Convergence, what an ugly word. But it's here....

"RichA" wrote in message
...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ers/vg10.shtml


And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect. A
device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:40:59 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ers/vg10.shtml


And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect. A
device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?

Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able to
do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide such
good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera that
does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.

If only all those DSLRs would do a proper RAW to JPG conversion, we
wouldn't have fools like you consistently and wrongly waving the
unnecessary RAW banner. But wait, you'd still do it. Why? Because, you
don't know how to use any camera properly to get the right exposure and
white-balance in the first place. Yes, you're just that lame. Keep
admitting it by screaming the non-existent virtues of RAW.

On 8/23/2010 6:51 AM, ron_tom wrote:


Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able to
do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide such
good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera that
does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.



Such things really exist? How does the camera know what dodging and burning in to do
on the 14 bit image before the JPEG conversion?

Ansel Adams

"ron_tom" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:40:59 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ers/vg10.shtml


And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect. A
device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?

Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able
to
do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide such
good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera
that
does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.

I can also spot a troll a mile away...

You're either a troll or someone with no clue when it comes to shooting and
processing raw files.


If only all those DSLRs would do a proper RAW to JPG conversion, we
wouldn't have fools like you consistently and wrongly waving the
unnecessary RAW banner. But wait, you'd still do it. Why? Because, you
don't know how to use any camera properly to get the right exposure and
white-balance in the first place. Yes, you're just that lame. Keep
admitting it by screaming the non-existent virtues of RAW.

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 8/23/2010 6:51 AM, ron_tom wrote:


Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able
to
do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide
such
good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera
that
does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.



Such things really exist? How does the camera know what dodging and
burning in to do
on the 14 bit image before the JPEG conversion?

the guy is either a troll or just horribly uninformed. My money's on troll.

ron_tom wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:40:59 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ers/vg10.shtml

And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect. A
device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?

Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able to
do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide such
good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera that
does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.

If only all those DSLRs would do a proper RAW to JPG conversion, we
wouldn't have fools like you consistently and wrongly waving the
unnecessary RAW banner. But wait, you'd still do it. Why? Because, you
don't know how to use any camera properly to get the right exposure and
white-balance in the first place. Yes, you're just that lame. Keep
admitting it by screaming the non-existent virtues of RAW.


http://www.creativetechs.com/iq/tip_...eRemover-1.png

BugBear

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:20:30 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

ron_tom wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:40:59 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ers/vg10.shtml

And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect. A
device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?

Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able to
do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide such
good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera that
does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.

If only all those DSLRs would do a proper RAW to JPG conversion, we
wouldn't have fools like you consistently and wrongly waving the
unnecessary RAW banner. But wait, you'd still do it. Why? Because, you
don't know how to use any camera properly to get the right exposure and
white-balance in the first place. Yes, you're just that lame. Keep
admitting it by screaming the non-existent virtues of RAW.


http://www.creativetechs.com/iq/tip_...eRemover-1.png

BugBear

I shot a better one. No RAW required. High-level JPG degradation
intentional to entertain all you know-nothing trolls and thieves.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4123/4919840409_929f0e1524_z.jpg

See, I know all about trolls like you. I even know how to photograph them
properly.

(For those that have never been there, yes, that's a real VW Beetle.)

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:03:33 -0400, John A. wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:57:51 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:



"ron_tom" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:40:59 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ers/vg10.shtml


And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect. A
device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?

Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able
to
do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide such
good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera
that
does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.

I can also spot a troll a mile away...

You're either a troll or someone with no clue when it comes to shooting and
processing raw files.

It's the infamous "P&S Troll". It's been hanging around here for quite
a while. It changes names a lot, and probably also uses sock puppets
via Google groups, etc. Its primary objective is to promote P&S
cameras over DSLRs and anything else clearly superior. It frequently
calls the regular on-topic posters "trolls" or "resident trolls" but
sometimes switches voices or even posts semi-coherent googled info to
fish in the unwary and uninitiated.

My, what valuable information that is about RAW and JPG image formats. It's
so informative about the subjects of cameras and photography. Only an
off-topic, thread-hijacking, pretend-photographer TROLL would ever think of
posting something that wasn't related to the topic at hand.

John A." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:57:51 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:



"ron_tom" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:40:59 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ers/vg10.shtml


And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect.
A
device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?

Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able
to
do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide
such
good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera
that
does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.

I can also spot a troll a mile away...

You're either a troll or someone with no clue when it comes to shooting
and
processing raw files.

It's the infamous "P&S Troll". It's been hanging around here for quite
a while. It changes names a lot, and probably also uses sock puppets
via Google groups, etc. Its primary objective is to promote P&S
cameras over DSLRs and anything else clearly superior. It frequently
calls the regular on-topic posters "trolls" or "resident trolls" but
sometimes switches voices or even posts semi-coherent googled info to
fish in the unwary and uninitiated.

the vision of "comic book guy" comes to mind when it shows up here. Fat,
stupid, never leaves it's parent's basement.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:02:53 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , John A. says...
It's the infamous "P&S Troll".

Cannot be. There are P&S cameras with RAW mode.

Whoever, or whatever it is is of no importance to me. Just another
loser, really.