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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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