JPEG vs RAW dynamic and color range

[John King]

Gidday Rob

John,

I am not understanding about (not) shooting RAW in SRGB. My understanding is with RAW you can go either way.

You are right. A RAW file does not have a WB or colour space. Both of these are assigned in the raw conversion process.

I shot ARGB for years but switched simply to avoid a problem when shooting RAW + JPEG...

I shoot RAW + JPEGs (always), and I use sRGB for the JPEGs in camera. I only ever use the JPEGs for web upload, or sending to friends. The limited colour space and bit depth does not matter for these purposes. I do not bother with other than automated PP with any JPEG - a rename, re-size and USM and off they go to my upload folder. I have a PS action that does it all.

The RAWs go straight into a PPRGB-16 colour space for PP. They almost never end up as JPEGs. The finished images are stored as PSD-16 or TIFF-16 and PPRGB. aRGB-16 is probably a wide/deep enough gamut, and unlike sRGB, it is balanced on the three axes; but I don't mind "wasting" the storage space and processing power to use PPRGB-16, LOL!

Here is one of the few examples where I have converted a RAW to a JPEG for the web - Bugatti, Type 57:



This was to correct the colour cast from the art gallery lights and WB on the seat leather and the aluminium trim.

EXIF data in image. E-510 + f2/50; ISO 800, f/2, 1/20th.

--
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 (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

 

[pris]

What part of R = 156, G = 64, B = 41 (PPRGB) vs R = 226, G = 0, B = 37 (sRGB) can you not understand?

Wow... being away for couple days, I get back to see the discussion, and this is what you came up with? Nice. John, is this the way you speak to all who disagree with you? You spotted any rudeness in my post? Or you take any disagreement as disrespect? To answer in kind, and to show that you just don't get what is being written: what I said is that to arrive from the initial look to desirable is possible and easy without venturing to aRGB. Which part of "no aRGB needed to get to that color you want" don't you understand?

The whole discussion in this thread (your part pf course) demonstrates clearly that you don't understand a lot of things of which you speak with air of confidence. It would be fairly easy to show that using your own examples but the way you speak leaves me with one desire only - not to speak to you from now on.

 

[John King]

Pris

What part of R = 156, G = 64, B = 41 (PPRGB) vs R = 226, G = 0, B = 37 (sRGB) can you not understand?

Wow... being away for couple days, I get back to see the discussion, and this is what you came up with? Nice. John, is this the way you speak to all who disagree with you? You spotted any rudeness in my post? Or you take any disagreement as disrespect? To answer in kind, and to show that you just don't get what is being written: what I said is that to arrive from the initial look to desirable is possible and easy without venturing to aRGB. Which part of "no aRGB needed to get to that color you want" don't you understand?

As I have said many times in this thread, and elsewhere, if what you are getting satisfies you, then keep right on doing it. Please do not constrain others by stating categorically that they should not seek (and attain ... ) results that are to them superior to what satisfies your own requirements.

Images from sRGB-16 do not satisfy my needs and wants, as they do not give me the colour accuracy that I constantly seek. I also do not use aRGB-16. I use PPRGB-16.

You (apparently) have never tried stepping outside an 8 bit, sRGB workspace. If you believe it to be rude to suggest that you are incorrect because of this, when I have experimented extensively with these things, then so be it. I consider it to be rather stubborn to insist that something you have apparently never tried has no benefits ...

The whole discussion in this thread (your part pf course) demonstrates clearly that you don't understand a lot of things of which you speak with air of confidence.

I gave practical, measurable examples of what I am postulating. These are real world experience, coming from experimentation and learning from others. Real image/s, real print/s. Examined by others for the very purpose of determining what is giving the best result - "best" being defined for my purposes as giving the most accurate representation of the real world object/s.

Why do you think wider gamuts exist at all?

It would be fairly easy to show that using your own examples but the way you speak leaves me with one desire only - not to speak to you from now on.

Or better yet, feel free to use an image of your own to exemplify that there is no difference between sRGB-8 and PPRGB-16 in practice ... .

I am more than happy to learn from you or anyone else. I am not happy to be lectured at by people proposing some theoretical position that I have demonstrated practically to my own satisfaction is not correct.

It appears to me that you are somewhat guilty of what you so freely accuse me of ...

--
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 (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

 

[Raist3d]

If you read what I wrote, rather than just reacting, you would have downloaded the image/s and examined them in a properly colour managed environment. It also demonstrated that one cannot currently display web images using anything BUT sRGB. This will change as surely as inkjet printers went from being monochrome to colour; as did monitors; etc …

I am not reacting, please don't act stupid. BTW, what you just said is false, you can display aRGB color space images. A color profile aware browser will convert it to a target monitor. If you have a monitor capable of displaying the aRGB color space then you can see the full color that it had.

[]

It really isn't any effort at all. You make out that it is a great effort. It isn't.

If you are correcting or editing for color, for people that have a lot of images to go through it is an issue. I am not making this up- there are many like wedding photographers who are faced with this issue. I said if it works for you that's great. I don't see what's wrong here.

Almost all of the wedding pro photos I have seen show little evidence of this …

Because they are shot and printed in a full sRGB workflow perhaps?

I have just told you that even in Oz, the price of these monitors has plummeted in the last 12 months - $2,600 -> $699.

Of full color gamut certified aRGB monitors? I am all ears, which brand, which model?

ASUS ProArt PA246. 10 bit, P-IPS, aRGB
See review here:
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Asus-PA246Q-24Inch-LCD-Monitor-Review/?page=1

Thanks for the link. It's not 100% aRGB but being at 98% sure helps.

You appear to misunderstand this. One edits in a wide gamut colour space, then converts the colour space using (say ... ) a Relative Colorimetric rendering, which places those wide gamut colour numbers appropriately within that tiny little sRGB colour space …

You appear to think I misunderstand this. We are simply not communicating. I am talking about the final end point of conversion, I never disputed that if you are going to go into post processing it's best to have the data in RAW. That doesn't change what I said about JPEGS either. They are not mutually exclusive statements.

The final end point of my conversions is either a PSD-16 or TIFF-16 file. I almost never convert edited images to JPEG. They just lose too much.

I am not going to necessarily agree with that, but cool. I don't' see that changes what I said about JPEG though - because again, these aren't mutually exclusive statements.

I have done this very successfully for some years using a CRT that was supposed to only have an sRGB gamut. Never had a print problem from this cause.

I am glad that works for you.

[]

Not sure again, the relevance of this.

I do not know why you cannot see what I am saying. Selective colour blindness, perhaps ...

Or idiocy on your part in concluding that?

Ricardo, I do not understand where all the anger in you comes from.

Make it specific- it's in reference to your condescending reply when you say "reacting" and "selective color blindness." Look in the mirror first, it's not the first time you do it and you did it.

Read above for example- you completely glossed over what I mentioned on displaying aRGB images on the web. Then you accuse me of "reacting" and not reading what you are writing.

[]

I have provided you with some info on this very reasonably priced aRGB monitor in spite of your aggressiveness; not because of it.

Look carefully, I wasn't being aggressive at all until you started to be condescending.

My only 'problem' with it is that I can see each of the 1920x1200 individual pixels as little tiny square blocks, as I can with all panel monitors. I am gradually getting used to this, but if you are already using even a very good non-IPS panel monitor, this ASUS will be a very, very pleasant experience if you upgrade.

There's a big assumption thrown in there.

The 2x built-in USB slots are surprisingly useful, even though the built in card reader is only for SD etc.

Cool.

Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

 

[pris]

Another reply from you that demonstrates that you simply do not understand what it's being said. It's a waste of time trying to explain something to you. I could try - IF you apologized for your unprovoked rudeness. You elect to continue speaking in condescending manner though.

The very idea of using wider gamut without doing any PP in it , just to go to that gamut colors in which cannot be shown on the screen nor change the print shows how little you understand in the matter. One responder after another points various errors in your claims out to you, each from their respective angles and areas of expertise, yet you never for a second suspect that maybe, just maybe it's you who misunderstands the whole issue. Why wider gamuts exist, ask you? Really, why? Why LAB can produce colors that do not exist at all? What is the use of that? What happens when such colors are created, then image is converted back to RGB? Ever thought about that? Apparently not.

In sincere hope that you stop polluting the forum with nonsense. You need to get educated, not to try to educate.

 

[rovingtim]

Anthony (in the other thread) has pushed me to respond.

JPEG is closer to what was there than what you came up with.

First of all, scientifically, Oly is not very colour accurate, it is colour pleasant. Canon's, for example, are much more colour accurate. However, accurate and pleasant are two different things. Many people find Oly colours more pleasant than the real colours of the world.

However, many other people (not me) find Oly colours over saturated and unpleasant.

I don't understand why everyone here tries to make it look "WB correct" when it's obviously not meant to be.

Some people prefer WB correct. That is subjective. Your personal desires for colour do not make other people wrong.

It's like shooting under street lights and trying to make WB "correct" - it look like crap

In your opinion. In other people's opinion, this is not the case.

What you've done is proclaim Oly jpg colours as the best possible. As such, then it is obvious that, for you, Oly cameras are ideal because they produce the ideal colour.

However, this is not the case of others. For example, I prefer the RAW developments of your image over the ooc jpg. I'm not saying you are wrong. What I'm saying is colour preference is very subjective and you shouldn't dictate yours to others.

However, I grant you the point that trying to exactly reproduce Oly colours using a 3rd party RAW developer is difficult. However, this is a bad thing only if we assume that Oly colour interpretation is the best for all photographs.

I know for a fact this is not the case for many people.

 

[rovingtim]

I think the idea here is different strokes for different folks, when olympus users praise olympus products on an olympus forum, they are doing so out of product enjoyment, appreciation and a willingness to share their feelings. Even if it relates to them feeling their choice is better in comparison to other products, it is a message from the self, not on a news network.

What do you think the motivation is of those who want to disagree with those users? I have always felt they have some sort of agenda, either from anger, disappointment, or a need to be "right". DO you think those emotions should be shared? In the same way as the positive feeling oly users share in an oly forum about oly products (sometimes in comparison)?

See my response to anthony and msusic here

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38495630

and here

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38495699

 

[John King]

Another reply from you that demonstrates that you simply do not understand what it's being said. It's a waste of time trying to explain something to you. I could try - IF you apologized for your unprovoked rudeness. You elect to continue speaking in condescending manner though.

Oh well ... :|

The very idea of using wider gamut without doing any PP in it , just to go to that gamut colors in which cannot be shown on the screen nor change the print shows how little you understand in the matter.

IF all you want to do is print snapshots at the local print shop, you are highly unlikely even to know anything about colour accuracy, or colour spaces, so why would you even bother?

One responder after another points various errors in your claims out to you, each from their respective angles and areas of expertise, yet you never for a second suspect that maybe, just maybe it's you who misunderstands the whole issue.

I haven't yet seen a shred of evidence from anyone that supports your conclusion.

Why wider gamuts exist, ask you? Really, why? Why LAB can produce colors that do not exist at all? What is the use of that? What happens when such colors are created, then image is converted back to RGB? Ever thought about that? Apparently not.

What colour is ultraviolet? Infrared?
Some humans can see one or other of these parts of the spectrum.

I have thought about lots of things that you are sublimely unaware of, as I am sure you have, vice versa .
However, I fail to see the relevance of that to the 'discussion' at hand ...

And PPRGB-16 is RGB ... It is actually capable of representing a colour space slightly larger than most humans can see. aRGB is smaller than PPRGB, but balanced along the three axes of colour, without the deficiency in the Green axis (unlike sRGB ... ).

Blatner & Fraser's diagram, once again ... I reiterate that this is now at least 7 years old, and print/ink technology has come a long way since then; the colour spaces have not changed, however ...



NOW :

• Why do you suppose that Canon have added a green ink cartridge to some of their printers?
• Why do you think that printer makers are experimenting with 16 bit printers?
• Why do you think printer makers are so committed to expanding the gamut of their devices? e.g.

In sincere hope that you stop polluting the forum with nonsense.

Pris, I have demonstrated my point/s. Where is your evidence that refutes the evidence that I have given, both verbally and in images?

I suggest that it is not I who is " polluting the forum with nonsense "

You need to get educated, not to try to educate.

Really?

FYI, I try to extend my education by as much as possible every single day of my life. May I suggest that you do likewise?

I am yet to see a single shred of evidence from a single dissenter here, yourself included, that what I have said is wrong in any way - BTW, I am sure that I don't understand these things fully, unlike those here on this thread who do ... well, according to them, that is ...

Having read Blatner & Fraser's 900 page monster a couple of times, I think I can state categorically that I do not understand everything about the subject of colour spaces and colour management. BUT, at least I am trying to educate myself, rather than closing my mind totally to all new knowledge ...

--
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 (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

 

[pris]

The very idea of using wider gamut without doing any PP in it , just to go to that gamut colors in which cannot be shown on the screen nor change the print shows how little you understand in the matter.

IF all you want to do is print snapshots at the local print shop, you are highly unlikely even to know anything about colour accuracy, or colour spaces, so why would you even bother?

Is this a bad joke? Trying to turn the tables? You who claim doing no PP, telling this to me who many times claimed and showed examples of a very extensive one, including drastic color corrections? Are you purposely distorting, sincerely not understanding or honestly forgetting who said what?

Quite a few times I've seen other forum participants telling you that you speak with confidence of things you don't understand, yet arrogantly insist on you being right. Now I see why. It's useless with you, you are so far off and so entrenched, one won't even know where to begin.

 

[MatijaK]

I've given up. He wants me to prove that graphics card output is 8 bits per channel... I really don't want to go into further discussion with someone who doesn't even understand the very basics

 

[odl]

Interestingly enough, it seems that JPEG gives more dynamic range and especially color range than RAW out of the box .

Furthermore, JPEG skin tones are simply unachieavable, I tried everything I could and I couldn't get RAW skin tone to look like JPEG (which has got certain depth and real-life skin look to it)

As you can see he did proclaim his comments as personal. People just dont like personal comments here, they like wide sweeping ones, so they start an argument based on it.

I think one person who was pretty good at photoshop here created a good version Luisflorit i think. It was very pleasant, he softened the hard light on the girls face which was a bit more flattering. So out of all the attempts, one person in a very subjective test achieved something pleasant.

You see you say others are the ones with these big generalized comments, but the truth is, people on the warpath to correct them often have even greater generalizations about what is suitable for what, what is the best for what, what people are and are not allowed to say.

Most olympus users here are trying to enjoy the equipment they worked hard to buy, if they want to see it through rose coloured specs so what The feelings belong to them, they are expressing their feelings in the right place.

Music was a little short with some of his replies, but with many he was correct, he also pointed out something i hadnt noticed, which is valuable ( i often used my e3 with one touch whitebalance for easy to deliver shots) maybe i didnt appreciate quite how good they were.

notice also how many want to tell him his colour is wrong without having been there? They seem to have full knowledge of what it should have looked like. yet he, having posted samples illustrating his point and discussing peoples attempts is wrong, or the bad guy?

i think he made a great point, i think many others reinforced another point, that not, you cant achieve better in raw unless you know what you are doing.

Ab
Ab

--
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
knowledge is limited to all we now know and
understand, while imagination embraces the entire
world, and all there ever will be to know and
understand.” - Albert Einstein

 

[pris]

I've given up. He wants me to prove that graphics card output is 8 bits per channel... I really don't want to go into further discussion with someone who doesn't even understand the very basics

So have I. He appears to have picked up some piece of knowledge not understanding how it's connected (or not connected) to the points people make here. Continuously citing meaningless argument and not seeing that it has no meaning... shrug.

 

[illy]

I've given up. He wants me to prove that graphics card output is 8 bits per channel... I really don't want to go into further discussion with someone who doesn't even understand the very basics

So have I. He appears to have picked up some piece of knowledge not understanding how it's connected (or not connected) to the points people make here. Continuously citing meaningless argument and not seeing that it has no meaning... shrug.

--
Smoke me a kipper....i'll be back for breakfast

 

[pris]

i think he made a great point, i think many others reinforced another point, that not, you cant achieve better in raw unless you know what you are doing.

The number of people who claim squeezing every last drop of IQ from Raw greatly exceeds the number of people who are able to beat JPEG produced by properly configured camera. Make it a "JPEG produced by properly configured camera AND properly postprocessed," and that number becomes negligibly small.

 

[Andy Hewitt]

notice also how many want to tell him his colour is wrong without having been there? They seem to have full knowledge of what it should have looked like. yet he, having posted samples illustrating his point and discussing peoples attempts is wrong, or the bad guy?

I think you'll find that I did point out that without having been at the scene ourselves, it would be impossible to reproduce it. In a way, he is asking something unreasonable of others.

For me, the original didn't look right in many ways, and IMHO could not have really represented a real life scene. I also mentioned that we may need to consider monitor calibration, as that would effect how we each see the images individually (which got now response, or mention from anyone else that I can see).

To be fair to all, this was a totally pointless thread. Without common frames of reference, and identical conditions to work in, we were never going to obtain the right result.

Another point missed of course, is that we're not comparing JPEG to Raw, as that's impossible. We are comparing JPEGs produced by different processing systems.

--
Andy Hewitt

 

[odl]

I think you'll find that I did point out that without having been at the scene ourselves, it would be impossible to reproduce it. In a way, he is asking something unreasonable of others.

Right, but he himself professed to having difficulty.

For me, the original didn't look right in many ways, and IMHO could not have really represented a real life scene. I also mentioned that we may need to consider monitor calibration, as that would effect how we each see the images individually (which got now response, or mention from anyone else that I can see).

Monitor calibration is important. But if we camparing ont he same monitor (a before and after) then that becomes even for our own assessment.

To be fair to all, this was a totally pointless thread. Without common frames of reference, and identical conditions to work in, we were never going to obtain the right result.

It wasnt really pointless, he was making a point that raw converters are not easy to work with. His way of putting it may have come accross badly, but you can see his attempt to make a point if one were to pull down the defenses and ejoy the conversation about post porocesing.

Another point missed of course, is that we're not comparing JPEG to Raw, as that's impossible. We are comparing JPEGs produced by different processing systems.

Exactly, and that was his point, that the amera is a pretty good system for producing Jpegs. We dont really know the kind of adjustments going on in camera with metering systems, colour adjustments etc. One thing many people forget is a raw converter generally works globally, the camera could and probably is, working selectively on the image to produce the jpeg.

Ab

--
Andy Hewitt

--
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
knowledge is limited to all we now know and
understand, while imagination embraces the entire
world, and all there ever will be to know and
understand.” - Albert Einstein

 

[FrankyM]

Exactly, and that was his point, that the amera is a pretty good system for producing Jpegs. We dont really know the kind of adjustments going on in camera with metering systems, colour adjustments etc. One thing many people forget is a raw converter generally works globally, the camera could and probably is, working selectively on the image to produce the jpeg.

Ab

It's certainly difficult to know just what his point was. You are right that the camera produces good jpegs but that has nothing to do with using RAW. After all, if the objective of shooting RAW were to end up with what the camera produced itself it would be rather silly I guess.

RAW gives us two things above and beyond the correction of exposure, WB etc. which make it worthwhile - firstly it gives the opportunity of developing the image in many different ways. Secondly, for those that engage in editing extensively in PS, developing to 16 bit files reduces the risk of posterisation and the introduction of artifacts.

For me, the versatility and control of RAW is fundamental to my enjoyment of digital photography, particularly since I don't want all my images to look the same - i.e. Oly colours etc.

Frank

 

[Andy Hewitt]

I think you'll find that I did point out that without having been at the scene ourselves, it would be impossible to reproduce it. In a way, he is asking something unreasonable of others.

Right, but he himself professed to having difficulty.

For sure, but only that he couldn't post-process a Raw file to look exactly like the JPEG from the camera, but without clipping. IMHO, that would be impossible, as the result from the camera was partly attained by clipping.

For me, the original didn't look right in many ways, and IMHO could not have really represented a real life scene. I also mentioned that we may need to consider monitor calibration, as that would effect how we each see the images individually (which got now response, or mention from anyone else that I can see).

Monitor calibration is important. But if we camparing ont he same monitor (a before and after) then that becomes even for our own assessment.

True.

To be fair to all, this was a totally pointless thread. Without common frames of reference, and identical conditions to work in, we were never going to obtain the right result.

It wasnt really pointless, he was making a point that raw converters are not easy to work with. His way of putting it may have come accross badly, but you can see his attempt to make a point if one were to pull down the defenses and ejoy the conversation about post porocesing.

Not sure about that, I understood that it was just about getting a Raw processor to match the OoC JPEG. If that's something the OP wants to achieve, why all the fuss about Raw?

Surely the point of saving Raw is to be able to adjust the images so they're better/different to the OoC JPEG?

Another point missed of course, is that we're not comparing JPEG to Raw, as that's impossible. We are comparing JPEGs produced by different processing systems.

Exactly, and that was his point, that the amera is a pretty good system for producing Jpegs. We dont really know the kind of adjustments going on in camera with metering systems, colour adjustments etc. One thing many people forget is a raw converter generally works globally, the camera could and probably is, working selectively on the image to produce the jpeg.

There could be any number of reasons why of course.

--
Andy Hewitt

 

[John King]

I've given up. He wants me to prove that graphics card output is 8 bits per channel... I really don't want to go into further discussion with someone who doesn't even understand the very basics

Oh, so ASUS make a 10 bit monitor to plug into their 8 bit graphics card ... riiight ... gotcha ...

Proof? Who needs proof of assertions? Who needs evidence?

I have provided both. I have the prints in front of me. I have posted crops from the image involved so that you can see for yourselves, had either of you the possessed the desire or competence to do so.

Neither of you have both provided anything but denial that your pet prejudices might be wrong.

So have I. He appears to have picked up some piece of knowledge not understanding how it's connected (or not connected) to the points people make here.

Yes. I trust my personal experimentation that gives me the results I expect; and I trust Blatner & Fraser (and others who are acknowledged experts in this field) whose knowledge and writings have helped me attain the results I have attained; before I trust nonsensical bs from people pushing their tiny little barrows filled with their prejudices, without evidence. How strange ...

Continuously citing meaningless argument and not seeing that it has no meaning... shrug.

Yeah. I feel exactly the same way about you pair.

Bye, bye.

--
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 (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

 

[John King]

The very idea of using wider gamut without doing any PP in it , just to go to that gamut colors in which cannot be shown on the screen nor change the print shows how little you understand in the matter.

I will correct you yet again on these incorrect statements. I can see the differences on my screens, and I can also see them in the final prints. Why else would I bother? It would also help your comprehension greatly if you read what I wrote, instead of recursively reiterating your preconceived ideas. Ideas that are not correct.

IF all you want to do is print snapshots at the local print shop, you are highly unlikely even to know anything about colour accuracy, or colour spaces, so why would you even bother?

Is this a bad joke? Trying to turn the tables? You who claim doing no PP, telling this to me who many times claimed and showed examples of a very extensive one, including drastic color corrections? Are you purposely distorting, sincerely not understanding or honestly forgetting who said what?

When have I ever said that I do no PP?

I don't bother doing anything but automated PP on JPEGs for upload, as I consider that to be a waste of time (and not something I particularly desire to improve my lack of competence in ... ). Spending hours on such a task when the things that are wrong with an image IF one gets it right in the camera , can be rectified in RAW processing in a matter of seconds.

It is so long since I have done any colour corrections to any of my own images outside of ACR using the WB tool, I can't remember when it was. I do not use curves or levels in either ACR or PS, because I find it unnecessary.
Get it right in the camera, Pris - saves an awful lot of PP ...
Specially if you shoot RAW and use a 16 bit, wide gamut colour space, lol!

Methinks that you are being more than a little precious and disingenuous here, Pris.

Quite a few times I've seen other forum participants telling you that you speak with confidence of things you don't understand, yet arrogantly insist on you being right. Now I see why. It's useless with you, you are so far off and so entrenched, one won't even know where to begin.

Yeah. The same one or two under a variety of different names mostly. I won't bother to name them for you, or post the URLs to their string of "user names".

I also only think I might be right when I have the hard copy in my hands; and even then query whether I could have done it better in some way. Friends reckon that I am a perfectionist and a purist, because of my dedication to technical excellence and getting it "right" in the camera as the first step along that path. But then, I have friends who are not afraid to tell me the truth in this way, because they know I will take no offence from their honest comments ...

BTW, why do you appear to have such trouble considering that someone who disagrees with you based on the evidence of their own experience, who provides the proof of that experience to you, and could only have achieved that "proof" (such as it is) through fairly rigorous testing and experimentation and learning, might actually have a commitment to furthering their own knowledge of the craft?

And perhaps that they might also have a commitment to sharing that hard-won knowledge and experience freely with others here, and elsewhere ...

Or do you only try to "learn" from those who already agree with you?

Think about it.

--
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 (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group