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
  #1  
Old November 30th 12, 09:54 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 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.


--
Peter
  #2  
Old November 30th 12, 10:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Tim Conway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 438
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots


"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.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.


  #3  
Old December 1st 12, 12:24 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 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


"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.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.


Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the
PSD.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #4  
Old December 1st 12, 12:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Tim Conway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 438
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012113015240037335-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


"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.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different
editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.


Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD.

I guess that's what I meant ot say....the PSD rather than the PCD. I
usually use neither, just the RAW to TIF or RAW straight to JPG.
Tim


  #5  
Old December 1st 12, 02:50 AM 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 4:07 PM, Tim Conway 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.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.



Non-destructive editing is among the reasons I use smart objects and I
also make extensive use of layers.

--
Peter
  #6  
Old December 1st 12, 02:51 AM 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 6:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


"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.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different
editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.


Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD.

PSD is a proprietary form of TIFF.


--
Peter
  #7  
Old December 1st 12, 02:56 AM 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 5:15 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:07:55 -0500, "Tim Conway"
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.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.


Maybe that's why you're having problems, Tim. Those PCD files are so
destructive that the choice to use them has been destroyed.



The use of personal Communication Devices is a fast growing field.

--
Peter
  #8  
Old December 1st 12, 04:49 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


"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.

Gary Eickmeier


  #9  
Old December 1st 12, 05:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots


"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.

Trevor.




  #10  
Old December 1st 12, 05:36 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:

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.
 




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 12:06 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.