ScottW's "test' results.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...1a6a791c4977bd

Hadn't thought that seven days was that long ago. Or this wasn't you.

Draco

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:57:21 -0400, michelo wrote:

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 27, 6:38 pm, D-Mac wrote:
Get it right in the camera and shooting (uncompressed) jpeg produces
pictures no different from RAW pictures that have undergone
manipulation during development.

Hey, old Ryadia is back! Spewing his tired old "JPG is equivalent to
RAW" nonsense.

Hey, D-Mac, here's a pic I made today just for you. It's actually two
versions of the same RAW file. The pic on the left is a straight JPG
extraction from the RAW file. The one on the right has undergone some
Photoshop processing. Both shots were cropped to square and re-sized
for the comparison.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76285735/original

I'll let you decide which version you prefer. Perhaps this explains why
your pics look the way they do.


Bret, I don't know if you have one already done, but could you show us
an example from a raw and jpg where you show how much more information
there is in the highlight and shadow. But to be a valid example, they
must have the same exposure and they should go thru the same Photoshop
manipulation to emphasize the lost information.

Thank you,

Michel
------------------
I wouldn't expect these zealots to do that Michel... BUT I WILL.
http://www.ryadia.com/rawjpeg-example.htm
The picture was constructed from simultaneously shot RAW and JPEG images.
Sorry it's not from a 20D Canon but these are the breaks when you live on
an Island and run your business on the mainland. I only have the
Panasonic with me.

To expect the three stooges and their Kiwi puppet to acknowledge that
what they've been force feeding everyone for years might actually be
wrong, is like expecting them to embrace the idea that photography is
about making photographs, not computer images.

Douglas

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:39:21 -0700, Draco wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...browse_thread/
thread/84018c9da529b702/aa1a6a791c4977bd?lnk=raot&hl=en#aa1a6a791c4977bd

Hadn't thought that seven days was that long ago. Or this wasn't you.

Draco

When I have to answer to the likes of you scoundrels for what I do and
where I go, you better get some warm clothes because hell will have
frozen over.

Colin_D wrote:
As for Teranews, I started to use them when my ISP - like a lot of
ISPs - decided to drop newsgroups, and I had to surf around for a
news server. Teranews gives me 50 MB per day free, where all other
servers I found wanted a minimum of $US 7.50 a month. The spoofed
address, like thousands of other posters do, is for spam protection,
nothing else. I get from none to maybe five or so spams max per day,
which is how I like it. And my post name has always been Colin D,
which as you well know is my real name, and the initial of my surname.

I did Teranews for awhile. Whenever they had a problem the free part
was let to slide while they fixed for paying customers first... which I
fully understand, of course, but I was impatient. I ended up paying
another server, but I forget exactly why I didn't stick with Teranews.

"D-Mac" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:57:21 -0400, michelo wrote:

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 27, 6:38 pm, D-Mac wrote:
Get it right in the camera and shooting (uncompressed) jpeg produces
pictures no different from RAW pictures that have undergone
manipulation during development.

Hey, old Ryadia is back! Spewing his tired old "JPG is equivalent to
RAW" nonsense.

Hey, D-Mac, here's a pic I made today just for you. It's actually two
versions of the same RAW file. The pic on the left is a straight JPG
extraction from the RAW file. The one on the right has undergone some
Photoshop processing. Both shots were cropped to square and re-sized
for the comparison.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76285735/original

I'll let you decide which version you prefer. Perhaps this explains why
your pics look the way they do.


Bret, I don't know if you have one already done, but could you show us
an example from a raw and jpg where you show how much more information
there is in the highlight and shadow. But to be a valid example, they
must have the same exposure and they should go thru the same Photoshop
manipulation to emphasize the lost information.

Thank you,

Michel
------------------
I wouldn't expect these zealots to do that Michel... BUT I WILL.
http://www.ryadia.com/rawjpeg-example.htm
The picture was constructed from simultaneously shot RAW and JPEG images.
Sorry it's not from a 20D Canon but these are the breaks when you live on
an Island and run your business on the mainland. I only have the
Panasonic with me.

To expect the three stooges and their Kiwi puppet to acknowledge that
what they've been force feeding everyone for years might actually be
wrong, is like expecting them to embrace the idea that photography is
about making photographs, not computer images.

Douglas

In theory, if you open both files to darken the white feathers and lighten
the black one, you should see that only the RAW picture reveal some details
because in the jpeg file the compression discarded it. That's the kind of
example I would like to see to give an idea of how much you can really
recover from a RAW file.

Michel

On Mar 28, 3:28 pm, D-Mac wrote:


Bret, I don't know if you have one already done, but could you show us
an example from a raw and jpg where you show how much more information
there is in the highlight and shadow. But to be a valid example, they
must have the same exposure and they should go thru the same Photoshop
manipulation to emphasize the lost information.

Thank you,

Michel

------------------
I wouldn't expect these zealots to do that Michel... BUT I WILL.http://www.ryadia.com/rawjpeg-example.htm

I believe he requested two pics with the same processing on each side.
Your comparison is a joke, right? More bait?


The picture was constructed from simultaneously shot RAW and JPEG images.
Sorry it's not from a 20D Canon but these are the breaks when you live on
an Island and run your business on the mainland. I only have the
Panasonic with me.

Those are the breaks when you only own a crappy Panasonic and have to
borrow the 20D or the 5D from relatives.

On Mar 28, 4:11 pm, "michelo" wrote:

In theory, if you open both files to darken the white feathers and lighten
the black one, you should see that only the RAW picture reveal some details
because in the jpeg file the compression discarded it. That's the kind of
example I would like to see to give an idea of how much you can really
recover from a RAW file.

Expecting a fair comparison from D-Mac is kinda like expecting a cow
to start squirting champagne.

On Mar 28, 10:11 am, "michelo" wrote:
"D-Mac" wrote in message

news




On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:57:21 -0400, michelo wrote:

"Annika1980" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Mar 27, 6:38 pm, D-Mac wrote:
Get it right in the camera and shooting (uncompressed) jpeg produces
pictures no different from RAW pictures that have undergone
manipulation during development.

Hey, old Ryadia is back! Spewing his tired old "JPG is equivalent to
RAW" nonsense.

Hey, D-Mac, here's a pic I made today just for you. It's actually two
versions of the same RAW file. The pic on the left is a straight JPG
extraction from the RAW file. The one on the right has undergone some
Photoshop processing. Both shots were cropped to square and re-sized
for the comparison.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76285735/original

I'll let you decide which version you prefer. Perhaps this explains why
your pics look the way they do.

Bret, I don't know if you have one already done, but could you show us
an example from a raw and jpg where you show how much more information
there is in the highlight and shadow. But to be a valid example, they
must have the same exposure and they should go thru the same Photoshop
manipulation to emphasize the lost information.

Thank you,

Michel
------------------
I wouldn't expect these zealots to do that Michel... BUT I WILL.
http://www.ryadia.com/rawjpeg-example.htm
The picture was constructed from simultaneously shot RAW and JPEG images.
Sorry it's not from a 20D Canon but these are the breaks when you live on
an Island and run your business on the mainland. I only have the
Panasonic with me.

To expect the three stooges and their Kiwi puppet to acknowledge that
what they've been force feeding everyone for years might actually be
wrong, is like expecting them to embrace the idea that photography is
about making photographs, not computer images.

Douglas

In theory, if you open both files to darken the white feathers and lighten
the black one, you should see that only the RAW picture reveal some details
because in the jpeg file the compression discarded it. That's the kind of
example I would like to see to give an idea of how much you can really
recover from a RAW file.Well have a look at this test I did with the 350D

With the 350D most of the gain in dynamic range is on the high end,
the highlights, but there is some worthwhile gain in the shadows as
well. Of course you can balance the gain but shooting a little more
exposure and loose some of the gains in the highlight and get more in
the shadows.

So here is a test I did, I shoot raw+jpeg and then converted the raw
image to a tiff, bringing in much of the blown highlights that were
lost in the jpeg.

This is the jpeg out of the camera.
http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_ra...rom_camera.JPG

This is the raw file for anyone who wants to play with it, size about
9.4 MB
http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/IMG_5477.CR2

This is the tiff that I got from the raw file, warning this is about
48 MB in size.
http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/ IMG_5477-1.tif

This is what the tiff looks like when converted to jpeg, this lets you
see the recovered highlights.
http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_ra...ed_to_jpeg.jpg

This is a section of the shadows from the jpeg image where I have
lightened it so you can see what detail have been captured and what
noise is in the image.
http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/jpeg_adjusted.jpg

This is the same section but this time I adjusted the tiff image,
saving as jpeg after the adjustments were made. Note this is some odd
aspects to the shadow area of the jpeg image that look better in the
tiff image.
http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/Tiff_adjusted.jpg

Scott

On Mar 28, 3:29 pm, D-Mac wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:39:21 -0700, Draco wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...browse_thread/

thread/84018c9da529b702/aa1a6a791c4977bd?lnk=raot&hl=en#aa1a6a791c4977bd



Hadn't thought that seven days was that long ago. Or this wasn't you.

Draco

When I have to answer to the likes of you scoundrels for what I do and
where I go, you better get some warm clothes because hell will have
frozen over.


Scoundrel? Hmmmm.

Sir, I have been nothing if nice to you and your rants. I understand
that your "buttons" had been pushed. I even defended your choice of
images and the way you "produced" them. And you call me a scoundrel?
Shame on you sir, shame.

If that wasn't you who said they were gone, then all you had to say
was, not me. I didn't post that thread. That would have been good
enough for me. Instead you attack and defame my good character with
your amaterurish attempts of being a boarish, over bearing oaf that
can not realize when he is being a huge pile of dung. Sir, from this
time on you are no longer worthy of any help.


Draco

Getting even isn't good enough.



Being better does.

There are two effects of jpg compression that you should be
able to see. The example that Bret posted sure showed the
dynamic range differences in brightness. Most of the raw
images in Canon SLR's (yeah Canon) sample at 12 bits
adding two stops to the dynamic range of the jpg .

The second effect is losses due to compression of the image
in a jpg. Some of the point and shoots 3 or 4 years ago
offered compression levels vs memory card size requirements.
Increasing the compression level loses detail in the image.
For example the tiny pinfeathers on a Downy or Hairy
Woodpeckers back get expanded as a essentially a
single color. This high frequency detail can not be restored
with any amount of sharpening.

w..





michelo wrote:

It's actually two
versions of the same RAW file. The pic on the left is a straight JPG
extraction from the RAW file. The one on the right has undergone some
Photoshop processing. Both shots were cropped to square and re-sized
for the comparison.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76285735/original

I'll let you decide which version you prefer. Perhaps this explains why
your pics look the way they do.


Bret, I don't know if you have one already done, but could you show us
an example from a raw and jpg where you show how much more information
there is in the highlight and shadow. But to be a valid example, they
must have the same exposure and they should go thru the same Photoshop
manipulation to emphasize the lost information.


In theory, if you open both files to darken the white feathers and lighten
the black one, you should see that only the RAW picture reveal some details
because in the jpeg file the compression discarded it. That's the kind of
example I would like to see to give an idea of how much you can really
recover from a RAW file.

Michel