A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old December 2nd 12, 03:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 210
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 19:11:07 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:


"Alfred Molon" wrote:
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.


If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly work.
In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in white
light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know what
the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
confuse any AWB system.)



You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of thousands of
photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works quite
well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the colour's of
surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all humans are
about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness values.
(Except for certain African's of course!)

I've often been surprised by the accuracy of the camera, even using those awful
compact fluorescents.

  #162  
Old December 2nd 12, 04:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:13:24 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 19:11:07 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:


"Alfred Molon" wrote:
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.


If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly work.
In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in white
light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know what
the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
confuse any AWB system.)



You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of thousands of
photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works quite
well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the colour's of
surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all humans are
about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness values.
(Except for certain African's of course!)


My F801s Nikon incorporated the ancestor of the technology you
describe, back in the late 1980s. It was especially marvellous back in
those days.

I've often been surprised by the accuracy of the camera, even using those awful
compact fluorescents.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #163  
Old December 2nd 12, 04:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:50:15 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote:


OK, so I am iggerant. But you guys haven't been able to show me an example
of a RAW image vs a JPG shot at the same time that demonstrates this
superiority of image.

I've already pointed you to
http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide
That gives you what you are asking for.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #164  
Old December 2nd 12, 07:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots


BobF wrote:

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly work.
In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in white
light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know what
the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
confuse any AWB system.)


You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of thousands
of
photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works quite
well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the colour's of
surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all humans
are
about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness values.
(Except for certain African's of course!)


Your friends don't include Asians and drunks.

Dunno about AWB, but I find the database-based AE a complete disaster. With
my old center-weighted cameras, I could look at the scene, realize it was
going to be wrong, and compensate. Database based may be good enough for
snapshots, but for landscape sorts of things, it really doesn't know what
you think is going to be important and gets things wrong randomly. Change
the composition slightly, and it sees a different pattern and changes the
exposure. Count me as not impressed.


I've often been surprised by the accuracy of the camera, even using those
awful
compact fluorescents.


Ah, reminds me. The place AWB (or any other WB, including manual after the
fact) really doesn't work is mixed lighting. But that's not the AWB's
faultg.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

  #165  
Old December 2nd 12, 07:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

BobF wrote:

You say you process all the images? I find no difference in time in
processing
either RAW or jpegs, but the RAW are far superior. Did you use the Sony
software? It's excellent on curves.


If you use Lightroom or the like, it also provides functions to manage your
photos as well, so (once you have that figured out and tamed), it's actually
faster to shoot raw, since the photo management stuff is so good.

This one's a YMMV, though, depending on the conversion software you use. But
LR is pretty amazing. And it's now at a reasonable enough price that there's
no excuse for not using it.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


  #166  
Old December 2nd 12, 07:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 01/12/2012 22:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 10:23:56 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"

[]
Can someone out there who has such an illustrative example of the VISIBLE
superiority of RAW please post a link?


You might be interested in
http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide


Interesting, in that in all but a couple of examples the JPEG looks better!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
  #167  
Old December 2nd 12, 09:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:36:23 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


BobF wrote:

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly work.
In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in white
light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know what
the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
confuse any AWB system.)


You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of thousands
of
photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works quite
well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the colour's of
surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all humans
are
about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness values.
(Except for certain African's of course!)


Your friends don't include Asians and drunks.

Dunno about AWB, but I find the database-based AE a complete disaster. With
my old center-weighted cameras, I could look at the scene, realize it was
going to be wrong, and compensate. Database based may be good enough for
snapshots, but for landscape sorts of things, it really doesn't know what
you think is going to be important and gets things wrong randomly. Change
the composition slightly, and it sees a different pattern and changes the
exposure. Count me as not impressed.


I've often been surprised by the accuracy of the camera, even using those
awful
compact fluorescents.


Ah, reminds me. The place AWB (or any other WB, including manual after the
fact) really doesn't work is mixed lighting. But that's not the AWB's
faultg.


The tricks you play with your own unique sets of marks to indicate
quotation levels has rendered this thread almost incomrehensible.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #168  
Old December 2nd 12, 09:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:36:23 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


BobF wrote:

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly work.
In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in white
light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know what
the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
confuse any AWB system.)


You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of thousands
of
photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works quite
well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the colour's of
surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all humans
are
about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness values.
(Except for certain African's of course!)


Your friends don't include Asians and drunks.

Dunno about AWB, but I find the database-based AE a complete disaster. With
my old center-weighted cameras, I could look at the scene, realize it was
going to be wrong, and compensate. Database based may be good enough for
snapshots, but for landscape sorts of things, it really doesn't know what
you think is going to be important and gets things wrong randomly. Change
the composition slightly, and it sees a different pattern and changes the
exposure. Count me as not impressed.


I've often been surprised by the accuracy of the camera, even using those
awful
compact fluorescents.


Ah, reminds me. The place AWB (or any other WB, including manual after the
fact) really doesn't work is mixed lighting. But that's not the AWB's
faultg.


The tricks you play with your own unique sets of marking to indicate
quotation levels has rendered this thread almost incomrehensible.

I see you are using Microsoft Live Mail as a news reader. It's no
wonder you have to resort to your own peculiar sets of marks.
Unfortunately, while they may mean something to you they are almost
incomprehensible to those familiar with the conventions. It's now more
than 20 years since the Internet was invented. Why haven't you yet got
yourself a competent newsreader? I don't think you were always this
bad, were you?

Having got that off my chest .... :-)

I genuinely don't know whether you are for AWB or against it. All I
can say that over many tens of thousands of exposures, my Sony 707 was
pretty good, my Nikon D70 was better, and I have long given up trying
to improve on the results achieved by AWB on my Nikon D300.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #169  
Old December 2nd 12, 11:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

In article , David Taylor says...
http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide


Interesting, in that in all but a couple of examples the JPEG looks better!


I told you...
--

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
  #170  
Old December 2nd 12, 11:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

In article , tony cooper
says...
Actually, you don't. You see an approximation of the shot as
displayed by the camera, but that is not necessarily the way the shot
will look. Especially, if one shoots RAW.


If you shoot JPEG or RAW+JPEG you see the final shot.

But if you shoot RAW only, the camera each time you broese through an
image has to do a RAW to JPEG conversion = additional power
consumption.
--

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots Bertram Paul Digital Photography 28 June 2nd 09 03:27 PM
Sony: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots Bertram Paul Digital SLR Cameras 29 June 2nd 09 03:27 PM
any digital infrared shooters? sony joe mama Digital Photography 4 August 31st 06 02:14 PM
IDIOTS. COMPLETE IDIOTS Ret Radd 35mm Photo Equipment 0 February 6th 05 06:56 AM
IDIOTS. COMPLETE IDIOTS-Like Ray Fischer Dennis D. Carter Digital Photography 0 February 5th 05 01:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.