Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

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.

the processing is the same. add photos to a decent photo app such as
lightroom and adjust the image as needed. in fact, processing raw is
exactly the same as jpeg, with generally much better results.

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?

not usually.

On 11/28/2012 10:24 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"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. Just not real intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

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?

Gary Eickmeier


Make a few tests for yourself. Look carefully and color rendition and
decide.

--
Peter

On 2012.11.28 22:24 , Gary Eickmeier wrote:

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

Except that shooting JPEG straightjackets you wrt editing latitude and
corrections. With the right tools (such as Photoshop) raw is not only
easy - but ACR import corrections (black point, contrast, exposure,
light temperature/tint, etc.) are all you need to take good looking
images to great.

And if you make a white balance error (say shooting outdoor when the WB
was set to incandescent lamp) you'll simply never completely correct
that image. With raw it's a perfect correction - just set the color
temp (and tint) appropriately.

There is a learning curve. But all good things have a learning curve
and that one is not very steep.

Another way of looking at it is that shooting JPEG on a DSLR is throwing
away a large part of the advantages of the DSLR: high gain antenna
(lens) and large sensor area (low noise). Saving JPEG throws away much
of the information that you've gained. Waste of money, wot.

Like buying an expensive tube amplifier and high end speakers and
playing MP3's to it compressed to 56 kb/s.

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

Sensors have a "natural" gain point which is the least noisy. For Sony
sensors (found in many cameras) that point is around ISO 160. At that
point no analog gain is applied. (If you examine the noise plots at
dpreview you'll see what ISO is least noisy for your camera).

So if the shot can be made at that ISO without blowing highlights (at
least not over a significant amount of the image) then you will have the
"least noisy" image in most cases.

As a "check", if the exposure will be 1 s or more, then you may be
shooting at too low an ISO where noise control is concerned.

From there, increasing the ISO to the point where analog gain ends and
digital gain begins, noise will not be too bad, esp over the first 3 or
4 EV or so. (eg: up to ~ ISO 1600-3200. Maybe more with latest model
cameras).

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

"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"?

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

Gary Eickmeier

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

"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"?

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

Along with what nospam just said, just do the math: RAW has maybe 15-20 MB
files. JPG has 4-5 MB files. RAW is starting with a lot more data.

"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...

In article , Tim Conway
wrote:

Along with what nospam just said, just do the math: RAW has maybe 15-20 MB
files. JPG has 4-5 MB files. RAW is starting with a lot more data.

file size doesn't mean much.

what matters is if the file has more information, which raw does. jpeg
is lossy and it throws out information.

anyone can pad a file to make it larger or compress it to make it
smaller.

In article , Tim Conway
wrote:

btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...

the clock is not wrong.

the problem is some apps cache the time zone (which is beyond stupid)
so when the time zone changes, the time the app has is wrong, despite
the computer having the correct time. it's a bug. i reset it.

On 11/30/12 12:53 PM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

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.

You clock is wrong, despite your reset still. You post is dated 12:53 CST
where I am, yet it is only 12:43CST.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:27:14 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tim Conway
wrote:

Along with what nospam just said, just do the math: RAW has maybe 15-20 MB
files. JPG has 4-5 MB files. RAW is starting with a lot more data.

file size doesn't mean much.

what matters is if the file has more information, which raw does. jpeg
is lossy and it throws out information.

anyone can pad a file to make it larger or compress it to make it
smaller.

Try compressing a JPG.

W