Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mort, Nov 25, 2012.

  1. Mort

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:59:16 -0500, wrote:

    >On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:58:31 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>
    >><> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
    >>> <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have
    >>>>an
    >>>>example?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Then you never shot with a Sony a100!!
    >>>
    >>> It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the
    >>> camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process
    >>> every
    >>> single pic I took...
    >>>
    >>> My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only
    >>> advantage to
    >>> using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play
    >>> with the
    >>> extra light range that RAW gives you.
    >>>
    >>> The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes with
    >>> the
    >>> camera is barely adequate, you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or
    >>> something
    >>> to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations) Raw
    >>> can
    >>> be 14 bits (16,000 graduations).
    >>>
    >>> Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to
    >>> over-expose
    >>> digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if you
    >>> don't
    >>> shoot raw, you can't do either.

    >>
    >>I have used the a100 for over 5 years now, and now the a35. I use both the
    >>Photoshop Elements RAW programs and ACR and Lightroom. But if I ever could
    >>discern any big improvement with RAW, I would shudder at the thought of
    >>going through all that processing for each and every image I shot at a
    >>wedding. I do process all of the JPGs, but it is a lot easier than going
    >>through all that RAW rigamarole.
    >>
    >>Gary Eickmeier
    >>

    >
    >You say you process all the images? I find no difference in time in processing
    >either RAW or jpegs, but the RAW are far superior. Did you use the Sony
    >software? It's excellent on curves.
    >
    >I don't know why you see no difference between RAW and jpeg... I couldn't stand
    >the a100 jpegs!


    Try shooting RAW+jpg if your camera has that setting. On download,
    the .jpg image is far superior to the RAW image. It is *after* the
    RAW adjustments are made that the RAW image surpasses the .jpg.

    For hobby photography, I shoot only RAW. For family snaps outdoors in
    good lighting, I shoot RAW+jpg. The .jpgs are usually as good as the
    image will ever be and only require cropping without any adjustment.
    Working with RAW images is a few extra steps and takes a few moments
    longer, so there's often no point in using the RAW image.

    My output for family outdoor snaps is going to be either
    computer-viewed or printed 4x6. An image in those conditions from RAW
    compared to an image from .jpg isn't going to be discernibly
    different.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Dec 2, 2012
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Mort

    David Taylor Guest

    David Taylor, Dec 2, 2012
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. Mort

    John A. Guest

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 22:03:12 +1300, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:41:04 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"nospam" <> wrote in message
    >>news:301120122336432516%...
    >>> In article <j6fus.520024$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> > One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
    >>>> > ones,
    >>>> > is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
    >>>>
    >>>> You can edit anything non-destructively. Keep trying.
    >>>
    >>> except that jpeg is already destructive.
    >>>
    >>> you can edit non-destructively from that point on, but you can't undo
    >>> what was done to make the jpeg.

    >>
    >>Interesting you said that - I stumbled upon a function of Elements that
    >>sorta converted any JPG into a RAW file and allowed you to edit it the same
    >>as any RAW image. Do you know what I mean?
    >>

    >Yes, but saving it in a raw file look-alike format can't restore the
    >information that was lost in the original transformation from raw to a
    >JPEG file.


    Yeah, that smacks of homeopathy.

    Just thinking, though... I wonder how good compression you could get
    if you can determine at what digit of pi the same digits as the data
    in your image appear in sequence. Then you can compress your image
    data losslessly to two numbers (position in pi & size). ;)
    Decompression should be quick with modern pi-computing algorithms.
    (Some years ago a way was discovered to quickly determine the values
    of arbitrarily selected digits of pi.) Compression, on the other
    hand...
    John A., Dec 2, 2012
    #63
  4. Mort

    John A. Guest

    On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 19:11:07 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Alfred Molon" wrote:
    >In article <2012113023043436098-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    >says...
    >> There are a few more things that you can do with a RAW file which you
    >> cannot do with a JPEG. The first of these is apply camera and/or lens
    >> profiles. You can correct CA and fringing far more effectively than any
    >> such correction you could apply to JPEGs.
    >>
    >> There is so much more.

    >
    >But some cameras have very good JPEG engines and are very good at
    >nailing down the white balance. With such cameras you only need to
    >process the RAW in a small percentage of cases.
    ><<<<<<<<<<
    >
    >If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly work.
    >In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in white
    >light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know what
    >the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
    >light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
    >confuse any AWB system.)


    This is true. I generally shoot RAW+low-res-jpeg with AWB so I don't
    have to fiddle with WB settings as I go place to place. I just use the
    jpegs as initial proofs and quickie snapshot-worthy images to post to
    facebook or the like. But for anything I care anything about I'll
    process the raw, usually selecting an appropriate WB preset according
    to the light source and/or aesthetics. (For example, on a sunny day in
    mottled light under tree canopy I often prefer a "sunlight" preset WB
    to let the green cast of the leaves come through and preserve the
    atmosphere of the shot.)
    John A., Dec 2, 2012
    #64
  5. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    > But if you shoot RAW only, the camera each time you broese through an
    > image has to do a RAW to JPEG conversion => additional power
    > consumption.


    no it doesn't. it uses the embedded jpeg.
    nospam, Dec 2, 2012
    #65
  6. Mort

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 09:37:53 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012.12.01 20:04 , Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    >
    >> I think you are the only intelligent one here. As you have pointed out, it
    >> has to go back to 8 bit before it becomes a useful image anyway, in which
    >> case it would be indistinguishable from th RAW processed image.

    >
    >Molon is like you: seeking excuses online rather than setting up a
    >consistent quality workflow.
    >
    >The fact that a final output of a workflow from raw _may_ be an 8 bit
    >image has nothing to do with how it got there. If you start with JPEG
    >to get to that end point you have less to work with.
    >
    >With raw you have more to work with from beginning to end - as
    >laboriously explained by others and myself.
    >
    >You really have to stop looking for excuses and start really
    >understanding raw from the POV of using it, processing it and learning
    >the advantages rather than hunting down usenet fallacies to excuse it
    >out of hand.


    No, Alan, he doesn't have to do that at all. That's the method - or
    workflow - that you and I prefer, but there's no reason at all that we
    should impose that requirement on anyone else.

    Whether or not his system is flawed depends entirely on what type of
    photographs he's taking and what the end-use will be. The average
    photographer taking family-type photographs - and that's what the
    majority of photographers do - makes 4x6 prints of very few images and
    views the rest on a television or computer screen. Very few of those
    image could be improved enough to matter working from RAW.

    If Gary was here requesting help in improving his workflow or his
    images, there'd be a reason to encourage him to learn to use RAW. If
    he was here saying that his images worsened with enlargement, there'd
    be a reason. But, he's not.

    Gary's wrong in his coattail trailing posts about RAW being extra
    work. If he's happy with his .jpg results, he should STF up and do
    what works for him.

    This idea that what we individually do - whether it's workflow, choice
    of OS, employment of a particular software, or use of accessory
    devices - is what others should use is both ridiculous and arrogant.

    Let's wait until someone asks "How can I..." before we start telling
    them how they should.







    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Dec 2, 2012
    #66
  7. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <WmNus.376304$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > >> But if you shoot RAW only, the camera each time you broese through an
    > >> image has to do a RAW to JPEG conversion => additional power
    > >> consumption.

    > >
    > > no it doesn't. it uses the embedded jpeg.

    >
    > In any case, you can easily see whether you have blown out the highlights,
    > exposed too low for a healthy image, or got the WB or focus screwed up.


    no. you can get a rough idea but that doesn't mean that much

    you can fix quite a bit in raw, particularly white balance, which isn't
    even set until you process the raw, long after you took the shot.

    > With
    > my Live View I can see most of this before exposure, in the LCD or in the
    > viewfinder.


    many times live view is not an option.
    nospam, Dec 2, 2012
    #67
  8. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <GvNus.687924$A%4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > But I don't need to be told that I can do what I wish, and the only reason
    > for starting this whole argument was that I said I haven't seen much benefit
    > from doing RAW - visible benefit.


    that's because aren't doing it properly.

    > I have tried it, seen the clumsy controls,


    what clumsy controls? they're the *same* controls as with jpeg, and
    more effective too since it's working with raw data.

    you said you use lightroom. that's anything but clumsy.

    > and wondered why go through that if my JPGs were already terrific.
    >
    > I print 13 x 19 sometimes on both Epson and Canon printers (8 ink) and the
    > results are incredible.


    they could be even better.

    > I will keep trying, comparing, looking, but I am fully capable of doing my
    > workflow the way I see fit and extracting the most from my camera etc etc. I
    > appreciate all the tech savvy, but I come from a realm where audible or
    > visible are the standards, not tech measurement.


    if you can't see the difference then no need, but others definitely can.
    nospam, Dec 2, 2012
    #68
  9. Mort

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <k9eu0e$tc$>, david-
    d says...
    >
    > On 01/12/2012 22:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 10:23:56 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"

    > []
    > >> Can someone out there who has such an illustrative example of the VISIBLE
    > >> superiority of RAW please post a link?

    > >
    > > You might be interested in
    > > http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

    >
    > Interesting, in that in all but a couple of examples the JPEG looks better!


    The trouble with such comparisons is that they're really comparing two
    JPEGs with different degrees of processing. The "zeroed JPEG" has been
    processed in-camera, the "zeroed RAW" has been processed in Lightroom.
    What's actually being compared is not "RAW vs JPEG" but the camera's
    default processing vs Lightroom's default processing. Clearly the
    camera's defaults are more aesthetically pleasing in many cases than are
    Lightroom's.

    This is reasonable since it is pointless to pays the bucks for an Adobe
    product just to take the in-camera defaults.
    J. Clarke, Dec 2, 2012
    #69
  10. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <tYNus.660676$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > > if you can't see the difference then no need, but others definitely can.

    >
    > That is always the argument from the subjectivists, "if you aren't as
    > perceptive as we, then do what you want" but when subjected to blind testing
    > they can't prove any of it.


    when have you done a double-blind test? oh right, you haven't.

    do a test yourself. it won't be double-blind but the differences are
    dramatic.

    take a photo with the white balance set completely wrong and then try
    to fix the jpeg and the raw. one is going to look a *lot* better than
    the other and it's *not* going to be the jpeg. have you done that?
    didn't think so either.

    > But they are very good at getting the neurotic
    > to spend thousands more than they need to for benefits that only others can
    > see.


    thousands more? what the hell are you talking about?

    first of all, you *already* have elements and lightroom! you don't have
    to spent a single extra cent! it's *free*! what's even more amusing is
    that you don't need to change your workflow either. it's *exactly* the
    same as jpeg!

    second, raw software doesn't cost much, nowhere near the 'thousands'
    that you're claiming. elements is generally around $50 or so, aperture
    is $79 and lightroom is a little over $100 (and well worth it).
    nospam, Dec 2, 2012
    #70
  11. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > And a RAW conversion involves much more than just 2 or 3 parameters:
    >
    > - white balance (at least two parameters)
    > - contrast, saturation, gamma, white point, black point and more
    > - shadow and highlight recovery
    > - selective hue, saturation, brightness etc.
    > - noise correction parameters
    > - sharpness parameters
    > - lens corrections (aberrations, vignetting etc.)


    the jpeg would need the same.
    nospam, Dec 2, 2012
    #71
  12. Mort

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 09:11:50 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-12-02 08:20:42 -0800, Alan Browne
    ><> said:
    >
    >> On 2012.12.02 10:57 , tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 09:37:53 -0500, Alan Browne

    >>
    >>>> You really have to stop looking for excuses and start really
    >>>> understanding raw from the POV of using it, processing it and learning

    >>
    >>>> the advantages rather than hunting down usenet fallacies to excuse it
    >>>> out of hand.
    >>>
    >>> No, Alan, he doesn't have to do that at all. That's the method - or
    >>> workflow - that you and I prefer, but there's no reason at all that we
    >>> should impose that requirement on anyone else.

    >>
    >> I did not say he had to adopt the workflow. I said to understand it
    >> properly he has to try it. Otherwise stop claiming there is no
    >> advantage to it via looking for excuses in what one person (Molon) says
    >> v. the majority of photographers here.

    >
    >Yup! If what he is currently doing is to his satisfaction, he should do
    >as he pleases. However he should not make ridiculous, claims in the
    >face of the experience of others using a decent RAW workflow.
    >
    >> In this thread he asked (several times) for us to show him raw v. JPEG
    >> photos to see the difference.
    >>
    >> My (and other's) retort has been: do it yourself - that's the only way
    >> to discover it properly.

    >
    >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.
    >
    >Batch processing available via Bridge and Lightroom can be a great time
    >saver. Also, now that I am using LR4 with the 2012 ACR engine, I find
    >the entire process transparent, almost as if I am not thinking RAW or
    >JPEG, I am just processing my image. Then if I need, or want to I can
    >always edit the result in CS5, or use any of the NIK plugins I have,
    >which function seamlessly with LR4 & CS5.
    >
    >Gary is still the only one in this room who can make an evaluative
    >comparison of the two workflows to make his choice. Like you, I feel he
    >is foolish to reject one of the major features leading to better final
    >IQ, which he has already paid for in his camera.
    >
    >> In the meantime he's only spouting excuses on the one side while
    >> studiously ignoring the other. If he sincerely tries it and really
    >> finds no advantages for himself, fine. To date his search is to find
    >> reasons (excuses) to avoid it entirely without testing it.
    >>
    >> Anyway, I'm done with this particular "poster" (may be a "t" in there
    >> that shouldn't).


    My son-in-law shoots surfers in Jacksonville Beach. Action shots.
    This morning, according to my daughter who called earlier, he took
    over 800 frames. He's got a nice side income from selling the photos
    to the surfers.

    It's a rather different business model. Dave doesn't have a website
    and doesn't have internet access at home. Jax Beach is one of those
    tight communities where everyone knows everyone else. The surfers
    approach Dave and tell him to get some photos of them, or they come up
    and ask if he's taken some shots of them. Dave gets prints made and
    delivers the prints a few days later. He knows all the surfers by
    sight and they all know him. Sometimes he leaves the photos with the
    ticket-taker at the Pier and picks up the money a few days later. No
    one stiffs him. Sometimes the surfers request a CD or borrow Dave's
    thumbdrive so they can upload to their phone or pad. They always
    return the thumbdrive.

    He just bought a Nikon used D2X body from a pro friend and a new
    Tamron 18/270 lens to replace the D40 and 55-200 lens. He bought them
    with the proceeds of the photos.

    He shoots all .jpg, set to shutter speed, and does no editing. He
    sees no reason to shoot RAW and doesn't want to fill a card with
    larger files. It works for him.

    There are a couple of pro photographers who have websites with
    pay-for-download, but Dave does a better business than they do.

    What works, works.








    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Dec 2, 2012
    #72
  13. "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
    >
    >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.



    Imagine learning about a new technique for wedding photography that
    only took a few extra minutes in post-processing but solved the
    problem of inadequate dynamic range and also offered many other
    improvements in image quality. It would be welcomed, not just with
    enthusiasm but with elation!

    Then imagine being told that this technique had been around for years,
    and all it involved was using RAW files rather than JPEGs. An
    intelligent person would not be able to understand why every wedding
    shooter wasn't already using it.

    Of almost all the genres for a working photographer, wedding
    photography is surely one that benefits most from RAW. I find it is
    not the low light images that benefit most, rather it is the images
    shot in direct sunlight where the range of contrast between a groom's
    dark suit and a bride's white gown is greater than a JPEG could
    possibly record. Accidentally underexposed images also benefit from
    RAW because you can bring them up by a couple of stops more than you
    can with JPEGs.

    "Fantastic JPEG images" demonstrating that you don't need to shoot RAW
    don't exist, except in your imagination. However, the Usenet postings
    that demonstrate your profound ignorance of technique (ignorance that
    you appear proud to defend) number many.

    Among hack wedding shooters, I doubt that there are many whose work
    would *not* benefit from shooting and post processing RAW images.
    Unfortunately, however, the majority will be unwilling to make the
    small additional effort involved in spite of the rewards, which are
    disproportionately great.

    'Twas ever thus.
    Anthony Polson, Dec 2, 2012
    #73
  14. Mort

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 18:01:58 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
    <> wrote:

    >And Photoshop CS4. I have all of the programs I need to shoot RAW. I have
    >tried it. I will try it again, maybe even experiment to TRY and find
    >differences.


    I have CS4 and Lightroom, shoot RAW (mostly) and do all my
    post-processing in CS4. I use Lightroom solely for the keywording
    feature so I can quickly locate images with a particular subject or by
    date.

    I readily admit that I under-utilize Lightroom by not using it for
    post-processing. I don't care. While I'm capable of learing how to
    edit in LR, I'm comfortable with my present system and have no
    interest in changing.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Dec 2, 2012
    #74
  15. Mort

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:37:27 +0000, Anthony Polson
    <> wrote:

    >"Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>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.

    >
    >
    >Imagine learning about a new technique for wedding photography that
    >only took a few extra minutes in post-processing but solved the
    >problem of inadequate dynamic range and also offered many other
    >improvements in image quality. It would be welcomed, not just with
    >enthusiasm but with elation!
    >
    >Then imagine being told that this technique had been around for years,
    >and all it involved was using RAW files rather than JPEGs. An
    >intelligent person would not be able to understand why every wedding
    >shooter wasn't already using it.
    >
    >Of almost all the genres for a working photographer, wedding
    >photography is surely one that benefits most from RAW. I find it is
    >not the low light images that benefit most, rather it is the images
    >shot in direct sunlight where the range of contrast between a groom's
    >dark suit and a bride's white gown is greater than a JPEG could
    >possibly record. Accidentally underexposed images also benefit from
    >RAW because you can bring them up by a couple of stops more than you
    >can with JPEGs.
    >
    >"Fantastic JPEG images" demonstrating that you don't need to shoot RAW
    >don't exist, except in your imagination. However, the Usenet postings
    >that demonstrate your profound ignorance of technique (ignorance that
    >you appear proud to defend) number many.
    >
    >Among hack wedding shooters, I doubt that there are many whose work
    >would *not* benefit from shooting and post processing RAW images.
    >Unfortunately, however, the majority will be unwilling to make the
    >small additional effort involved in spite of the rewards, which are
    >disproportionately great.
    >
    >'Twas ever thus.


    Our two most vocal "experts"- Polson and nospam - in processing
    technique, workflow, and software programs to use are so proud of
    their ability and output that they won't post a link to any of their
    results here. Presumably, because their output is so good that the
    rest of us would be so out-classed that we'd never be brave enough to
    show our work again.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Dec 2, 2012
    #75
  16. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <25Rus.493002$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > >> > if you can't see the difference then no need, but others definitely
    > >> > can.
    > >>
    > >> That is always the argument from the subjectivists, "if you aren't as
    > >> perceptive as we, then do what you want" but when subjected to blind
    > >> testing they can't prove any of it.

    > >
    > > when have you done a double-blind test? oh right, you haven't.

    >
    > Many times.


    bullshit.

    > > do a test yourself. it won't be double-blind but the differences are
    > > dramatic.
    > >
    > > take a photo with the white balance set completely wrong and then try
    > > to fix the jpeg and the raw. one is going to look a *lot* better than
    > > the other and it's *not* going to be the jpeg. have you done that?
    > > didn't think so either.

    >
    > Well, there you go again. Shooting digital with WB all wrong. Who would do
    > that?


    not intentionally, but mistakes happen.

    most of the time, auto white balance isn't exactly ideal and you need
    to adjust the white balance a little (or even a lot). or maybe you just
    want a special effect.

    same for other adjustments.

    unless you always get it perfect in the camera all the time, you *will*
    need to adjust stuff later.

    > >> But they are very good at getting the neurotic
    > >> to spend thousands more than they need to for benefits that only others
    > >> can see.

    > >
    > > thousands more? what the hell are you talking about?

    >
    > Audiophiles.


    what does that have to do with raw processing?

    as i said, you don't have to spend a cent extra.

    > > first of all, you *already* have elements and lightroom! you don't have
    > > to spent a single extra cent! it's *free*! what's even more amusing is
    > > that you don't need to change your workflow either. it's *exactly* the
    > > same as jpeg!
    > >
    > > second, raw software doesn't cost much, nowhere near the 'thousands'
    > > that you're claiming. elements is generally around $50 or so, aperture
    > > is $79 and lightroom is a little over $100 (and well worth it).

    >
    > And Photoshop CS4. I have all of the programs I need to shoot RAW. I have
    > tried it. I will try it again, maybe even experiment to TRY and find
    > differences.


    the fact that you say that the controls are clumsy and that it takes a
    lot more work to work with raw means you don't know how to use the
    software you already have.

    it takes *no* additional work and the controls are exactly the same.
    nospam, Dec 2, 2012
    #76
  17. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <p9Rus.659857$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > Alfred Molon pointed out that if a shot is exposed correctly and if it ends
    > up as a JPG or other 8 bit file after all is said and done, there may be no
    > perceptual difference between the two. Unless sometimes the camera's jpeg
    > engine is better than your aftermarket RAW processor.


    *if* it's shot correctly and needs no adjustment, then maybe.

    in the real world, that doesn't happen very often, if ever.

    if you're that lucky to get every shot perfectly exposed, then go buy a
    lottery ticket.
    nospam, Dec 2, 2012
    #77
  18. On 12/2/2012 12:48 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    >> no it doesn't. it uses the embedded jpeg.

    >
    > In any case, you can easily see whether you have blown out the

    highlights,

    well, yes, BUT ... at least on a Canon its not at all easy to tell
    that you HAVE blown the highlights, or have gotten close to blowing them.

    And at least on the two Canons I own (a 30D and a 7D) the only way to
    get close to doing that (seeing how close you are to blown) is to set
    the in-camera JPEG mode to "faithful" or "natural" and set the contrast
    all the way down, then look at the histogram. The flashing highlight
    overload feature can flash **and in fact you are not blown**. It can be
    at least 2/3 stop too conservative. And by blown I mean blown in
    any of R, G, B. And that which is blown in DPP may in fact not be blown
    in ACR or looking at the binary of the file. 2/3 stop is a big
    deal for high contrast scenes.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Dec 3, 2012
    #78
  19. On 12/2/2012 1:28 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    > Most-wanted function to assign to a direct button on my cameras: Figure
    > out the current shutter speed and aperture in program / matrix mode, and
    > set mode to manual with that shutter speed and that aperture set. This
    > gets me a slavagable picture instantly (well, nearly always; I'm pretty
    > good at restoration work, so I can rescue most things if I really need
    > to) AND sets up the camera to improve the exposure from there, without
    > my having to remember the settings and manually change mode and manually
    > duplicate the settings I remember.
    >


    A truly BRILLIANT suggestion!

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Dec 3, 2012
    #79
  20. Mort

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 21:07:32 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper <> writes:
    >
    >> I readily admit that I under-utilize Lightroom by not using it for
    >> post-processing. I don't care. While I'm capable of learing how to
    >> edit in LR, I'm comfortable with my present system and have no
    >> interest in changing.

    >
    >Since you don't have a problem, I won't tell you how to fix it :).
    >What works for you is great for you.


    Exactly, and I appreciate that. There should be more of that here
    instead of this dick-waving "I do it this way and you should too".



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Dec 3, 2012
    #80
    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. Pat McGroyn

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Pat McGroyn, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    273
    PeterN
    Nov 27, 2012
  2. Anthony Polson

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Anthony Polson, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    231
    Trevor
    Nov 26, 2012
  3. Anthony Polson

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Anthony Polson, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    246
    Whisky-dave
    Nov 26, 2012
  4. RichA

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    RichA, Nov 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    202
    Anthony Polson
    Nov 25, 2012
  5. Tim Conway

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Tim Conway, Nov 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    225
    Tim Conway
    Nov 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page