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

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"

wrote:


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


Then you never shot with a Sony a100!!

It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the
camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process
every
single pic I took...

My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only
advantage to
using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play
with the
extra light range that RAW gives you.

The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes with
the
camera is barely adequate, you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or
something
to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations) Raw
can
be 14 bits (16,000 graduations).

Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to
over-expose
digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if you
don't
shoot raw, you can't do either.

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.

Gary Eickmeier

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

Even so, I find a good modern DSLR shooting RAW has just as much
lattitude as color neg film by simply dialing down exposure a stop or so
to take advantage of the lower noise. Obviously the exposure lattitude
favours overexposure for neg film, and underexposure for digital (and
slide film)

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it.

Your choice, those of us that did film developing find it FAR easier :-)


Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real improvement
over simpler JPEG.

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.


I have often wondered if shooting a lower ISO is equivalent to shooting a
higher one and adjusting exposure down by a couple of stops. Same image on
the pixels, right?

Nope, increasing ISO increases noise.

Trevor.

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , Trevor says...
So you think they deliberately developed a camera they don't want to
sell?

No, they want to enter a market without cannibalising their core
business.

How exactly do you "enter a market" without selling anything?

Trevor.

"Anthony Polson" wrote in message
...
"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"?

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.

"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.

In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

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.

nobody said you can't do it in jpeg. of course you can.

the point is the results from jpeg will be worse than if you were
working with raw, and since the workflow is same, there is no point in
*not* using raw.

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.

In article , 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 say you have lightroom, so import the raws and adjust as desired.
the workflow is identical to jpegs and the results are a lot better.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"

wrote:


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


Then you never shot with a Sony a100!!

It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the
camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process
every
single pic I took...

My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only
advantage to
using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play
with the
extra light range that RAW gives you.

The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes with
the
camera is barely adequate,

Right, Nikon want to sell you better software for more money. But any
serious photographer is probably already using PS or LR, so RAW is no
problem.


you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or something
to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations) Raw
can
be 14 bits (16,000 graduations).

Exactly, maybe even 16 bits when sensor technology gets there. I doubt too
many people are buying D800's now to *only* shoot RAW, let alone anything
better though.


Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to
over-expose
digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if you
don't
shoot raw, you can't do either.

Actually you don't want to "over-expose" digital or you get white clipping.
You DO need to shoot RAW so you get as much shadow detail as possible
without clipping the whites.
Of course if you image is low DNR and image quality is totally irrelevent,
shooting Jpeg is not an issue.

Trevor.