ScottW's "test' results.

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

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.
Well at least give the people a link to the photos how about.
I did this test when there was a discussion as to just how much you
could recover in blow highlights if you were shooting raw.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031

There are three images on that one, the first is properly exposed, the
next is the over exposed +2 EV and is the jpeg right out of the camera
the third image is how much I could recover from the raw image, pretty
impressive.

This was a real world case, I was on a cruise ship and we happened to
go buy this eagle on the ice, no time to really check the exposure and
if I had been shooting in jpeg mode only the shot would have been
lost.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980
Then here are some other sampling, some test cases some from just
shooting photos.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53549069

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.
Well we have seen your photos, some of which I could save if you had a
raw file for them.

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.
I have no idea what you are talking about here, I get the feeling
neither do you.

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.

Hey D-Mac, do you still think I had the lens cap on for this photo?
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413

Scott

D-Mac wrote:
snip

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.

Douglas, Douglas, there's no such thing as an 'uncompressed jpeg',
specially right out of the camera.

A 20D at 8.2 megapixels produces an uncompressed (8-bit)image of 24.6
Megabytes. How big are the jpeg files from the camera? about 3-odd
megabytes, that's how big.

Now, please explain how a 3 MB file can contain an image of 24.6 MB
without compression?

Not to mention that jpeg is a lossy format, that is it throws away image
information that subsequently can never be retrieved.

Second point: the camera does not 'develop' raw image data as it does
jpegs. Raw data is just that; unprocessed, and compressed by a lossless
algorithm (except for Nikon's compressed NEF images, which are lossy.

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. This shows itself in such
proclamations as FZ50's are better than 20D's, your mistakes with DoF
and hyperfocal distances, and saying that perspective is a lens property.

And I thought you signed off this group a couple weeks ago? What
happened, withdrawal symptoms appeared?

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mar 27, 6:38 pm, D-Mac wrote:
Get it right in the camera and shooting (uncompressed) jpeg produces
pictures no different from RAW pictures that have undergone manipulation during development.

Hey, old Ryadia is back! Spewing his tired old "JPG is equivalent to
RAW" nonsense.

Hey, D-Mac, here's a pic I made today just for you.
It's actually two versions of the same RAW file.
The pic on the left is a straight JPG extraction from the RAW file.
The one on the right has undergone some Photoshop processing.
Both shots were cropped to square and re-sized for the comparison.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76285735/original

I'll let you decide which version you prefer.
Perhaps this explains why your pics look the way they do.

D-Mac wrote:

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

Weren't you supposed to be leaving this NG???

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:08:25 +1200, Colin_D wrote:

D-Mac wrote:
snip

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.

Douglas, Douglas, there's no such thing as an 'uncompressed jpeg',
specially right out of the camera.

A 20D at 8.2 megapixels produces an uncompressed (8-bit)image of 24.6
Megabytes. How big are the jpeg files from the camera? about 3-odd
megabytes, that's how big.

Now, please explain how a 3 MB file can contain an image of 24.6 MB
without compression?

Not to mention that jpeg is a lossy format, that is it throws away image
information that subsequently can never be retrieved.

Second point: the camera does not 'develop' raw image data as it does
jpegs. Raw data is just that; unprocessed, and compressed by a lossless
algorithm (except for Nikon's compressed NEF images, which are lossy.


And I thought you signed off this group a couple weeks ago? What
happened, withdrawal symptoms appeared?

Colin D.

----------------------------------
SO Colin.. Retired EX Photographer ... Possessed with wisdom and skill no
one gets to sample. Show us your pictures mate! Finally you acknowledge
my existence again. How quaint. How's that poster I sent you doing?
Figured out why the gulls are so sharp yet?

Let's look at a a JPEG file - pretty heavily compressed by a Panasonic
FZ50. Camera file size = 1.4 Megabytes from a 10 Mp camera. Unprocessed
Photoshop size = 25.3 Megabytes. Ask yourself how, if the format is
EXACTLY as you say, can a file this size actually have been opened from a
1.4 megabyte image? Adobe black magic, perhaps?

Now open a RAW file (they are actually 17.7 TIFF files) from the same
camera and amazingly Photoshop opens a 25.3 megabyte file too. So Colin,
is not an editable file from a 10 mega-pixel camera, 25.3 mega-pixels
uncompressed?

On your suggestion that Canon RAW files are not compressed... Maybe you
haven't been paying attention. The only RAW format that doesn't get
doctored -"data discarded"- is yet to be made.

Wherever you got the notion that a camera RAW file is raw sensor data is
wrong too but let's not let your first real attempt at shedding some of
your Kiwi wisdom around ...be spoiled with published facts you can find
in a few seconds with ask.com.

I will concede that many posts I make are bait. Maybe I should call
myself fly-caster or the like. Come to think of it... I'll admit also
that when I visited your dark and forbidding area of the world for "A
holiday of a lifetime" a couple of weeks ago, I said good-bye in this
group.

As always, you decided to read whatever you felt like in the post. The
serious fact is, I'm here to stay. Not you, not some transvestite with a
crush of the most despicable mongrel God ever forgot to miscarry or the
slime-bag himself is going to move me out of a public forum which I have
as much right as the next bloke to be in.

If you don't like that, use your message rules to filter out my IP
address. It's constant, regardless of what name I choose to use or when I
choose to use a different one.

And for the record... Changing a screen name is not illegal. Not
providing a valid email address in your posts is against the charter of
your ISP. Is this why you use teranews?

In fact... Absolutely nothing I do in these groups is illegal. I don't
try to impersonate anyone. I don't try to steal their images. I don't try
to crack their business accounts with Goggle and until right now. I never
told you to **** off.

But that just changed. Get your head out of your arse and you'll see all
those pictures you've been taking (both of them) aren't sepia tined at
all.

You try to impose your idea of who can and cannot post to this group just
because you don't like me. Boo Hoo for you. Use the force Luke. Let
messages filters be your friend and you won't bust a valve worrying about
me coming and going as I please.

But I gotta tell you this Kiwi joke I thought was hilarious.

Two kiwi's looking at the clouds and one says: "My mom told me God put
the clouds there to shelter us from the sun".

The other (street wise - paddock-wise in your case) said: "Nah. He put it
there so the angels couldn't see what we do to sheep when we wear our
wellis"!

Oh man, that just floored me with the irony of it all. Here's me thinking
all your bleating was just a whining Kiwi when all the time the answer
was staring me in the face! ROTFL.

I'm real glad to be home. The bull**** you jokers are polluting our TV
ads with is something obscene. They must be some of your pictures they
used in the ads eh? Shot elsewhere and NZ plaster all over them just to
make it look good.

Douglas

D-Mac wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:08:25 +1200, Colin_D wrote:

D-Mac wrote:
snip
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.

Douglas, Douglas, there's no such thing as an 'uncompressed jpeg',
specially right out of the camera.

A 20D at 8.2 megapixels produces an uncompressed (8-bit)image of 24.6
Megabytes. How big are the jpeg files from the camera? about 3-odd
megabytes, that's how big.

Now, please explain how a 3 MB file can contain an image of 24.6 MB
without compression?

Not to mention that jpeg is a lossy format, that is it throws away image
information that subsequently can never be retrieved.

Second point: the camera does not 'develop' raw image data as it does
jpegs. Raw data is just that; unprocessed, and compressed by a lossless
algorithm (except for Nikon's compressed NEF images, which are lossy.

And I thought you signed off this group a couple weeks ago? What
happened, withdrawal symptoms appeared?

Colin D.

----------------------------------
SO Colin.. Retired EX Photographer ... Possessed with wisdom and skill no
one gets to sample. Show us your pictures mate! Finally you acknowledge
my existence again. How quaint. How's that poster I sent you doing?
Figured out why the gulls are so sharp yet?

No, and I don't have to. I provided you with a positive reply to your
upsizing at the time. How you did it is your secret. I accept the
print at face value, I don't have to figure how you did it. BTW, if
your address on the tube label is still valid I'll sent it back to you.
I have no use for it. If you don't want it I'll probably send it to
Mark Thomas, or Bret for their appraisal.

Let's look at a a JPEG file - pretty heavily compressed by a Panasonic
FZ50. Camera file size = 1.4 Megabytes from a 10 Mp camera. Unprocessed
Photoshop size = 25.3 Megabytes. Ask yourself how, if the format is
EXACTLY as you say, can a file this size actually have been opened from a
1.4 megabyte image? Adobe black magic, perhaps?

Because it was *compressed*. You claimed that your jpegs were
*uncompressed* in your previous post. Can't you keep track of what you
wrote?

Now open a RAW file (they are actually 17.7 TIFF files) from the same
camera and amazingly Photoshop opens a 25.3 megabyte file too. So Colin,
is not an editable file from a 10 mega-pixel camera, 25.3 mega-pixels
uncompressed?

Of course. I don't know about FZ50 files, but Canon files are *.crw,
which are most definitely not *.TIF files.

On your suggestion that Canon RAW files are not compressed... Maybe you
haven't been paying attention. The only RAW format that doesn't get
doctored -"data discarded"- is yet to be made.

I did not say that Canon RAW files are not compressed. I said they
*were* compressed with a lossless algorithm. Perhaps you better cool
down and reread my post.

Wherever you got the notion that a camera RAW file is raw sensor data is
wrong too but let's not let your first real attempt at shedding some of
your Kiwi wisdom around ...be spoiled with published facts you can find
in a few seconds with ask.com.

I will concede that many posts I make are bait. Maybe I should call
myself fly-caster or the like. Come to think of it... I'll admit also
that when I visited your dark and forbidding area of the world for "A
holiday of a lifetime" a couple of weeks ago, I said good-bye in this
group.

Yes, you did. It sounded final. You didn't say it was for only two
weeks. Twisting facts again, Doug.

As always, you decided to read whatever you felt like in the post. The
serious fact is, I'm here to stay. Not you, not some transvestite with a
crush of the most despicable mongrel God ever forgot to miscarry or the
slime-bag himself is going to move me out of a public forum which I have
as much right as the next bloke to be in.

Your turns of phrase, and the state of mind that expresses them are
beyond comprehension.

If you don't like that, use your message rules to filter out my IP
address. It's constant, regardless of what name I choose to use or when I
choose to use a different one.

And for the record... Changing a screen name is not illegal. Not
providing a valid email address in your posts is against the charter of
your ISP. Is this why you use teranews?

What??? I have never commented on your chameleon-like changes of
nom-de-plume. Why attack me for that??

As for Teranews, I started to use them when my ISP - like a lot of ISPs
- decided to drop newsgroups, and I had to surf around for a news
server. Teranews gives me 50 MB per day free, where all other servers I
found wanted a minimum of $US 7.50 a month. The spoofed address, like
thousands of other posters do, is for spam protection, nothing else. I
get from none to maybe five or so spams max per day, which is how I like
it. And my post name has always been Colin D, which as you well know is
my real name, and the initial of my surname.

In fact... Absolutely nothing I do in these groups is illegal. I don't
try to impersonate anyone. I don't try to steal their images. I don't try
to crack their business accounts with Goggle and until right now. I never
told you to **** off.

I haven't told you to '**** off' either. Nor have I stolen any of your
images.You're confusing me with Bret there. I did say 'thank christ'
when you gave the (false) impression you were leaving, and I have
advised you to get help for your state of mind, but I haven't ever told
you to **** off.

But that just changed. Get your head out of your arse and you'll see all
those pictures you've been taking (both of them) aren't sepia tined at
all.

You try to impose your idea of who can and cannot post to this group just
because you don't like me. Boo Hoo for you. Use the force Luke. Let
messages filters be your friend and you won't bust a valve worrying about
me coming and going as I please.

God help me, Doug. Where do you get this paranoid nonsense from? I
have never told you you cannot post to this - or any other - group. Get
a grip, man.

But I gotta tell you this Kiwi joke I thought was hilarious.

Two kiwi's looking at the clouds and one says: "My mom told me God put
the clouds there to shelter us from the sun".

The other (street wise - paddock-wise in your case) said: "Nah. He put it
there so the angels couldn't see what we do to sheep when we wear our
wellis"!

Oh man, that just floored me with the irony of it all. Here's me thinking
all your bleating was just a whining Kiwi when all the time the answer
was staring me in the face! ROTFL.

Haha. Boy, you really do live in the past over there. That kiwi/sheep
joke is as old as the hills. Older even than the one about the ANZAC
forces in Egypt in the war. An Aussie sergeant was doing the rounds,
and found himself in a Kiwi encampment. He asked what the boys did for
entertainment this far out in the desert, so they showed him a small
defile in the desert nearby, where a camel was tethered. The Aussie
thought a moment, then said "alright, back to camp boys, I'll be along
in a minute." He duly arrived back at the Kiwi camp, with his trousers
all wet down the front. The Kiwis stared in amazement, then said "but
sir, we ride the camel to Cairo on Saturday nights!"

I'm real glad to be home. The bull**** you jokers are polluting our TV
ads with is something obscene. They must be some of your pictures they
used in the ads eh? Shot elsewhere and NZ plaster all over them just to
make it look good.

Do us a favor, Doug. See that shrink.

Colin D.

Douglas


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 27, 6:38 pm, D-Mac wrote:
Get it right in the camera and shooting (uncompressed) jpeg produces
pictures no different from RAW pictures that have undergone manipulation
during development.

Hey, old Ryadia is back! Spewing his tired old "JPG is equivalent to
RAW" nonsense.

Hey, D-Mac, here's a pic I made today just for you.
It's actually two versions of the same RAW file.
The pic on the left is a straight JPG extraction from the RAW file.
The one on the right has undergone some Photoshop processing.
Both shots were cropped to square and re-sized for the comparison.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76285735/original

I'll let you decide which version you prefer.
Perhaps this explains why your pics look the way they do.


Bret, I don't know if you have one already done, but could you show us an
example from a raw and jpg where you show how much more information there is
in the highlight and shadow. But to be a valid example, they must have the
same exposure and they should go thru the same Photoshop manipulation to
emphasize the lost information.

Thank you,

Michel

WOW! This post deserves a spot in the D-Mac Hall of Fame!
It has everything, from D-Mac's misunderstanding of file sizes, to the
obligatory slam at me, to attacking anyone who disagrees with him
while throwing in his nationalistic prejudices against anyone who
doesn't live in Australia. Anyone wanting to know why we pick on D-
Mac need only read this post.

Let's start the carnage...

On Mar 28, 1:43 am, D-Mac wrote:

----------------------------------
Let's look at a a JPEG file - pretty heavily compressed by a Panasonic
FZ50. Camera file size = 1.4 Megabytes from a 10 Mp camera. Unprocessed
Photoshop size = 25.3 Megabytes. Ask yourself how, if the format is
EXACTLY as you say, can a file this size actually have been opened from a
1.4 megabyte image? Adobe black magic, perhaps?

No, D-Mac, it's simple math. Really.


Now open a RAW file (they are actually 17.7 TIFF files) from the same
camera and amazingly Photoshop opens a 25.3 megabyte file too. So Colin,
is not an editable file from a 10 mega-pixel camera, 25.3 mega-pixels
uncompressed?

No, it is not. Let me explain it to ya.
Each pixel takes up a certain number of bytes in a file.
In a Grayscale file, each pixel uses 1 byte.
In an 8-bit RGB file each pixel takes up 3 bytes (4 if it is CYMK).
In a 16-bit RGB file each bit takes up 6 bytes.

So using my 20D as an example I open up a 3504x2336 image in Photoshop
as a 16-Bit RGB file. The little Document Size window on the status
bar tells me that the document size is now 46.8 MB.
Did my file magically grow? Is this Adobe Black Magic?
No.

Using my handy keyboard calculator I see that the image contains
8,185,344 pixels (8.2MP). If I convert this image as a 16-Bit RGB
file as I normally do that would yield a
file size of 8185344 * 6 = 49,112,064 bytes.
Divide this number by 1,048,576 (there are 1,048,576 bytes in a
MegaByte) and you get 46.8 MB, just like it says in Photoshop.

Note that these are Mega-BYTES not Mega-PIXELS as you claim.
The pixel count hasn't changed. The file size changes depending on
what color mode the image is in.

I hope you got all this, D-Mac, cause there's gonna be a test later.






I will concede that many posts I make are bait. Maybe I should call
myself fly-caster or the like. Come to think of it...

Yeah, we know ..... "I meant to do that."
"I only post my bad pics." Blah-blah-blah....

As always, you decided to read whatever you felt like in the post. The
serious fact is, I'm here to stay. Not you, not some transvestite with a
crush of the most despicable mongrel God ever forgot to miscarry or the
slime-bag himself is going to move me out of a public forum which I have
as much right as the next bloke to be in.

"Do you really want to hurt me?
Do you really want to make me cry?"




In fact... Absolutely nothing I do in these groups is illegal. I don't
try to impersonate anyone. I don't try to steal their images. I don't try
to crack their business accounts with Goggle and until right now. I never
told you to **** off.


The Goggle? Is that on one of the Internets?
BWAHAHAHAAAA!!!!

Welcome Back, D-Mac! How's that FBI case comin along?

(snip)
I will concede that many posts I make are bait. Maybe I should call
myself fly-caster or the like. Come to think of it... I'll admit also
that when I visited your dark and forbidding area of the world for "A
holiday of a lifetime" a couple of weeks ago, I said good-bye in this
group.

Douglas, You had said that you were never returning to this NG. Glad
you changed your mind. If you don't mind to not being a "...fly-caster
or the like..." so much. It really brings the IQ of the group down
quite a bit.




But that just changed. Get your head out of your arse and you'll see all
those pictures you've been taking (both of them) aren't sepia tined at
all.

Huh?? For the images he posted showing the differences there wasn't a
one that was B&W "...sepia t(o)ined..." They all seemed to be in full
color. If it is a differant image you are refering to please link it
so we can see what you are talking about.

You are preset in your believe in the difference in raw and jpg. Only
thing I can offer in this discussion is this. You order a pizza with
pepperoni, mushrooms and extra cheese. Good to eat, right? That is
JPG.
Now, you have the dough, sauce, pepperoni, sausage, mushrooms,
spinach, black olives,meatballs, onions, green peppers, ham,
anchovies, pineapples, Canadian bacon, banana peppers, and feta
cheese. All this in front of you, This is RAW. You have all the
choices to make whatever you want and you still have the ingredents to
make more. You haven't lost anything. I can not say I thought of this
analagy but it makes sense to me. Hope it helps.

Keep shooting Douglas. I know (in my mind) that there are quite a lot
of folks who enjoy your work. I'm one.


Draco

Getting even isn't good enough.
Being better does.