Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 2012.12.01 17:12 , Alfred Molon wrote:

At 1 or 2 minutes per RAW conversion, if you process 200 RAW images,
it's 3-6 hours of work to process 200 images. It's a tedious time,
because you are in front of a computer screen playing around with the
sliders, wondering how much you should increase or decrease this or that
parameter.

Assume that 10% of images are worth some work in the editor (potential
keepers), then only 20 will need to be processed in ACR. Often that's
about 30 seconds to adjust 2 or 3 paramaters. Often that one setting
can be applied to several, many or most - if not all of the images in
the set.

No time at all.

Without any raw processing at all I can still review all of the 200
images (I use Bridge, others use Lightroom, Aperture, etc.) without
needing any raw conversion at all.

All this painful work, and in 60-90% of cases you end up with an image
which is not better than the camera JPEG (this percentage of course
depends on the scene - there are scenes with difficult lighting
conditions, where less camera JPEGs will be usable).

It's funny how you bring up terms like "painful" which may apply to you
but don't seem to apply to most people discussing this here.

As to workflow, simplification is always better - so shoot one format
only and save card space.

--
"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 20:04 , Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I think you are the only intelligent one here. As you have pointed out, it
has to go back to 8 bit before it becomes a useful image anyway, in which
case it would be indistinguishable from th RAW processed image.

Molon is like you: seeking excuses online rather than setting up a
consistent quality workflow.

The fact that a final output of a workflow from raw _may_ be an 8 bit
image has nothing to do with how it got there. If you start with JPEG
to get to that end point you have less to work with.

With raw you have more to work with from beginning to end - as
laboriously explained by others and myself.

You really have to stop looking for excuses and start really
understanding raw from the POV of using it, processing it and learning
the advantages rather than hunting down usenet fallacies to excuse it
out of hand.


--
"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 20:12 , Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Sorry. How is this? There is a neat fix for this problem with Outlook
Express, and I found it, but don't always use the correct icon to open the
program. So last time, I simply converted it to rich test so I could bold my
response to show the difference.


Whatever, it seems correct above. Outlook has a poor history where
usenet is concerned (MS refuse to follow comment and signature
conventions). There are several compliant newsreaders - Thunderbird
being one of them (and free).



--
"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 20:13 , nospam wrote:
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I didn't say that I was "employing " a procedure of going from JPG to RAW
and back again. I said that I noticed one time that there was such a
function, isn't that interesting.

there was *never* a function to go back to raw. it's not possible.

There is 3 party s/w to make a raw from a JPEG. Of course that does not
imply higher quality (it can't), nor faithful re-allocation of the
Bayer-RGB levels from the RGB pixels (it can't).

there is a function to process jpegs in camera raw, the same way you
would process raws, however.

Yes.


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

In article , Alfred Molon
wrote:

But if you shoot RAW only, the camera each time you broese through an
image has to do a RAW to JPEG conversion = additional power
consumption.

no it doesn't. it uses the embedded jpeg.

On 2012.12.02 09:24 , John A. wrote:

facebook or the like. But for anything I care anything about I'll
process the raw, usually selecting an appropriate WB preset according
to the light source and/or aesthetics. (For example, on a sunny day in
mottled light under tree canopy I often prefer a "sunlight" preset WB
to let the green cast of the leaves come through and preserve the
atmosphere of the shot.)

Magical light. Some (and AWB) would select shade and end up with a dull
looking forest scene...

A friend of mine used to mix in some tungsten film while in the sunny
arctic to exaggerate the blue in shadows and ice. Dramatic (usually
shot this on a Pentax 67 resulting in very rich slides).

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

On 2012.12.02 10:57 , tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 09:37:53 -0500, Alan Browne

You really have to stop looking for excuses and start really
understanding raw from the POV of using it, processing it and learning
the advantages rather than hunting down usenet fallacies to excuse it
out of hand.

No, Alan, he doesn't have to do that at all. That's the method - or
workflow - that you and I prefer, but there's no reason at all that we
should impose that requirement on anyone else.

I did not say he had to adopt the workflow. I said to understand it
properly he has to try it. Otherwise stop claiming there is no
advantage to it via looking for excuses in what one person (Molon) says
v. the majority of photographers here.

In this thread he asked (several times) for us to show him raw v. JPEG
photos to see the difference.

My (and other's) retort has been: do it yourself - that's the only way
to discover it properly.

In the meantime he's only spouting excuses on the one side while
studiously ignoring the other. If he sincerely tries it and really
finds no advantages for himself, fine. To date his search is to find
reasons (excuses) to avoid it entirely without testing it.

Anyway, I'm done with this particular "poster" (may be a "t" in there
that shouldn't).

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

On 2012-12-02 08:20:42 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012.12.02 10:57 , tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 09:37:53 -0500, Alan Browne

You really have to stop looking for excuses and start really
understanding raw from the POV of using it, processing it and learning

the advantages rather than hunting down usenet fallacies to excuse it
out of hand.

No, Alan, he doesn't have to do that at all. That's the method - or
workflow - that you and I prefer, but there's no reason at all that we
should impose that requirement on anyone else.

I did not say he had to adopt the workflow. I said to understand it
properly he has to try it. Otherwise stop claiming there is no
advantage to it via looking for excuses in what one person (Molon) says
v. the majority of photographers here.

Yup! If what he is currently doing is to his satisfaction, he should do
as he pleases. However he should not make ridiculous, claims in the
face of the experience of others using a decent RAW workflow.

In this thread he asked (several times) for us to show him raw v. JPEG
photos to see the difference.

My (and other's) retort has been: do it yourself - that's the only way
to discover it properly.

My point in at least one of my responses was, there are many of us who
shoot RAW only, and very seldom RAW+JPEG, and almost never JPEG only,
iPhone excepted. So we wouldn't have the "camera processed" JPEG
anyway. 99% of my JPEG output is a result processing the only original,
a RAW file. I spend little to no more time on my RAW workflow than I
did with JPEGs.

Batch processing available via Bridge and Lightroom can be a great time
saver. Also, now that I am using LR4 with the 2012 ACR engine, I find
the entire process transparent, almost as if I am not thinking RAW or
JPEG, I am just processing my image. Then if I need, or want to I can
always edit the result in CS5, or use any of the NIK plugins I have,
which function seamlessly with LR4 & CS5.

Gary is still the only one in this room who can make an evaluative
comparison of the two workflows to make his choice. Like you, I feel he
is foolish to reject one of the major features leading to better final
IQ, which he has already paid for in his camera.

In the meantime he's only spouting excuses on the one side while
studiously ignoring the other. If he sincerely tries it and really
finds no advantages for himself, fine. To date his search is to find
reasons (excuses) to avoid it entirely without testing it.

Anyway, I'm done with this particular "poster" (may be a "t" in there
that shouldn't).


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Alfred Molon
wrote:

But if you shoot RAW only, the camera each time you broese through an
image has to do a RAW to JPEG conversion = additional power
consumption.

no it doesn't. it uses the embedded jpeg.

In any case, you can easily see whether you have blown out the highlights,
exposed too low for a healthy image, or got the WB or focus screwed up. With
my Live View I can see most of this before exposure, in the LCD or in the
viewfinder.

Gary Eickmeier

On 12/1/12 7:51 PM, in article ,
"tony cooper" wrote:

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 19:23:26 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote:


"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 11/30/12 11:52 PM, in article , "Gary
Eickmeier" wrote:

You're kidding, right? I am ignorant, but you are shooting digital 6
stops
off?

Gary Eickmeier



And *you* have never misread a meter? Never accidently set the shutter
speed
incorrectly? The aperture always correct? Forgot to set the correct ISO?

Oh, WAIT: I forgot that doesn't happen when shooting in auto-eveything
mode

We're talking digital here. You see your results as soon as you press the
button.

Gary Eickmeier

Actually, you don't. You see an approximation of the shot as
displayed by the camera, but that is not necessarily the way the shot
will look. Especially, if one shoots RAW.


Shhhh! If he thinks it is, so be it - in *his* world!

Aren't 'chimps' wonderfully ignorant?