Editing jpegs

[AaronLLockhart]

By your own comment, it has NOTHING to do with WHO YOU ARE, rather what your experience is.

Though the pictures of your Super Dooper computer demonstrate that you can build a computer with pretty neon lights and water cooled processor with all the bells and whistles, it means nothing in reference to your statement that raw file are larger and harmful to computer hardware. I have been in the IT field since 1985 and managing truly talented IT people for over half that time, so a self-proclaimed computer “Wiz” impresses me none.

Both of your statements are wrong, so I wont be sticking my foot anywhere.

That's such a broad term, IT. IT doesn't mean you know squat about computers, unless that's the portion of IT you're working in. I also worked in IT for about 6 years as a network provisioner for a telephone company. Which encompassed nothing of cracking a computer open at all.

I never said it damages hardware. Stop reading what you want to read an instead read what I said. The processor is only capable of processing, reading and caching so much data in a specified rate of time. The memory works the same way. Hard disks have specific read and write speeds. All of this is in direct proportion to the topic, because the more data there is in a specified type of file, the more work ALL of these components have to do to process the data. Therefore, a 14MB RAW file IS MUCH MORE STRESSFUL on your hardware than a 4MB jpeg file. Hence the reason it takes longer to load.

That's not even getting into the fact that the GPU has limitations on pixel texture and fill rates. The more gpu memory, the faster your hardware is capable of processing this data.

Ill say this much, with all due respect, if you're in the hardware portion of IT, and you don't know this much, you are by far the least educated IT personnel I have ever seen in my life.

 

[pixmedic]

I think things have gotten just a little off topic here.
lets all just take a breather and either get back on track away from the personal disputes, or out taking some pictures.

 

[480sparky]

As an electrician, I use a Rycom 8879 underground utility locator. It is part of my tool arsenal. Some days I use it, some days I don't. And not every electrician owns one. Those who never need one will most likely never buy one.

If you're an electrician, I won't think any less of you or your abilities just because you don't have a locator.


By the same token, raw is just another tool in a photographers' arsenal. Not everyone needs or wants to use it. I am no better an electrician by owning a locator than I am a better photographer by shooting raw.

 

[pjwarneka]

Comments like this should get you banned. This is no place for a logical answers and saying there are many ways to "right" sheesh....

As an electrician, I use a Rycom 8879 underground utility locator. It is part of my tool arsenal. Some days I use it, some days I don't. And not every electrician owns one. Those who never need one will most likely never buy one.

If you're an electrician, I won't think any less of you or your abilities just because you don't have a locator.


By the same token, raw is just another tool in a photographers' arsenal. Not everyone needs or wants to use it. I am no better an electrician by owning a locator than I am a better photographer by shooting raw.

 

[Patrice]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. It's what the sensor saw. You can spit about algorithms that the firmware uses to convert the data from linear to non linear gamma all day long, it doesn't matter. A non compressed RAW image contains the data nearest to the point of how it came directly from the sensor. The need to explain the technicality of that point is completely irrelevant, and unnecessary.

Also, the fact that an image sensor is a linear device has nothing to do with anything. The gamma range may be changed to MIMIC what the human eye sees. However, let us first remember that linear devices are only capable of depicting a linear result. Hence the fact that a photograph or image is only two dimensional, which is also a linear object. The eye interprets depth, where as a camera mimics it. A camera cannot see in the third dimension, the human eye can.

As said before, all of this is pointless conversation.

My original point still stands. RAW has more editing options because most of the data is still there, and it doesn't matter which mode you shoot in, as long as you get the settings right in camera.


Sometimes I think the members of this forum like to respond to stuff simply to see themselves type.

A bit like yourself.

You made your point in your first post so why repeat it and why belittle someone else's post in the process? Have you considered that maybe some members appreciate the technicalities?

Pat

 

[AaronLLockhart]

A bit like yourself.

You made your point in your first post so why repeat it and why belittle someone else's post in the process? Have you considered that maybe some members appreciate the technicalities?

Pat

Then the additional point should have been made without using my post as a lab rat insinuating that what I posted was incorrect information, when it wasn't. It was simplified information.

You cannot harp on me for defending my statement and ground. My reply was not an unprovoked attack, it came with strong provocation.

Maybe you should analyze further before using your hypothetical cattle prod.

 

[Ysarex]

A bit like yourself.

You made your point in your first post so why repeat it and why belittle someone else's post in the process? Have you considered that maybe some members appreciate the technicalities?

Pat

Then the additional point should have been made without using my post as a lab rat insinuating that what I posted was incorrect information, when it wasn't. It was simplified information.

You cannot harp on me for defending my statement and ground. My reply was not an unprovoked attack, it came with strong provocation.

Maybe you should analyze further before using your hypothetical cattle prod.

The information you posted was incorrect, not just simplified. You said this:

"Raw is an uncompressed file source. What you get when shooting a raw photograph is an interpretation of exactly the sensor saw. When you get into Jpeg, you start losing some of the quality in detail because of data compression. You edit them the same. However, raw images will always give you a higher range of alteration, because of the fact that none of the data was lost from the sensor to the file.

It really doesn't matter which one you shoot in, as long as you get the settings right in camera."

That's not just a simplification, that's incorrect. This is a public forum where the participants can't read your mind and it can't be assumed that they're all familiar with your working methods.

It really does matter which one you shoot in regardless of your camera settings, unless you're in a studio with complete control of the lighting in which case it doesn't matter as much. A simplification would have been to say, it doesn't matter to me.

Joe

 

[AaronLLockhart]

The information you posted was incorrect, not just simplified. You said this:

"Raw is an uncompressed file source. What you get when shooting a raw photograph is an interpretation of exactly the sensor saw. When you get into Jpeg, you start losing some of the quality in detail because of data compression. You edit them the same. However, raw images will always give you a higher range of alteration, because of the fact that none of the data was lost from the sensor to the file.

It really doesn't matter which one you shoot in, as long as you get the settings right in camera."

That's not just a simplification, that's incorrect. This is a public forum where the participants can't read your mind and it can't be assumed that they're all familiar with your working methods.

It really does matter which one you shoot in regardless of your camera settings, unless you're in a studio with complete control of the lighting in which case it doesn't matter as much. A simplification would have been to say, it doesn't matter to me.

Joe

That doesn't make the information incorrect, joe. It makes it irrational for your set of circumstances. See that's the problem with the board members here. If it doesn't meet the criteria to match the way YOU shoot or your experiences, all the sudden the information wrong.

You all need to go back to school and sit through a few comprehension courses, on a very serious note.

The information I gave was 150% correct in the circumstances that I shoot.

There are two types of information. Static information and dynamic information. Static information is information set factual by a very strict set of guidelines. They do not change no matter what else happens in the surrounding environment. Examples of this are shutter speed and dynamic range capability. No matter what you do, what environment your in, and the circumstances of the shoot, these things will never change. You camera is only capable of capturing so much dynamic range, and your shutter speed is only capable of going so slow, or so fast.

Dynamic information is information that changes depending on changing variables. Examples of dynamic information are info referring to ISO performance (Which I just recently learned was dynamic via Mach0), Depth of field, aperture size (differs depending on lens used), and this instance, which is RAW versus Jpeg. In dynamic information, any and all factual information can be subject to a specific set of conditions or circumstances. An example of this is as I have posted above. I don't have much experience editing photos using the shooting circumstances in which you posted, Joe.

What I posted is Known Dynamic Information. It is based on facts, that I have accumulated through various experience in the type of photography that I DO.

What you imposed after that, is UN-known dynamic information. It is factual information that I did not know, that are circumstantially different to the experiences that I have been through. Going back to my original post here... that doesn't make my information incorrect. It simply makes it incomplete.

 

[Benco]

 

[Ysarex]

The information you posted was incorrect, not just simplified. You said this:

"Raw is an uncompressed file source. What you get when shooting a raw photograph is an interpretation of exactly the sensor saw. When you get into Jpeg, you start losing some of the quality in detail because of data compression. You edit them the same. However, raw images will always give you a higher range of alteration, because of the fact that none of the data was lost from the sensor to the file.

It really doesn't matter which one you shoot in, as long as you get the settings right in camera."

That's not just a simplification, that's incorrect. This is a public forum where the participants can't read your mind and it can't be assumed that they're all familiar with your working methods.

It really does matter which one you shoot in regardless of your camera settings, unless you're in a studio with complete control of the lighting in which case it doesn't matter as much. A simplification would have been to say, it doesn't matter to me.

Joe

That doesn't make the information incorrect, joe. It makes it irrational for your set of circumstances. See that's the problem with the board members here. If it doesn't meet the criteria to match the way YOU shoot or your experiences, all the sudden the information wrong.

You all need to go back to school and sit through a few comprehension courses, on a very serious note.

The information I gave was 150% correct in the circumstances that I shoot.

You made an unqualified declarative statement that is wrong. You did not reference your statement to your circumstance nor to any other circumstance. Your statement without qualification is incorrect. You can't come back after the fact and say, "Oh, I really meant that's for me and for how I work and so I was right."

You didn't say that raw or JPEG doesn't matter to you because of your circumstances. I would have never objected if you had. You also can't assume that information if not presented.

As for being irrational, I'd love to hear your explanation for how something can be more than 100% correct.

Joe

Oh yeah, I almost forgot; I'm in school right now actually waiting for class to start and I'm the teacher.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot; I'm in school right now actually waiting for class to start and I'm the teacher.

Be sure to stop by and see the American Literature professor while you're there.

 

[pixmedic]

seriously people? no wonder so many threads get locked. everyone feels like they just HAVE to have the last word. apparently "winning" an internet argument with anonymous people us more important than maintaining civility and keeping threads open for discussion.

 

[Ysarex]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot; I'm in school right now actually waiting for class to start and I'm the teacher.

Be sure to stop by and see the American Literature professor while you're there.

Don't you mean the philosophy professor? Literature doesn't deal with what constitutes a fact or what is rational. Now you've got the wrong department as well.

Hey Pixmedic, I'm being civil.

Joe

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot; I'm in school right now actually waiting for class to start and I'm the teacher.

Be sure to stop by and see the American Literature professor while you're there.

Don't you mean the philosophy professor? Literature doesn't deal with what constitutes a fact or what is rational. Now you've got the wrong department as well.

Hey Pixmedic, I'm being civil.

Joe

No, I mean literature, so that you can learn how to read and comprehend. This last post of yours verifies my direct point in that, since you are under the comprehension that I meant the philosophy instructor. I couldn't care less what your personal paradigm on rationality is. It's obviously way off in the first place.

PS, I'm being civil as well.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I almost decided to read this thread.... But then I didn't. My comment on jpegs... Sometimes you can get almost similar results to the raw files, and sometimes raw files are harder to get to that right adjustment than jpeg files, but in the end, raw offers much more potential when it comes to editing and post production. My 2 cents!