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 SLR Cameras
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
  #11  
Old December 1st 12, 06:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Gary Eickmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 286
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots


"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?

Gary Eickmeier


  #12  
Old December 1st 12, 06:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Gary Eickmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 286
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots


"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"PeterN" wrote in message
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.


Right, but you can't save it back to Jpeg non destructively, so why start
with a lossy Jpeg in the first place?
I can't see the point myself since you can easily set up PS or LR to
automaticly apply your camera settings when you open a RAW file if that's
all you want to do. If I really needed to print direct from the camera I
can save RAW+Jpeg, never do though.


I know what they mean by "non destructively" - that all of the edits are
saved in layers and can be undone at all times. But all I am saying is that
I do not edit on my JPGs and then save it back to the same JPG file I
started with - I save it as a new file, a TIFF, so that the original is
still there.

Gary Eickmeier


  #13  
Old December 1st 12, 07:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

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?


if you mean opening a jpeg in camera raw, that is *not* converting it
to raw, it just lets you use the camera raw controls, but on jpeg.
  #14  
Old December 1st 12, 08:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 2012-11-30 21:41:04 -0800, "Gary Eickmeier" said:


"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?

Gary Eickmeier


You can bring a JPEG back into ACR and apply some ACR adjustments, but
not all, you should note that there are some areas of adjustment that
are not available to the already lossy 8-bit JPEG.
There is no way to convert the JPEG into a 16-bit RAW file and restore
missing information. If you believe that, you are ignorant of the
nature of the file types and the operation of ACR. Converting the JPEG
to a TIF can suspend the state of degradation, but information has
already been lost. You have not converted a JPEG into a RAW file.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #15  
Old December 1st 12, 08:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 2012-11-30 21:45:05 -0800, "Gary Eickmeier" said:


"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"PeterN" wrote in message
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.


Right, but you can't save it back to Jpeg non destructively, so why start
with a lossy Jpeg in the first place?
I can't see the point myself since you can easily set up PS or LR to
automaticly apply your camera settings when you open a RAW file if that's
all you want to do. If I really needed to print direct from the camera I
can save RAW+Jpeg, never do though.


I know what they mean by "non destructively" - that all of the edits are
saved in layers and can be undone at all times. But all I am saying is that
I do not edit on my JPGs and then save it back to the same JPG file I
started with - I save it as a new file, a TIFF, so that the original is
still there.

Gary Eickmeier


By starting with a JPEG you have already lost information, all you have
done by saving as a TIFF is to suspend further degradation.
If you are making that conversion, you have an inefficient workflow. It
is far better to start with a 16-Bit full data, RAW file to adjust,
than an 8-Bit TIFF which is already missing data created from an 8-Bit
JPEG.

You need to educate yourself with regard to file types and how various
processes effect them. You are functioning under an incredible cloud of
misinformation.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #16  
Old December 1st 12, 08:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 2012-11-30 22:10:17 -0800, nospam said:

In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

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?


if you mean opening a jpeg in camera raw, that is *not* converting it
to raw, it just lets you use the camera raw controls, but on jpeg.


....and not all of them.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #17  
Old December 1st 12, 10:00 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 00:45:05 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote:


"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"PeterN" wrote in message
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.


Right, but you can't save it back to Jpeg non destructively, so why start
with a lossy Jpeg in the first place?
I can't see the point myself since you can easily set up PS or LR to
automaticly apply your camera settings when you open a RAW file if that's
all you want to do. If I really needed to print direct from the camera I
can save RAW+Jpeg, never do though.


I know what they mean by "non destructively" - that all of the edits are
saved in layers and can be undone at all times. But all I am saying is that
I do not edit on my JPGs and then save it back to the same JPG file I
started with - I save it as a new file, a TIFF, so that the original is
still there.

I'm sorry Gary, but the original was the raw file. It is inherent in
the nature of JPEGs that as soon as you save in that format you lose
image data.

http://zatz.com/connectedphotographe...n-jpeg-images/
explains it reasonably well but only recognizes the existence of RAW
files of up to 12 bits. For several years there have been cameras of
up to 14 bits.

It is correct that as described in the article there are 16 bit JPEG
files. The only problem is that only a very limited range of software
is capable of reading them.

In short, if you have a good camera you are restricting its
capabilities by using JPEG.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #18  
Old December 1st 12, 10:03 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 00:41:04 -0500, "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?

Yes, but saving it in a raw file look-alike format can't restore the
information that was lost in the original transformation from raw to a
JPEG file.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #19  
Old December 1st 12, 02:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

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
  #20  
Old December 1st 12, 02:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

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
 




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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Alfred Molon[_4_] Digital Photography 455 January 16th 13 10:22 PM
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots nospam Digital SLR Cameras 1 November 30th 12 07:45 PM
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots George Kerby Digital SLR Cameras 0 November 30th 12 07:43 PM
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots nospam Digital SLR Cameras 0 November 30th 12 07:27 PM
Sony: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots Bertram Paul Digital Photography 28 June 2nd 09 03:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 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.