Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: A pixel by any other name...

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: A pixel by any other name...

 
 
philo 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2013
On 04/11/2013 06:18 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> I think digital photography is beyond my mental capacities (sigh).
>
> I have several photos that were saved both as raw image files and as
> jpgs. For many of them, the jpg file reports more pixels than the raw
> image file. How can that be? I thought a jpg file was a compressed
> version of the raw image file. So the number of pixels should be at most
> the same, and I would have thought somewhat lower.
>
> Here are a couple of examples:
>


<snip>

You may want to read this article:



http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2013
In article <kk7gpm$pa2$(E-Mail Removed)>, philo* <philo@privcy.not>
wrote:

> You may want to read this article:
>
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm


actually, you *don't* want to read that article.

that person makes stuff up and intentionally misleads people, thinking
it's some sort of game (he admits this on his about page).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
philo 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-13-2013
On 04/11/2013 06:44 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kk7gpm$pa2$(E-Mail Removed)>, philo <philo@privcy.not>
> wrote:
>
>> You may want to read this article:
>>
>>
>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

>
> actually, you *don't* want to read that article.
>
> that person makes stuff up and intentionally misleads people, thinking
> it's some sort of game (he admits this on his about page).
>



Since you cannot cite an example I'm going to have to assume you are
trolling. (Others may make their own judgment.)

The writer states quite clearly that what he writes is simply his own
opinion.
--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-13-2013
In article <kkc9rg$fj4$(E-Mail Removed)>, philo* <philo@privcy.not>
wrote:

> >> You may want to read this article:
> >>
> >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

> >
> > actually, you *don't* want to read that article.
> >
> > that person makes stuff up and intentionally misleads people, thinking
> > it's some sort of game (he admits this on his about page).

>
> Since you cannot cite an example I'm going to have to assume you are
> trolling. (Others may make their own judgment.)


an example of what? do you mean errors in the above link? there are
*numerous* problems with that page. here's a few:

Raw requires dedicated software to read.

completely wrong. mac os x has raw support built in, which means most
mac software can read raw directly. even just tapping the spacebar will
open an image.

photoshop and lightroom open both raw and jpeg and make no distinction
between them, including being able to use camera raw on jpeg (but you
don't get the full benefit that way, obviously). in other words, the
workflow is *identical* for raw and jpeg, with the *same* software.

If you use Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw, you just might have to buy
the newest version of Photoshop, since Adobe doesn't update older
versions to read the files from new cameras.

nope. convert to dng and use your existing photoshop.

If you're shooting action, raw doesn't work. You'll fill an 8 gig
card faster than you can imagine.

more nonsense. it works just fine.

I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and
doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files.

disk space is cheap and raw can easily look better than jpeg.

all of that was just from the first section!

more idiocy:
Many people who shoot raw, which I consider to be a big waste of
time, don't realize that white balance can be adjusted in Photoshop
even from JPGs

it can, but the results are nowhere near as good as with raw.

one of the key advantages of raw is being able to set white balance
*after* you shoot. there is no downside because raw doesn't actually
have a white balance until it's processed.

Raw is NOT a digital negative. Unlike a real negative, it still has
restricted resolution and dynamic range, and most importantly, cannot
be read or seen except with very special software. JPGs are far more
universally read, and closer to a negative in terms of being visible
to everyone over time. Raw is like a color negative since each piece
of software you might use to open it yields different colors!

raw *is* a digital negative. that's the whole point.

in fact, some cameras save raw in dng format, which stands for digital
negative!

real negatives have restricted resolution and dynamic range. nothing is
unlimited. jpegs are closer to a print, not a negative.

a negative has to be held up to the light (or on a lightbox), and even
then, it's almost impossible to tell what it is because there's a deep
orange mask and colours are reversed.

3.) Because it's not standardized, you can't send these files to
clients or anyone and expect them to open.

of course you can. raw support is built into modern operating systems.
anyone who expects to receive raw files probably has photoshop or
lightroom or similar and can open them that way too.

> The writer states quite clearly that what he writes is simply his own
> opinion.


what he says is that he makes stuff up for fun and that some of what's
on the site is actually a hoax.

<http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm>
I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and
myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave
fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a
good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like
some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for
the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel
Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling
his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of
humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website,
and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as
does The Onion, and I publish them here ‹ even on this page.

read it for entertainment, not for learning.
 
Reply With Quote
 
philo 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-13-2013
On 04/13/2013 03:42 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kkc9rg$fj4$(E-Mail Removed)>, philo <philo@privcy.not>
> wrote:
>
>>>> You may want to read this article:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
>>>
>>> actually, you *don't* want to read that article.
>>>
>>> that person makes stuff up and intentionally misleads people, thinking
>>> it's some sort of game (he admits this on his about page).

>>
>> Since you cannot cite an example I'm going to have to assume you are
>> trolling. (Others may make their own judgment.)

>
> an example of what? do you mean errors in the above link? there are
> *numerous* problems with that page. here's a few:
>
> Raw requires dedicated software to read.
>
> completely wrong. mac os x has raw support built in, which means most
> mac software can read raw directly. even just tapping the spacebar will
> open an image.
>



<snip>


Ok I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-13-2013
In article <kkckci$kor$(E-Mail Removed)>, philo* <philo@privcy.not>
wrote:

> >>> that person makes stuff up and intentionally misleads people, thinking
> >>> it's some sort of game (he admits this on his about page).
> >>
> >> Since you cannot cite an example I'm going to have to assume you are
> >> trolling. (Others may make their own judgment.)

> >
> > an example of what? do you mean errors in the above link? there are
> > *numerous* problems with that page. here's a few:
> >
> > Raw requires dedicated software to read.
> >
> > completely wrong. mac os x has raw support built in, which means most
> > mac software can read raw directly. even just tapping the spacebar will
> > open an image.

>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Ok I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion


they are, even when it's wrong.

what i wrote was fact.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2013
On 4/13/2013 5:31 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kkckci$kor$(E-Mail Removed)>, philo <philo@privcy.not>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> that person makes stuff up and intentionally misleads people, thinking
>>>>> it's some sort of game (he admits this on his about page).
>>>>
>>>> Since you cannot cite an example I'm going to have to assume you are
>>>> trolling. (Others may make their own judgment.)
>>>
>>> an example of what? do you mean errors in the above link? there are
>>> *numerous* problems with that page. here's a few:
>>>
>>> Raw requires dedicated software to read.
>>>
>>> completely wrong. mac os x has raw support built in, which means most
>>> mac software can read raw directly. even just tapping the spacebar will
>>> open an image.

>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Ok I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion

>
> they are, even when it's wrong.
>
> what i wrote was fact.



Do you believe Ken Rockwell's "Apple" articles?

Apple Reviews and Guides <http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/index.htm>

John
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2013
In article <kkhoqr$rpd$(E-Mail Removed)>, John Turco
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Do you believe Ken Rockwell's "Apple" articles?
>
> Apple Reviews and Guides <http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/index.htm>


nope. there's bogus stuff there too.
 
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
Is Fuji S3000 3.2m/pixel output, or 6 m/pixel interpolated output? Peter H Digital Photography 43 12-04-2003 02:35 PM
Fuji S3000 - 3.2 m/pixel or 6 m/pixel? Peter H Digital Photography 3 11-18-2003 11:17 PM
Re: Pixel size of individual Pixel Robert E. Williams Digital Photography 2 09-16-2003 03:02 PM
Re: Pixel size of individual Pixel Tom Thackrey Digital Photography 2 09-14-2003 04:17 PM
Hot pixel vs. stuck pixel Abrasha Digital Photography 5 09-02-2003 04:49 PM



Advertisments