ScottW's "test' results.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:45:16 -0700, Frank ess wrote:

Walter Banks wrote:
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.


I think the question answered by Bret's example is not the best one that
could be asked:
"Given the power of Photoshop and the skills of an accomplished
operator, what discernable difference is there between a processed
best-quality JPEG image and from a raw file of the same subject made by
the same equipment?"

Show us your Web-ready best /via/ both flows?


Frank...
Fulfilling your request would require Bret to back down on his earlier
totally wrong and falsified statements and Bret won't ever do that.
Ask some else.

Douglas

On Mar 29, 5:14 pm, D-Mac wrote:
What???
You actually didn't know?
****... Chattanooga's biggest know-it-all smart-arse didn't know
something as basic as this yet in a post a little earlier you tried to
preach to me about file knowledge... What a **** wit.

That's the difference between you and me. If I don't understand
something I look it up. You just keep blathering on and on about it
looking like a fool.

Intelligence isn't knowing the answers to everything.
Intelligence is the ability to find the correct answers.
Ignorance is either not caring about the correct answers or believing
that you already know everything. That would be you, D-Mac.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:19:43 -0700, JimKramer wrote:

On Mar 29, 10:35 am, "michelo" wrote:
"JimKramer" wrote in message


First, there is nothing wrong with being wrong, everyone is ignorant
about something. Stupid on the other hand is incurable and afflicts far
too many... :-)

That is mostly correct; the camera upped the contrast and threw away the
info at the bottom of that tonal range. It is gone; there is no way to
get that detail back. With RAW you decide what you keep or discard, you
have the choice, not just the camera.



Jim... I prefaced my OP with the presumption that if you set up your
camera for JPEG capture, the results will be as good as or better than
when shooting RAW and doing the setting in software after the shoot.

My Canon cameras are considerable different in how they handle JPEGS than
my Olympus cameras but none the less, custom functions are there for
these sort of preparations. I have only ever shot 1 event in RAW with an
Olympus camera. All 5 of them now only ever capture in JPEG although I
frequently switch between both formats with Canon cameras.

I'll also say that a camera configured for best RAW results can never
capture JPEGs with best results so anyone taking 'Siamese' images will
not obtain accurate JPEGS if they intended to produce best RAW results
and vise-versa.

If you use a Canon 10D, 20/30D, 0r higher DSLR and it's configured for
RAW capture, you'll always notice clipping at 0.09 instead of the 0.01
they are capable of producing. This would result in your observation.

This thread is now beginning to deteriorate into a "mine's better than
yours" event when what I originally intended was to compel Scott to
justify his God awful attempt at discrediting JPEGs.

Many people overlook the single image format which is responsible for the
digital revolution just so they can gain power over the camera in the
(false) belief they can make critical judgments after the capture and get
"better" results.

So... The time has come (again) the walrus said... To bid you farewell
(again) as I set sail for my home on Tangalooma at 10:00 hours GMT+ 10
hours. Anyone interested can see Ryadia under spinnaker a she leaves the
mouth of Brisbane river in a couple of hours!

Douglas

On Mar 27, 12:38 pm, D-Mac wrote:
What goes around comes around.

Either Scott deliberately forged the jpeg picture he used in his "tests"
gallery on Pbase or he really needs to take a lesson or two in
photography.

Normally I wouldn't say anything about this sort of thing but this really
is over the top. You only blow the highlights when shooting jpeg if you
don't set your camera up for jpeg capture. To use a camera set up for RAW
data capture in an attempt to demonstrate (degrade) jpeg as a means of
capture is a sure way to show your ignorance of photography and cameras.

As little as 6 years ago it was vital to take a correctly exposed
picture. When there was doubt, bracket your shots. Scott demonstrates in
his "test" gallery that whilst he is one of the first to slam into me, he
really doesn't know what he's doing in the first place. Just another
lightweight looking to get a few cheap shots in on me.

RAW capture allows you to decide many options at development that may not
have been a choice at the shoot time. It also slows down the process of
printing photographs. It does not - in itself produce pictures any better
technically than shooting in jpeg mode.

Get it right in the camera and shooting (uncompressed) jpeg produces
pictures no different from RAW pictures that have undergone manipulation
during development. The camera's computer is programed to develop the
sensor data. Whether it then records that processed data as an image file
or raw file, does not alter the quality of the picture with UNCOMPRESSED
jpegs.

Scott. Either do some reading of the manual or stop posting photos you've
deliberately manipulated to make one form of capture look worse than it
should to prop up your idea of the right form.

Douglas
What is funny on all of this is that D-Mac has brought up test images
that I put up May of last year. Just why he wanted to try and make a
stink about this subject now I don't now. And for the record I was a
digital news group that I posted the links to the photos to, not this
one. Here is the original thread were I posted the links.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...l.slr-systems/
browse_frm/thread/de2892904e6aea69

This was the first trip where my wife and I both shoot all raw, which
is the only mode we shoot in since this trip. We were shooting with a
lot of snow and ice, and often with out much time to get the shots set
up as we were on a moving boat. I for some of the shots I had set the
camera to auto bracket mode but on converting the raw file I found
that this was not really needed.

Since that trip I have come to love raw mode even more and have found
a host of other reasons to use it beyond recovering blow highlights.

Scott

On Mar 29, 5:52 pm, D-Mac wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:19:43 -0700, JimKramer wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:35 am, "michelo" wrote:
"JimKramer" wrote in message

First, there is nothing wrong with being wrong, everyone is ignorant
about something. Stupid on the other hand is incurable and afflicts far
too many... :-)

That is mostly correct; the camera upped the contrast and threw away the
info at the bottom of that tonal range. It is gone; there is no way to
get that detail back. With RAW you decide what you keep or discard, you
have the choice, not just the camera.

Jim... I prefaced my OP with the presumption that if you set up your
camera for JPEG capture, the results will be as good as or better than
when shooting RAW and doing the setting in software after the shoot.

My Canon cameras are considerable different in how they handle JPEGS than
my Olympus cameras but none the less, custom functions are there for
these sort of preparations. I have only ever shot 1 event in RAW with an
Olympus camera. All 5 of them now only ever capture in JPEG although I
frequently switch between both formats with Canon cameras.

I'll also say that a camera configured for best RAW results can never
capture JPEGs with best results so anyone taking 'Siamese' images will
not obtain accurate JPEGS if they intended to produce best RAW results
and vise-versa.

If you use a Canon 10D, 20/30D, 0r higher DSLR and it's configured for
RAW capture, you'll always notice clipping at 0.09 instead of the 0.01
they are capable of producing. This would result in your observation.

This thread is now beginning to deteriorate into a "mine's better than
yours" event when what I originally intended was to compel Scott to
justify his God awful attempt at discrediting JPEGs.

Many people overlook the single image format which is responsible for the
digital revolution just so they can gain power over the camera in the
(false) belief they can make critical judgments after the capture and get
"better" results.

So... The time has come (again) the walrus said... To bid you farewell
(again) as I set sail for my home on Tangalooma at 10:00 hours GMT+ 10
hours. Anyone interested can see Ryadia under spinnaker a she leaves the
mouth of Brisbane river in a couple of hours!

Douglas

If I am shooting RAW the only camera settings that will have any
effect on the image are those that affect the exposure.

A properly exposed image is always better than one that has been
"fixed" after the fact. That said, if needed, a "fixed" image is
still likely to be better than no image.

How exactly do you configure a camera differently for RAW exposures
than for Jpeg exposures?

When I shoot I want to make the decisions on what is detail at either
end of the darks to lights curve. With a properly exposed image, RAW
will let me do that, where as the in camera Jpeg settings will decide
for me. Many times the Jpeg results will be acceptable for small
images, but if severely enlarged or cropped; RAW will allow more
details to be visible than a JPEG.

I will agree that critical judgments are best made at the time of
exposure, not after the fact.

Enjoy your cruise; Tangalooma looks very interesting from Google
Earth.
Jim

On Mar 28, 5:57 pm, Walter Banks wrote:
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.

Which example was that? I keep reading about my examples, but I can't
remember ever posting anything in response to Michelo's challenge.

Richard Polhill wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:


This is not a FILM group. This is an equipment group dedicated to the
35mm format. My digital 20D uses the exact same 35mm format so I
guess you can suck it.


22.5 x 15.0mm does not equal 35mm. Shove it up your arse you tiresome little
pipsqueak.


I couldn't have put it better!


I wonder what Annika thinks is "100% on-topic" on a FILM nwsgroup
about constantly criticising those of us who still use film.

A prime example would be the use of the word "Luddites".

I also wonder what Annika thinks is "100% on-topic" on a FILM nwsgroup
about constantly claiming he is 100% digital.

The same comments apply to Colin_D and Scott W, who only use digital
and only mention film to criticise it, and its users. This is abuse
of this newsgroup, pure and simple.

"Scott W" wrote:

Well here is my take on it, the people who where shooting with 35mm
film SLRs are buy and large switching over to DSLRs. It is still
pretty much the same gear it just captures the image with a different
media.


And there is a DSLR newsgroup set up for exactly those people. Why
not go there in future?

Subscribe now, and go. Your ill-informed anti-film rants are 100%
off-topic here, and therefore 100% unwelcome.

"Scott W" wrote:

I had not heard that, that is good news. I could live with a 33 x
22mm sensor.


Then take your discussion to a digital newsgroup, because it has no
place here.

"Colin_D" wrote

You've got a helluva lot to learn, I fear. It's clear your photographic
knowledge is based on trial and error, guesswork, and empirical results
rather than understanding theory.

Actually, if it was based on trial and error and empirical results he'd be
correct more often than he is. ;-)

--
Mark

Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com

I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in
the Army.
- Dom