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

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2012
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:59:16 -0500, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:58:31 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "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 never shot with a Sony a100!!
>>>
>>> It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the
>>> camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process
>>> every
>>> single pic I took...
>>>
>>> My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only
>>> advantage to
>>> using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play
>>> with the
>>> extra light range that RAW gives you.
>>>
>>> The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes with
>>> the
>>> camera is barely adequate, you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or
>>> something
>>> to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations) Raw
>>> can
>>> be 14 bits (16,000 graduations).
>>>
>>> Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to
>>> over-expose
>>> digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if you
>>> don't
>>> shoot raw, you can't do either.

>>
>>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.
>>
>>Gary Eickmeier
>>

>
>You say you process all the images? I find no difference in time in processing
>either RAW or jpegs, but the RAW are far superior. Did you use the Sony
>software? It's excellent on curves.
>
>I don't know why you see no difference between RAW and jpeg... I couldn't stand
>the a100 jpegs!


Try shooting RAW+jpg if your camera has that setting. On download,
the .jpg image is far superior to the RAW image. It is *after* the
RAW adjustments are made that the RAW image surpasses the .jpg.

For hobby photography, I shoot only RAW. For family snaps outdoors in
good lighting, I shoot RAW+jpg. The .jpgs are usually as good as the
image will ever be and only require cropping without any adjustment.
Working with RAW images is a few extra steps and takes a few moments
longer, so there's often no point in using the RAW image.

My output for family outdoor snaps is going to be either
computer-viewed or printed 4x6. An image in those conditions from RAW
compared to an image from .jpg isn't going to be discernibly
different.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2012
On 01/12/2012 22:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 10:23:56 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"

[]
>> 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


Interesting, in that in all but a couple of examples the JPEG looks better!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2012
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 22:03:12 +1300, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:41:04 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:301120122336432516%(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> In article <j6fus.520024$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Gary Eickmeier
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > 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?
>>

>Yes, but saving it in a raw file look-alike format can't restore the
>information that was lost in the original transformation from raw to a
>JPEG file.


Yeah, that smacks of homeopathy.

Just thinking, though... I wonder how good compression you could get
if you can determine at what digit of pi the same digits as the data
in your image appear in sequence. Then you can compress your image
data losslessly to two numbers (position in pi & size).
Decompression should be quick with modern pi-computing algorithms.
(Some years ago a way was discovered to quickly determine the values
of arbitrarily selected digits of pi.) Compression, on the other
hand...
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2012
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 19:11:07 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Alfred Molon" wrote:
>In article <2012113023043436098-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>says...
>> There are a few more things that you can do with a RAW file which you
>> cannot do with a JPEG. The first of these is apply camera and/or lens
>> profiles. You can correct CA and fringing far more effectively than any
>> such correction you could apply to JPEGs.
>>
>> There is so much more.

>
>But some cameras have very good JPEG engines and are very good at
>nailing down the white balance. With such cameras you only need to
>process the RAW in a small percentage of cases.
><<<<<<<<<<
>
>If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly work.
>In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in white
>light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know what
>the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
>light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
>confuse any AWB system.)


This is true. I generally shoot RAW+low-res-jpeg with AWB so I don't
have to fiddle with WB settings as I go place to place. I just use the
jpegs as initial proofs and quickie snapshot-worthy images to post to
facebook or the like. But for anything I care anything about I'll
process the raw, usually selecting an appropriate WB preset according
to the light source and/or aesthetics. (For example, on a sunny day in
mottled light under tree canopy I often prefer a "sunlight" preset WB
to let the green cast of the leaves come through and preserve the
atmosphere of the shot.)
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alfred Molon
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> But if you shoot RAW only, the camera each time you broese through an
> image has to do a RAW to JPEG conversion => additional power
> consumption.


no it doesn't. it uses the embedded jpeg.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2012
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 09:37:53 -0500, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2012.12.01 20:04 , Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> I think you are the only intelligent one here. As you have pointed out, it
>> has to go back to 8 bit before it becomes a useful image anyway, in which
>> case it would be indistinguishable from th RAW processed image.

>
>Molon is like you: seeking excuses online rather than setting up a
>consistent quality workflow.
>
>The fact that a final output of a workflow from raw _may_ be an 8 bit
>image has nothing to do with how it got there. If you start with JPEG
>to get to that end point you have less to work with.
>
>With raw you have more to work with from beginning to end - as
>laboriously explained by others and myself.
>
>You really have to stop looking for excuses and start really
>understanding raw from the POV of using it, processing it and learning
>the advantages rather than hunting down usenet fallacies to excuse it
>out of hand.


No, Alan, he doesn't have to do that at all. That's the method - or
workflow - that you and I prefer, but there's no reason at all that we
should impose that requirement on anyone else.

Whether or not his system is flawed depends entirely on what type of
photographs he's taking and what the end-use will be. The average
photographer taking family-type photographs - and that's what the
majority of photographers do - makes 4x6 prints of very few images and
views the rest on a television or computer screen. Very few of those
image could be improved enough to matter working from RAW.

If Gary was here requesting help in improving his workflow or his
images, there'd be a reason to encourage him to learn to use RAW. If
he was here saying that his images worsened with enlargement, there'd
be a reason. But, he's not.

Gary's wrong in his coattail trailing posts about RAW being extra
work. If he's happy with his .jpg results, he should STF up and do
what works for him.

This idea that what we individually do - whether it's workflow, choice
of OS, employment of a particular software, or use of accessory
devices - is what others should use is both ridiculous and arrogant.

Let's wait until someone asks "How can I..." before we start telling
them how they should.







--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2012
In article <WmNus.376304$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Gary Eickmeier
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> But if you shoot RAW only, the camera each time you broese through an
> >> image has to do a RAW to JPEG conversion => additional power
> >> consumption.

> >
> > no it doesn't. it uses the embedded jpeg.

>
> In any case, you can easily see whether you have blown out the highlights,
> exposed too low for a healthy image, or got the WB or focus screwed up.


no. you can get a rough idea but that doesn't mean that much

you can fix quite a bit in raw, particularly white balance, which isn't
even set until you process the raw, long after you took the shot.

> With
> my Live View I can see most of this before exposure, in the LCD or in the
> viewfinder.


many times live view is not an option.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2012
In article <GvNus.687924$A%(E-Mail Removed)4>, Gary Eickmeier
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> But I don't need to be told that I can do what I wish, and the only reason
> for starting this whole argument was that I said I haven't seen much benefit
> from doing RAW - visible benefit.


that's because aren't doing it properly.

> I have tried it, seen the clumsy controls,


what clumsy controls? they're the *same* controls as with jpeg, and
more effective too since it's working with raw data.

you said you use lightroom. that's anything but clumsy.

> and wondered why go through that if my JPGs were already terrific.
>
> I print 13 x 19 sometimes on both Epson and Canon printers (8 ink) and the
> results are incredible.


they could be even better.

> I will keep trying, comparing, looking, but I am fully capable of doing my
> workflow the way I see fit and extracting the most from my camera etc etc. I
> appreciate all the tech savvy, but I come from a realm where audible or
> visible are the standards, not tech measurement.


if you can't see the difference then no need, but others definitely can.
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2012
In article <k9eu0e$tc$(E-Mail Removed)>, david-
(E-Mail Removed)d says...
>
> On 01/12/2012 22:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 10:23:56 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"

> []
> >> 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

>
> Interesting, in that in all but a couple of examples the JPEG looks better!


The trouble with such comparisons is that they're really comparing two
JPEGs with different degrees of processing. The "zeroed JPEG" has been
processed in-camera, the "zeroed RAW" has been processed in Lightroom.
What's actually being compared is not "RAW vs JPEG" but the camera's
default processing vs Lightroom's default processing. Clearly the
camera's defaults are more aesthetically pleasing in many cases than are
Lightroom's.

This is reasonable since it is pointless to pays the bucks for an Adobe
product just to take the in-camera defaults.




 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2012
In article <tYNus.660676$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Gary Eickmeier
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > if you can't see the difference then no need, but others definitely can.

>
> That is always the argument from the subjectivists, "if you aren't as
> perceptive as we, then do what you want" but when subjected to blind testing
> they can't prove any of it.


when have you done a double-blind test? oh right, you haven't.

do a test yourself. it won't be double-blind but the differences are
dramatic.

take a photo with the white balance set completely wrong and then try
to fix the jpeg and the raw. one is going to look a *lot* better than
the other and it's *not* going to be the jpeg. have you done that?
didn't think so either.

> But they are very good at getting the neurotic
> to spend thousands more than they need to for benefits that only others can
> see.


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).
 
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