Since Lightroom is so good, what do you use Photoshop for?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Sometimes it takes a page.
In reply to Ron AKA, 5 months ago

Ron AKA wrote:

MiraShootsNikon wrote:

Ron AKA wrote:

MiraShootsNikon wrote:

Ron AKA wrote:

Dave Stott wrote:

This is a strange dialogue. Lightroom doesn't alter pixels 'cos a RAW file doesn't have any pixels. ACR likewise doesn't create a pixel based file till you exit it.

A RAW file has to have pixel data. That is basically what it has captured from the pixels in your sensor. Just look at the metadata for a RAW file, and it will tell you the height and width in pixels, and total pixels. What it doesn't have is a physical dimension such as inches. So there is no resolution in pixels per inch, just dimensions in pixels.

RAW processing is the business of assembling groups of red-green-blue pixel data from your camera's sensor into single pixels of a given color.

I think we said the same thing. My only point was that the RAW file contains pixel data. All the rest is very interesting, but not relevant to the point that the camera sensor captures pixel data, and the RAW file is a digital recording of it.

No. We are not saying the same thing.

You seem to think Bayer RAW "pixel data" and interpolated raster "pixel data" are basically the same idea or concept. They aren't. You're talking about entirely different kinds of pixels employed for entirely different purposes, manipulated in entirely different ways.

It's not "irrelevant" that Bayer RAW data, if you could "see" it, would look nothing like an interpolated raster image. It's not "irrelevant" that the tools one might use to manipulate such different kinds of data work differently, produce different results, for different reasons.

You're caught up on the word "pixel," here, and choosing not to see the forest for the trees. Your argument is essentially this: "Any language that uses the roman alphabet is really just the same language. It's all just letters."

I was going to use the fact you are not seeing the forest for the trees, but thought it was kind of rude. But since you brought it up, it is not me that is taking a full page to say that sensors capture pixel data and record it in RAW files. It is no more complex than that, despite your insistence on trying to make it so.

So basically: Mira explained how this all actually works while you continue to wage a somewhat misleading semantic argument on the word "pixel."

Sorry, man, but here's at least one more vote that understanding the distinction between RAW data and raster data--though they both employ "pixels" at the lowest conceptual level--is indeed more complicated than you appear to want it to be. Coincidentally, it's no less complicated than Mira's explanation. And that explanation was only as long as it was because it needed to steer back some of your misleading.

"Winning" a semantic argument like yours is the definition of "pyrrhic victory." Yes, you get to feel smart for being right that RAW data does indeed employ "pixels." But everyone else thinks you're mighty foolish for suggesting that interpolation and the rest are "irrelevant" to really understanding what these tools are for or how they might be used most powerfully.

And who do these "letter of the law" semantic arguments benefit, anyway?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow