Prev: So this is what America has come to?
Next: Pentax filing small camera patents?
From: RichA on 18 Jun 2010 18:16
The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. That
is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
available to the raw images in any post-processing software. I don't
know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.
From: charles on 18 Jun 2010 20:16
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. That
>is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
>to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
>optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
>available to the raw images in any post-processing software. I don't
>know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
>aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
>if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.


So what was the downside? If people want good looking jpgs and the
camera gives the m thaat way, what's bad?
From: RichA on 18 Jun 2010 21:00
On Jun 18, 8:16 pm, charles <ckr...(a)SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images.  That
> >is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
> >to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
> >optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
> >available to the raw images in any post-processing software.  I don't
> >know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
> >aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
> >if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.
>
> So what was the downside?  If people want good looking jpgs and the
> camera gives the m thaat way, what's bad?

Whooosh! You missed it, didn't you?
From: Paul Furman on 19 Jun 2010 15:34
John A. wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA<rander3127(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. That
>> is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
>> to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
>> optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
>> available to the raw images in any post-processing software. I don't
>> know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
>> aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
>> if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.
>
> Seems like it should be possible to embed the lens profile and/or
> correction parameters in the raw file. They do it with the white
> balance, etc. so why not?

Because the camera manufacturer wants you to buy their software, not
Adobe's. It's not a big deal generally but if it's important to you, use
their raw converter. One exception was an earlier version of Nikon's
dynamic range extending mode (I forget the name) when they were
licensing it from another company, it could only be used in the camera's
firmware. But they dumped that & made up their own routine which is
included in their raw converter now.
From: Doug McDonald on 19 Jun 2010 16:16
On 6/19/2010 2:34 PM, Paul Furman wrote:

>
> Because the camera manufacturer wants you to buy their software, not
> Adobe's. It's not a big deal generally but if it's important to you, use
> their raw converter.

Huh? Canon's raw converter is quite inferior to Adobe's, at least
for the 30D I own. In particular, Adobe does a far better job on
changing the exposure before conversion from raw to gamma-corrected
file. Canon's software appears to convert to gamma-correct, complete with
heel and toe, BEFORE correcting exposure. This leads to clipped whites.

Neither Adobe nor dcraw do this.

Doug McDonald
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: So this is what America has come to?
Next: Pentax filing small camera patents?