Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca, May 30, 2009.

  1. aniramca

    Bob Larter Guest

    Well, obviously.
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 8, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. aniramca

    Bob Larter Guest

    Sure, if you're shooting JPEGs, but we've talking about RAW files.
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 8, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. aniramca

    Bob Larter Guest

    It is when you're referring to RAW files, as we have been.
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 8, 2009
  4. aniramca

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Yet you failed to understand the 'brick'analogy even when I explained
    it as to a small child.
    It's something that is numerically coded.
    You surely don't remember the anaology and apparently never understood
    it either.
    Here we go again. You've snipped text and given no indication. Maybe
    you never even read it. Is this how you failed to read or understand
    the 'brick' analogy?
    I did, but it seems you never read it.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jun 8, 2009
  5. aniramca

    Eric Stevens Guest

    That's great. But none of that is what were talking about either.


    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jun 8, 2009
  6. aniramca

    Bob Larter Guest

    It is when you're talking about RAW files. If you're talking about
    JPEGs, then obviously interpolation / de-Bayering is taking place.
    ???
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 8, 2009
  7. aniramca

    Bob Larter Guest

    That's quite possible. My experience is with Canon cameras, & I suspect
    that they perform some kind of noise reduction before writing the RAW
    file. People have said that Nikon do even more than that, but I don't
    know, as I haven't worked with Nikon RAW files.
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 8, 2009
  8. aniramca

    Eric Stevens Guest


    Look, its now clear that you don't/haven't read read what I wrote.

    Its also clear that you don't/haven't read understood what I have
    written.

    Further its clear that you largely ignore what I have written and
    respond only to those parts of it which have caught your attention.

    Finally, while I'm trying to have discussion with you on one aspect of
    the topic, you are quite happy to ignore much of what I have said and
    instead, without highlighting the fact, have a discussion only on the
    selected text which has caught your attention.

    Do you know of any good reason why I should continue to take you
    seriously?



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jun 8, 2009
  9. aniramca

    Eric Stevens Guest

    How much of the above was contributed by me? This is one of the
    advantages of your habit of snipping stuff. Nobody can tell who
    actually said what.
    Bullshit.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jun 8, 2009
  10. I've seen different usages of "interpolation" in this newsgroup.

    I prefer to think of "interpolation" in the strict literal sense as
    the invention of a new value in an ordered set in a place between two
    existing values ("inter") to create a new hypothesised data point
    where one did not exist before ("polate"). You have to do that if
    you're upsizing an image. Strictly speaking you're not doing
    interpolation if you're downsizing, or if you're reducing noise by
    averaging each pixel with its neighbours, or if you're converting
    Bayer sensor data to jpeg.

    But I note that some here seem to use it to mean the adjustment or
    creation of a value at an existing point in an ordered set based on
    the values of its neighbours. In that case converting a RAW image to
    jpeg does interpolate, as does mapping out dead sensor elements.

    I hope some of this heated argument isn't because people have been
    arguing about interpolation without having first agreed what they mean
    by interpolation.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 8, 2009
  11. aniramca

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Get it right. I actually said:

    However, as more recent chunks of this thread have made clear (to
    all except possibly Floyd L Davidson) many/most raw files are a
    modified form of the raw sensor data. This is likely to involve
    interpolation.


    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jun 8, 2009
  12. aniramca

    Chris H Guest

    I came to the same conclusion about Floyd. He has some simplistic black
    and white views on things that is at odds with the rest of the world. He
    also insists that his warped logic is the only one that is sound.

    I gave up arguing with him. He seems to have some amateur interest in
    electronics and software but thinks he knows a lot more than he does.

    Best not to engage him in conversation.
     
    Chris H, Jun 8, 2009
  13. aniramca

    Chris H Guest

    That just proves my point :)
     
    Chris H, Jun 8, 2009
  14. aniramca

    Chris H Guest

    Actually a lot of people are... It is YOU that people are not bothering
    with
     
    Chris H, Jun 8, 2009
  15. aniramca

    Chris H Guest

    This is with the firmware you tell me does not exist that I make a good
    living selling tools for?
    Again a warped view and over simplistic child like reasoning
     
    Chris H, Jun 8, 2009
  16. aniramca

    Pat Guest

    Two quick answers:

    First, no, a RAW file cannot be seen without computer manipulation of
    some sort. But neither can a JPG or TIFF or anything else. No matter
    what format it is, it is just a bunch of 0s and 1s. So unless you can
    visualize 1101001110001110010000111010101000111100011 then you are
    pretty much out of luck. It is not at all like a negative where you
    can view it -- albeit not well -- without any manipulation at all.
    Everything is manipulated in some way and someone in this NG will tell
    you that the manipulation is bad, they have a better way, they are the
    only purists, etc. etc.

    As for your question of whether a camera can ever do as good (or
    better) of a job than the computer on your desk, the answer is
    unanswerable. "Better" is subjective and changes with your needs.

    You can manipulate the photo better on your desktop, but that is not
    necessarily "better".

    Assume that you are going pictures for a sports league -- each kid and
    a group photo for a "Memory Mate". You have 10 baseball teams, each
    with 15 kids. Is it better to shoot in RAW and post-process 150
    images or is it better to shoot in the best quality JPG and not.
    Obviously (at least to anyone who's done it), JPG is a "better"
    because the RAW image is not better and it takes you a lot of extra
    time to process the RAW. So some will argue "but you can batch-
    process the RAW images". Sure you can, but if you are going to do
    that, you might as well have the camera take care of the processing as
    you go. The secret is to lay down a good image while you are shooting
    and save yourself a lot of time on the computer, later, unless you are
    one of the people who love to sit in front of a screen for hours and
    hours.

    Back to my example -- if you are sending your image to a lab for
    printing, it needs to be a JPG. So you might as well shoot JPG (and
    shoot it right) when you are taking pictures. The lab I use, by
    chance, happens to allow you to submit Canon and Nikon RAW images.
    They just charge you $5 per image to convert them to JPG, plus you
    have to mail in a CD because you can't use ROES.

    There is a time and a place for RAW, just like there is a time and a
    place for almost everything. But for most stuff, there is no reason
    for it.

    So when it comes to computer manipulation, one of your biggest
    questions is "how much time do you want to spend in a chair, in front
    of the computer" and how many other things do you have to do with your
    time. Professional -- who know what they are doing -- shoot most
    stuff in JPG because it is so much easier to handle in the office.
    You don't make money on the computer.
     
    Pat, Jun 8, 2009
  17. aniramca

    Chris H Guest

    Hardly I make a living from it. So me and the rest of the world (except
    Floyd) are delusional :)
     
    Chris H, Jun 8, 2009
  18. aniramca

    Chris H Guest

    In message <
    Not seen the Matrix recently ? :)
     
    Chris H, Jun 8, 2009
  19. aniramca

    Pat Guest

    I don't remember the exact title of the book, but Johnny Mnumatic also
    comes to mind -- about a guy transporting (too much) data in his brain.
     
    Pat, Jun 8, 2009
  20. aniramca

    Chris H Guest

    In message <
    I know that feeling. One of the joys of working in the embedded
    software industry :-(
     
    Chris H, Jun 8, 2009
    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.