Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > RAW images...

Reply
Thread Tools

RAW images...

 
 
John A. Stovall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2006
On 31 Mar 2006 19:09:17 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>John A. Stovall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> You know a limited number of 'Pros.' You may make a 'good'
>> photograph with a jpeg for the web or news print but not a great
>> print from a jpg. You lose too much data and color gamut for that.
>>
>>

>
>This can not possibly be true. Nearly ALL printers take their input as 8-bit,
>or will convert to 8-bit / channel color mode. Thus, if you take an unaltered
>JPEG from a digital SLR and print it, you can get optimal results if the JPEG
>is of an optimal image. What I mean is that no matter the work you do in post
>processing in RAW, you end up with an 8-bit color depth image for printing ...
>the same as JPEG. The color gamut is irrelavent as JPEG can use any gamut
>that a 12 or 16 bit image can (RAW or not).
>
>RAW offers flexibilty in post processing, but if aren't going to post process,
>then JPEG images of high enough quality will work just fine.
>


What you have with RAW.

Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones

2048 levels available
Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones

1024 levels available
Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones

512 levels available
Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones

256 levels available
Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones

128 levels available

What you have with JPEG

Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones

69 levels available
Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones

50 levels available
Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones

37 levels available
Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones

27 levels available
Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones

20 levels available

But if you like to lose image quality and control of your photographic
process shot JPEG's and live with the crap.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...awtruth1.shtml


--

"And he gave it for his opinion, that whoever could make
two ears of corn, or two blades of grass, to grow upon
a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve
better of mankind, and do more essential service to his
country,than the whole race of politicians put together."


_Gulliverís Travels_
Part ii. Chap. vii.
"Voyage to Brobdingnag"
Jonathan Swift
1667-1745

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joseph Meehan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2006
John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:35:24 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>>> It has long been the case that if you have the option, you use the
>>> highest quality original as possible, which JPEG isn't.
>>>... RAW v jpeg isn't.if you want the maximum quality,
>>> it is fact.
>>>

>>
>> If you product properly exposed originals, saving it as JPEG high
>>quality, is not going to reduce the quality of the results.

>
> Yes, it will. You will reduce the color gamut for starters.


In my opinion proper exposure includes white balance.

In what other way would you say the final product would be reduced?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2006
"Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>John A. Stovall wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:35:24 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>David wrote:
>>>> It has long been the case that if you have the option, you use the
>>>> highest quality original as possible, which JPEG isn't.
>>>>... RAW v jpeg isn't.if you want the maximum quality,
>>>> it is fact.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you product properly exposed originals, saving it as JPEG high
>>>quality, is not going to reduce the quality of the results.

>>
>> Yes, it will. You will reduce the color gamut for starters.

>
> In my opinion proper exposure includes white balance.
>
> In what other way would you say the final product would be reduced?


You cannot resize it without adding serious artifacts from
reblocking pixels. Saved in any non-lossy format (RAW, TIFF,
PPM, etc.), and that is not a problem.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2006
John A. Stovall wrote:

<< Snipped bits out >>
>
> But if you like to lose image quality and control of your photographic
> process shot JPEG's and live with the crap.


I doubt many fail to see what RAW can give. But you just cannot see that
excellent results may be got from JPEGs. So, it's your black and white
extremism that's crap.

--
John McWilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joseph Meehan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2006
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>John A. Stovall wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:35:24 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>David wrote:
>>>>> It has long been the case that if you have the option, you use the
>>>>> highest quality original as possible, which JPEG isn't.
>>>>>... RAW v jpeg isn't.if you want the maximum quality,
>>>>> it is fact.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you product properly exposed originals, saving it as JPEG
>>>>high quality, is not going to reduce the quality of the results.
>>>
>>> Yes, it will. You will reduce the color gamut for starters.

>>
>> In my opinion proper exposure includes white balance.
>>
>> In what other way would you say the final product would be
>> reduced?

>
> You cannot resize it without adding serious artifacts from
> reblocking pixels. Saved in any non-lossy format (RAW, TIFF,
> PPM, etc.), and that is not a problem.


Can you offer an example where there was serious (noticeable) reduction
in the final product due to resizing to a smaller size from a larger
original jpeg?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit


 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2006
"Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>> You cannot resize it without adding serious artifacts from
>> reblocking pixels. Saved in any non-lossy format (RAW, TIFF,
>> PPM, etc.), and that is not a problem.

>
> Can you offer an example where there was serious (noticeable) reduction
>in the final product due to resizing to a smaller size from a larger
>original jpeg?


Take *any* image in a RAW, TIFF, PPM or whatever format that has
a wide range of colors (i.e., not something with block graphics
using solid colors) and save it to JPEG format. Then save it
again to be 95% the size of the first image saved. Now open
that first JPEG image and scale it down to 95% of the size it
is. Compare the two.

There is your example!

The fun examples to do that with are those with a very fine
color pattern which appears in the original image as a smooth,
but odd shade of color that is not constant.

An out of focus wall in the background would be a good example.
It is quantized one way on the first JPEG save, and then that is
quantized with a different block size in the second save. That
will often result in a very visible pattern instead of a nice
smooth even color.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2006
John A. Stovall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> What you have with RAW.
>
> Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones
>
> 2048 levels available
> Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones
>
> 1024 levels available
> Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones
>
> 512 levels available
> Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones
>
> 256 levels available
> Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones
>
> 128 levels available
>


You can only print with 8-bits of color depth, as I mentioned in my post.
That is current information as of today's hardware. Having extra dynamic
range and color depth is only useful for post processing. If you aren't going
to do it, then you gain nothing by shooting RAW. FYI -- I shoot raw for the
reasons you mention, but I perform post processing.

> What you have with JPEG
>
> Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones
>
> 69 levels available
> Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones
>
> 50 levels available
> Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones
>
> 37 levels available
> Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones
>
> 27 levels available
> Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones
>
> 20 levels available
>
> But if you like to lose image quality and control of your photographic
> process shot JPEG's and live with the crap.


Your predjudice shows, and it is just that. Quality pictures can and will be
generated in JPEG only. For many, JPEG is the proper format to shoot.
Perhaps not for you or for me.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2006
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>You cannot resize it without adding serious artifacts from
>>>reblocking pixels. Saved in any non-lossy format (RAW, TIFF,
>>>PPM, etc.), and that is not a problem.

>>
>> Can you offer an example where there was serious (noticeable) reduction
>>in the final product due to resizing to a smaller size from a larger
>>original jpeg?

>
>
> Take *any* image in a RAW, TIFF, PPM or whatever format that has
> a wide range of colors (i.e., not something with block graphics
> using solid colors) and save it to JPEG format. Then save it
> again to be 95% the size of the first image saved.


The discussion was about having the camera output to jpeg vs. RAW, not
save and resave and resampling or resizing. One or two fervent
proponents of RAW were maintaining it was never acceptable to use jpeg,
ever, which is *******s for pros in some shooting situations.

--
john mcwilliams

Max thought the night-time burglary at the California surfing museum
would be a safe caper, but that was before he spotted the security cop
riding a bull mastiff, blond hair blowing in the wind, and noticed the
blue-and-white sign wired to the cyclone fence, "Guard dude on doggy."
 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2006
John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> "Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>
>>>>You cannot resize it without adding serious artifacts from
>>>>reblocking pixels. Saved in any non-lossy format (RAW, TIFF,
>>>>PPM, etc.), and that is not a problem.
>>>
>>> Can you offer an example where there was serious (noticeable) reduction
>>>in the final product due to resizing to a smaller size from a larger
>>>original jpeg?

>> Take *any* image in a RAW, TIFF, PPM or whatever format that
>> has
>> a wide range of colors (i.e., not something with block graphics
>> using solid colors) and save it to JPEG format. Then save it
>> again to be 95% the size of the first image saved.

>
>The discussion was about having the camera output to jpeg
>vs. RAW,


Yes...

>not save and resave and resampling or resizing.


Reshape your thinking about what the above means. The fact is
that if you save to a non-lossy format you *can* resize, and if
you save to a lossy format you *cannot*.

Excluding that from a discussion of what the effects of shooting
in RAW vs JPEG would be rather foolish.

>One or
>two fervent proponents of RAW were maintaining it was never
>acceptable to use jpeg, ever, which is *******s for pros in some
>shooting situations.


True, but that has nothing to do with the discussion you have
tacked it onto.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joseph Meehan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2006
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>
>>> You cannot resize it without adding serious artifacts from
>>> reblocking pixels. Saved in any non-lossy format (RAW, TIFF,
>>> PPM, etc.), and that is not a problem.

>>
>> Can you offer an example where there was serious (noticeable)
>>reduction in the final product due to resizing to a smaller size from
>>a larger original jpeg?

>
> Take *any* image in a RAW, TIFF, PPM or whatever format that has
> a wide range of colors (i.e., not something with block graphics
> using solid colors) and save it to JPEG format. Then save it
> again to be 95% the size of the first image saved. Now open
> that first JPEG image and scale it down to 95% of the size it
> is. Compare the two.
>
> There is your example!
>
> The fun examples to do that with are those with a very fine
> color pattern which appears in the original image as a smooth,
> but odd shade of color that is not constant.
>
> An out of focus wall in the background would be a good example.
> It is quantized one way on the first JPEG save, and then that is
> quantized with a different block size in the second save. That
> will often result in a very visible pattern instead of a nice
> smooth even color.


I asked for an actual real life example not a test of theory.

I would agree in theory you may well loose some quality under certain
conditions. However I believe we are talking about real life general use
results from properly exposited images.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RAW vs JPEGs - Does RAW show more detail? Tim Digital Photography 117 04-17-2007 03:02 PM
RAW Viewer for wide range of RAW formats greymfm Digital Photography 0 06-14-2006 09:12 PM
[Maxxum 7D] Dimage RAW Viewer v. Adobe Raw Plugin Alan Browne Digital Photography 3 03-12-2005 04:17 AM
Adobe PS RAW convertor vs Nikon RAW convertor Vlad Gunko Digital Photography 8 01-25-2005 07:43 PM
How raw is RAW format? Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org Digital Photography 4 12-22-2003 07:33 PM



Advertisments