Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

 
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
Wally <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:27:14 -0500, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <k9alni$287$(E-Mail Removed)>, Tim Conway
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Along with what nospam just said, just do the math: RAW has maybe 15-20 MB
>>> files. JPG has 4-5 MB files. RAW is starting with a lot more data.

>>
>>file size doesn't mean much.
>>
>>what matters is if the file has more information, which raw does. jpeg
>>is lossy and it throws out information.
>>
>>anyone can pad a file to make it larger or compress it to make it
>>smaller.

>
>Try compressing a JPG.



I am astonished at the level of expertise on show in this thread.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:07:55 -0500, "Tim Conway"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"PeterN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:50b91d06$0$10847$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com...
>> On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
>>> "nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:301120121053428284%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> In article <xc4us.439565$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Gary Eickmeier
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 agree.
>>> btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
>>>
>>>

>>
>> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
>> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
>>
>>

>I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
>list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
>saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
>sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
>format.
>


Maybe that's why you're having problems, Tim. Those PCD files are so
destructive that the choice to use them has been destroyed.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tim Conway
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2012113015240037335-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>>
>> "PeterN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:50b91d06$0$10847$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com...
>>> On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
>>>> "nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:301120121053428284%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> In article <xc4us.439565$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Gary Eickmeier
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 agree.
>>>> btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
>>> ones,
>>> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
>>>
>>>

>> I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
>> list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
>> saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different
>> editing
>> sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
>> format.

>
> Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
> intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD.
>

I guess that's what I meant ot say....the PSD rather than the PCD. I
usually use neither, just the RAW to TIF or RAW straight to JPG.
Tim


 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2012
On 11/30/2012 4:07 PM, Tim Conway wrote:
> "PeterN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:50b91d06$0$10847$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com...
>> On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
>>> "nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:301120121053428284%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> In article <xc4us.439565$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Gary Eickmeier
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 agree.
>>> btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
>>>
>>>

>>
>> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
>> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
>>
>>

> I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
> list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
> saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
> sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
> format.
>
>


Non-destructive editing is among the reasons I use smart objects and I
also make extensive use of layers.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2012
On 11/30/2012 6:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>>
>> "PeterN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:50b91d06$0$10847$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com...
>>> On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
>>>> "nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:301120121053428284%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> In article <xc4us.439565$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Gary Eickmeier
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 agree.
>>>> btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
>>> ones,
>>> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
>>>
>>>

>> I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
>> list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
>> saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different
>> editing
>> sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
>> format.

>
> Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
> intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD.
>

PSD is a proprietary form of TIFF.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2012
On 11/30/2012 5:15 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:07:55 -0500, "Tim Conway"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> "PeterN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:50b91d06$0$10847$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com...
>>> On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
>>>> "nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:301120121053428284%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> In article <xc4us.439565$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Gary Eickmeier
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 agree.
>>>> btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
>>> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
>>>
>>>

>> I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
>> list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
>> saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
>> sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
>> format.
>>

>
> Maybe that's why you're having problems, Tim. Those PCD files are so
> destructive that the choice to use them has been destroyed.
>
>


The use of personal Communication Devices is a fast growing field.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2012

"Gary Eickmeier" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:CzAts.676216$A%(E-Mail Removed)4...
>
> "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:k94gvl$ih9$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> 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.


> I have often wondered if shooting a lower ISO is equivalent to shooting a
> higher one and adjusting exposure down by a couple of stops. Same image on
> the pixels, right?


Nope, increasing ISO increases noise.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2012

"Anthony Polson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)-September.org...
> "Gary Eickmeier" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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!!!

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2012

"Gary Eickmeier" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:j6fus.520024$(E-Mail Removed)4...
> "PeterN" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

Trevor.




 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2012
In article <25fus.520017$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Gary Eickmeier
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> 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.


nobody said you can't do it in jpeg. of course you can.

the point is the results from jpeg will be worse than if you were
working with raw, and since the workflow is same, there is no point in
*not* using raw.
 
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
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Pat McGroyn Digital Photography 8 11-27-2012 04:38 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Anthony Polson Digital Photography 8 11-26-2012 12:13 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Anthony Polson Digital Photography 1 11-26-2012 05:47 AM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Tim Conway Digital Photography 0 11-25-2012 09:47 AM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots RichA Digital Photography 1 11-25-2012 09:28 AM



Advertisments