«

In article <>, Alfred
Molon <> wrote:

> And a RAW conversion involves much more than just 2 or 3 parameters:
>
> - white balance (at least two parameters)
> - contrast, saturation, gamma, white point, black point and more
> - shadow and highlight recovery
> - selective hue, saturation, brightness etc.
> - noise correction parameters
> - sharpness parameters
> - lens corrections (aberrations, vignetting etc.)

the jpeg would need the same.

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 09:11:50 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-12-02 08:20:42 -0800, Alan Browne
><> said:
>
>> On 2012.12.02 10:57 , tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 09:37:53 -0500, Alan Browne
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I did not say he had to adopt the workflow. I said to understand it
>> properly he has to try it. Otherwise stop claiming there is no
>> advantage to it via looking for excuses in what one person (Molon) says
>> v. the majority of photographers here.
>
>Yup! If what he is currently doing is to his satisfaction, he should do
>as he pleases. However he should not make ridiculous, claims in the
>face of the experience of others using a decent RAW workflow.
>
>> In this thread he asked (several times) for us to show him raw v. JPEG
>> photos to see the difference.
>>
>> My (and other's) retort has been: do it yourself - that's the only way
>> to discover it properly.
>
>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.
>
>Batch processing available via Bridge and Lightroom can be a great time
>saver. Also, now that I am using LR4 with the 2012 ACR engine, I find
>the entire process transparent, almost as if I am not thinking RAW or
>JPEG, I am just processing my image. Then if I need, or want to I can
>always edit the result in CS5, or use any of the NIK plugins I have,
>which function seamlessly with LR4 & CS5.
>
>Gary is still the only one in this room who can make an evaluative
>comparison of the two workflows to make his choice. Like you, I feel he
>is foolish to reject one of the major features leading to better final
>IQ, which he has already paid for in his camera.
>
>> In the meantime he's only spouting excuses on the one side while
>> studiously ignoring the other. If he sincerely tries it and really
>> finds no advantages for himself, fine. To date his search is to find
>> reasons (excuses) to avoid it entirely without testing it.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm done with this particular "poster" (may be a "t" in there
>> that shouldn't).

My son-in-law shoots surfers in Jacksonville Beach. Action shots.
This morning, according to my daughter who called earlier, he took
over 800 frames. He's got a nice side income from selling the photos
to the surfers.

It's a rather different business model. Dave doesn't have a website
and doesn't have internet access at home. Jax Beach is one of those
tight communities where everyone knows everyone else. The surfers
approach Dave and tell him to get some photos of them, or they come up
and ask if he's taken some shots of them. Dave gets prints made and
delivers the prints a few days later. He knows all the surfers by
sight and they all know him. Sometimes he leaves the photos with the
ticket-taker at the Pier and picks up the money a few days later. No
one stiffs him. Sometimes the surfers request a CD or borrow Dave's
thumbdrive so they can upload to their phone or pad. They always
return the thumbdrive.

He just bought a Nikon used D2X body from a pro friend and a new
Tamron 18/270 lens to replace the D40 and 55-200 lens. He bought them
with the proceeds of the photos.

He shoots all .jpg, set to shutter speed, and does no editing. He
sees no reason to shoot RAW and doesn't want to fill a card with
larger files. It works for him.

There are a couple of pro photographers who have websites with
pay-for-download, but Dave does a better business than they do.

What works, works.








--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
>
>I can definitely see a reason to go RAW for portrait photogs who will be
>making 20 x 24 canvas wall images, but for wedding especially I would rather
>not. The last one I shot 750 images. Most were fantastic, some were low
>light and might have benefited from RAW but I would rather get the exposures
>right in the first place than rely on fixing it in post.


Imagine learning about a new technique for wedding photography that
only took a few extra minutes in post-processing but solved the
problem of inadequate dynamic range and also offered many other
improvements in image quality. It would be welcomed, not just with
enthusiasm but with elation!

Then imagine being told that this technique had been around for years,
and all it involved was using RAW files rather than JPEGs. An
intelligent person would not be able to understand why every wedding
shooter wasn't already using it.

Of almost all the genres for a working photographer, wedding
photography is surely one that benefits most from RAW. I find it is
not the low light images that benefit most, rather it is the images
shot in direct sunlight where the range of contrast between a groom's
dark suit and a bride's white gown is greater than a JPEG could
possibly record. Accidentally underexposed images also benefit from
RAW because you can bring them up by a couple of stops more than you
can with JPEGs.

"Fantastic JPEG images" demonstrating that you don't need to shoot RAW
don't exist, except in your imagination. However, the Usenet postings
that demonstrate your profound ignorance of technique (ignorance that
you appear proud to defend) number many.

Among hack wedding shooters, I doubt that there are many whose work
would *not* benefit from shooting and post processing RAW images.
Unfortunately, however, the majority will be unwilling to make the
small additional effort involved in spite of the rewards, which are
disproportionately great.

'Twas ever thus.

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 18:01:58 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
<> wrote:

>And Photoshop CS4. I have all of the programs I need to shoot RAW. I have
>tried it. I will try it again, maybe even experiment to TRY and find
>differences.

I have CS4 and Lightroom, shoot RAW (mostly) and do all my
post-processing in CS4. I use Lightroom solely for the keywording
feature so I can quickly locate images with a particular subject or by
date.

I readily admit that I under-utilize Lightroom by not using it for
post-processing. I don't care. While I'm capable of learing how to
edit in LR, I'm comfortable with my present system and have no
interest in changing.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:37:27 +0000, Anthony Polson
<> wrote:

>"Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
>>
>>I can definitely see a reason to go RAW for portrait photogs who will be
>>making 20 x 24 canvas wall images, but for wedding especially I would rather
>>not. The last one I shot 750 images. Most were fantastic, some were low
>>light and might have benefited from RAW but I would rather get the exposures
>>right in the first place than rely on fixing it in post.
>
>
>Imagine learning about a new technique for wedding photography that
>only took a few extra minutes in post-processing but solved the
>problem of inadequate dynamic range and also offered many other
>improvements in image quality. It would be welcomed, not just with
>enthusiasm but with elation!
>
>Then imagine being told that this technique had been around for years,
>and all it involved was using RAW files rather than JPEGs. An
>intelligent person would not be able to understand why every wedding
>shooter wasn't already using it.
>
>Of almost all the genres for a working photographer, wedding
>photography is surely one that benefits most from RAW. I find it is
>not the low light images that benefit most, rather it is the images
>shot in direct sunlight where the range of contrast between a groom's
>dark suit and a bride's white gown is greater than a JPEG could
>possibly record. Accidentally underexposed images also benefit from
>RAW because you can bring them up by a couple of stops more than you
>can with JPEGs.
>
>"Fantastic JPEG images" demonstrating that you don't need to shoot RAW
>don't exist, except in your imagination. However, the Usenet postings
>that demonstrate your profound ignorance of technique (ignorance that
>you appear proud to defend) number many.
>
>Among hack wedding shooters, I doubt that there are many whose work
>would *not* benefit from shooting and post processing RAW images.
>Unfortunately, however, the majority will be unwilling to make the
>small additional effort involved in spite of the rewards, which are
>disproportionately great.
>
>'Twas ever thus.

Our two most vocal "experts"- Polson and nospam - in processing
technique, workflow, and software programs to use are so proud of
their ability and output that they won't post a link to any of their
results here. Presumably, because their output is so good that the
rest of us would be so out-classed that we'd never be brave enough to
show our work again.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <25Rus.493002$4>, Gary Eickmeier
<> 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.
>
> Many times.

bullshit.

> > 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.
>
> Well, there you go again. Shooting digital with WB all wrong. Who would do
> that?

not intentionally, but mistakes happen.

most of the time, auto white balance isn't exactly ideal and you need
to adjust the white balance a little (or even a lot). or maybe you just
want a special effect.

same for other adjustments.

unless you always get it perfect in the camera all the time, you *will*
need to adjust stuff later.

> >> 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?
>
> Audiophiles.

what does that have to do with raw processing?

as i said, you don't have to spend a cent extra.

> > 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).
>
> And Photoshop CS4. I have all of the programs I need to shoot RAW. I have
> tried it. I will try it again, maybe even experiment to TRY and find
> differences.

the fact that you say that the controls are clumsy and that it takes a
lot more work to work with raw means you don't know how to use the
software you already have.

it takes *no* additional work and the controls are exactly the same.

In article <p9Rus.659857$4>, Gary Eickmeier
<> wrote:

> Alfred Molon pointed out that if a shot is exposed correctly and if it ends
> up as a JPG or other 8 bit file after all is said and done, there may be no
> perceptual difference between the two. Unless sometimes the camera's jpeg
> engine is better than your aftermarket RAW processor.

*if* it's shot correctly and needs no adjustment, then maybe.

in the real world, that doesn't happen very often, if ever.

if you're that lucky to get every shot perfectly exposed, then go buy a
lottery ticket.

On 12/2/2012 12:48 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> no it doesn't. it uses the embedded jpeg.
>
> In any case, you can easily see whether you have blown out the
highlights,

well, yes, BUT ... at least on a Canon its not at all easy to tell
that you HAVE blown the highlights, or have gotten close to blowing them.

And at least on the two Canons I own (a 30D and a 7D) the only way to
get close to doing that (seeing how close you are to blown) is to set
the in-camera JPEG mode to "faithful" or "natural" and set the contrast
all the way down, then look at the histogram. The flashing highlight
overload feature can flash **and in fact you are not blown**. It can be
at least 2/3 stop too conservative. And by blown I mean blown in
any of R, G, B. And that which is blown in DPP may in fact not be blown
in ACR or looking at the binary of the file. 2/3 stop is a big
deal for high contrast scenes.

Doug McDonald

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!

Doug McDonald

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 21:07:32 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd->
wrote:

>tony cooper <> writes:
>
>> I readily admit that I under-utilize Lightroom by not using it for
>> post-processing. I don't care. While I'm capable of learing how to
>> edit in LR, I'm comfortable with my present system and have no
>> interest in changing.
>
>Since you don't have a problem, I won't tell you how to fix it .
>What works for you is great for you.

Exactly, and I appreciate that. There should be more of that here
instead of this dick-waving "I do it this way and you should too".



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida