Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 2012-12-01 01:47:11 -0800, Alfred Molon said:

In article , Trevor says...
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.

But you can't print a RAW image, you have to convert it to 8 bit colour
anyway.

No!
I can process and print a RAW file using LR4, or ACR+CS5/6 without ever
thinking about converting to 8-Bit mode and producing a JPEG.

Your assumption is that you are better at converting to JPEG
than the camera is. That may be the case, but very often, obviously also
depending on the camera, the camera is very good as well.

That depends on the skills learned and practiced with the image
processing software of choice. Again, that is not to say that the JPEG
product of many cameras is going to be just fine for many photographers.
Just remember, at the peak of the film era, the majority of camera
wielders did no darkroom work at all. They dropped the roll of film, or
cassette, or disposable camera off at a kiosk for processing and
printing, and they were quite happy with the results.
Times have changed and those same shooters have the option to
experience the darkroom for themselves. It is interesting that many of
those who advocate RAW processing have had some "wet darkroom"
experience.

If an individual has no interest in bothering with all that the digital
darkroom has to offer, they still have those kiosks to fall back on to
have the digital equivalent of their "Instamatic" cassette processed
and printed, and be very happy.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012.11.30 22:58 , Gary Eickmeier wrote:

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.

What rigamarole? You open the raw. Get a raw import screen. Adjust
(and for most photos you can "finish" the look right there with 2
controls: exposure and black point). "Accept" the changes and you're in
your editor for cropping, re-sizing. Done.

Better, you can apply the same changes in 1 go to a lot of photos at
once. For example, if you took 25 photos in the same lighting
conditions but all of them are a little underexposed, need the
blackpoint pushed and the saturation boosted a little. "Open" the
bunch, select all, make the adjustments (using one as an example), and
the changes apply to all the images which are then opened in the editor.
(The above is using photoshop).

A whole bunch of time saved. Using Lightroom (or aperture or other 3rd
party programs) - as a wedding photographer is more likely to use, it
would be even easier. Faster.

Reward: Time saved, and a consistent look across the set.

What rigamarole?

Gary, believe me, all the issues you raise were solved a long time ago
making raw capture an immense payoff in processing time saved and image
quality improved well beyond what in-camera JPEG could ever do.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

On 2012.12.01 00:50 , 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.

Do your own experiments. Shoot in raw+JPEG mode and then see how far
you can take the JPG's in editing v. the raw. Esp for over/under exp.
correction and WB correction.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

On 12/1/2012 8:47 AM, Savageduck wrote:



continue doing things the way he currntly proceeding, but don't tell us
that he is able to convert JPEG to RAW, and his JPEG images are better
than RAW, because he fines a RAW workflow too bothersome and time
consuming. Those of us with a good RAW workflow know better.


No wonder he uses JPEG He doesn't want to pay the fine imposed on a RAW
workflows?

--
Peter

On 2012-12-01 06:30:50 -0800, PeterN said:

On 12/1/2012 8:47 AM, Savageduck wrote:



continue doing things the way he currntly proceeding, but don't tell us
that he is able to convert JPEG to RAW, and his JPEG images are better
than RAW, because he fines a RAW workflow too bothersome and time
consuming. Those of us with a good RAW workflow know better.


No wonder he uses JPEG He doesn't want to pay the fine imposed on a RAW
workflows?

Phinggrr phawlt!


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012.12.01 09:04 , Savageduck wrote:

I can process and print a RAW file using LR4, or ACR+CS5/6 without ever
thinking about converting to 8-Bit mode and producing a JPEG.

Quibble: what you're printing is not the raw but the application
internal representation of the image that LR4 or photoshop is using.

That in turn has turned every pixel into a 3 colour interpolation from
the raw (48 bits/pixel (3x16rgb)) and of course represents how you see
(and print) the image. Definitely not the raw.

What is sent to the printer driver is another thing (depends on your
installation, the printer, and so on).

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

On 2012.12.01 04:47 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Trevor says...
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.

But you can't print a RAW image, you have to convert it to 8 bit colour
anyway.

No. The editor (say photoshop) keeps an internal representation that is
(typically) 48 bits per pixel (3 x 16rgb) from the raw. (One can also
do 32 bit per colour if so inclined in PS).

From there when printing, the number of bits is reduced appropriately
by the editor, printer driver, the printer's firmware and finally the
printer hardware when laying down the pigment. This is all obfuscated
from the user's POV (though some configuration settings on some
printers/drivers allow a degree of visibility and control over it).

Your assumption is that you are better at converting to JPEG
than the camera is. That may be the case, but very often, obviously also
depending on the camera, the camera is very good as well.

The in-camera JPEG conversion, however, is straight-jacketed and cannot
be corrected very much whereas the raw offers much more latitude to
correction, saturation, blackpoint setting and much, much more. The JPG
has thrown away too much info to allow very much correction (or for that
matter liberal manipulation).

And of course when you open the raw (say in ACR) you can open it "per
camera settings" so as a minimum you get a starting point similar to
what the in-camera JPG provides but without the limitations of the JPG.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

On 2012-12-01 06:40:06 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012.12.01 09:04 , Savageduck wrote:

I can process and print a RAW file using LR4, or ACR+CS5/6 without ever

thinking about converting to 8-Bit mode and producing a JPEG.

Quibble: what you're printing is not the raw but the application
internal representation of the image that LR4 or photoshop is using.

That in turn has turned every pixel into a 3 colour interpolation from
the raw (48 bits/pixel (3x16rgb)) and of course represents how you see
(and print) the image. Definitely not the raw.

What is sent to the printer driver is another thing (depends on your
installation, the printer, and so on).

What you said. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Alan Browne
says...
The in-camera JPEG conversion, however, is straight-jacketed and cannot
be corrected very much whereas the raw offers much more latitude to
correction, saturation, blackpoint setting and much, much more. The JPG
has thrown away too much info to allow very much correction (or for that
matter liberal manipulation).

And of course when you open the raw (say in ACR) you can open it "per
camera settings" so as a minimum you get a starting point similar to
what the in-camera JPG provides but without the limitations of the JPG.

I'm not disagreeing with what you or Savageduck are writing, but it
seems that we are talking past each other.

My point is that some cameras have very good JPEG engines, i.e. produce
very good JPEG output which needs no further optimisation in many cases.
Not in all cases obviously, which is why you should shoot RAW+JPEG.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"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