shooting raw

Started Feb 7, 2013 | Questions thread
pris Senior Member • Posts: 2,191
Re: RAW, JPEG - bit depth and data loss from using JPEGs

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.

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