of them are a little underexposed, need the
blackpoint pushed and the saturation boosted a little. "Open" the
bunch, select all, make the adjustments (using one as an example), and
the changes apply to all the images which are then opened in the editor.
(The above is using photoshop).

A whole bunch of time saved. Using Lightroom (or aperture or other 3rd
party programs) - as a wedding photographer is more likely to use, it
would be even easier. Faster.

Reward: Time saved, and a consistent look across the set.

What rigamarole?

Gary, believe me, all the issues you raise were solved a long time ago
making raw capture an immense payoff in processing time saved and image
quality improved well beyond what in-camera JPEG could ever do.

OK OK, you have converted me - maybe. But obviously there is on extra step or set of steps to go through for RAW before you get to Photoshop.

Just one teensy simple question - shooting in RAW (and I know I can shoot in RAW + JPG) but in the RAW exposure, what is the difference in the file between shooting with the wrong WB and the correct one? Do you not still have to shoot as good an exposure as humanly possible and get the WB correct? I know, for example, that if I screw up the WB in JPG I can get so far out that it is uncorrectable because the info is just not there to adjust. But how far can you take this with RAW?

Gary Eickmeier

"Alan Browne" wrote in message ...
On 2012.12.01 04:47 , Alfred Molon wrote:
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.

No. The editor (say photoshop) keeps an internal representation that is
(typically) 48 bits per pixel (3 x 16rgb) from the raw. (One can also
do 32 bit per colour if so inclined in PS).

From there when printing, the number of bits is reduced appropriately
by the editor, printer driver, the printer's firmware and finally the
printer hardware when laying down the pigment. This is all obfuscated
from the user's POV (though some configuration settings on some
printers/drivers allow a degree of visibility and control over it).

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.

The in-camera JPEG conversion, however, is straight-jacketed and cannot
be corrected very much whereas the raw offers much more latitude to
correction, saturation, blackpoint setting and much, much more. The JPG
has thrown away too much info to allow very much correction (or for that
matter liberal manipulation).

And of course when you open the raw (say in ACR) you can open it "per
camera settings" so as a minimum you get a starting point similar to
what the in-camera JPG provides but without the limitations of the JPG.

So shooting in RAW and processing in 16 bit etc is kind of like recording audio at the higher bitrates and manipulating everything with greater precision before converting back down to the 16/44 format for distribution on CD.

Right?

Gary Eickmeier

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

But you can't print a RAW image, you have to convert it to 8 bit colour
anyway.

wrong. you can easily print a raw image and you don't have to convert
it to a jpeg to do it. you can use 16 bit printing if your system
supports it.

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.

if you don't make any adjustments, the camera might be as good as a
default raw conversion on the computer, but once you start adjusting
things, working with raw will produce better results.

In article , David J.
Littleboy wrote:

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly work.
In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in white
light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know what
the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
confuse any AWB system.)

true, but there are ways to tell the difference.

for instance, if the light was pink then certain colours won't be
possible in a scene, and if you see any of those colours anywhere in
the scene, then you know the light is not pink.

there is a talk on how awb works somewhere on youtube that goes into
great detail about it, but i can't find the link.

In article , Alfred Molon
wrote:

My point is that some cameras have very good JPEG engines, i.e. produce
very good JPEG output which needs no further optimisation in many cases.
Not in all cases obviously, which is why you should shoot RAW+JPEG.

*if* you got everything right in the camera then you may not notice a
difference. buy a lottery ticket, while you're at it. you're lucky.

if you didn't get it perfect in the camera (which most people don't),
then you'll have to fix it later, even if it's minor, and that's where
the difference between raw & jpeg matters.

On 01/12/2012 15:32, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
[]
I keep asking to see an example of the superiority of RAW. Well, maybe it is
not all that obvious in a normal, well-shot image. But would the most
critical test be a shot of a smooth gradation from black to white test
chart? Anyone have one? RAW should look smoother, JPG should look like it is
in steps.

Right?

Gary Eickmeier

So take something which is three or four stops under-exposed, and try to
recover by increasing the gain of the JPEG image. You should see the
quantisation steps then. I try to get the exposure right in the camera...
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 2012.12.01 10:00 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Alan
Browne says...
The in-camera JPEG conversion, however, is straight-jacketed and
cannot be corrected very much whereas the raw offers much more
latitude to correction, saturation, blackpoint setting and much,
much more. The JPG has thrown away too much info to allow very
much correction (or for that matter liberal manipulation).

And of course when you open the raw (say in ACR) you can open it
"per camera settings" so as a minimum you get a starting point
similar to what the in-camera JPG provides but without the
limitations of the JPG.

I'm not disagreeing with what you or Savageduck are writing, but it
seems that we are talking past each other.

My point is that some cameras have very good JPEG engines, i.e.
produce very good JPEG output which needs no further optimisation in
many cases.

I'm not ignoring what you have said.

For us here (generally amateurs with an interest in quality output) raw
makes more sense to get more out of every photo taken via our expensive
lenses and camera bodies.

For DSLR's (and other higher end, large sensor, good glass, non-DSLR
cameras) shooting JPEG only is throwing away the quality advantages of
the camera/sensor and lens.

Like playing a high dynamic range/wide&rich spectrum performance via a
128 kb/s MP3 audio file into a high end tube amplifier with high end
loud speakers. Wasteful (not that most people can hear the difference a
tube amp makes even with the best source ... I digress).

Not in all cases obviously, which is why you should shoot RAW+JPEG.

As I pointed out before, when you have a particular workflow centered
around quality (which begins at capture) then JPEG is not only not
necessary it becomes an additional burden. The JPEG takes up more room
on the card as well. What do you do with it if you don't use it? Might
as well not have it at all.

The only instance where JPEG would be of interest to a professional
photographer is where speed is of the essence (Photojournalism, event,
school and "mall" photographers). In those cases JPEG is helpful in all
senses. It's ready, it's a smaller file (faster work, faster transmission).

So in-camera JPEG is a waste of time, generally, as the final product
will always come from the raw flow.

I have nothing against in-camera JPEG. It's just not useful to me.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

On 2012-12-01 07:23:56 -0800, "Gary Eickmeier" said:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
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.

OK OK, I understand the theory of it all, but if I were fired up again about
RAW and went out and took a few shots in moth RAW and JPG and tried to show
myself this superiority, I would once again come up empty.

Can someone out there who has such an illustrative example of the VISIBLE
superiority of RAW please post a link?

Gary Eickmeier

Nobody is saying that JPEG only isn't going to be adequate in many
cases, but you are justifying your rejection of RAW based upon your
particular prejudice to that particular workflow. In doing that you are
rejecting a major benefit of shooting with a camera which offers you
the feature of RAW capture.

In this group many of us shoot RAW only, and only occasionally
RAW+JPEG, so asking for those comparison shots is going to be tough. In
my case JPEGs I produce are products of my RAW workflow.

If all you are going to do is compare images on a computer display, for
most decently exposed images you are not going to see a great
difference for many reasons not related to photography, but to the
properties of a display. However if you have a problematic image with
contrast issues with detail in shadows and such you will benefit
greatly by starting with the RAW file, but that is with the caveat that
you are going to have to take the trouble to learn and understand what
can be done with that file in ACR and PSE or CS5/6, or any other
software.

If you are happy with your JPEGs then carry on, but don't try to BS
some of the old farts in this room.


--
Regards,

Savageduck