Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Doug McDonald writes:

On 12/2/2012 1:28 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Most-wanted function to assign to a direct button on my cameras: Figure
out the current shutter speed and aperture in program / matrix mode, and
set mode to manual with that shutter speed and that aperture set. This
gets me a slavagable picture instantly (well, nearly always; I'm pretty
good at restoration work, so I can rescue most things if I really need
to) AND sets up the camera to improve the exposure from there, without
my having to remember the settings and manually change mode and manually
duplicate the settings I remember.

A truly BRILLIANT suggestion!

I hear a rumor that some Pentax cameras have something rather like that,
but I haven't tracked it down to confirm or deny definitely.

And I want it on my D700, not some other cmaera. :-) (Okay, I'd take
it on a D3s if somebody handed me the D3s with the feature !!!!)

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message
...

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.

Why should we bother? For a start most aren't using your camera to
produce your kind of images. Secondly it's easy for you -- if you're
really interested -- to do the experiments suggested for yourself. If
*you* find no siginficant difference, then clearly there's no point in
you bothering with RAW, and no point in anyone trying to convert you
using results from another camera taking the kinds of photographs you
don't take.

I shoot RAW when I'm reaching for best quality images for exhibition
or sale, and also when conditions are really bad or I have no time to
optimise camera settings. Under those conditions the differences are
considerable. Otherwise I shoot jpegs because nobody except me (or
another finical photographic pedant) would notice or care about the
small differences.

--
Chris Malcolm

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 14:55:31 -0500, nospam wrote:

In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:


thousands more? what the hell are you talking about?

first of all, you *already* have elements and lightroom! you don't have
to spent a single extra cent! it's *free*! what's even more amusing is
that you don't need to change your workflow either. it's *exactly* the
same as jpeg!

second, raw software doesn't cost much, nowhere near the 'thousands'
that you're claiming. elements is generally around $50 or so, aperture
is $79 and lightroom is a little over $100 (and well worth it).

I can't speak for other dslr's but my canon came with raw software that is
very good and I have kept it up to date. I have other raw software on my
desktop and on my laptop but still usually use the canon one as it is easy
and quick to use.



--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

In article , Anthony Polson
wrote:

If you own one of the latest Fujifilm mirrorless cameras, you are
forced to use Fujifilm's own software because no-one else's will
decode the RAW files from the non-Bayer sensor.

fuji uses bayer sensors.

you must mean sigma and the foveon sensor.

In article , David Dyer-Bennet says...
That may be cause and effect. One of the things I had to learn is not
to try to go TOO far in post-processing; the results tend to get squishy
and weird-looking.

On the other hand if you only spend a few seconds per image, editing
just two or three parameters as others have stated in this thread, you
might as well use the camera JPEG. Most cameras are pretty good at
nailing down white balance and exposure anyway these days.

RAW is the "insurance" in case something went wrong (wrong WB or
exposure), or is to be used in extreme situations (large dynamic range,
high ISO). Also sometimes when the scene is "flat" due to haze or not
optimal light for instance, and you want to add some life into it.
--

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

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:52:42 +0000, Anthony Polson
wrote:

Neil Ellwood wrote:
I can't speak for other dslr's but my canon came with raw software that is
very good and I have kept it up to date. I have other raw software on my
desktop and on my laptop but still usually use the canon one as it is easy
and quick to use.


For people using only one camera brand, the brand's own software is
usually a good choice. Nikon users might not agree, however.

I love NX2 and only wish it did more. If Nikon don't wish to develop
it to a full-capability editor, I wish they would enable it as a
plug-in for Photo Shop or Paint Shop Pro. The only thing that puts
people off NX2 is that it is written by Nik and incorporates that
companies interestingly quirky user interface. I can understand why
people might not like it (it's different) but once you have got used
to it you will find that it is both fast to use and very powerful.

If you own one of the latest Fujifilm mirrorless cameras, you are
forced to use Fujifilm's own software because no-one else's will
decode the RAW files from the non-Bayer sensor.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Savageduck wrote:
My point in at least one of my responses was, there are many of us who
shoot RAW only, and very seldom RAW+JPEG, and almost never JPEG only,
iPhone excepted. So we wouldn't have the "camera processed" JPEG
anyway. 99% of my JPEG output is a result processing the only original,
a RAW file. I spend little to no more time on my RAW workflow than I
did with JPEGs.

For what it's worth, Nikon .NEFs have always contain an embedded
basic-quality JPEG "preview image" (plus an additional thumbnail), so if
you're shooting RAW, you're already getting a JPEG for "free".

I use those embedded JPEGs for my first-pass culling and
instant-gratification slideshows, and queue the remaining ones for batch
processing with default settings. I only muck with individual images as
needed, but when I do, I want as much detail to work with as possible.

I shoot with and keep the RAWs around for the same reason I always shoot
at the highest resolution and quality settings -- You can always throw
away data after the fact (eg for online publishing), but you can't get
it back once it's gone.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:57:15 +0000, Anthony Polson
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:52:42 +0000, Anthony Polson
wrote:
For people using only one camera brand, the brand's own software is
usually a good choice. Nikon users might not agree, however.

I love NX2 and only wish it did more. If Nikon don't wish to develop
it to a full-capability editor, I wish they would enable it as a
plug-in for Photo Shop or Paint Shop Pro. The only thing that puts
people off NX2 is that it is written by Nik and incorporates that
companies interestingly quirky user interface. I can understand why
people might not like it (it's different) but once you have got used
to it you will find that it is both fast to use and very powerful.


I have tended to use it only briefly until a new version of Adobe
Camera Raw is released, so I have never had reason to spend time
learning and getting to know it well.

And there is the problem.

I think I was forced to learn to use it at a time when it was the only
software that I had. Now I use it whenever I can.

However, I have sold cameras to many Nikon users in the last few years
and there seems to be a wide range of opinions about NX2.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Alfred Molon writes:

In article , David Dyer-Bennet says...
That may be cause and effect. One of the things I had to learn is not
to try to go TOO far in post-processing; the results tend to get squishy
and weird-looking.

On the other hand if you only spend a few seconds per image, editing
just two or three parameters as others have stated in this thread, you
might as well use the camera JPEG. Most cameras are pretty good at
nailing down white balance and exposure anyway these days.

This is very much not my experience (Nikon D700 and Olympus EPL-2
currently). Particularly exposure; it's fairly frequent for me to
adjust plus or minus 3/4 stop.

I can improve images a LOT with average of a few seconds an image. When
I go on for the images that can support it to try for a first-class
rendition, *that* takes half an hour or anything up to off and on for a
month (well, one extreme case was 30 years, but most of those 30 years I
never looked at it).

RAW is the "insurance" in case something went wrong (wrong WB or
exposure), or is to be used in extreme situations (large dynamic range,
high ISO). Also sometimes when the scene is "flat" due to haze or not
optimal light for instance, and you want to add some life into it.

RAW is the negative I take into the darkroom to make a picture from.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Anthony Polson writes:

Neil Ellwood wrote:
I can't speak for other dslr's but my canon came with raw software that is
very good and I have kept it up to date. I have other raw software on my
desktop and on my laptop but still usually use the canon one as it is easy
and quick to use.

For people using only one camera brand, the brand's own software is
usually a good choice. Nikon users might not agree, however.

While I don't use NX2 myself, it's actually the *only* brand-specific
RAW processor I hear any good things about. Maybe Canon has one, but
Fuji and Olympus most certainly do NOT! Nor do I remember anything good
about Panasonic software.

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info