Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

In article , Trevor says...

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , Trevor says...
So you think they deliberately developed a camera they don't want to
sell?

No, they want to enter a market without cannibalising their core
business.

How exactly do you "enter a market" without selling anything?

They call it "marketing".

But seriously, if you really do not know, familiarise yourself with the
concept of positioning.
--

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

"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.)

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 11/30/2012 10:49 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"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...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.

You can edit anything non-destructively. Keep trying.


If you are happy with the results, fine. If you cannot see the
difference, fine. I create images for my enjoyment and hate JPEG
artifacts. In my workflow, RAW is better. If you prefer JPEG, so be it.
Far be it for me to dictate your taste.

If you have the need to get snippy about it, then you have other issues,
which I will not get involved with. I only say what I do and why. Enjoy
your images.

Hey, many people are happy working in an sRGB color space. I am not.
I frequently do my color adjustments using LAB, and will make 12 x 18
images of a portion of the image. While you can also do color
adjustments in the RGB color space, for me, it's easier in LAB. You
obviously do not feel the need to do make the type of images I do. There
is simply not enough information in a JPEG file. If I am wrong, and you
care to share, I am all ears.


--
Peter

On 12/1/2012 12:41 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.

You can edit anything non-destructively. Keep trying.

except that jpeg is already destructive.

you can edit non-destructively from that point on, but you can't undo
what was done to make the jpeg.

Interesting you said that - I stumbled upon a function of Elements that
sorta converted any JPG into a RAW file and allowed you to edit it the same
as any RAW image. Do you know what I mean?

Any missing information from the JPEG, that is attempted to be
reconstructed is, of necessity, through some interpolation algorithm. By
definition interpolation is a guess. That's like saying after converting
to an sRGB color space, you can convert back to RGB, or ProPhotoRGB.


--
Peter

On 2012.12.01 00:41 , Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Interesting you said that - I stumbled upon a function of Elements that
sorta converted any JPG into a RAW file and allowed you to edit it the same
as any RAW image. Do you know what I mean?

Yes. But you can't recover lost information so that particular raw
image is no better than the JPEG.

So, no you can't "... edit it the same as any raw image" because it does
not contain all the information of a camera original raw image.

Face it. JPEG's are handy, smaller and quicker. There is a price for
that and as such things go it is quantity and quality that are lost.

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

On 2012.12.01 00:56 , Gary Eickmeier wrote:

OK, here's the deal. When you shoot RAW, the file is always proprietary for
some unknown reason. Every damn camera and every damn maker has to have his
own RAW codec.

Not codec's so much as a format. They are "proprietary" (or more
accurately "unique") because a raw file represents the particular sensor
output and other aspects of the camera model. It has to be unique. And
that's a good thing because you get the unadulterated image information.

These formats are generally easy to figure out and people like Dave
Coffin keep utilities like dcraw up to date with the latest cameras.
Adobe and other companies do the same. Many 3rd party applications have
Dave Coffin's dcraw (and Phil Harvey's EXIFTOOL) in them.

Nothing at all to do with the camera maker.

So that means that every single picture I take has to be
processed, or converted, to some standard file before I can even begin
showing anyone else the proofs. That sucks.

If you can import the image to a computer then it doesn't really take
any additional steps. Mac OS X and Windows recognize all raw formats
(other than the very most recent). So the preview or viewer
applications/functions of both allow direct viewing of raw images
without any other aid.

Freeware like The Gimp also reads raw.

If needed (and this is not a requirement) Adobe DNG converter will
convert all raw images (except the very most recent) into a "common" raw
format that most editors understand in the unlikely case that your
editor does not.

IOW there are no "technical" or "proprietary" reasons to not use raw.

Embrace it. Learn it. Profit from it.

Why have a DSLR and then get P&S quality from it?

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

On 2012-12-01 01:42:13 -0800, Alfred Molon said:

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.

There is no denying that for many JPEG files are going to be all they
could ever need, or be satisfied with.
....and if that is what you need as a photographer that is fine.
However, when "Gary Eickmeier" makes a claim which is patently false,
because he has chosen not to put the effort into taking advantage of
what a RAW file has to offer, he is either being argumentative, or
ignorant. In his case most likely both. If that is what he wants to do
then he should continue doing things the way he currntly proceeding,
but don't tell us that he is able to convert JPEG to RAW, and his JPEG
images are better than RAW, because he fines a RAW workflow too
bothersome and time consuming. Those of us with a good RAW workflow
know better.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 11/30/2012 10:58 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"

wrote:


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


Then you never shot with a Sony a100!!

It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the
camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process
every
single pic I took...

My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only
advantage to
using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play
with the
extra light range that RAW gives you.

The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes with
the
camera is barely adequate, you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or
something
to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations) Raw
can
be 14 bits (16,000 graduations).

Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to
over-expose
digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if you
don't
shoot raw, you can't do either.

I have used the a100 for over 5 years now, and now the a35. I use both the
Photoshop Elements RAW programs and ACR and Lightroom. But if I ever could
discern any big improvement with RAW, I would shudder at the thought of
going through all that processing for each and every image I shot at a
wedding. I do process all of the JPGs, but it is a lot easier than going
through all that RAW rigamarole.

Sounds like you are going through a lot of extra effort.
In CS6, the development module in Lightroom and ACR are identical. IOW
anything that tan be done in one program, can be done in another. For
wedding photography, if your captures are spot on, you may get away with
JPEG. But. Well... you have been previously informed.


--
Peter

On 12/1/2012 5:10 AM, Anthony Polson wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
I have used the a100 for over 5 years now, and now the a35. I use both the
Photoshop Elements RAW programs and ACR and Lightroom. But if I ever could
discern any big improvement with RAW, I would shudder at the thought of
going through all that processing for each and every image I shot at a
wedding.


One of the greatest challenges in photography is making images of a
traditional wedding that retain detail in the shadows (groom's dark
suit) as well as in the bride's all-important white dress.

In film days, it was essential to use low contrast film which offered
the maximum dynamic range from a single shot.

Similarly, with digital it is essential to choose a camera whose
sensor offers the maximum dynamic range from a single shot. The best
offer around 14 stops of dynamic range. But the JPEGs from all
cameras offer 1-1.5 stops less. The only way to obtain every last
tenth of a stop is to shoot RAW, expose the image with care and post
process the RAW image to obtain the optimal amount of detail in the
highlights and shadows.

I know there are wedding photographers who don't bother with this and
instead just shoot JPEGs. They are hacks and their technique (or lack
of it) is not worthy of discussion by intelligent people.

Now we know why you are discussing it.

--
Peter

On 12/1/2012 12:56 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

"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.

Your choice, those of us that did film developing find it FAR easier :-)


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

Big improvement, like 12-14 bits Vs 8bit files for a start! Jpeg ALWAYS
throws away dynamic range. Just like I don't throw away my film negatives,
I don't throw away the digital "negatives" either. What you choose to do
is is up to you of course.

OK, here's the deal. When you shoot RAW, the file is always proprietary for
some unknown reason. Every damn camera and every damn maker has to have his
own RAW codec. So that means that every single picture I take has to be
processed, or converted, to some standard file before I can even begin
showing anyone else the proofs. That sucks.

Gary Eickmeier


which is all done in a few clicks with LR.

--
Peter