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

 
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2012
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Gary Eickmeier <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:k9c4c6$lom$(E-Mail Removed)...


>> Sad to think of someone shooting a wedding and throwing out half the image
>> quality, but there you go.
>> PS or Lightroom can automaticly apply your camera adjustments to RAW files
>> when you do that "processing" just as the camera does to the jpegs. You
>> sure don't know much if you "shudder at the thought of all that
>> processing" you computer does for you!
>> Frankly you seem to be proud of your ignorance, why?


> OK, so I am iggerant. But you guys haven't been able to show me an example
> of a RAW image vs a JPG shot at the same time that demonstrates this
> superiority of image.


Why should we bother? For a start most aren't using your camera to
produce your kind of images. Secondly it's easy for you -- if you're
really interested -- to do the experiments suggested for yourself. If
*you* find no siginficant difference, then clearly there's no point in
you bothering with RAW, and no point in anyone trying to convert you
using results from another camera taking the kinds of photographs you
don't take.

I shoot RAW when I'm reaching for best quality images for exhibition
or sale, and also when conditions are really bad or I have no time to
optimise camera settings. Under those conditions the differences are
considerable. Otherwise I shoot jpegs because nobody except me (or
another finical photographic pedant) would notice or care about the
small differences.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2012
Neil Ellwood <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I can't speak for other dslr's but my canon came with raw software that is
>very good and I have kept it up to date. I have other raw software on my
>desktop and on my laptop but still usually use the canon one as it is easy
>and quick to use.



For people using only one camera brand, the brand's own software is
usually a good choice. Nikon users might not agree, however.

If you own one of the latest Fujifilm mirrorless cameras, you are
forced to use Fujifilm's own software because no-one else's will
decode the RAW files from the non-Bayer sensor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Anthony Polson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> If you own one of the latest Fujifilm mirrorless cameras, you are
> forced to use Fujifilm's own software because no-one else's will
> decode the RAW files from the non-Bayer sensor.


fuji uses bayer sensors.

you must mean sigma and the foveon sensor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stuffed Crust
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2012
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
> 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.


For what it's worth, Nikon .NEFs have always contain an embedded
basic-quality JPEG "preview image" (plus an additional thumbnail), so if
you're shooting RAW, you're already getting a JPEG for "free".

I use those embedded JPEGs for my first-pass culling and
instant-gratification slideshows, and queue the remaining ones for batch
processing with default settings. I only muck with individual images as
needed, but when I do, I want as much detail to work with as possible.

I shoot with and keep the RAWs around for the same reason I always shoot
at the highest resolution and quality settings -- You can always throw
away data after the fact (eg for online publishing), but you can't get
it back once it's gone.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:52:42 +0000, Anthony Polson
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>For people using only one camera brand, the brand's own software is
>>usually a good choice. Nikon users might not agree, however.

>
>I love NX2 and only wish it did more. If Nikon don't wish to develop
>it to a full-capability editor, I wish they would enable it as a
>plug-in for Photo Shop or Paint Shop Pro. The only thing that puts
>people off NX2 is that it is written by Nik and incorporates that
>companies interestingly quirky user interface. I can understand why
>people might not like it (it's different) but once you have got used
>to it you will find that it is both fast to use and very powerful.



I have tended to use it only briefly until a new version of Adobe
Camera Raw is released, so I have never had reason to spend time
learning and getting to know it well.

However, I have sold cameras to many Nikon users in the last few years
and there seems to be a wide range of opinions about NX2.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-04-2012
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Gary Eickmeier <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2012.12.01 17:12 , Alfred Molon wrote:


[but the ">>" attributions are screwed by Gary's non-standard quoting]

>>> All this painful work, and in 60-90% of cases you end up with an
>>> image which is not better than the camera JPEG (this percentage of
>>> course depends on the scene - there are scenes with difficult
>>> lighting conditions, where less camera JPEGs will be usable).


It's very easy to discover which images need careful processing and
which simply need a quick tweak, or nothing at all. All you have to do
is try your usual simple jpeg adjsutments. When they fail to satisfy
is when you need to use more and more powerful tools. Of course if
they never fail to satisfy you or your clients then there is no point
in you personally bothering with RAW.

>> It's funny how you bring up terms like "painful" which may apply to
>> you but don't seem to apply to most people discussing this here.
>>
>> As to workflow, simplification is always better - so shoot one format
>> only and save card space.


> 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.


With perfect exposure there is still a lot more latitude in exposure
range (aka dynamic range) in RAW files than the jpegs. For example, if
you wanted to catch detail in both the shaded areas of a black suit
and a sunlit lace wedding dress you could get a lot more out of a tone
mapped or curve-adjusted RAW file than any ex-camera jpeg. But if
you've never done that kind of thing before you'd need to learn some
new skills in order to be able to do that.

Or you could simply wait for the next generation of camera which has
managed to package some of those methods into a selectable in-camera
jpeg processing mode. But those are of course always limited by
processing power. For example in-camera jpeg high ISO noise reduction
keeps improving all the time. But it's never as good, and never could
as good, as what you can get from dedicated noise reduction software
which takes its time to do the best job, and takes your time to set it
up to do what you want in this particular image.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-04-2012
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Anthony Polson
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> If you own one of the latest Fujifilm mirrorless cameras, you are
>>> forced to use Fujifilm's own software because no-one else's will
>>> decode the RAW files from the non-Bayer sensor.

>>
>> fuji uses bayer sensors.

>
>One of the Fujis advertises a pattern that isn't "RGBG", and that in
>fact isn't regular, it's random. (Fixed, and the same on all cameras,
>but not a regular pattern across the pixels.)
>
>This is to reduce color aliasing, and it should work in theory (haven't
>played with the camera). But I see how it would cause a bit of a mess
>for RAW-processing software; they'd have to know what the pattern was.



There are currently two Fujifilm cameras with the proprietary sensor,
the X-Pro1 and the X-E1. The pattern is not random. The same pattern
is repeated all over the sensor. However, it is a different pattern
to Bayer's.

The intention is to allow the sensor to be used without an
anti-aliasing filter. It seems to work; the results show a higher
resolution than would be the case for a Bayer sensor of comparable MP
such as the Sony 16 MP CMOS sensor in the Nikon D7000, Pentax K5 etc..
However, it is beaten for resolution by the 24 MP sensor in the Nikon
D600 and Sony A99 and the pixel pattern does not completely eliminate
aliasing.


>But I see how it would cause a bit of a mess
>for RAW-processing software; they'd have to know what the pattern was.



There is real difficulty here; obviously Fujifilm's pattern is
patented and there are intellectual property issues around licensing
Fujifilm's RAW processing code to vendors of post processing software.
Eventually, these issues will be resolved, but not yet. So, in the
meantime, only Fujifilm's own RAW converter can be used.

The store I used to work for has sold many X-Pro1 bodies. The
feedback from users seems to indicate that they are very happy with
their cameras, but an higher-than-expected percentage appear to be
choosing out-of-the-camera JPEGs.


 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-04-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Anthony Polson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>> If you own one of the latest Fujifilm mirrorless cameras, you are
> >>> forced to use Fujifilm's own software because no-one else's will
> >>> decode the RAW files from the non-Bayer sensor.
> >>
> >> fuji uses bayer sensors.

> >
> >One of the Fujis advertises a pattern that isn't "RGBG", and that in
> >fact isn't regular, it's random. (Fixed, and the same on all cameras,
> >but not a regular pattern across the pixels.)
> >
> >This is to reduce color aliasing, and it should work in theory (haven't
> >played with the camera). But I see how it would cause a bit of a mess
> >for RAW-processing software; they'd have to know what the pattern was.

>
> There are currently two Fujifilm cameras with the proprietary sensor,
> the X-Pro1 and the X-E1.


both of which are supported by adobe camera raw.

> The pattern is not random. The same pattern
> is repeated all over the sensor. However, it is a different pattern
> to Bayer's.


it's a variant, versus sigma/foveon which is *very* different.

> >But I see how it would cause a bit of a mess
> >for RAW-processing software; they'd have to know what the pattern was.

>
> There is real difficulty here; obviously Fujifilm's pattern is
> patented and there are intellectual property issues around licensing
> Fujifilm's RAW processing code to vendors of post processing software.
> Eventually, these issues will be resolved, but not yet. So, in the
> meantime, only Fujifilm's own RAW converter can be used.


wrong.

adobe camera raw supports those cameras, which means photoshop,
photoshop elements and lightroom all support raw files from them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-04-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alfred
Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Yeah, right. Ask anybody these days. Nikon is making the best DSLRs in
> > the market.

>
> If they are the best, why is there is 3/4 stop exposure mistake?


so canon gets it right 100% of the time?
 
Reply With Quote
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2012
On 12/4/2012 2:18 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>>> This is very much not my experience (Nikon D700 and Olympus EPL-2
>>> currently). Particularly exposure; it's fairly frequent for me to
>>> adjust plus or minus 3/4 stop.

>>
>> Very strange that an expensive camera like your D700 would miss the
>> exposure so often. Perhaps Nikon does not make good cameras.

>



> Yeah, right. Ask anybody these days. Nikon is making the best DSLRs in
> the market.


...... and we are unanimous in that opinion.


>
>>> I can improve images a LOT with average of a few seconds an image. When
>>> I go on for the images that can support it to try for a first-class
>>> rendition, *that* takes half an hour or anything up to off and on for a
>>> month (well, one extreme case was 30 years, but most of those 30 years I
>>> never looked at it).

>>
>> The problem with your few seconds per image is that you have no time to
>> edit anything. No time to look at the image and think how it should be.
>> A few seconds is nothing.

>
> I'm not sure if we're having a terminological difference or an actual
> difference here. A few seconds per photo *average* often means picking
> the 6 or 8 photos near each other with the same exposure and then
> adjusting exposure once for the group. This doesn't give time for a
> perfect job, but I'm in no doubt that I've made an improvements. I use
> this kind of thing for web proofs of high-volume events (event candids
> and sports photos, mostly). And maybe I'm overly optimistic, maybe the
> group takes me a minute rather than 30 seconds.
>
> The *previous* step is classifying the shots as 0-3 stars (very very
> occasionally 4, but mostly 4 only gets assigned later after I've lived
> with the photo a while), and I'm working with a list filtered to 2 stars
> and up. This step is traditionally what "editing" means of photos; it's
> what a photo editor does, for example. Unfortunately it now clashes
> with the computer usage where an "editor" is a powerful tool for
> modifying a particular class of file (text editor, photo editor, video
> editor).
>


 
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