Some raw-related things we often read that are wrong

[Iliah Borg]

for a raw shooter exposure triangle school of thought is IMHO more unwanted.

IMHO Making ISO a part of the exposure for a raw shooter is hardly even remotely acceptable.

So what would you propose as a camera function/workflow instead?

Starting with basic facts. The above, in red, is word salad.

Also, never got clarity from you in another thread where you claimed to be related to the development of every camera and raw converter.

Re-read and think.

Ciao.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

 

[Xasan]

Some of my other favorites are:

Start with jpgs. Raw is not for beginners

Raw is only for pros and elitists

Those who shoot raw do it because they can't set exposure and white balance right in the camera

Raw is raw

Highlight recovery

White balance is the same as color temperature

Convert everything to DNG. Delete the original raw files

Never send raw files to a client

 

[lovEU]

Below is a short list of things that spring to mind. Please add your favorites.

• The readability of raw files is not guaranteed in future
• Raw files are dark and green
• Raw is not an image
• JPEGs are 8-bit RGB, and ready for display
• JPEG histogram is a good substitution for raw histogram when it comes to determining the optimal exposure and ETTR
• Image looks dark when it is underexposed
• Sensor gamut
• Sensor colour reproduction
• Exposure triangle (shutter speed / aperture / ISO)
• High ISO noise
• ISO changes sensor sensitivity
• Metering system is calibrated for 18% grey
• Cameramakers cheat with ISO
• CCD is better than CMOS

 

[dwight3]

Below is a short list of things that spring to mind. Please add your favorites.

• ...JPEGs are 8-bit RGB, and ready for display...

I am curious about this one. I realize that RGB is not the only color space, but are there jpgs that are not 8 bit?

 

[Tony Beach]

• CCD is better than CMOS

When it comes to the last point - all but the ones who spend far too much time time in front of their computer, wasting their own and others time with silly posts on DPR forums, know that 'CCD photos' are more pleasing to the eyes than photos taken with CMOS cameras.

Pure bunk.

 

[Xasan]

I don't find it (ISO) belonging to the exposure for JPEGs neither

Can't agree more. ISO belongs to exposure program. The way one can design and use a metering system is this. Let the user set the shutter speed and aperture, and let the µP set the ISO. Let the user override the ISO calculation using ISO compensation, instead of exposure compensation. Include risk warnings in the viewfinder, like shake and motion, like exceeding the dynamic range in certain zones for both highlights and shadows, like DoF, that sort.

 

[scokill]

You have to shoot RAW or you aren't a real photographer.

Ironically I almost always see the exact opposite sentiment being expressed.

 

[Tony Beach]

You have to shoot RAW or you aren't a real photographer.

Ironically I almost always see the exact opposite sentiment being expressed.

Care to find some posts with that sentiment?

I'll go and dig one or two up as soon as you show one where anyone explicitly expressed what you wrote.

--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages

 

[Xasan]

You have to shoot RAW or you aren't a real photographer.

Ironically I almost always see the exact opposite sentiment being expressed.

Both parties can be rather ugly. Wait, it's a photography forum. Sorry!

 

[Iliah Borg]

Below is a short list of things that spring to mind. Please add your favorites.

• ...JPEGs are 8-bit RGB, and ready for display...

I am curious about this one. I realize that RGB is not the only color space, but are there jpgs that are not 8 bit?

Files coming out of camera having .jpg extension are not RGB files. They use 8-bit Y'CbCr / YUV component coding, Y' being non-linear luminance, Cb being blue-difference chroma component, an Cr being red-difference chroma component. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YCbCr

On-topic JPEGs, much like raw files, do not contain full color information in each location, that is they use chroma subsampling, like it is explained by Pointon:

"A 2×2 tile of RGB pixels is matrixed into a luma component Y’ and two color difference components Cb and Cr. Color detail is reduced by subsampling Cb and Cr; providing full luma detail is maintained."

"4:2:2 The 12 bytes of RGB are reduced to 8, effecting 1.5:1 lossy compression"

"4:2:0 The 12 bytes of R’G’B’ are reduced to 6, yielding 2:1 lossy compression."

Subsampling is recorded in JPEG tags SOF0 for baseline coding and SOF2 for progressive coding. To determine which subsampling your camera is using, you can run free exiftool utility like this:

cmd> exiftool -YCbCrSubSampling <filename>

but substitute <filename> with the name of a real file. The result will look like

Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:2:2 (2 1)

or

Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)

etc

JPEG standard supports up to 12 bits.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

 

[jlafferty]

How does this in any way expedite the process of producing good photos? As you've written it it seems both needlessly more complicated than the current process, and offers nothing in the way of better image quality as far as I can infer.

I don't find it (ISO) belonging to the exposure for JPEGs neither

Can't agree more. ISO belongs to exposure program. The way one can design and use a metering system is this. Let the user set the shutter speed and aperture, and let the µP set the ISO. Let the user override the ISO calculation using ISO compensation, instead of exposure compensation. Include risk warnings in the viewfinder, like shake and motion, like exceeding the dynamic range in certain zones for both highlights and shadows, like DoF, that sort.

--
http://jimlafferty.com
General scoundrel. Advocate for good photography ahead of proper technique.

 

[jlafferty]

for a raw shooter exposure triangle school of thought is IMHO more unwanted.

IMHO Making ISO a part of the exposure for a raw shooter is hardly even remotely acceptable.

So what would you propose as a camera function/workflow instead?

Starting with basic facts. The above, in red, is word salad..

Gotcha. Good at interracting with computers; not so good with people

Still curious what you'd propose instead and how it would streamline the process of creating good photos, not just accurate histograms.

--

JIM LAFFERTY

Jim Lafferty is a New York based commercial photographer shooting beauty, fashion & movement.

jimlafferty.com

General scoundrel. Advocate for good photography ahead of proper technique.

 

[Xasan]

How does this in any way expedite the process of producing good photos? As you've written it it seems both needlessly more complicated than the current process, and offers nothing in the way of better image quality as far as I can infer.

The way I wrote it the photographer controls exposure and thus the dynamic range while the camera helps controlling brightness and, to a point, noise too.

When you do not understand something, ask politely. It helps to have meaningful conversation.

I don't find it (ISO) belonging to the exposure for JPEGs neither

Can't agree more. ISO belongs to exposure program. The way one can design and use a metering system is this. Let the user set the shutter speed and aperture, and let the µP set the ISO. Let the user override the ISO calculation using ISO compensation, instead of exposure compensation. Include risk warnings in the viewfinder, like shake and motion, like exceeding the dynamic range in certain zones for both highlights and shadows, like DoF, that sort.

--
http://jimlafferty.com
General scoundrel. Advocate for good photography ahead of proper technique.

 

[Sara Valentine]

How does this in any way expedite the process of producing good photos? As you've written it it seems both needlessly more complicated than the current process, and offers nothing in the way of better image quality as far as I can infer.

The way I wrote it the photographer controls exposure and thus the dynamic range while the camera helps controlling brightness and, to a point, noise too.

When you do not understand something, ask politely. It helps to have meaningful conversation.

I don't find it (ISO) belonging to the exposure for JPEGs neither

Can't agree more. ISO belongs to exposure program. The way one can design and use a metering system is this. Let the user set the shutter speed and aperture, and let the µP set the ISO. Let the user override the ISO calculation using ISO compensation, instead of exposure compensation. Include risk warnings in the viewfinder, like shake and motion, like exceeding the dynamic range in certain zones for both highlights and shadows, like DoF, that sort.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

You need to use 14bit raw to get 14 stops of dynamic range

Sorry -- not true.

It is however true that 14 EV dynamic range is only available when using a D810 at ISOs below 100 and that ISO drops to 10 EV by ISO 2367.

 

[Bueche]

• CCD is better than CMOS

When it comes to the last point - all but the ones who spend far too much time time in front of their computer, wasting their own and others time with silly posts on DPR forums, know that 'CCD photos' are more pleasing to the eyes than photos taken with CMOS cameras.

Pure bunk.

 

[The Davinator]

• CCD is better than CMOS

When it comes to the last point - all but the ones who spend far too much time time in front of their computer, wasting their own and others time with silly posts on DPR forums, know that 'CCD photos' are more pleasing to the eyes than photos taken with CMOS cameras.

Pure bunk.

 

[MrScrooge]

You need to use 14bit raw to get 14 stops of dynamic range

Sorry -- not true.

Ummm yeah....that's the point.

Did you read the title of this thread?

 

[SolB]

I don't find it (ISO) belonging to the exposure for JPEGs neither

Can't agree more. ISO belongs to exposure program. The way one can design and use a metering system is this. Let the user set the shutter speed and aperture, and let the µP set the ISO. Let the user override the ISO calculation using ISO compensation, instead of exposure compensation. Include risk warnings in the viewfinder, like shake and motion, like exceeding the dynamic range in certain zones for both highlights and shadows, like DoF, that sort.

"Let the user set the shutter speed and aperture, and let the µP set the ISO. Let the user override the ISO calculation using ISO compensation"

If I understand you correctly, this is how Nikon currently implements Auto-ISO in manual mode. I use this method all the time for wildlife or stage productions where light is always changing. The risk warning you prepose would be so useful. Especialy for the highlights and shadows DR

 

[MrScrooge]

• CCD is better than CMOS

When it comes to the last point - all but the ones who spend far too much time time in front of their computer, wasting their own and others time with silly posts on DPR forums, know that 'CCD photos' are more pleasing to the eyes than photos taken with CMOS cameras.

Pure bunk.

Do you think? Then you are one of those who are spending way too much time in front of your computer, wasting.....

No...he just actually knows what he is talking about and is pointing out the fact you don't. Pretty straightforward actually.

Guys....these threads seem to keep filling up with the same circular argument

> CCD is better
> No CMOS is better
> You're wrong
> No you're wrong
> No you're wrong

It seems to me that the defacto opinion currently is that CMOS outperforms CCD.

There is a minority arguing that CCDs produce better colours. And that's fine. In fact, it's more than fine - its great to discuss these things and challenge the status quo.

But you have two options.

Either state your case with the appropriate perspective - ie "I find CCDs produce colours which I find more pleasing" - or - "I found that the colours produced by default from my CCD cameras were easier for me to work with than newer CMOS cameras". Those statements are all perfectly fine, we should never be afraid to express our experiences or personal opinions.

OR

If you're going to state that the current defacto opinion regarding this subject is objectively wrong you need to bring the goods to show it. The burden of proof is on you - stating unequivocally that anyone who subscribes to the current status who understanding of the subject is "wrong" in itself accomplishes nothing and will only encourage people to post to debunk you in the good faith that they are correcting your statement for the benefit of anyone who may read these forums looking for good advice.