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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW's "test' results.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...1a6a791c4977bd
Hadn't thought that seven days was that long ago. Or this wasn't you. Draco |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW's "test' results.
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:57:21 -0400, michelo wrote:
"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 ------------------ I wouldn't expect these zealots to do that Michel... BUT I WILL. http://www.ryadia.com/rawjpeg-example.htm The picture was constructed from simultaneously shot RAW and JPEG images. Sorry it's not from a 20D Canon but these are the breaks when you live on an Island and run your business on the mainland. I only have the Panasonic with me. To expect the three stooges and their Kiwi puppet to acknowledge that what they've been force feeding everyone for years might actually be wrong, is like expecting them to embrace the idea that photography is about making photographs, not computer images. Douglas |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW's "test' results.
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:39:21 -0700, Draco wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...browse_thread/ thread/84018c9da529b702/aa1a6a791c4977bd?lnk=raot&hl=en#aa1a6a791c4977bd Hadn't thought that seven days was that long ago. Or this wasn't you. Draco When I have to answer to the likes of you scoundrels for what I do and where I go, you better get some warm clothes because hell will have frozen over. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW's "test' results.
Colin_D wrote:
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. I did Teranews for awhile. Whenever they had a problem the free part was let to slide while they fixed for paying customers first... which I fully understand, of course, but I was impatient. I ended up paying another server, but I forget exactly why I didn't stick with Teranews. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW's "test' results.
"D-Mac" wrote in message news On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:57:21 -0400, michelo wrote: "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 ------------------ I wouldn't expect these zealots to do that Michel... BUT I WILL. http://www.ryadia.com/rawjpeg-example.htm The picture was constructed from simultaneously shot RAW and JPEG images. Sorry it's not from a 20D Canon but these are the breaks when you live on an Island and run your business on the mainland. I only have the Panasonic with me. To expect the three stooges and their Kiwi puppet to acknowledge that what they've been force feeding everyone for years might actually be wrong, is like expecting them to embrace the idea that photography is about making photographs, not computer images. Douglas In theory, if you open both files to darken the white feathers and lighten the black one, you should see that only the RAW picture reveal some details because in the jpeg file the compression discarded it. That's the kind of example I would like to see to give an idea of how much you can really recover from a RAW file. Michel |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW's "test' results.
On Mar 28, 3:28 pm, D-Mac wrote:
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 ------------------ I wouldn't expect these zealots to do that Michel... BUT I WILL.http://www.ryadia.com/rawjpeg-example.htm I believe he requested two pics with the same processing on each side. Your comparison is a joke, right? More bait? The picture was constructed from simultaneously shot RAW and JPEG images. Sorry it's not from a 20D Canon but these are the breaks when you live on an Island and run your business on the mainland. I only have the Panasonic with me. Those are the breaks when you only own a crappy Panasonic and have to borrow the 20D or the 5D from relatives. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW's "test' results.
On Mar 28, 4:11 pm, "michelo" wrote:
In theory, if you open both files to darken the white feathers and lighten the black one, you should see that only the RAW picture reveal some details because in the jpeg file the compression discarded it. That's the kind of example I would like to see to give an idea of how much you can really recover from a RAW file. Expecting a fair comparison from D-Mac is kinda like expecting a cow to start squirting champagne. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW's "test' results.
On Mar 28, 10:11 am, "michelo" wrote:
"D-Mac" wrote in message news On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:57:21 -0400, michelo wrote: "Annika1980" wrote in message roups.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 ------------------ I wouldn't expect these zealots to do that Michel... BUT I WILL. http://www.ryadia.com/rawjpeg-example.htm The picture was constructed from simultaneously shot RAW and JPEG images. Sorry it's not from a 20D Canon but these are the breaks when you live on an Island and run your business on the mainland. I only have the Panasonic with me. To expect the three stooges and their Kiwi puppet to acknowledge that what they've been force feeding everyone for years might actually be wrong, is like expecting them to embrace the idea that photography is about making photographs, not computer images. Douglas In theory, if you open both files to darken the white feathers and lighten the black one, you should see that only the RAW picture reveal some details because in the jpeg file the compression discarded it. That's the kind of example I would like to see to give an idea of how much you can really recover from a RAW file.Well have a look at this test I did with the 350D With the 350D most of the gain in dynamic range is on the high end, the highlights, but there is some worthwhile gain in the shadows as well. Of course you can balance the gain but shooting a little more exposure and loose some of the gains in the highlight and get more in the shadows. So here is a test I did, I shoot raw+jpeg and then converted the raw image to a tiff, bringing in much of the blown highlights that were lost in the jpeg. This is the jpeg out of the camera. http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_ra...rom_camera.JPG This is the raw file for anyone who wants to play with it, size about 9.4 MB http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/IMG_5477.CR2 This is the tiff that I got from the raw file, warning this is about 48 MB in size. http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/ IMG_5477-1.tif This is what the tiff looks like when converted to jpeg, this lets you see the recovered highlights. http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_ra...ed_to_jpeg.jpg This is a section of the shadows from the jpeg image where I have lightened it so you can see what detail have been captured and what noise is in the image. http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/jpeg_adjusted.jpg This is the same section but this time I adjusted the tiff image, saving as jpeg after the adjustments were made. Note this is some odd aspects to the shadow area of the jpeg image that look better in the tiff image. http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/Tiff_adjusted.jpg Scott |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW's "test' results.
On Mar 28, 3:29 pm, D-Mac wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:39:21 -0700, Draco wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...browse_thread/ thread/84018c9da529b702/aa1a6a791c4977bd?lnk=raot&hl=en#aa1a6a791c4977bd Hadn't thought that seven days was that long ago. Or this wasn't you. Draco When I have to answer to the likes of you scoundrels for what I do and where I go, you better get some warm clothes because hell will have frozen over. Scoundrel? Hmmmm. Sir, I have been nothing if nice to you and your rants. I understand that your "buttons" had been pushed. I even defended your choice of images and the way you "produced" them. And you call me a scoundrel? Shame on you sir, shame. If that wasn't you who said they were gone, then all you had to say was, not me. I didn't post that thread. That would have been good enough for me. Instead you attack and defame my good character with your amaterurish attempts of being a boarish, over bearing oaf that can not realize when he is being a huge pile of dung. Sir, from this time on you are no longer worthy of any help. Draco Getting even isn't good enough. Being better does. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW's "test' results.
There are two effects of jpg compression that you should be able to see. The example that Bret posted sure showed the dynamic range differences in brightness. Most of the raw images in Canon SLR's (yeah Canon) sample at 12 bits adding two stops to the dynamic range of the jpg . The second effect is losses due to compression of the image in a jpg. Some of the point and shoots 3 or 4 years ago offered compression levels vs memory card size requirements. Increasing the compression level loses detail in the image. For example the tiny pinfeathers on a Downy or Hairy Woodpeckers back get expanded as a essentially a single color. This high frequency detail can not be restored with any amount of sharpening. w.. michelo wrote: 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. In theory, if you open both files to darken the white feathers and lighten the black one, you should see that only the RAW picture reveal some details because in the jpeg file the compression discarded it. That's the kind of example I would like to see to give an idea of how much you can really recover from a RAW file. Michel |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Test Report [again] "Gives superb results".... | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 3 | September 9th 06 09:38 AM |
Curious results from camera test. | Peter Jason | Digital Photography | 6 | August 28th 06 04:01 PM |
Widepan test roll results | RolandRB | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 10 | April 22nd 05 07:37 AM |
Widepan test roll results | RolandRB | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | April 21st 05 08:29 AM |
New test results! | David J. Littleboy | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 16 | May 1st 04 05:51 AM |