shooting raw

Started Feb 7, 2013 | Questions thread
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,795Gear list
Like?
Re: RAW, JPEG - bit depth and data loss from using JPEGs
In reply to pris, Feb 13, 2013

pris wrote:

John... don't go in all tangents please. It's irrelevant whether you believe in postprocessing or not, whether you feel it's needed or not etc etc.

I don't know where you get the idea that I don't believe in PP??
Ever since I first set foot in a darkroom over 50 years ago, I have been involved with PP ...

You also for some strange reason believe that postprocessing exists only tp correct errors made during shooting; in reality its tasks and purposes are way wider.

Not this little black duck ... I understand full well what it can be used for, and occasionally resort to that myself. Understanding that I have caused myself to have need of it is my own fault for not taking the photo better to start with is way different from never using PP other than to "correct errors" ...

Point is - there is a whole lot that can be done with OOC JPEG, much more than you believe, and the final quality is going to be way higher than you believe.

I have seen plenty of people labouring over performing magic with JPEGs. I know it can be done. I have occasionally done these things myself.

I've done it; a whole lot of other people have done it - you apparently haven't.

Where did you get that idea from?

Books are written for professional retouchers how to do it - think it's only being done for "small prints?"

I have merely stated that every time one touches a file, one loses data. That's a fact, not an opinion. I also posses a number of such books, and have diligently studied them.

I have also seen many prints made by people who like the Velvia and Kodachrome look, and all their images look like that. I prefer colour correctness and critical sharpness. I aim for those attributes, not some pictorialist , colourised scene.
Please don't misunderstand me here, they are absolutely and utterly entitled to like what they like. However, I reserve the right to like what I like also.

It's not a first time you are jumping to argue about this - you can't possibly believe you know everything there is to know, can you?

I have never suggested for an instant that this is the case.

You by your own admission don't do much PP, so you just are not very familiar with it - just admit it and be done with it...

Sorry, but this is a logical non sequitur. I do plenty of PP, just that using RAW files is far faster, with far less data loss, both in capture, and in post.

Do you really think that I have used Photoshop since v.7 and CS since its first incarnation just for the joy of riding around on a dinosaur? Or the sheer pleasure of giving Adobe vast quantities of money?

I use RAW files for most photographic purposes simply because the results are better for what I want to achieve, and allow me to achieve that with far less fuss and bother than starting from a JPEG, where it is possible to do so at all.

You seem to have ignored the other reasons as to why I use RAW files. Why is that?
Opening an 8 bit file in ProPhotoRGB can cause bad posterisation. The colour space is simply to wide to spread the colour numbers in without that occurring.

That is why I use PPRGB and map the 12 bit RAW data into that 16 bit colour space.
One circumvents the problem with posterisation completely; one also achieves reasonably faithful rendition of the highly saturated reds, greens, blues, yellows, purples and aquas (cyans). These cannot be reproduced in an 8 bit colour space. Nor can the subtleties of tonal gradation be properly rendered.

No current monitor commercially available can display a PPRGB colour space, but printers have been able to print most of it since the early 2000's, and dSLRs can capture most of this colour space, but only when using RAW.

So I have very good reasons for doing things the way I do them. If you feel that you have good reasons for doing what you do, and what you end up with suits you; who am I to tell you that what you are doing is wrong - for you?
The converse also holds true.

-- hide signature --

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
I am a Photography Aficionado ... and ...
"I don't have any problems with John. He is a crotchety old Aussie. He will smack you if you behave like a {deleted}. Goes with the territory." boggis the cat
.
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

 John King's gear list:John King's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-510 Olympus E-30
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow