Are You an In-Camera or Post-Camera Photographer?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 1, 2007.

  1. Keep in mind that it can be both meaningful and *useless*!

    Most of us want adjustments that are beneficial.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 7, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Granted, but in the same way that it's not essential to shoot in RAW
    I guess I wouldn't say it is "essential", but it is certainly *much*
    better. If you are capturing 12 bits of raw data per channel in an
    environment with highly colored light (such as many tungsten bulbs),
    that could easily result in a red to blue disparity that is pretty
    extreme. The red channel might have values throughout that 12 bit
    range, but the blue might have values through only, say, 3 or 4 bits of
    that range. The process of demosaicing into an 8 bit per channel color
    space is likely to result in one of those bits of blue data being lost.
    Which is to say, by the time you've converted to JPEG, you've lost
    detail in the blue channel you aren't going to get back by altering the
    color after the fact.
    Depending on how you define "meaningful", I'd agree. You can certainly
    get *some* results - better than nothing - working from JPEG. But you
    can often get far *better* results working from RAW. And this isn't
    just an accident of software UI - it's inherent in the formats.

    ---------------
    Marc Sabatella


    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    http://www.outsideshore.com/
     
    Marc Sabatella, Jun 7, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wayne J. Cosshall

    George Kerby Guest

    You are goofier (if that is a word) than Paris Hilton.
     
    George Kerby, Jun 7, 2007
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    George Kerby Guest

    "A lesbian trapped in the body of a man"

    ­-Feo y Loco 1992
     
    George Kerby, Jun 7, 2007
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    tag22 Guest

    Reply: A Post-Camera Photographer.
    The digital deluge has been too much - lol!
    I am still keeping my film camera.
    Thanks: tag22
     
    tag22, Jun 7, 2007
  6. Another 80 lines of text that describe yourself!
     
    Floyd Davidson, Jun 7, 2007
  7. Wayne J. Cosshall

    ASAAR Guest

    Ahhh, a truly rare event. You've actually run out of gas. How
    refreshing. That growing murmur heard way off in the distance is
    the sound of multitudes rejoicing! <g>
     
    ASAAR, Jun 7, 2007
  8. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Aaron Guest

    We should all be thankful that technology has progressed so far since
    the Daguerrotype. If we still had to boil mercury to fix a single
    unique image to a plate, I think this debate would be meaningless. The
    Daguerrotype was the first commercially viable method of photographic
    reproduction and ever since then technology has been moving in the
    direction of greater and greater post-processing flexibility and
    control. Why fight this?

    If you wish to challenge yourself to create photographs that require
    nothing more than levels and sharpening, great! But don't cry down to
    the rest of us from your high horse when you see people making
    fantastic modifications that yield new and interesting results.

    I agree with Dennis and Mr. T on this one.
     
    Aaron, Jun 7, 2007
  9. I hear multitudes of folks laughing at your hypocrisy.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 7, 2007
  10. Wayne J. Cosshall

    ASAAR Guest

    He says, as he leaves with yet another "nyah, nyah, what you said,
    but back on you" whimper instead of his usual bang. :)

    (are you feeling ok? seriously)
     
    ASAAR, Jun 7, 2007
  11. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ray Macey Guest

    And now you're changing direction just to be argumentative.

    Ray
     
    Ray Macey, Jun 7, 2007
  12. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ray Macey Guest

    That's an issue with overall "RAW vs JPEG", not an issue with white
    balance. You will lose data and detail converting from 12/16 bit to 8
    bit. I know this, and it's an advantage RAW has over JPEG, I'm not
    arguing that.

    It's an issue whether you're playing with white balance or not. But
    it's not enough of an issue to make JPEG completely worthless outside
    of playing with white balance, and it's not that big a deal when
    playing with white balance either. Yes, RAW gives you more room to
    move when processing, but this extra room is far from essential to
    produce decent photographs, otherwise arguments on RAW vs JPEG
    wouldn't happen, everyone would use RAW. And the same argument
    applies with processing an images white balance as well.
    You can get better results, not always far better results. I convert
    my JPEGs to 16 bit LAB mode, do my processing, including adjusting the
    white balance, and then convert back to JPEG. There is certainly no
    way of eyeballing an image processed like that and being able to tell
    that the white balance was adjusted from a JPEG instead of a RAW.
    Yes, you could probably tell by poking around at the histogram, but
    you can't easily tell with the straight human eye, and to me, that's
    why it's a difference between "better" results and "far better
    results".
    You still haven't qualified that statement. Both image formats record
    pixels with a colour temperature that is off. In the RAW, this is
    every single photo as it's raw data. With JPEG, it's the result of
    the camera getting the white balance guess wrong when it does its in
    camera processing. Whatever the case, you end up with an image that
    is too warm or too cool.

    You then adjust each of these pixels by the same amount in the same
    direction. You aren't altering brightness, you aren't adding or
    removing dynamic range, your histogram won't slide all over the place
    and transform itself. I simply can't see the difference between a
    white balance adjusted in RAW and one adjusted in JPEG, and I can't
    see any fundamental technical differences either.

    If I'm missing something, please spell it out to me by means of an
    actual explanation rather than an analogy. I know JPEG has less bit
    data and dynamic range, I know it has processing done in camera before
    effectively being "flattened" so that you can't undo it. I also know
    that you face all of those issues when turning a RAW in to a JPEG to
    print or use it, thus making all of these issues real, but of minimal
    importance to some people.

    If the RAW vs JPEG white balance issue is based on something different
    to that, I'd love to hear a description of how it differs, because to
    the best of my admittedly non comprehensive knowledge, it shouldn't be
    that different

    If you simply want to get across the point that RAW is the technically
    superior format, you don't need to. I admit that, and it's not what
    I'm arguing...

    Ray
     
    Ray Macey, Jun 7, 2007
  13. No, you are being obtuse and trying to stretch a definition into
    something that was not said. You've made that clear in another
    post, to which I'll respond rather than here.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 8, 2007
  14. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ray Macey Guest

    So you're seriously arguing that someone can perform a meaningful
    adjustment on the white balance in JPEG that is at the same time
    completely useless?

    I'm honestly confused by that statement if it's a genuine summary of
    your stance...

    Ray
     
    Ray Macey, Jun 8, 2007
  15. Wayne J. Cosshall

    dj_nme Guest

    You've finaly both proved the 'net truism without a doubt.
    <http://members.iinet.com.au/~therealm/dj_nme/so-true.jpg>

    Please, stop wasting bandwidth now.
     
    dj_nme, Jun 8, 2007
  16. Wayne J. Cosshall

    ASAAR Guest

    I checked your jpg just to see if it was at least slightly witty
    or amusing. Instead, it provided confirmation that you're as
    repulsive a human as your messages occasionally indicate.

    I would, but I don't know what I could add to my replies that
    would keep you from responding and sniping, as is your wont.
     
    ASAAR, Jun 8, 2007
  17. If you can make a significant change, that is "meaningful".

    If it does not provide the correct white balance, it
    might well be meaningful, but not useful.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Jun 8, 2007
  18. Wayne J. Cosshall

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, John:

    Is a "stupid statement," any less moronic, if it's a troll? <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 8, 2007
  19. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ray Macey Guest

    Why would JPEG be any more or less correct than RAW?

    Ray
     
    Ray Macey, Jun 8, 2007
  20. Which is to say, by the time you've converted to JPEG, you've lost
    It becomes an issue with WB if you then try to change the WB. The
    particular way in which the demosaicing algorithm throws away data to
    reduce the 12-bit RAW data to 8-bit JPEG data takes the WB into account.
    Had it known you wanted a different WB, it could have thrown away data
    differently, and hopefully been able to preserve more detail. Too late
    now, though.

    For instance, say you've got a pixel where the red data reads
    111111111111 and the blue data reads 000000000001. The demosaicing
    algortihm says, heck, that's too big a difference to capture in 8 bits.
    So it tosses that one bit, leaving you nothing in the blue channel. Or
    maybe it decides to keep that one bit - 00000001 blue in the 8-bit
    JPEG - just to be safe. But say the neighboring pixel was also
    111111111111 red, 000000000010 blue. That's still a big enough
    difference that the algorithm would have to represent this as no more
    than 00000001 blue in an 8-bit JPEG. You can adjust WB in the JPEG all
    you want after the fact, you are never going to recapture the fact that
    those two pixels in fact had different blue content. But if you had
    told the camera about the WB beforehand, it could have done the shift
    *before* reducing to 8 bits, meaning you'd probably get to keep that
    difference between the two pixels (indeed, it would likely be
    amplified).
    I agree it's not comletely worthless. But its value does go up
    considerably if you get the WB right before taking the shot.
    I'd agree it isn't *always* "far better". It is "far better"
    *sometimes*, however, to my eyes. Given there is no real downside to
    shooting RAW, I can't see why anyone who cares about this in the least
    would do otherwise.
    Just curious - why do you prefer going to all this trouble over simply
    shooting RAW and having it be easier as well as produce better results?
    I would claim at least some of the time there would be. One might not
    be able to say looking at a single image which it was, but if you posted
    two otherwsie similar images - one adjusted from JPEG, one from RAW -
    I'll bet quite a few poeple could tell.
    See above.

    ---------------
    Marc Sabatella


    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    http://www.outsideshore.com/
     
    Marc Sabatella, Jun 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.