Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"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 do these all the time with JPG. I said do you have an example photo, not
wives tale.


Right, you can do anything with Jpeg that you can do with RAW, as long as
image quality is irrelevant to you.
Do you even own a DSLR?

Trevor.

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"

wrote:
I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have
an
example?
Then you never shot with a Sony a100!!

It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the
camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process
every
single pic I took...

My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only
advantage to
using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play
with the
extra light range that RAW gives you.

The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes with
the
camera is barely adequate, you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or
something
to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations)
Raw can
be 14 bits (16,000 graduations).

Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to
over-expose
digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if you
don't
shoot raw, you can't do either.

I have used the a100 for over 5 years now, and now the a35. I use both the
Photoshop Elements RAW programs and ACR and Lightroom. But if I ever could
discern any big improvement with RAW, I would shudder at the thought of
going through all that processing for each and every image I shot at a
wedding. I do process all of the JPGs, but it is a lot easier than going
through all that RAW rigamarole.

Sad to think of someone shooting a wedding and throwing out half the image
quality, but there you go.
PS or Lightroom can automaticly apply your camera adjustments to RAW files
when you do that "processing" just as the camera does to the jpegs. You sure
don't know much if you "shudder at the thought of all that processing" you
computer does for you!
Frankly you seem to be proud of your ignorance, why?

Trevor.

"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

"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

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"

wrote:
I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have an
example?
Then you never shot with a Sony a100!!

It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the
camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process
every
single pic I took...

My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only
advantage to
using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play
with the
extra light range that RAW gives you.

The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes
with the
camera is barely adequate, you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or
something
to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations)
Raw can
be 14 bits (16,000 graduations).

Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to
over-expose
digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if
you don't
shoot raw, you can't do either.

I have used the a100 for over 5 years now, and now the a35. I use both
the Photoshop Elements RAW programs and ACR and Lightroom. But if I ever
could discern any big improvement with RAW, I would shudder at the
thought of going through all that processing for each and every image I
shot at a wedding. I do process all of the JPGs, but it is a lot easier
than going through all that RAW rigamarole.

Sad to think of someone shooting a wedding and throwing out half the image
quality, but there you go.
PS or Lightroom can automaticly apply your camera adjustments to RAW files
when you do that "processing" just as the camera does to the jpegs. You
sure don't know much if you "shudder at the thought of all that
processing" you computer does for you!
Frankly you seem to be proud of your ignorance, why?

OK, so I am iggerant. But you guys haven't been able to show me an example
of a RAW image vs a JPG shot at the same time that demonstrates this
superiority of image.

Gary Eickmeier

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Anthony Polson" wrote in message
...
"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"?

You're kidding right? A top end camera that does 14 bits RAW loses far
more than 1.5 stops when saving to an 8 bit file! AND you don't have
control over the default curve applied that stops you losing the full 6
stops!!!

You're kidding, right? I am ignorant, but you are shooting digital 6 stops
off?

Gary Eickmeier

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

Even so, I find a good modern DSLR shooting RAW has just as much
lattitude as color neg film by simply dialing down exposure a stop or so
to take advantage of the lower noise. Obviously the exposure lattitude
favours overexposure for neg film, and underexposure for digital (and
slide film)

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it.

Your choice, those of us that did film developing find it FAR easier :-)


Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real
improvement over simpler JPEG.

Big improvement, like 12-14 bits Vs 8bit files for a start! Jpeg ALWAYS
throws away dynamic range. Just like I don't throw away my film negatives,
I don't throw away the digital "negatives" either. What you choose to do
is is up to you of course.

OK, here's the deal. When you shoot RAW, the file is always proprietary for
some unknown reason. Every damn camera and every damn maker has to have his
own RAW codec. So that means that every single picture I take has to be
processed, or converted, to some standard file before I can even begin
showing anyone else the proofs. That sucks.

Gary Eickmeier

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.

In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

OK, so I am iggerant. But you guys haven't been able to show me an example
of a RAW image vs a JPG shot at the same time that demonstrates this
superiority of image.

test it yourself, and you won't be able to accuse anyone of a biased
test.

shoot an image in both jpeg and raw with the camera set to the wrong
white balance, then fix the white balance in post.

raw does not have white balance until it's processed. jpeg does, so if
you try to fix the white balance of a jpeg, you are going to have a far
more difficult time and the results are not going to be anywhere near
as good.

In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

OK, here's the deal. When you shoot RAW, the file is always proprietary for
some unknown reason. Every damn camera and every damn maker has to have his
own RAW codec. So that means that every single picture I take has to be
processed, or converted, to some standard file before I can even begin
showing anyone else the proofs. That sucks.

lightroom does it automatically. in fact, it is so easy that it's no
different than jpeg.