Re: RAW vs. JPG: Fidelity vs. Convenience

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by NameHere, Dec 24, 2009.

  1. NameHere

    NameHere Guest

    On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:18:59 -0800 (PST), eNo <>
    wrote:

    >Here's an article that applies Kevin Maney's "Fidelity vs.
    >Convenience" guide to the RAW vs. JPG question to show why and how
    >each approach is successful.
    >
    >http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=917
    >
    >~~~
    >eNo


    There's a couple glaring errors in your blog.

    First off, many cameras provide the full dynamic range from the sensor's
    RAW data in their JPG files. RAW only became popularized by dSLR owners who
    were complaining that their cameras weren't doing the RAW > JPG conversion
    properly. And many dSLR cameras sold even today still don't do it properly.
    You know which cameras those are because their owners are always espousing
    the benefits of RAW. Whereas, many P&S cameras with RAW capability, you'd
    be hard pressed to better the JPG image that comes right from the camera by
    trying to manipulate the original RAW data to equal the JPG image. For
    those cameras which do it right the first time, there really is no need for
    RAW. This of course also depends on the talents of the photographer too. If
    they don't know how to expose an image properly in the first place they are
    always looking for that RAW crutch to back up their lame photography
    skills.

    Secondly, only MOST editors will degrade a JPG image after editing,
    resaving, reloading, reediting, resaving, et.al. But not ALL editors will
    degrade JPG images during edits and resaves. Photoline does truly lossless
    JPG editing. Not just lossless rotations. Which it also manages to do
    better by keeping any uneven 8x8 block-counts on edges intact. Many
    lossless rotations in other editors truncate images to even multiples of
    8x8 pixel dimensions. I know of no other editors that can make and back-up
    this lossless JPG editing claim. When using Photoline the only pixels that
    get changed when resaving a JPG file are the ones you specifically choose
    to change. No further JPG artifacts are introduced into the resulting
    image. Unless you specifically choose a JPG compression much lower than the
    original file's compression, thereby intentionally forcing Photoline to put
    your image through the JPG algorithm again.

    As to what I prefer, JPG or RAW? I prefer to do my homework and make sure
    that I am buying a camera that will do the JPG conversion from its sensor's
    RAW data correctly the first time. Then I don't have to muck about and
    waste my time trying to fix what the camera maker failed to do properly in
    the first place. My photography skills are also good enough that I don't
    have to try to repair badly exposed images by relying on RAW data later.
    Those who claim otherwise for their photography ... well, that's exactly
    what they are claiming otherwise. They're your typical non-talented
    snapshooter in dire need of any crutch that they can lean on to save them
    from their perpetual crap-shots.

    If only they could buy a dSLR with a point and shoot talent-mode built in
    too, they'd be all over it in a heartbeat.
    NameHere, Dec 24, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. NameHere

    NameHere Guest

    On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:20:31 -0800, "nsbm" <> wrote:

    >I do not know of any camera ever made that has a satisfactory jpeg
    >algorithm.
    >The "good enough" mentality would favor a Yugo over a Mercedes.
    >
    >


    That's what comes from people who don't know how to do their homework, nor
    even know how to begin to do their own homework.

    Thanks for proving that your kind exists--everywhere.
    NameHere, Dec 24, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. NameHere

    DanP Guest

    On Dec 24, 12:25 am, NameHere <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:20:31 -0800, "nsbm" <> wrote:
    > >I do not know of any camera ever made that has a satisfactory jpeg
    > >algorithm.
    > >The "good enough" mentality would favor a Yugo over a Mercedes.

    >
    > That's what comes from people who don't know how to do their homework, nor
    > even know how to begin to do their own homework.
    >
    > Thanks for proving that your kind exists--everywhere.


    You are an idiot. Ever heard it before?

    DanP
    DanP, Dec 24, 2009
    #3
  4. NameHere

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:37:57 -0800 (PST), DanP <>
    wrote:

    >On Dec 24, 12:25 am, NameHere <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:20:31 -0800, "nsbm" <> wrote:
    >> >I do not know of any camera ever made that has a satisfactory jpeg
    >> >algorithm.
    >> >The "good enough" mentality would favor a Yugo over a Mercedes.

    >>
    >> That's what comes from people who don't know how to do their homework, nor
    >> even know how to begin to do their own homework.
    >>
    >> Thanks for proving that your kind exists--everywhere.

    >
    >You are an idiot. Ever heard it before?


    Actually, he's the infamous "P&S Troll". He only sounds like an idiot
    because he wants to.
    John A., Dec 24, 2009
    #4
  5. NameHere

    BD Guest

    On Dec 23, 4:25 pm, NameHere <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:20:31 -0800, "nsbm" <> wrote:
    > >I do not know of any camera ever made that has a satisfactory jpeg
    > >algorithm.
    > >The "good enough" mentality would favor a Yugo over a Mercedes.

    >
    > That's what comes from people who don't know how to do their homework, nor
    > even know how to begin to do their own homework.
    >
    > Thanks for proving that your kind exists--everywhere.


    So? Gonna put your mouth where your mouth is? Care to name a camera
    that does such conversion correctly, just to edjumificate us poor ol'
    dumfolk?

    I've seen several people on forums like this one who demean others
    with claims that they don't know what they're talking about - and when
    they themselves are called to the task of providing some constructive
    content rather than just slagging others, they just slink away. Or
    keep slagging...

    You've shown no knowledge here except that of insulting others. Not a
    difficult skill to master.
    BD, Dec 24, 2009
    #5
  6. NameHere

    LOL! Guest

    On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:04:59 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"John A." <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:37:57 -0800 (PST), DanP <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Dec 24, 12:25 am, NameHere <> wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:20:31 -0800, "nsbm" <> wrote:
    >>>> >I do not know of any camera ever made that has a satisfactory jpeg
    >>>> >algorithm.
    >>>> >The "good enough" mentality would favor a Yugo over a Mercedes.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's what comes from people who don't know how to do their homework,
    >>>> nor
    >>>> even know how to begin to do their own homework.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks for proving that your kind exists--everywhere.
    >>>
    >>>You are an idiot. Ever heard it before?

    >>
    >> Actually, he's the infamous "P&S Troll". He only sounds like an idiot
    >> because he wants to.

    >
    >He's quite convincing, though. I'm quite sure he really is one.


    And this is all that you useless and lousy DSLR-Trolls have, to try to
    refute everything he said?

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!
    LOL!, Dec 24, 2009
    #6
  7. NameHere

    LOL! Guest

    On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:02:18 -0800 (PST), BD <> wrote:

    >On Dec 23, 4:25 pm, NameHere <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:20:31 -0800, "nsbm" <> wrote:
    >> >I do not know of any camera ever made that has a satisfactory jpeg
    >> >algorithm.
    >> >The "good enough" mentality would favor a Yugo over a Mercedes.

    >>
    >> That's what comes from people who don't know how to do their homework, nor
    >> even know how to begin to do their own homework.
    >>
    >> Thanks for proving that your kind exists--everywhere.

    >
    >So? Gonna put your mouth where your mouth is?


    So? What part of "do your OWN FUCKING HOMEWORK" is it that you useless and
    highly annoying DSLR-Trolls fail to understand?

    You couldn't afford to pay me enough to tell you what I worked so hard to
    find out on my own. Be extremely grateful that I already share for free the
    little bit I care to share with useless fucks like you. You're not even
    worth giving the time of day to if you asked.

    LOL!!!!!!!!
    LOL!, Dec 24, 2009
    #7
  8. NameHere

    Martin Brown Guest

    NameHere wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:18:59 -0800 (PST), eNo <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Here's an article that applies Kevin Maney's "Fidelity vs.
    >> Convenience" guide to the RAW vs. JPG question to show why and how
    >> each approach is successful.
    >>
    >> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=917

    >
    > There's a couple glaring errors in your blog.


    Another outing of the P&S troll.
    >
    > First off, many cameras provide the full dynamic range from the sensor's
    > RAW data in their JPG files. RAW only became popularized by dSLR owners who


    ISTR the early Kodak DC-120 P&S (about £1000 in 1998) was the first
    nominally 1Mpixel digital camera to offer true raw sensor data as well
    as encapsulated JPGs in its proprietory .KDC image file format. It gave
    it a niche market in the scientific imaging community for a while at
    least. Its JPEG algorithm was OK, although it did sometimes encode JPEG
    files that nothing could decode (about 1:10000 shots). The quality
    settings were optimistic and only the highest one was acceptable.

    > were complaining that their cameras weren't doing the RAW > JPG conversion
    > properly. And many dSLR cameras sold even today still don't do it properly.


    This is utter bollocks. The JPEG encoding algorithm is extremely well
    understood. You might haggle about problems with autowhite balance, and
    gamma correction but not with the JPEG encoding. Several DSLRs use JPEG
    settings that lose only tiny fractions of detail mostly inside the high
    frequency sensor noise envelope. P&S cameras tend to be slightly more
    aggressive in their choice of compression settings.

    > You know which cameras those are because their owners are always espousing
    > the benefits of RAW. Whereas, many P&S cameras with RAW capability, you'd
    > be hard pressed to better the JPG image that comes right from the camera by
    > trying to manipulate the original RAW data to equal the JPG image. For
    > those cameras which do it right the first time, there really is no need for
    > RAW. This of course also depends on the talents of the photographer too. If
    > they don't know how to expose an image properly in the first place they are
    > always looking for that RAW crutch to back up their lame photography
    > skills.


    RAW is useful when you need to have the option of handling 12 or 14bit
    linear dynamic range. Scientific imaging wants that, and bridal
    photography needs it since the cameras internal algorithms struggle in
    wedding photography to get the brides white dress and the grooms black
    suit both correctly exposed at once. And if the JPEG has burned out
    highlights or lost shadow detail you are completely stuffed. RAW is more
    flexible for difficult subject material.
    >
    > Secondly, only MOST editors will degrade a JPG image after editing,
    > resaving, reloading, reediting, resaving, et.al. But not ALL editors will
    > degrade JPG images during edits and resaves. Photoline does truly lossless


    THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BOLLOCKS.

    > JPG editing. Not just lossless rotations. Which it also manages to do
    > better by keeping any uneven 8x8 block-counts on edges intact. Many
    > lossless rotations in other editors truncate images to even multiples of
    > 8x8 pixel dimensions. I know of no other editors that can make and back-up
    > this lossless JPG editing claim. When using Photoline the only pixels that
    > get changed when resaving a JPG file are the ones you specifically choose
    > to change. No further JPG artifacts are introduced into the resulting
    > image. Unless you specifically choose a JPG compression much lower than the
    > original file's compression, thereby intentionally forcing Photoline to put
    > your image through the JPG algorithm again.


    Any global change like contrast or luminance adjustment forces a
    re-encoding of the data and some second generation losses. Fear of this
    tiny additional loss is greatly overplayed in the amateur field.

    There is no way to losslessly rotate an image which is not a horizontal
    multiple of 8 pixels. The defect is in the JPEG standard itself. If an
    application appears to do this it either cannot be lossless or it is
    displaying some extra "image" which isn't part of the original.
    >
    > As to what I prefer, JPG or RAW? I prefer to do my homework and make sure
    > that I am buying a camera that will do the JPG conversion from its sensor's
    > RAW data correctly the first time. Then I don't have to muck about and
    > waste my time trying to fix what the camera maker failed to do properly in
    > the first place. My photography skills are also good enough that I don't
    > have to try to repair badly exposed images by relying on RAW data later.


    There are high dynamic range scenes where RAW will win. But FWIW I
    normally shoot in JPEG for convenience unless I can see that the subject
    material will cause problems because of intrinsic high contrast, or if I
    need to do quantitative measurements on the image data later.

    > Those who claim otherwise for their photography ... well, that's exactly
    > what they are claiming otherwise. They're your typical non-talented
    > snapshooter in dire need of any crutch that they can lean on to save them
    > from their perpetual crap-shots.
    >
    > If only they could buy a dSLR with a point and shoot talent-mode built in
    > too, they'd be all over it in a heartbeat.


    The main advantage of a dSLR is that you can change the lens. Or attache
    the camera to a telescope or microscope. And if you already have a
    collection of specialist lenses and adapters this is an important
    factor. The advent of 10x superzoom has made it a lot easier for would
    be nature photographers to choose a more compact P&S camera.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Dec 24, 2009
    #8
  9. NameHere

    LOL! Guest

    On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:18:48 +0000, Martin Brown
    <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    >
    >> Secondly, only MOST editors will degrade a JPG image after editing,
    >> resaving, reloading, reediting, resaving, et.al. But not ALL editors will
    >> degrade JPG images during edits and resaves. Photoline does truly lossless

    >
    >THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BOLLOCKS.



    LOL!!!!!!! Holy **** are you ever a FUCKING IDIOT!

    LOL


    >
    >> JPG editing. Not just lossless rotations. Which it also manages to do
    >> better by keeping any uneven 8x8 block-counts on edges intact. Many
    >> lossless rotations in other editors truncate images to even multiples of
    >> 8x8 pixel dimensions. I know of no other editors that can make and back-up
    >> this lossless JPG editing claim. When using Photoline the only pixels that
    >> get changed when resaving a JPG file are the ones you specifically choose
    >> to change. No further JPG artifacts are introduced into the resulting
    >> image. Unless you specifically choose a JPG compression much lower than the
    >> original file's compression, thereby intentionally forcing Photoline to put
    >> your image through the JPG algorithm again.

    >
    >Any global change like contrast or luminance adjustment forces a
    >re-encoding of the data and some second generation losses. Fear of this
    >tiny additional loss is greatly overplayed in the amateur field.
    >
    >There is no way to losslessly rotate an image which is not a horizontal
    >multiple of 8 pixels. The defect is in the JPEG standard itself. If an
    >application appears to do this it either cannot be lossless or it is
    >displaying some extra "image" which isn't part of the original.


    Proving JUST WHAT A FUCKING IDIOT YOU TRULY ARE!

    Thanks!!!

    The rest of your complete bullshit goes without comment, there's no reason
    to make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have!

    LOL!!!!!!!
    LOL!, Dec 24, 2009
    #9
  10. NameHere

    DanP Guest

    On Dec 24, 9:18 am, Martin Brown <|||>
    wrote:
    > NameHere wrote:
    > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:18:59 -0800 (PST), eNo <>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> Here's an article that applies Kevin Maney's "Fidelity vs.
    > >> Convenience" guide to the RAW vs. JPG question to show why and how
    > >> each approach is successful.

    >
    > >>http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=917

    >
    > > There's a couple glaring errors in your blog.

    >
    > Another outing of the P&S troll.
    >
    >
    >
    > > First off, many cameras provide the full dynamic range from the sensor's
    > > RAW data in their JPG files. RAW only became popularized by dSLR owners who

    >
    > ISTR the early Kodak DC-120 P&S (about £1000 in 1998) was the first
    > nominally 1Mpixel digital camera to offer true raw sensor data as well
    > as encapsulated JPGs in its proprietory .KDC image file format. It gave
    > it a niche market in the scientific imaging community for a while at
    > least. Its JPEG algorithm was OK, although it did sometimes encode JPEG
    > files that nothing could decode (about 1:10000 shots). The quality
    > settings were optimistic and only the highest one was acceptable.
    >
    > > were complaining that their cameras weren't doing the RAW > JPG conversion
    > > properly. And many dSLR cameras sold even today still don't do it properly.

    >
    > This is utter bollocks. The JPEG encoding algorithm is extremely well
    > understood. You might haggle about problems with autowhite balance, and
    > gamma correction but not with the JPEG encoding. Several DSLRs use JPEG
    > settings that lose only tiny fractions of detail mostly inside the high
    > frequency sensor noise envelope. P&S cameras tend to be slightly more
    > aggressive in their choice of compression settings.
    >
    > > You know which cameras those are because their owners are always espousing
    > > the benefits of RAW. Whereas, many P&S cameras with RAW capability, you'd
    > > be hard pressed to better the JPG image that comes right from the camera by
    > > trying to manipulate the original RAW data to equal the JPG image. For
    > > those cameras which do it right the first time, there really is no need for
    > > RAW. This of course also depends on the talents of the photographer too.. If
    > > they don't know how to expose an image properly in the first place they are
    > > always looking for that RAW crutch to back up their lame photography
    > > skills.

    >
    > RAW is useful when you need to have the option of handling 12 or 14bit
    > linear dynamic range. Scientific imaging wants that, and bridal
    > photography needs it since the cameras internal algorithms struggle in
    > wedding photography to get the brides white dress and the grooms black
    > suit both correctly exposed at once. And if the JPEG has burned out
    > highlights or lost shadow detail you are completely stuffed. RAW is more
    > flexible for difficult subject material.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Secondly, only MOST editors will degrade a JPG image after editing,
    > > resaving, reloading, reediting, resaving, et.al. But not ALL editors will
    > > degrade JPG images during edits and resaves. Photoline does truly lossless

    >
    > THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BOLLOCKS.
    >
    > > JPG editing. Not just lossless rotations. Which it also manages to do
    > > better by keeping any uneven 8x8 block-counts on edges intact. Many
    > > lossless rotations in other editors truncate images to even multiples of
    > > 8x8 pixel dimensions. I know of no other editors that can make and back-up
    > > this lossless JPG editing claim. When using Photoline the only pixels that
    > > get changed when resaving a JPG file are the ones you specifically choose
    > > to change. No further JPG artifacts are introduced into the resulting
    > > image. Unless you specifically choose a JPG compression much lower than the
    > > original file's compression, thereby intentionally forcing Photoline to put
    > > your image through the JPG algorithm again.

    >
    > Any global change like contrast or luminance adjustment forces a
    > re-encoding of the data and some second generation losses. Fear of this
    > tiny additional loss is greatly overplayed in the amateur field.
    >
    > There is no way to losslessly rotate an image which is not a horizontal
    > multiple of 8 pixels. The defect is in the JPEG standard itself. If an
    > application appears to do this it either cannot be lossless or it is
    > displaying some extra "image" which isn't part of the original.
    >
    >
    >
    > > As to what I prefer, JPG or RAW? I prefer to do my homework and make sure
    > > that I am buying a camera that will do the JPG conversion from its sensor's
    > > RAW data correctly the first time. Then I don't have to muck about and
    > > waste my time trying to fix what the camera maker failed to do properly in
    > > the first place. My photography skills are also good enough that I don't
    > > have to try to repair badly exposed images by relying on RAW data later..

    >
    > There are high dynamic range scenes where RAW will win. But FWIW I
    > normally shoot in JPEG for convenience unless I can see that the subject
    > material will cause problems because of intrinsic high contrast, or if I
    > need to do quantitative measurements on the image data later.
    >
    > > Those who claim otherwise for their photography ... well, that's exactly
    > > what they are claiming otherwise. They're your typical non-talented
    > > snapshooter in dire need of any crutch that they can lean on to save them
    > > from their perpetual crap-shots.

    >
    > > If only they could buy a dSLR with a point and shoot talent-mode built in
    > > too, they'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

    >
    > The main advantage of a dSLR is that you can change the lens. Or attache
    > the camera to a telescope or microscope. And if you already have a
    > collection of specialist lenses and adapters this is an important
    > factor. The advent of 10x superzoom has made it a lot easier for would
    > be nature photographers to choose a more compact P&S camera.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Martin Brown


    You will never win if you play his game.
    He feeds on the long replies he gets.

    DanP
    DanP, Dec 24, 2009
    #10
  11. NameHere

    NameHere Guest

    On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:04:55 -0800 (PST), DanP <>
    wrote:

    >On Dec 24, 9:18 am, Martin Brown <|||>
    >wrote:
    >> NameHere wrote:
    >> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:18:59 -0800 (PST), eNo <>
    >> > wrote:

    >>
    >> >> Here's an article that applies Kevin Maney's "Fidelity vs.
    >> >> Convenience" guide to the RAW vs. JPG question to show why and how
    >> >> each approach is successful.

    >>
    >> >>http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=917

    >>
    >> > There's a couple glaring errors in your blog.

    >>
    >> Another outing of the P&S troll.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > First off, many cameras provide the full dynamic range from the sensor's
    >> > RAW data in their JPG files. RAW only became popularized by dSLR owners who

    >>
    >> ISTR the early Kodak DC-120 P&S (about £1000 in 1998) was the first
    >> nominally 1Mpixel digital camera to offer true raw sensor data as well
    >> as encapsulated JPGs in its proprietory .KDC image file format. It gave
    >> it a niche market in the scientific imaging community for a while at
    >> least. Its JPEG algorithm was OK, although it did sometimes encode JPEG
    >> files that nothing could decode (about 1:10000 shots). The quality
    >> settings were optimistic and only the highest one was acceptable.
    >>
    >> > were complaining that their cameras weren't doing the RAW > JPG conversion
    >> > properly. And many dSLR cameras sold even today still don't do it properly.

    >>
    >> This is utter bollocks. The JPEG encoding algorithm is extremely well
    >> understood. You might haggle about problems with autowhite balance, and
    >> gamma correction but not with the JPEG encoding. Several DSLRs use JPEG
    >> settings that lose only tiny fractions of detail mostly inside the high
    >> frequency sensor noise envelope. P&S cameras tend to be slightly more
    >> aggressive in their choice of compression settings.
    >>
    >> > You know which cameras those are because their owners are always espousing
    >> > the benefits of RAW. Whereas, many P&S cameras with RAW capability, you'd
    >> > be hard pressed to better the JPG image that comes right from the camera by
    >> > trying to manipulate the original RAW data to equal the JPG image. For
    >> > those cameras which do it right the first time, there really is no need for
    >> > RAW. This of course also depends on the talents of the photographer too. If
    >> > they don't know how to expose an image properly in the first place they are
    >> > always looking for that RAW crutch to back up their lame photography
    >> > skills.

    >>
    >> RAW is useful when you need to have the option of handling 12 or 14bit
    >> linear dynamic range. Scientific imaging wants that, and bridal
    >> photography needs it since the cameras internal algorithms struggle in
    >> wedding photography to get the brides white dress and the grooms black
    >> suit both correctly exposed at once. And if the JPEG has burned out
    >> highlights or lost shadow detail you are completely stuffed. RAW is more
    >> flexible for difficult subject material.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > Secondly, only MOST editors will degrade a JPG image after editing,
    >> > resaving, reloading, reediting, resaving, et.al. But not ALL editors will
    >> > degrade JPG images during edits and resaves. Photoline does truly lossless

    >>
    >> THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BOLLOCKS.
    >>
    >> > JPG editing. Not just lossless rotations. Which it also manages to do
    >> > better by keeping any uneven 8x8 block-counts on edges intact. Many
    >> > lossless rotations in other editors truncate images to even multiples of
    >> > 8x8 pixel dimensions. I know of no other editors that can make and back-up
    >> > this lossless JPG editing claim. When using Photoline the only pixels that
    >> > get changed when resaving a JPG file are the ones you specifically choose
    >> > to change. No further JPG artifacts are introduced into the resulting
    >> > image. Unless you specifically choose a JPG compression much lower than the
    >> > original file's compression, thereby intentionally forcing Photoline to put
    >> > your image through the JPG algorithm again.

    >>
    >> Any global change like contrast or luminance adjustment forces a
    >> re-encoding of the data and some second generation losses. Fear of this
    >> tiny additional loss is greatly overplayed in the amateur field.
    >>
    >> There is no way to losslessly rotate an image which is not a horizontal
    >> multiple of 8 pixels. The defect is in the JPEG standard itself. If an
    >> application appears to do this it either cannot be lossless or it is
    >> displaying some extra "image" which isn't part of the original.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > As to what I prefer, JPG or RAW? I prefer to do my homework and make sure
    >> > that I am buying a camera that will do the JPG conversion from its sensor's
    >> > RAW data correctly the first time. Then I don't have to muck about and
    >> > waste my time trying to fix what the camera maker failed to do properly in
    >> > the first place. My photography skills are also good enough that I don't
    >> > have to try to repair badly exposed images by relying on RAW data later.

    >>
    >> There are high dynamic range scenes where RAW will win. But FWIW I
    >> normally shoot in JPEG for convenience unless I can see that the subject
    >> material will cause problems because of intrinsic high contrast, or if I
    >> need to do quantitative measurements on the image data later.
    >>
    >> > Those who claim otherwise for their photography ... well, that's exactly
    >> > what they are claiming otherwise. They're your typical non-talented
    >> > snapshooter in dire need of any crutch that they can lean on to save them
    >> > from their perpetual crap-shots.

    >>
    >> > If only they could buy a dSLR with a point and shoot talent-mode built in
    >> > too, they'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

    >>
    >> The main advantage of a dSLR is that you can change the lens. Or attache
    >> the camera to a telescope or microscope. And if you already have a
    >> collection of specialist lenses and adapters this is an important
    >> factor. The advent of 10x superzoom has made it a lot easier for would
    >> be nature photographers to choose a more compact P&S camera.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >> Martin Brown

    >
    >You will never win if you play his game.
    >He feeds on the long replies he gets.
    >
    >DanP


    No, Martin Brown never win simply because he's DEAD FUCKING WRONG.

    ANYONE can download the free demo version of Photoline that will prove
    through their OWN TESTS, that this Martin Brown is a complete and utter
    FUCKING IDIOT AND MORON, who should have never been born and only wastes
    the valuable time of people far more intelligent than he'll ever be.
    Wasting their valuable time in having to constantly correct his stupidity.

    MARTIN BROWN IS A FUCKING USELESS PIECE OF SHIT WASTE OF HUMAN FLESH.
    NameHere, Dec 24, 2009
    #11
  12. NameHere

    NameHere Guest

    On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:04:55 -0800 (PST), DanP <>
    wrote:

    >On Dec 24, 9:18 am, Martin Brown <|||>
    >wrote:
    >> NameHere wrote:
    >> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:18:59 -0800 (PST), eNo <>
    >> > wrote:

    >>
    >> >> Here's an article that applies Kevin Maney's "Fidelity vs.
    >> >> Convenience" guide to the RAW vs. JPG question to show why and how
    >> >> each approach is successful.

    >>
    >> >>http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=917

    >>
    >> > There's a couple glaring errors in your blog.

    >>
    >> Another outing of the P&S troll.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > First off, many cameras provide the full dynamic range from the sensor's
    >> > RAW data in their JPG files. RAW only became popularized by dSLR owners who

    >>
    >> ISTR the early Kodak DC-120 P&S (about £1000 in 1998) was the first
    >> nominally 1Mpixel digital camera to offer true raw sensor data as well
    >> as encapsulated JPGs in its proprietory .KDC image file format. It gave
    >> it a niche market in the scientific imaging community for a while at
    >> least. Its JPEG algorithm was OK, although it did sometimes encode JPEG
    >> files that nothing could decode (about 1:10000 shots). The quality
    >> settings were optimistic and only the highest one was acceptable.
    >>
    >> > were complaining that their cameras weren't doing the RAW > JPG conversion
    >> > properly. And many dSLR cameras sold even today still don't do it properly.

    >>
    >> This is utter bollocks. The JPEG encoding algorithm is extremely well
    >> understood. You might haggle about problems with autowhite balance, and
    >> gamma correction but not with the JPEG encoding. Several DSLRs use JPEG
    >> settings that lose only tiny fractions of detail mostly inside the high
    >> frequency sensor noise envelope. P&S cameras tend to be slightly more
    >> aggressive in their choice of compression settings.
    >>
    >> > You know which cameras those are because their owners are always espousing
    >> > the benefits of RAW. Whereas, many P&S cameras with RAW capability, you'd
    >> > be hard pressed to better the JPG image that comes right from the camera by
    >> > trying to manipulate the original RAW data to equal the JPG image. For
    >> > those cameras which do it right the first time, there really is no need for
    >> > RAW. This of course also depends on the talents of the photographer too. If
    >> > they don't know how to expose an image properly in the first place they are
    >> > always looking for that RAW crutch to back up their lame photography
    >> > skills.

    >>
    >> RAW is useful when you need to have the option of handling 12 or 14bit
    >> linear dynamic range. Scientific imaging wants that, and bridal
    >> photography needs it since the cameras internal algorithms struggle in
    >> wedding photography to get the brides white dress and the grooms black
    >> suit both correctly exposed at once. And if the JPEG has burned out
    >> highlights or lost shadow detail you are completely stuffed. RAW is more
    >> flexible for difficult subject material.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > Secondly, only MOST editors will degrade a JPG image after editing,
    >> > resaving, reloading, reediting, resaving, et.al. But not ALL editors will
    >> > degrade JPG images during edits and resaves. Photoline does truly lossless

    >>
    >> THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BOLLOCKS.
    >>
    >> > JPG editing. Not just lossless rotations. Which it also manages to do
    >> > better by keeping any uneven 8x8 block-counts on edges intact. Many
    >> > lossless rotations in other editors truncate images to even multiples of
    >> > 8x8 pixel dimensions. I know of no other editors that can make and back-up
    >> > this lossless JPG editing claim. When using Photoline the only pixels that
    >> > get changed when resaving a JPG file are the ones you specifically choose
    >> > to change. No further JPG artifacts are introduced into the resulting
    >> > image. Unless you specifically choose a JPG compression much lower than the
    >> > original file's compression, thereby intentionally forcing Photoline to put
    >> > your image through the JPG algorithm again.

    >>
    >> Any global change like contrast or luminance adjustment forces a
    >> re-encoding of the data and some second generation losses. Fear of this
    >> tiny additional loss is greatly overplayed in the amateur field.
    >>
    >> There is no way to losslessly rotate an image which is not a horizontal
    >> multiple of 8 pixels. The defect is in the JPEG standard itself. If an
    >> application appears to do this it either cannot be lossless or it is
    >> displaying some extra "image" which isn't part of the original.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > As to what I prefer, JPG or RAW? I prefer to do my homework and make sure
    >> > that I am buying a camera that will do the JPG conversion from its sensor's
    >> > RAW data correctly the first time. Then I don't have to muck about and
    >> > waste my time trying to fix what the camera maker failed to do properly in
    >> > the first place. My photography skills are also good enough that I don't
    >> > have to try to repair badly exposed images by relying on RAW data later.

    >>
    >> There are high dynamic range scenes where RAW will win. But FWIW I
    >> normally shoot in JPEG for convenience unless I can see that the subject
    >> material will cause problems because of intrinsic high contrast, or if I
    >> need to do quantitative measurements on the image data later.
    >>
    >> > Those who claim otherwise for their photography ... well, that's exactly
    >> > what they are claiming otherwise. They're your typical non-talented
    >> > snapshooter in dire need of any crutch that they can lean on to save them
    >> > from their perpetual crap-shots.

    >>
    >> > If only they could buy a dSLR with a point and shoot talent-mode built in
    >> > too, they'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

    >>
    >> The main advantage of a dSLR is that you can change the lens. Or attache
    >> the camera to a telescope or microscope. And if you already have a
    >> collection of specialist lenses and adapters this is an important
    >> factor. The advent of 10x superzoom has made it a lot easier for would
    >> be nature photographers to choose a more compact P&S camera.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >> Martin Brown

    >
    >You will never win if you play his game.
    >He feeds on the long replies he gets.
    >
    >DanP


    No, Martin Brown will never win simply because he's DEAD FUCKING
    WRONG--AGAIN! On ALL COUNTS.

    ANYONE can download the free demo version of Photoline that will prove
    through their OWN TESTS, that this Martin Brown is a complete and utter
    FUCKING IDIOT AND MORON, who should have never been born and only wastes
    the valuable time of people far more intelligent than he'll ever be.
    Wasting their valuable time in having to constantly correct his stupidity.

    MARTIN BROWN IS A FUCKING USELESS PIECE OF SHIT WASTE OF HUMAN FLESH.
    NameHere, Dec 24, 2009
    #12
  13. NameHere

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:59:20 -0600, LOL! <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:04:59 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"John A." <> wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:37:57 -0800 (PST), DanP <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Dec 24, 12:25 am, NameHere <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:20:31 -0800, "nsbm" <> wrote:
    >>>>> >I do not know of any camera ever made that has a satisfactory jpeg
    >>>>> >algorithm.
    >>>>> >The "good enough" mentality would favor a Yugo over a Mercedes.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's what comes from people who don't know how to do their homework,
    >>>>> nor
    >>>>> even know how to begin to do their own homework.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks for proving that your kind exists--everywhere.
    >>>>
    >>>>You are an idiot. Ever heard it before?
    >>>
    >>> Actually, he's the infamous "P&S Troll". He only sounds like an idiot
    >>> because he wants to.

    >>
    >>He's quite convincing, though. I'm quite sure he really is one.

    >
    >And this is all that you useless and lousy DSLR-Trolls have, to try to
    >refute everything he said?
    >
    >LOL!!!!!!!!!!


    To say that you're a troll and consistently & deliberately wrong
    pretty much covers everything.
    John A., Dec 24, 2009
    #13
  14. NameHere

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:18:48 +0000, Martin Brown
    <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    >NameHere wrote:

    [...]
    >>
    >> Secondly, only MOST editors will degrade a JPG image after editing,
    >> resaving, reloading, reediting, resaving, et.al. But not ALL editors will
    >> degrade JPG images during edits and resaves. Photoline does truly lossless

    >
    >THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BOLLOCKS.


    Well...

    >> JPG editing. Not just lossless rotations. Which it also manages to do
    >> better by keeping any uneven 8x8 block-counts on edges intact. Many
    >> lossless rotations in other editors truncate images to even multiples of
    >> 8x8 pixel dimensions. I know of no other editors that can make and back-up
    >> this lossless JPG editing claim. When using Photoline the only pixels that
    >> get changed when resaving a JPG file are the ones you specifically choose
    >> to change. No further JPG artifacts are introduced into the resulting
    >> image. Unless you specifically choose a JPG compression much lower than the
    >> original file's compression, thereby intentionally forcing Photoline to put
    >> your image through the JPG algorithm again.

    >
    >Any global change like contrast or luminance adjustment forces a
    >re-encoding of the data and some second generation losses. Fear of this
    >tiny additional loss is greatly overplayed in the amateur field.


    Actually, IIRC, JPEG Wizard has been able to do this for years now.
    Apparently it remembers the wavelets or whatever when loading and
    seeks to reuse them whenever possible. As a result, you can add a
    caption, remove a blemish, etc. and only the squares that have been
    edited will be recompressed differently. IIRC it can do some global
    color adjustments with the same wavelets too.

    I'm not familiar with Photoline.

    >There is no way to losslessly rotate an image which is not a horizontal
    >multiple of 8 pixels. The defect is in the JPEG standard itself. If an
    >application appears to do this it either cannot be lossless or it is
    >displaying some extra "image" which isn't part of the original.


    Or it crops the image. I believe that is the common practice.
    John A., Dec 24, 2009
    #14
  15. NameHere

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:02:10 -0500, John A. <>
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:59:20 -0600, LOL! <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:04:59 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"John A." <> wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:37:57 -0800 (PST), DanP <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Dec 24, 12:25 am, NameHere <> wrote:
    >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:20:31 -0800, "nsbm" <> wrote:
    >>>>>> >I do not know of any camera ever made that has a satisfactory jpeg
    >>>>>> >algorithm.
    >>>>>> >The "good enough" mentality would favor a Yugo over a Mercedes.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That's what comes from people who don't know how to do their homework,
    >>>>>> nor
    >>>>>> even know how to begin to do their own homework.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Thanks for proving that your kind exists--everywhere.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>You are an idiot. Ever heard it before?
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually, he's the infamous "P&S Troll". He only sounds like an idiot
    >>>> because he wants to.
    >>>
    >>>He's quite convincing, though. I'm quite sure he really is one.

    >>
    >>And this is all that you useless and lousy DSLR-Trolls have, to try to
    >>refute everything he said?
    >>
    >>LOL!!!!!!!!!!

    >
    >To say that you're a troll and consistently & deliberately wrong
    >pretty much covers everything.


    Except, of course, when you throw in a piece of correct, if often
    misinterpreted, information you Googled up for the purpose.
    John A., Dec 24, 2009
    #15
  16. NameHere

    BD Guest


    > And this is all that you useless and lousy DSLR-Trolls have, to try to
    > refute everything he said?


    That's just it - He hasn't *said* anything! Except that he knows more
    than everyone else.!

    LOL yerself...
    BD, Dec 24, 2009
    #16
  17. NameHere

    BD Guest

    On Dec 23, 11:12 pm, LOL! <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:02:18 -0800 (PST), BD <> wrote:
    > >On Dec 23, 4:25 pm, NameHere <> wrote:
    > >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:20:31 -0800, "nsbm" <> wrote:
    > >> >I do not know of any camera ever made that has a satisfactory jpeg
    > >> >algorithm.
    > >> >The "good enough" mentality would favor a Yugo over a Mercedes.

    >
    > >> That's what comes from people who don't know how to do their homework, nor
    > >> even know how to begin to do their own homework.

    >
    > >> Thanks for proving that your kind exists--everywhere.

    >
    > >So? Gonna put your mouth where your mouth is?

    >
    > So? What part of "do your OWN FUCKING HOMEWORK" is it that you useless and
    > highly annoying DSLR-Trolls fail to understand?
    >
    > You couldn't afford to pay me enough to tell you what I worked so hard to
    > find out on my own. Be extremely grateful that I already share for free the
    > little bit I care to share with useless fucks like you. You're not even
    > worth giving the time of day to if you asked.
    >
    > LOL!!!!!!!!


    Mmmmmm..... You're my hero..... (really - true story)
    BD, Dec 24, 2009
    #17
  18. NameHere

    NameHere Guest

    On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:51:45 +0000, bugbear
    <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

    >
    >Go on - offer something other than assertions, and we'll take you seriously.


    Nothing more than "assertions" are needed, you fucking moron. NOTHING that
    I will post here will ever convince anyone of anything. Especially all of
    you useless resident pretend-photographer trolls who aren't even educated
    enough to know who is and is not telling the truth. That is why they HAVE
    TO test it for themselves. Only then will they find out what an utter idiot
    and lying moron and fool that Martin Brown truly is. What's the matter? You
    don't want to find out that the one you call "the troll" is correct and
    that some idiot who posts things that look like "facts" is in total error?
    Fine by me! Join his ranks too of being an utterly ignorant idiot.

    You're ALL FUCKING MORON TROLLS.
    NameHere, Dec 24, 2009
    #18
  19. bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    [the slime is pissed]

    > All that knowledge, detail and analysus, compared to your repetition
    > of "do your own homework" making you look bad?


    The slime cannot but hide it's sources and proof: it hasn't
    got any.

    > Go on - offer something other than assertions, and we'll take you seriously.


    No chance --- not in this life or the next. The slime is
    truly discredited.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 25, 2009
    #19
  20. NameHere wrote:

    > You're ALL FUCKING MORON TROLLS.
    >


    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

    Why not take a few minutes and tell us why you're so pissed off. It'll
    be empowering for you. Won't break your anonymity, but will start to get
    you less pissed off.

    But it will take a bit of cajones to start the process.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Dec 25, 2009
    #20
    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. ipassmcse

    Obtain your IT certification at home with 100% convenience.

    ipassmcse, Feb 20, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    471
    ipassmcse
    Feb 20, 2004
  2. ipassmcse
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    424
    ipassmcse
    Feb 20, 2004
  3. MJL Photo

    <JPG from RAW> vs. <JPG only>

    MJL Photo, Nov 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    315
    kctan
    Nov 28, 2005
  4. Not4wood

    Shooting RAW vs RAW and JPG

    Not4wood, Nov 9, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    864
    Paul Furman
    Nov 11, 2007
  5. eNo

    RAW vs. JPG: Fidelity vs. Convenience

    eNo, Dec 23, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    289
    David J Taylor
    Dec 25, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page