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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |