Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

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

  1. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Gary Eickmeier <> wrote:
    > "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    > news:k9c4c6$lom$...


    >> Sad to think of someone shooting a wedding and throwing out half the image
    >> quality, but there you go.
    >> PS or Lightroom can automaticly apply your camera adjustments to RAW files
    >> when you do that "processing" just as the camera does to the jpegs. You
    >> sure don't know much if you "shudder at the thought of all that
    >> processing" you computer does for you!
    >> Frankly you seem to be proud of your ignorance, why?


    > OK, so I am iggerant. But you guys haven't been able to show me an example
    > of a RAW image vs a JPG shot at the same time that demonstrates this
    > superiority of image.


    Why should we bother? For a start most aren't using your camera to
    produce your kind of images. Secondly it's easy for you -- if you're
    really interested -- to do the experiments suggested for yourself. If
    *you* find no siginficant difference, then clearly there's no point in
    you bothering with RAW, and no point in anyone trying to convert you
    using results from another camera taking the kinds of photographs you
    don't take.

    I shoot RAW when I'm reaching for best quality images for exhibition
    or sale, and also when conditions are really bad or I have no time to
    optimise camera settings. Under those conditions the differences are
    considerable. Otherwise I shoot jpegs because nobody except me (or
    another finical photographic pedant) would notice or care about the
    small differences.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 3, 2012
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. Neil Ellwood <> wrote:
    >I can't speak for other dslr's but my canon came with raw software that is
    >very good and I have kept it up to date. I have other raw software on my
    >desktop and on my laptop but still usually use the canon one as it is easy
    >and quick to use.



    For people using only one camera brand, the brand's own software is
    usually a good choice. Nikon users might not agree, however.

    If you own one of the latest Fujifilm mirrorless cameras, you are
    forced to use Fujifilm's own software because no-one else's will
    decode the RAW files from the non-Bayer sensor.
    Anthony Polson, Dec 3, 2012
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Anthony Polson
    <> wrote:

    > If you own one of the latest Fujifilm mirrorless cameras, you are
    > forced to use Fujifilm's own software because no-one else's will
    > decode the RAW files from the non-Bayer sensor.


    fuji uses bayer sensors.

    you must mean sigma and the foveon sensor.
    nospam, Dec 3, 2012
    #83
  4. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
    > 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.


    For what it's worth, Nikon .NEFs have always contain an embedded
    basic-quality JPEG "preview image" (plus an additional thumbnail), so if
    you're shooting RAW, you're already getting a JPEG for "free".

    I use those embedded JPEGs for my first-pass culling and
    instant-gratification slideshows, and queue the remaining ones for batch
    processing with default settings. I only muck with individual images as
    needed, but when I do, I want as much detail to work with as possible.

    I shoot with and keep the RAWs around for the same reason I always shoot
    at the highest resolution and quality settings -- You can always throw
    away data after the fact (eg for online publishing), but you can't get
    it back once it's gone.

    - Solomon
    --
    Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
    Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
    Stuffed Crust, Dec 3, 2012
    #84
  5. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:52:42 +0000, Anthony Polson
    ><> wrote:
    >>For people using only one camera brand, the brand's own software is
    >>usually a good choice. Nikon users might not agree, however.

    >
    >I love NX2 and only wish it did more. If Nikon don't wish to develop
    >it to a full-capability editor, I wish they would enable it as a
    >plug-in for Photo Shop or Paint Shop Pro. The only thing that puts
    >people off NX2 is that it is written by Nik and incorporates that
    >companies interestingly quirky user interface. I can understand why
    >people might not like it (it's different) but once you have got used
    >to it you will find that it is both fast to use and very powerful.



    I have tended to use it only briefly until a new version of Adobe
    Camera Raw is released, so I have never had reason to spend time
    learning and getting to know it well.

    However, I have sold cameras to many Nikon users in the last few years
    and there seems to be a wide range of opinions about NX2.
    Anthony Polson, Dec 3, 2012
    #85
  6. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Gary Eickmeier <> wrote:
    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >> On 2012.12.01 17:12 , Alfred Molon wrote:


    [but the ">>" attributions are screwed by Gary's non-standard quoting]

    >>> All this painful work, and in 60-90% of cases you end up with an
    >>> image which is not better than the camera JPEG (this percentage of
    >>> course depends on the scene - there are scenes with difficult
    >>> lighting conditions, where less camera JPEGs will be usable).


    It's very easy to discover which images need careful processing and
    which simply need a quick tweak, or nothing at all. All you have to do
    is try your usual simple jpeg adjsutments. When they fail to satisfy
    is when you need to use more and more powerful tools. Of course if
    they never fail to satisfy you or your clients then there is no point
    in you personally bothering with RAW.

    >> It's funny how you bring up terms like "painful" which may apply to
    >> you but don't seem to apply to most people discussing this here.
    >>
    >> As to workflow, simplification is always better - so shoot one format
    >> only and save card space.


    > 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.


    With perfect exposure there is still a lot more latitude in exposure
    range (aka dynamic range) in RAW files than the jpegs. For example, if
    you wanted to catch detail in both the shaded areas of a black suit
    and a sunlit lace wedding dress you could get a lot more out of a tone
    mapped or curve-adjusted RAW file than any ex-camera jpeg. But if
    you've never done that kind of thing before you'd need to learn some
    new skills in order to be able to do that.

    Or you could simply wait for the next generation of camera which has
    managed to package some of those methods into a selectable in-camera
    jpeg processing mode. But those are of course always limited by
    processing power. For example in-camera jpeg high ISO noise reduction
    keeps improving all the time. But it's never as good, and never could
    as good, as what you can get from dedicated noise reduction software
    which takes its time to do the best job, and takes your time to set it
    up to do what you want in this particular image.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 4, 2012
    #86
  7. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >nospam <> writes:
    >
    >> In article <>, Anthony Polson
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> If you own one of the latest Fujifilm mirrorless cameras, you are
    >>> forced to use Fujifilm's own software because no-one else's will
    >>> decode the RAW files from the non-Bayer sensor.

    >>
    >> fuji uses bayer sensors.

    >
    >One of the Fujis advertises a pattern that isn't "RGBG", and that in
    >fact isn't regular, it's random. (Fixed, and the same on all cameras,
    >but not a regular pattern across the pixels.)
    >
    >This is to reduce color aliasing, and it should work in theory (haven't
    >played with the camera). But I see how it would cause a bit of a mess
    >for RAW-processing software; they'd have to know what the pattern was.



    There are currently two Fujifilm cameras with the proprietary sensor,
    the X-Pro1 and the X-E1. The pattern is not random. The same pattern
    is repeated all over the sensor. However, it is a different pattern
    to Bayer's.

    The intention is to allow the sensor to be used without an
    anti-aliasing filter. It seems to work; the results show a higher
    resolution than would be the case for a Bayer sensor of comparable MP
    such as the Sony 16 MP CMOS sensor in the Nikon D7000, Pentax K5 etc..
    However, it is beaten for resolution by the 24 MP sensor in the Nikon
    D600 and Sony A99 and the pixel pattern does not completely eliminate
    aliasing.


    >But I see how it would cause a bit of a mess
    >for RAW-processing software; they'd have to know what the pattern was.



    There is real difficulty here; obviously Fujifilm's pattern is
    patented and there are intellectual property issues around licensing
    Fujifilm's RAW processing code to vendors of post processing software.
    Eventually, these issues will be resolved, but not yet. So, in the
    meantime, only Fujifilm's own RAW converter can be used.

    The store I used to work for has sold many X-Pro1 bodies. The
    feedback from users seems to indicate that they are very happy with
    their cameras, but an higher-than-expected percentage appear to be
    choosing out-of-the-camera JPEGs.
    Anthony Polson, Dec 4, 2012
    #87
  8. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Anthony Polson
    <> wrote:

    > >>> If you own one of the latest Fujifilm mirrorless cameras, you are
    > >>> forced to use Fujifilm's own software because no-one else's will
    > >>> decode the RAW files from the non-Bayer sensor.
    > >>
    > >> fuji uses bayer sensors.

    > >
    > >One of the Fujis advertises a pattern that isn't "RGBG", and that in
    > >fact isn't regular, it's random. (Fixed, and the same on all cameras,
    > >but not a regular pattern across the pixels.)
    > >
    > >This is to reduce color aliasing, and it should work in theory (haven't
    > >played with the camera). But I see how it would cause a bit of a mess
    > >for RAW-processing software; they'd have to know what the pattern was.

    >
    > There are currently two Fujifilm cameras with the proprietary sensor,
    > the X-Pro1 and the X-E1.


    both of which are supported by adobe camera raw.

    > The pattern is not random. The same pattern
    > is repeated all over the sensor. However, it is a different pattern
    > to Bayer's.


    it's a variant, versus sigma/foveon which is *very* different.

    > >But I see how it would cause a bit of a mess
    > >for RAW-processing software; they'd have to know what the pattern was.

    >
    > There is real difficulty here; obviously Fujifilm's pattern is
    > patented and there are intellectual property issues around licensing
    > Fujifilm's RAW processing code to vendors of post processing software.
    > Eventually, these issues will be resolved, but not yet. So, in the
    > meantime, only Fujifilm's own RAW converter can be used.


    wrong.

    adobe camera raw supports those cameras, which means photoshop,
    photoshop elements and lightroom all support raw files from them.
    nospam, Dec 4, 2012
    #88
  9. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > Yeah, right. Ask anybody these days. Nikon is making the best DSLRs in
    > > the market.

    >
    > If they are the best, why is there is 3/4 stop exposure mistake?


    so canon gets it right 100% of the time?
    nospam, Dec 4, 2012
    #89
  10. Mort

    nick c Guest

    On 12/4/2012 2:18 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > Alfred Molon <> writes:
    >
    >> In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >>> This is very much not my experience (Nikon D700 and Olympus EPL-2
    >>> currently). Particularly exposure; it's fairly frequent for me to
    >>> adjust plus or minus 3/4 stop.

    >>
    >> Very strange that an expensive camera like your D700 would miss the
    >> exposure so often. Perhaps Nikon does not make good cameras.

    >



    > Yeah, right. Ask anybody these days. Nikon is making the best DSLRs in
    > the market.


    ...... and we are unanimous in that opinion.


    >
    >>> I can improve images a LOT with average of a few seconds an image. When
    >>> I go on for the images that can support it to try for a first-class
    >>> rendition, *that* takes half an hour or anything up to off and on for a
    >>> month (well, one extreme case was 30 years, but most of those 30 years I
    >>> never looked at it).

    >>
    >> The problem with your few seconds per image is that you have no time to
    >> edit anything. No time to look at the image and think how it should be.
    >> A few seconds is nothing.

    >
    > I'm not sure if we're having a terminological difference or an actual
    > difference here. A few seconds per photo *average* often means picking
    > the 6 or 8 photos near each other with the same exposure and then
    > adjusting exposure once for the group. This doesn't give time for a
    > perfect job, but I'm in no doubt that I've made an improvements. I use
    > this kind of thing for web proofs of high-volume events (event candids
    > and sports photos, mostly). And maybe I'm overly optimistic, maybe the
    > group takes me a minute rather than 30 seconds.
    >
    > The *previous* step is classifying the shots as 0-3 stars (very very
    > occasionally 4, but mostly 4 only gets assigned later after I've lived
    > with the photo a while), and I'm working with a list filtered to 2 stars
    > and up. This step is traditionally what "editing" means of photos; it's
    > what a photo editor does, for example. Unfortunately it now clashes
    > with the computer usage where an "editor" is a powerful tool for
    > modifying a particular class of file (text editor, photo editor, video
    > editor).
    >
    nick c, Dec 5, 2012
    #90
  11. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:9Ugus.800360$4...
    > OK, so I am iggerant. But you guys haven't been able to show me an example
    > of a RAW image vs a JPG shot at the same time that demonstrates this
    > superiority of image.


    If you are unable to demonstrate it for yourself, then it probably doesn't
    matter to *you* what the difference is. The rest of us already know and
    choose our work flow accordingly.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    #91
  12. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:BLgus.885771$4...
    >>> > 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?


    Sure you can convert an 8 bit Jpeg into a 16 or 32bit file in PS if you
    want. Of course the data lost when saving from a 12-14 bit sensor into an 8
    bit Jpeg is ***NOT*** recovered!
    Editing and saving as a 16 bit PSD or TIF at least means you don't lose
    progressively more at each edit/save, but is no substitute for starting with
    a decent file in the first place!

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    #92
  13. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:lPgus.234910$4...
    > I know what they mean by "non destructively" - that all of the edits are
    > saved in layers and can be undone at all times. But all I am saying is
    > that I do not edit on my JPGs and then save it back to the same JPG file I
    > started with - I save it as a new file, a TIFF, so that the original is
    > still there.


    Right, so if you do see a benefit in non compressed files, why start with a
    lossy compressed one at all?
    It seems you would rather spend time arguing than learn how to use a RAW
    workflow. A pretty silly choice IMO, but each to their own I guess.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    #93
  14. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://zatz.com/connectedphotographer/article/bit-depth-in-jpeg-images/
    > explains it reasonably well but only recognizes the existence of RAW
    > files of up to 12 bits. For several years there have been cameras of
    > up to 14 bits.


    Right, and possibly 16 bit sooner or later.

    > It is correct that as described in the article there are 16 bit JPEG
    > files. The only problem is that only a very limited range of software
    > is capable of reading them.


    And no camera I am aware of that produces them??

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    #94
  15. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:_hpus.978251$4...
    > OK OK, I understand the theory of it all, but if I were fired up again
    > about RAW and went out and took a few shots in moth RAW and JPG and tried
    > to show myself this superiority, I would once again come up empty.


    Says a lot about your ability unfortunately for you.


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


    A few have already done so, and presumably you haven't bothered to look, so
    why ask for more that you probably won't look at either?
    Or did you look and still not understand what was written and shown? Did you
    want a guide for Ultra Dummies perhaps?

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    #95
  16. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:rWgus.871386$4...
    >>> Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of
    >>> dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

    >>
    >> You're kidding right? A top end camera that does 14 bits RAW loses far
    >> more than 1.5 stops when saving to an 8 bit file! AND you don't have
    >> control over the default curve applied that stops you losing the full 6
    >> stops!!!

    >
    > You're kidding, right? I am ignorant, but you are shooting digital 6 stops
    > off?


    Nope, I'm shooting images with 6 stops more dynamic range than you. And even
    then I have to resort to HDR occasionally because 14 bits is still not
    enough, let alone 8 bits!!!

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    #96
  17. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>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.)

    >>
    >>
    >>You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of thousands
    >>of
    >>photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works
    >>quite
    >>well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the colour's
    >>of
    >>surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all
    >>humans are
    >>about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness values.
    >>(Except for certain African's of course!)

    >
    > My F801s Nikon incorporated the ancestor of the technology you
    > describe, back in the late 1980s. It was especially marvellous back in
    > those days.


    How exactly did your F801s apply auto white balance to the film? I had to to
    choose between daylight or tungsten film and use CC filters in those days.
    My darkroom color analyser did a fair job when printing color neg myself,
    but absolutely no match for todays DSLR's AWB.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    #97
  18. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "David Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:k9chn4$bbv$...
    > On 01/12/2012 04:14, Trevor wrote:
    >> Big improvement, like 12-14 bits Vs 8bit files for a start! Jpeg ALWAYS
    >> throws away dynamic range. Just like I don't throw away my film
    >> negatives, I
    >> don't throw away the digital "negatives" either. What you choose to do is
    >> is
    >> up to you of course.

    >
    > The dynamic range of the 8-bit gamma-corrected JPEG is actually greater
    > than 12-14 bit RAW, but its precision is less.


    What a load of crap. Yes a default curve is applied in camera to save a
    little more than 8 stops, and thus reducing precision. However the dynamic
    range is also reduced or all photo's would look terribly flat and dull. With
    RAW you have the benefit of applying the exact curve and clipping points
    required for each particular image after the fact. Something you simply
    cannot do before OR after with in camera Jpeg.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    #98
  19. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "David Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:k9ci5o$e10$...
    >> You're kidding right? A top end camera that does 14 bits RAW loses far
    >> more
    >> than 1.5 stops when saving to an 8 bit file! AND you don't have control
    >> over
    >> the default curve applied that stops you losing the full 6 stops!!!

    >
    > False, because the RAW has a linear encoding, and the JPEG a
    > gamma-corrected coding, meaning that is can represent light levels far
    > lower than 1/256 of the white value. It's /not/ a simple 8-bit versus
    > 14-bit comparison.


    Of course it is, any clipping and gamma curve that is applied by the camera
    (over which you have very little or no control) can also be applied to the
    RAW file with complete control in post. All captured data remains available
    in RAW for post processing in any way necessary for each individual image,
    but NOT in Jpeg.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    #99
  20. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <k9c06u$eii$>, Trevor says...
    >> Big improvement, like 12-14 bits Vs 8bit files for a start! Jpeg ALWAYS
    >> throws away dynamic range. Just like I don't throw away my film
    >> negatives, I
    >> don't throw away the digital "negatives" either. What you choose to do is
    >> is
    >> up to you of course.

    >
    > But you can't print a RAW image, you have to convert it to 8 bit colour
    > anyway. Your assumption is that you are better at converting to JPEG
    > than the camera is. That may be the case, but very often, obviously also
    > depending on the camera, the camera is very good as well.



    The camera may even be better than many here from what they have written, in
    which case Jpeg may well be their best option. Why they'd even need a DSLR
    is another question however. And why they wouldn't want to learn and improve
    is something I don't understand, but unfortunately the world is full of such
    people.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    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:
    248
    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:
    219
    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:
    228
    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:
    197
    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:
    218
    Tim Conway
    Nov 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page