Re: A pixel by any other name...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by philo , Apr 12, 2013.

  1. philo 

    philo  Guest

    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
    philo , Apr 12, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. philo 

    nospam Guest

    In article <kk7gpm$pa2$>, 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).
    nospam, Apr 12, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. philo 

    philo  Guest

    On 04/11/2013 06:44 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kk7gpm$pa2$>, 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
    philo , Apr 13, 2013
    #3
  4. philo 

    nospam Guest

    In article <kkc9rg$fj4$>, 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.
    nospam, Apr 13, 2013
    #4
  5. philo 

    philo  Guest

    On 04/13/2013 03:42 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kkc9rg$fj4$>, 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
    philo , Apr 13, 2013
    #5
  6. philo 

    nospam Guest

    In article <kkckci$kor$>, 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.
    nospam, Apr 13, 2013
    #6
  7. philo 

    John Turco Guest

    On 4/13/2013 5:31 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kkckci$kor$>, 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
    John Turco, Apr 15, 2013
    #7
  8. philo 

    nospam Guest

    In article <kkhoqr$rpd$>, John Turco
    <> 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.
    nospam, Apr 15, 2013
    #8
    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. nospam

    Re: A pixel by any other name...

    nospam, Apr 12, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    138
    nospam
    Apr 12, 2013
  2. nospam

    Re: A pixel by any other name...

    nospam, Apr 12, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    129
    nospam
    Apr 12, 2013
  3. RichA

    Re: A pixel by any other name...

    RichA, Apr 12, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    171
    RichA
    Apr 12, 2013
  4. Martin Brown

    Re: A pixel by any other name...

    Martin Brown, Apr 12, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    187
    nospam
    Apr 12, 2013
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: A pixel by any other name...

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 15, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    125
    nospam
    Apr 17, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page