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
  #21  
Old December 1st 12, 02:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

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

  #22  
Old December 1st 12, 04:23 PM 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


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
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.


OK OK, I understand the theory of it all, but if I were fired up again about
RAW and went out and took a few shots in moth RAW and JPG and tried to show
myself this superiority, I would once again come up empty.

Can someone out there who has such an illustrative example of the VISIBLE
superiority of RAW please post a link?

Gary Eickmeier


  #23  
Old December 1st 12, 04:32 PM 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
...

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.


I keep asking to see an example of the superiority of RAW. Well, maybe it is
not all that obvious in a normal, well-shot image. But would the most
critical test be a shot of a smooth gradation from black to white test
chart? Anyone have one? RAW should look smoother, JPG should look like it is
in steps.

Right?

Gary Eickmeier


  #24  
Old December 1st 12, 05:15 PM 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 2012-12-01 07:23:56 -0800, "Gary Eickmeier" said:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
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.


OK OK, I understand the theory of it all, but if I were fired up again about
RAW and went out and took a few shots in moth RAW and JPG and tried to show
myself this superiority, I would once again come up empty.

Can someone out there who has such an illustrative example of the VISIBLE
superiority of RAW please post a link?

Gary Eickmeier


Nobody is saying that JPEG only isn't going to be adequate in many
cases, but you are justifying your rejection of RAW based upon your
particular prejudice to that particular workflow. In doing that you are
rejecting a major benefit of shooting with a camera which offers you
the feature of RAW capture.

In this group many of us shoot RAW only, and only occasionally
RAW+JPEG, so asking for those comparison shots is going to be tough. In
my case JPEGs I produce are products of my RAW workflow.

If all you are going to do is compare images on a computer display, for
most decently exposed images you are not going to see a great
difference for many reasons not related to photography, but to the
properties of a display. However if you have a problematic image with
contrast issues with detail in shadows and such you will benefit
greatly by starting with the RAW file, but that is with the caveat that
you are going to have to take the trouble to learn and understand what
can be done with that file in ACR and PSE or CS5/6, or any other
software.

If you are happy with your JPEGs then carry on, but don't try to BS
some of the old farts in this room.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #25  
Old December 1st 12, 11:00 PM 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 10:23:56 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
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.


OK OK, I understand the theory of it all, but if I were fired up again about
RAW and went out and took a few shots in moth RAW and JPG and tried to show
myself this superiority, I would once again come up empty.


You haven't yet said how you are displaying these files for
evaluation. If it's on an ordinary low-priced monitor which won't even
cope with sRGB, then I agree with you: you won't see a significant
difference. If you have a 'good' monitor but don't look very hard, you
may still not see a difference. If you have a top-quality
colour-calibrated

Can someone out there who has such an illustrative example of the VISIBLE
superiority of RAW please post a link?

Gary Eickmeier

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #26  
Old December 1st 12, 11:14 PM 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 10:23:56 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
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.


OK OK, I understand the theory of it all, but if I were fired up again about
RAW and went out and took a few shots in moth RAW and JPG and tried to show
myself this superiority, I would once again come up empty.


You haven't yet said how you are displaying these files for
evaluation. If it's on an ordinary low-priced monitor which won't even
cope with sRGB, then I agree with you: you won't see a significant
difference. If you have a 'good' monitor but don't look very hard, you
may still not see a difference. If you have a top-quality
colour-calibrated monitor and look carefully at the image you will see
differences, particularly in colour transitions etc.

Similarly with printing. If you are using the office laser printer
your results will be uniformly awful. If you are using a top quality
ten-colour ink jet to produce a large image you will be fussing around
like a mother hen trying to get the best out of it. The last thing you
will want are the artifacts which accompany JPGs.

Then there is the question of what it is that you are photographing.
Family snaps, scenic, architectural - or what?

Can someone out there who has such an illustrative example of the VISIBLE
superiority of RAW please post a link?


You might be interested in
http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #27  
Old December 5th 12, 05:43 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
...
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?


Sure you can convert an 8 bit Jpeg into a 16 or 32bit file in PS if you
want. Of course the data lost when saving from a 12-14 bit sensor into an 8
bit Jpeg is ***NOT*** recovered!
Editing and saving as a 16 bit PSD or TIF at least means you don't lose
progressively more at each edit/save, but is no substitute for starting with
a decent file in the first place!

Trevor.




  #28  
Old December 5th 12, 05:50 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
...
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.


Right, so if you do see a benefit in non compressed files, why start with a
lossy compressed one at all?
It seems you would rather spend time arguing than learn how to use a RAW
workflow. A pretty silly choice IMO, but each to their own I guess.

Trevor.


  #29  
Old December 5th 12, 05:54 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


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
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.


Right, and possibly 16 bit sooner or later.

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.


And no camera I am aware of that produces them??

Trevor.


  #30  
Old December 5th 12, 05:58 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
...
OK OK, I understand the theory of it all, but if I were fired up again
about RAW and went out and took a few shots in moth RAW and JPG and tried
to show myself this superiority, I would once again come up empty.


Says a lot about your ability unfortunately for you.


Can someone out there who has such an illustrative example of the VISIBLE
superiority of RAW please post a link?


A few have already done so, and presumably you haven't bothered to look, so
why ask for more that you probably won't look at either?
Or did you look and still not understand what was written and shown? Did you
want a guide for Ultra Dummies perhaps?

Trevor.


 




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 12:29 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.