One major downside possible with camera-based lens correction

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 18, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. That
    is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
    to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
    optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
    available to the raw images in any post-processing software. I don't
    know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
    aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
    if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.
     
    RichA, Jun 18, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    charles Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. That
    >is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
    >to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
    >optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
    >available to the raw images in any post-processing software. I don't
    >know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
    >aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
    >if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.



    So what was the downside? If people want good looking jpgs and the
    camera gives the m thaat way, what's bad?
     
    charles, Jun 19, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 18, 8:16 pm, charles <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images.  That
    > >is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
    > >to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
    > >optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
    > >available to the raw images in any post-processing software.  I don't
    > >know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
    > >aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
    > >if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.

    >
    > So what was the downside?  If people want good looking jpgs and the
    > camera gives the m thaat way, what's bad?


    Whooosh! You missed it, didn't you?
     
    RichA, Jun 19, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. That
    >is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
    >to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
    >optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
    >available to the raw images in any post-processing software. I don't
    >know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
    >aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
    >if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.


    Seems like it should be possible to embed the lens profile and/or
    correction parameters in the raw file. They do it with the white
    balance, etc. so why not?
     
    John A., Jun 19, 2010
    #4
  5. On 6/19/2010 2:34 PM, Paul Furman wrote:

    >
    > Because the camera manufacturer wants you to buy their software, not
    > Adobe's. It's not a big deal generally but if it's important to you, use
    > their raw converter.


    Huh? Canon's raw converter is quite inferior to Adobe's, at least
    for the 30D I own. In particular, Adobe does a far better job on
    changing the exposure before conversion from raw to gamma-corrected
    file. Canon's software appears to convert to gamma-correct, complete with
    heel and toe, BEFORE correcting exposure. This leads to clipped whites.

    Neither Adobe nor dcraw do this.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Jun 19, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Pete Guest

    On 2010-06-19 21:16:44 +0100, Doug McDonald said:

    > On 6/19/2010 2:34 PM, Paul Furman wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Because the camera manufacturer wants you to buy their software, not
    >> Adobe's. It's not a big deal generally but if it's important to you, use
    >> their raw converter.

    >
    > Huh? Canon's raw converter is quite inferior to Adobe's, at least
    > for the 30D I own. In particular, Adobe does a far better job on
    > changing the exposure before conversion from raw to gamma-corrected
    > file. Canon's software appears to convert to gamma-correct, complete with
    > heel and toe, BEFORE correcting exposure. This leads to clipped whites.
    >
    > Neither Adobe nor dcraw do this.
    >
    > Doug McDonald


    The debate over hardware is stupid, but this is a major software issue.
    I'm all Nikon, a friend is all Canon, HW and SW. Both of us can produce
    superlative images (mine is only a hobby, he's been living off Canon
    images for decades). What gives?

    --
    Pete
     
    Pete, Jun 19, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 19/06/2010 21:34, Paul Furman wrote:

    > Because the camera manufacturer wants you to buy their software, not
    > Adobe's.


    Canon software is free, AFAIK.


    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Jun 19, 2010
    #7
  8. In rec.photo.digital RichA <> wrote:

    > The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. That
    > is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
    > to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
    > optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
    > available to the raw images in any post-processing software. I don't
    > know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
    > aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
    > if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.


    If that's what's worrying you, consider the even more awful
    possibility of a camera whose images look their best on the camera's
    lcd.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 20, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 19, 7:28 pm, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > > The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images.  That
    > > is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
    > > to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
    > > optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
    > > available to the raw images in any post-processing software.  I don't
    > > know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
    > > aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
    > > if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.

    >
    > If that's what's worrying you, consider the even more awful
    > possibility of a camera whose images look their best on the camera's
    > lcd.
    >
    > --
    > Chris Malcolm
    > Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.


    They all do. The little 3" LCD image is hardly taxing to the average
    12 megapixel camera.
     
    RichA, Jun 20, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:15:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >On Jun 19, 7:28 pm, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >> If that's what's worrying you, consider the even more awful
    >> possibility of a camera whose images look their best on the camera's
    >> lcd.

    >
    >They all do. The little 3" LCD image is hardly taxing to the average
    >12 megapixel camera.



    Whoosh!

    That one went right past you .... ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jun 20, 2010
    #10
  11. On 6/19/2010 3:36 PM, Pete wrote:
    > On 2010-06-19 21:16:44 +0100, Doug McDonald said:
    >
    >> Huh? Canon's raw converter is quite inferior to Adobe's, at least
    >> for the 30D I own. In particular, Adobe does a far better job on
    >> changing the exposure before conversion from raw to gamma-corrected
    >> file. Canon's software appears to convert to gamma-correct, complete with
    >> heel and toe, BEFORE correcting exposure. This leads to clipped whites.
    >>
    >> Neither Adobe nor dcraw do this.
    >>
    >> Doug McDonald

    >
    > The debate over hardware is stupid, but this is a major software issue.
    > I'm all Nikon, a friend is all Canon, HW and SW. Both of us can produce
    > superlative images (mine is only a hobby, he's been living off Canon
    > images for decades). What gives?
    >


    If he specializes in waterfalls photographed in the direct sunlight, he
    does not use Canon's "digital photo professional" raw converter.

    I get over one stop of better detail in the shadows by using Adobe's
    raw to jpeg converter (or dcraw), because I can expose more by that much,
    without blowing the highlights in the final file. Of course, other
    converters may do as good a job.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Jun 20, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Pete Guest

    On 2010-06-20 13:27:56 +0100, Doug McDonald said:

    > On 6/19/2010 3:36 PM, Pete wrote:
    >> On 2010-06-19 21:16:44 +0100, Doug McDonald said:
    >>
    >>> Huh? Canon's raw converter is quite inferior to Adobe's, at least
    >>> for the 30D I own. In particular, Adobe does a far better job on
    >>> changing the exposure before conversion from raw to gamma-corrected
    >>> file. Canon's software appears to convert to gamma-correct, complete with
    >>> heel and toe, BEFORE correcting exposure. This leads to clipped whites.
    >>>
    >>> Neither Adobe nor dcraw do this.
    >>>
    >>> Doug McDonald

    >>
    >> The debate over hardware is stupid, but this is a major software issue.
    >> I'm all Nikon, a friend is all Canon, HW and SW. Both of us can produce
    >> superlative images (mine is only a hobby, he's been living off Canon
    >> images for decades). What gives?
    >>

    >
    > If he specializes in waterfalls photographed in the direct sunlight, he
    > does not use Canon's "digital photo professional" raw converter.
    >
    > I get over one stop of better detail in the shadows by using Adobe's
    > raw to jpeg converter (or dcraw), because I can expose more by that much,
    > without blowing the highlights in the final file. Of course, other
    > converters may do as good a job.


    Thanks for the explanation, Doug.

    --
    Pete
     
    Pete, Jun 20, 2010
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Poly-poly man

    Firefox downside, maybe?

    Poly-poly man, Feb 12, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,241
    Leonidas Jones
    Feb 14, 2005
  2. Kenneth

    Dynamic Disk downside...?

    Kenneth, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,110
    apple2012
    Aug 4, 2010
  3. Robert Desel

    Any downside to using a 1gig CF card?

    Robert Desel, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    566
    Chris Hoopes
    Aug 12, 2003
  4. Cardamon Dave

    What's the downside of Canon S60?

    Cardamon Dave, Sep 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    273
  5. Rolf

    Any downside to using secretsatellite.com?

    Rolf, Apr 25, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,235
    Jordon
    Apr 25, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page