shooting raw

Started Feb 7, 2013 | Questions
trevor4455
Regular MemberPosts: 105
Like?
shooting raw
Feb 7, 2013

Up to this point have been shooting jpeg but I have been thinking about shooting raw.  Does anyone know of any resources where I could learn more about raw and photo-editing?  I have the cd that came with my evolt 510.  Is that worth using?

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Hans H. Siegrist
Senior MemberPosts: 2,061
Like?
Re: shooting raw
In reply to trevor4455, Feb 7, 2013

A quite comprehensive introduction to RAW files:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

Cheers!

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Scanlon
Regular MemberPosts: 189
Like?
Re: shooting raw
In reply to trevor4455, Feb 7, 2013

Pick up a good book or photography magazine from a bookstore, even a monthly one that has a good article on shooting RAW. That, combined with google searches, should yield a lot of info. I haven't checked, but there are problably some good youtube videos out there, as well. I basically learned everything from those sources, over time. It was certainly worth it, for me, and if you really don't mind the time to process your images, will produce amazing results, over JPEGs. Good luck!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mariomirabile
Senior MemberPosts: 1,266Gear list
Like?
Re: shooting raw
In reply to trevor4455, Feb 7, 2013

There's nothing mysterious about shooting raw. It all depend on whether you like tweaking your photos - which for me at least is part of the creative process. I found that once you overcome the hurdle of learning to use a raw processor - I use and recommend Lightroom 4 - the fact that you're working with a raw rather than jpeg file become immaterial.

I usually shoot raw + LSF jpeg, and for holiday snaps or party shots, the jpeg is usually fine. But If I'm shooting anything I might waht to work on (like a camera club competition shot), I'll always start with RAW.

As far as software goes , there's plenty out there. Olympus Viewer is a free download (the version on your E-510 CD is quite out of date by now), but even on a fast PC, I find it very slow. As I said, I like Lightroom, and it's available as a free 30 day trial from Adobe. It has the same raw engine built into Photoshop, but the interface and some of the features are different and I find it easier to use. I cant really speak for other applications, but you'll find plenty of information on the web. Many are commercial, but some are free (eg Raw Therapee).

Things to consider:

  • When you shoot jpeg, you throw away information captured by the sensor
  • The jpeg engine in your e-510 was put there by Olympus in 2007 and hasn't changed since. Software raw developers are constantly being updated and (hopefully) improved.
  • Many raw developers are non-destructive. If you don'y like the outcome, you can go back to the beginning, or any point in the process, and start again

Mario

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,792Gear list
Like?
Re: shooting raw
In reply to trevor4455, Feb 8, 2013

Gidday Trevor

trevor4455 wrote:

Up to this point have been shooting jpeg but I have been thinking about shooting raw. Does anyone know of any resources where I could learn more about raw and photo-editing?

Yeah, just a few ... I always shoot RAW + LSF (SHQ) JPEG with all three of my bodies - E-1, E-510 and E-30.
And if you like JPEGs from your E-510, you will positively love the files you get by shooting RAW ...

I have the cd that came with my evolt 510. Is that worth using?

The CDR has the Olympus Viewer editing s/w on it. This can be used with both JPEG and RAW. It has very significant drawbacks for both, as assumes the camera setup for the image for both file types ... Using it in 16 bit mode is useless, as it conveniently throws away all EXIF data.

The latter is dreadful, as one of the main reasons for using RAW at all is the ability to map the image data into a far larger colour space than either sRGB (defective ... ) or aRGB (not a wide enough gamut for many common, highly saturated colours). I use ProPhotoRGB in 16 bit mode for editing, saving, printing RAW files.
See this article here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1203/mh1203-1.pdf

JPEGs are all 8 bit files, and compressed with data loss. RAW files are 12 bit (for all Olympus cameras ATM) and are compressed without data loss. With JPEG capture, you are (very crudely ... ) losing 2^4 of the data immediately (2^12 - 2^8). This also fails to account for the vast difference in the way that RAW and JPEG files store the data captured by the sensor.

There are also some very useful references in this thread, Reading for Novice Photographers:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/34337824

Don't forget to bookmark the thread if you find it useful. It deserves to be further up the list of most bookmarked threads than it is. On any other forum, it would be a "sticky" thread (i.e. permanently at the top of the forum ... ).

What s/w are you using ATM?

If you are using any of the products that use Adobe Camera Raw (ACR); i.e. Photoshop, LR, Photoshop Elements (and quite a few others ... ), then the book by Schewe & Fraser "Real World Camera Raw for Adobe Photoshop CS5" is a fantastic resource that tells you all about ACR. It really doesn't matter which version of ACR you are using, as many of the tools are identical (at the user interface level, at least ... ).

-- 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
David Stinson
Forum MemberPosts: 89Gear list
Like?
Re: shooting raw
In reply to John King, Feb 12, 2013

I have been shooting RAW exclusively lately and don't mind it one bit.  The ability to do some awesome PP has made me a big fan.

 David Stinson's gear list:David Stinson's gear list
Olympus E-500 Olympus E-520 Olympus E-30 Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SergeyGreen
Contributing MemberPosts: 582
Like?
As I recall ..
In reply to trevor4455, Feb 12, 2013

I don't know if it changed with the most recent Olympus cameras, but as I remember there was not much you could get out of the raw files then what already was in the straight out of camera JPGs. To the exception of the WB of course. The only motivation left was in learning. Unlike with the other maker, where RAW is everything, and JPG is for no apparent reason just there :).

-- hide signature --

-sergey

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Skeeterbytes
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,992
Like?
Re: shooting raw
In reply to John King, Feb 12, 2013

To add a couple brief points--set the camera color space to adobeRGB and find a relatively fast CF card, as the E-510 write times are leisurely, even with jpegs, and a slow card hinders it further.

Happy experimenting; I think you'll enjoy working with RAW images once you get some mastery of the tools. You may not need to underexpose quite as much to preserve highlights, as with jpegs.

Cheers,

Rick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,792Gear list
Like?
RAW, JPEG - bit depth and data loss from using JPEGs
In reply to SergeyGreen, Feb 12, 2013

SergeyGreen wrote:

I don't know if it changed with the most recent Olympus cameras, but as I remember there was not much you could get out of the raw files then what already was in the straight out of camera JPGs. To the exception of the WB of course. The only motivation left was in learning. Unlike with the other maker, where RAW is everything, and JPG is for no apparent reason just there :).

-- hide signature --

-sergey

I have edited both RAW and JPEG pairs of files from Olympus dSLR cameras from the E-500 onwards, and can state categorically that this is not the case.

I have never come across a RAW/JPEG pair (shooting the JPEG in LSF or SHQ mode), where I could not get a noticeably superior result from the RAW file, without even any particular difficulty.

Yes, the Olympus JPEG engine is a pearl compared with some, but simple arithmetic shows that this often repeated statement is not accurate for a number of reasons:

1) even shooting the JPEG using the relatively large and symmetrical aRGB colour space, this colour space is deficient in highly saturated colours. The sRGB colour space is just small and defective, even when compared with aRGB. sRGB is the colour space of the Internet, which should tell us all something about the images we are looking at on the Internet ...

2) OoC JPEGs have been processed in arguably the worst place in the world to do data processing - inside a digital camera. It has neither the CPU power, nor the battery power, to do the sort of processing that even a slow desktop or laptop has available to it. The fact that they can achieve such a relatively good result under such inauspicious circumstances is a tribute to the intelligence and cunning of the s/w engineers ...

3) OoC JPEGs are doomed to an 8 bit colour space. This is 2^4 smaller than what can be represented in a 12 bit colour space; even leaving aside the difference in the actual data storage methodology and modelling for RAW and JPEG files on the memory card.

4) An OoC JPEG has its WB, colour space and bit depth set irrevocably in camera. They cannot be altered in PP without incurring massive data loss in the PP image file.

5) JPEGs are compressed (in many different ways ... ) in a manner where a lot of data is lost. Even using the 2.7:1 compression that Olympus uses in-camera, this compression figure gives some idea of the fine detail in resolution and colour that is lost. Add to that loss the data lost through using an 8 bit colour space ... This lost data is irretrievable.

These are merely some of the many reasons why this canard is not merely somewhat incorrect, but outright wrong, regardless of the camera make or model.

-- 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
pris
Senior MemberPosts: 2,150
Like?
Re: RAW, JPEG - bit depth and data loss from using JPEGs
In reply to John King, Feb 12, 2013

John King wrote:

4) An OoC JPEG ... cannot be altered in PP without incurring massive data loss in the PP image file.

We've been over this a while ago... This part is most certainly incorrect - they sure can be put through major postprocessing surgery with massive color and tonality changes, while preserving detail and remaining noise free, and last time we discussed this I posted examples of such changes. These techniques are far beyond small corrections most know and use, one needs to know what one is doing in PP.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,792Gear list
Like?
Re: RAW, JPEG - bit depth and data loss from using JPEGs
In reply to pris, Feb 13, 2013

Gidday Pris

pris wrote:

John King wrote:


4) An OoC JPEG ... cannot be altered in PP without incurring massive data loss in the PP image file.

We've been over this a while ago... This part is most certainly incorrect - they sure can be put through major postprocessing surgery with massive color and tonality changes, while preserving detail and remaining noise free, and last time we discussed this I posted examples of such changes. These techniques are far beyond small corrections most know and use, one needs to know what one is doing in PP.

Try doing a 2,000°K WB adjustment to any JPEG file. According to the histogram, between 1/3 to 1/2 of the data points are lost. This may not matter all that much, depending on your use of the file. It usually matters to me.

However, if the file has a WB of (say) 4,000°K and it should have been around (say) 2,200°K and has been taken in a dark environment - e.g. inside a church during a wedding, the data loss is far more visible, even just viewing it on a monitor. Might be OK for small prints, but forget about printing at A3 or above ...

I also don't like making work for myself. If I cannot get the results I want/need to print at these sizes within a minute or two at the outside, I swear at myself for not taking the picture properly in the first place; and move on. No way that I am going to spend 30-90 minutes trying to turn a "sow's ear" shot into a hero shot, even if I could.

Same with cropping. I always aim to get the image I want composed and exposed as correctly as possible in the camera. If I don't ... 1) it's my fault; and 2) it's an admission of failure on my part.

Ansel Adams called it pre-visualisation. I strive to achieve that with almost all photos I take, even just happy snaps. They are all good practice for when it really, really matters. Just IMHO, of course.

I am a great believer in the "less is more" school of PP. If one can tell that the file has been touched, one has gone too far, IMNSHO.

Also, what I said was with particular reference to the statement that "... but as I remember there was not much you could get out of the raw files then what already was in the straight out of camera JPGs ... ", and as such, needs to be understood within that context.

-- 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
pris
Senior MemberPosts: 2,150
Like?
Re: RAW, JPEG - bit depth and data loss from using JPEGs
In reply to John King, Feb 13, 2013

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. 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. 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've done it; a whole lot of other people have done it - you apparently haven't. Books are written for professional retouchers how to do it - think it's only being done for "small prints?" 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? 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...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,792Gear 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
pris
Senior MemberPosts: 2,150
Like?
Re: RAW, JPEG - bit depth and data loss from using JPEGs
In reply to John King, Feb 13, 2013

John King wrote:

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 ...

Because you have said many times that you don't do it other than a little cropping, and a little something else.

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

Where did you get that idea from?

See above - from you.

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.

No John, if that was what you said I'd never object. This is what you said instead:

"An OoC JPEG has its WB, colour space and bit depth set irrevocably in camera. They cannot be altered in PP without incurring massive data loss in the PP image file."

This is vastly different from what you say now. You also confirmed the difference in your next post by inferring that all such altered JPEG can be good for is a small size print. See why your statements meet objections?

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.

This has nothing to do with what I say. If you suggest that all such alterations can do is to present unnatural look you are greatly mistaken. In fact you'd be hard pressed to even guess which part, which color or element was changed.

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.

Wrong. Many operations in PP can not be done in Raw at all and require JPEG/TIFF/PSD etc, and Photoshop, as opposite to Lightroom or ACR or any other Raw converter.

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've no idea. You stated many times... etc, see above.

You seem to have ignored the other reasons as to why I use RAW files. Why is that?

Are you losing plot? Here is why: I haven't argued against using Raw. I haven't argued that JPEG is better. I haven't touched anything but this statement by you:

"An OoC JPEG... cannot be altered in PP without incurring massive data loss in the PP image file."

Maybe that also shows you why all below by you has no relation to the topic at hand either.

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..

John, either stay on topic and remember what it is we are actually discussing or drop it altogether. Don't turn it into Raw vs. JPEG argument. Don't turn it into color space argument. Or any other argument which I never started. You'll do well not branching out at each piece above and focusing at one thing that was said at the beginning. To make it simple for you:

Your statement that OoC JPEG cannot be altered in PP for anything but small sized prints is simply incorrect. Period. It can, and regularly is.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,792Gear list
Like?
Re: RAW, JPEG - bit depth and data loss from using JPEGs
In reply to pris, Feb 13, 2013

Pris

The OP (not I ... ) asked this question here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50816419

" Up to this point have been shooting jpeg but I have been thinking about shooting raw. Does anyone know of any resources where I could learn more about raw and photo-editing? I have the cd that came with my evolt 510. Is that worth using? "

I responded, encouraging said OP to explore this use of his camera here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50817588

and gave a number of references as to where he might be able to further his knowledge and have his question answered by others.

I further responded to a post that contained patently wrong information here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50848985

If you want to argue that JPEGs are the equal of, or superior to, RAW files for your purposes, by all means, do so. May I suggest that you address that to the OP's question, if even just in passing, rather than taking single phrases out of my posts and arguing about that particular phrase with me?

I have stated my position to the OP that I (much) prefer working with RAW files. I have clearly stated some of my my reasons for this preference. Those reasons may be of little or no consequence to you. That is also fine - it's your choice.

I did not come to this thread to have an argument with you as to what you may, or may not, prefer. That is for you, and you alone, to decide.

BTW, my contribution to this discussion is aimed at the conversion of a RAW file, and what can be done to it without data damage during that conversion. Once it has been converted to an image file, I always convert it to either a 16 bit TIFF or PSD file, depending on where it is going to end up. I keep the colour space (gamut) as wide as possible.

These file types are utterly unlike JPEGs and similar to the original RAW in that they are compressed using lossless compression. As I have already said, they also support 16 bit, wide gamut colour spaces, which JPEGs at this time do not.

-- 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
SergeyGreen
Contributing MemberPosts: 582
Like?
Sigh ..
In reply to pris, Feb 13, 2013

pris wrote:


Your statement that OoC JPEG cannot be altered in PP for anything but small sized prints is simply incorrect. Period. It can, and regularly is.

And those phone-cam pics I regularly post could not be a better example.

Thanks pris.

-- hide signature --

-sergey

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,792Gear list
Like?
Shrug ....
In reply to SergeyGreen, Feb 13, 2013

SergeyGreen wrote:

pris wrote:


Your statement that OoC JPEG cannot be altered in PP for anything but small sized prints is simply incorrect. Period. It can, and regularly is.

And those phone-cam pics I regularly post could not be a better example.

Thanks pris.

-- hide signature --

-sergey

At web resolutions and an 8 bit sRGB colour space, almost anything looks terrific

Even from my phone cam ...

 John King's gear list:John King's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-510 Olympus E-30
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pris
Senior MemberPosts: 2,150
Like?
Re: RAW, JPEG - bit depth and data loss from using JPEGs
In reply to John King, Feb 13, 2013

John King wrote:

If you want to argue that JPEGs are the equal of, or superior to, RAW files for your purposes, by all means, do so.

Are you utterly and completely incapable of reading what the counterpart actually is saying? Seriously John... in what bizarro word what I said could be interpreted that way? It's like your English and my English are very different Englishes. Oh, never mind. Go on about everything under the sun totally ignoring what is actually being said.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,792Gear list
Like?
Re: RAW, JPEG - bit depth and data loss from using JPEGs
In reply to pris, Feb 13, 2013

pris wrote:

John King wrote:

If you want to argue that JPEGs are the equal of, or superior to, RAW files for your purposes, by all means, do so.

Are you utterly and completely incapable of reading what the counterpart actually is saying? Seriously John... in what bizarro word what I said could be interpreted that way? It's like your English and my English are very different Englishes. Oh, never mind. Go on about everything under the sun totally ignoring what is actually being said.

It occurred to me that the above is precisely what you have been doing.

If not this, then what, exactly, have you been saying?

-- hide signature --

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.

 John King's gear list:John King's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-510 Olympus E-30
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pris
Senior MemberPosts: 2,150
Like?
Re: RAW, JPEG - bit depth and data loss from using JPEGs
In reply to John King, Feb 13, 2013

John King wrote:

pris wrote:

John King wrote:

If you want to argue that JPEGs are the equal of, or superior to, RAW files for your purposes, by all means, do so.

Are you utterly and completely incapable of reading what the counterpart actually is saying? Seriously John... in what bizarro word what I said could be interpreted that way? It's like your English and my English are very different Englishes. Oh, never mind. Go on about everything under the sun totally ignoring what is actually being said.

It occurred to me that the above is precisely what you have been doing.

If not this, then what, exactly, have you been saying?

I can't make it any more clear to you than this, and I copied it from the post I already made, so it's going to be your second run at trying to decipher this:

"To make it simple for you:

Your statement that OoC JPEG cannot be altered in PP for anything but small sized prints is simply incorrect. Period. It can, and regularly is."

If this is still so hard to understand, there is not much I can do for you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads