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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 09:22 PM |
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots | nospam | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | November 30th 12 06:45 PM |
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots | George Kerby | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | November 30th 12 06:43 PM |
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots | nospam | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | November 30th 12 06:27 PM |
Sony: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots | Bertram Paul | Digital Photography | 28 | June 2nd 09 03:27 PM |