Then end of FF bulk?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Official: Nikon D3s the new benchmark in DSLR low noise capability
Next: Sigma's new 85mm f1.4 re-bodied Samyang optics with AF?
From: R Davis on 21 Feb 2010 13:04 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:39:04 -0800, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Chris Malcolm wrote: >> In rec.photo.digital R Davis <spamless(a)anon.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:50:00 -0800, "c_atiel" <fac_187(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> The last major hurdle of digital image capture is exposure latitude. >>>> Even the best digital sensors still have very little latitude for over >>>> exposure. This is compensated for/disguised by improvements in sensor noise >>>> that allow the signal from relatively underexposed areas to be amplified. >>>> Presumably readers here understand that is why you shoot in raw mode for >>>> optimal results. >> >>> No, only people who don't know how to use their camera in the first place >>> need RAW consistently. >> >> Or who happen to be using one of the camera models well known to >> produce noticeably better results from RAW then from the in-camera >> jpegs, or who happen to do most of their shooting in conditions where >> processing from RAW is always better, etc.. > >Vitrually without exception, if you have good tools- ie a good RAW >converter such as Lightroom- and know what you're doing, you can get >superior results from a RAW file than the in-camera processed JPEG. For >some, it's not worth the trouble. For others, they can't see the >difference, and some just don't have the knowledge or time to do so. Why reiterate what I already stated? If the camera is incapable of doing it right in the first place, many better and more capable cameras are not thus crippled, then you HAVE TO resort to doing it yourself all the time. Basically, if you have to resort to RAW, then you bought a really shitty camera or your skills as a photographer are always that poor. It's that perfectly clear and simple. Thanks for saying again the very same things I said.
From: R Davis on 21 Feb 2010 13:10 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:39:04 -0800, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Chris Malcolm wrote: >> In rec.photo.digital R Davis <spamless(a)anon.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:50:00 -0800, "c_atiel" <fac_187(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> The last major hurdle of digital image capture is exposure latitude. >>>> Even the best digital sensors still have very little latitude for over >>>> exposure. This is compensated for/disguised by improvements in sensor noise >>>> that allow the signal from relatively underexposed areas to be amplified. >>>> Presumably readers here understand that is why you shoot in raw mode for >>>> optimal results. >> >>> No, only people who don't know how to use their camera in the first place >>> need RAW consistently. >> >> Or who happen to be using one of the camera models well known to >> produce noticeably better results from RAW then from the in-camera >> jpegs, or who happen to do most of their shooting in conditions where >> processing from RAW is always better, etc.. > >Vitrually without exception, if you have good tools- ie a good RAW >converter such as Lightroom- and know what you're doing, you can get >superior results from a RAW file than the in-camera processed JPEG. For >some, it's not worth the trouble. For others, they can't see the >difference, and some just don't have the knowledge or time to do so. p.s. Lightroom is not the best RAW converter/editor. It lacks many of the better interpolation algorithms that have been introduced in the last few years. I use only the best whenever I've done my own tests to determine if my camera is producing its JPG files from its RAW data properly. There are two such programs. Lightroom not being one of them. If you are going to espouse the use of RAW, at least keep current on the better software for it.
From: Ray Fischer on 21 Feb 2010 14:34 R Davis <spamless(a)anon.com> wrote: > John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> >>Vitrually without exception, if you have good tools- ie a good RAW >>converter such as Lightroom- and know what you're doing, you can get >>superior results from a RAW file than the in-camera processed JPEG. For >>some, it's not worth the trouble. For others, they can't see the >>difference, and some just don't have the knowledge or time to do so. > >Why reiterate what I already stated? If the camera is incapable of doing it >right in the first place, So far no camera maker has been able to come up with a workable mind-reading option that is able to divine the intent of the photographer. Cameras make guesses. Having the RAW image enables one to adjust the output to the preferred result. Of course, idiot trolls are even stupider than cameras. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Paul Furman on 21 Feb 2010 15:58 R Davis wrote: >> No photographer wants to >> be adjusting WB from shot to shot when he should be looking for matter >> to shoot and how to shoot it. JPG, in the end either leads to errors in >> WB, lost time, or additional work in post to fix things, with further >> quality loss because original information was lost in-camera. > > Really? No photographer? Let us clarify that, no SNAPSHOOTER wants to > adjust their camera properly for every shot. It is certainly possible to set a custom white balance and change contrast, saturation, sharpening & exposure compensation in-camera for every shot, just inconvenient.
From: R Davis on 21 Feb 2010 17:04
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:58:43 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: >R Davis wrote: >>> No photographer wants to >>> be adjusting WB from shot to shot when he should be looking for matter >>> to shoot and how to shoot it. JPG, in the end either leads to errors in >>> WB, lost time, or additional work in post to fix things, with further >>> quality loss because original information was lost in-camera. >> >> Really? No photographer? Let us clarify that, no SNAPSHOOTER wants to >> adjust their camera properly for every shot. > >It is certainly possible to set a custom white balance and change >contrast, saturation, sharpening & exposure compensation in-camera for >every shot, just inconvenient. True, it *can* become inconvenient. But I rarely find that to be true. Selecting the right white-balance setting is all that is usually required. After that, any minor temperature touch-ups are easily done in editing with nothing lost. It always surprises me too how someone will take an image under a canopy of colorful autumn leaves, or even summer leaves, and then strip out that ambient warm or green glow from their images because they are convinced that white clothing should always be white. Totally ruining the photograph by stripping it of any sense of reality. Not unlike those that always depend on flash. I always leave my cameras on the lowest contrast setting possible to preserve the full dynamic range from the sensor in the JPG files. I also leave sharpening to its lowest setting because I prefer to use a Fourier Transform utility to handle that in the computer. There's never any problem with sharpening halos that way. Now that there's better ways they should abandon last century's destructive unsharp-mask artifact-ruining methods. Exposure compensation is simple when you use an EVF with a Zebra assist overlay. You can see in real-time the exact exposure required at all times and simply press your EV compensation button one to a few times until it's perfect in the EVF. I have my custom EV compensation button programmed to 1/6th EV steps. Also, by using a real-time RGB histogram display, you are capable of knowing that your colors might be offset in the camera's defaults to begin with. So I leave my R channel set to -2 for a default custom-colors setting and the camera's default EV compensation set to -1/3EV to avoid any blown channels. These are my default power-ups to compensate for what the firmware programmers failed to do in the first place. In the end the only settings needed to be changed are white-balance and a tap or two of EV compensation. Trivial. Not inconvenient at all if you want it done right. But then it was probably even more inconvenient for Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with fresco methods and hand-ground pigments and homemade brushes. When he could have just had some apprentice sketch it all out in paint-by-numbers swatches and used a sponge (renaissance spray-paint can) to tag the ceiling and fill it all in with the right color-number in the right areas. That auto-painting method that is used by those with no skill nor talent. :-) |