Editing jpegs

[Ysarex]

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.

Under the comprehension?? And you even underlined and italicized it. I do rest my case. When most people have their foot in their mouth they take it out rather than start chewing.

Pixmedic forgive me.

Joe

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Under the comprehension?? And you even underlined and italicized it. I do rest my case. When most people have their foot in their mouth they take it out rather than start chewing.

Pixmedic forgive me.

Joe

com·pre·hen·sion
/ˌkämpriˈhenCHən/
Noun
The action or capability of understanding something.
Synonyms
understanding - grasp - apprehension - realization


You really do need some schooling; much worse than I had originally thought.

I love that you're letting the southern boy from Tennessee absolutely school you in context of the English language. That must feel great, considering I use words like "y'all" and "ain't."

----------------------

So, are you planning to stop chewing on that foot of yours anytime soon?

 

[Benco]

Someone's going to be sent to the naughty corner soon.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

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.

That's a long-winded way to say you don't know what you're talking about.

Add all the buzz words and twist it all you want. You've had professionals on both sides of the argument weigh in. Whatever floats your boat. What is clear is you still don't have a coherent understanding of both formats and their uses, or as you would put "factual information that I did not know".

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Well, that being the case, I don't shoot in those types of environments. I specialize in portraiture, with manipulated lighting. I can't tell the difference between a RAW or Jpeg in my field of interest. That is all.

Thanks, that's much better. I agree that when you can manipulate the lighting the advantages of raw capture are substantially obviated.

Joe

That's a long-winded way to say you don't know what you're talking about.

Add all the buzz words and twist it all you want. You've had professionals on both sides of the argument weigh in. Whatever floats your boat. What is clear is you still don't have a coherent understanding of both formats and their uses, or as you would put "factual information that I did not know".

I suggest you read the entire thread before you start yapping your mouth, smart one. I learned at a very young age to only pick fights I know I can win...


You seem to have never received that memo...

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

I suggest you read the entire thread before you start yapping your mouth, smart one. I learned at a very young age to only pick fights I know I can win...

You seem to have never received that memo...

I didn't receive memos as a child.

Your aggressive and stubborn conduct in this thread has been entertaining to watch.

My favorite part is where you say a bunch of stuff that contradicts the stuff you say later!

 

[AaronLLockhart]

I suggest you read the entire thread before you start yapping your mouth, smart one. I learned at a very young age to only pick fights I know I can win...

You seem to have never received that memo...

I didn't receive memos as a child.

Your aggressive and stubborn conduct in this thread has been entertaining to watch.

My favorite part is where you say a bunch of stuff that contradicts the stuff you say later!

LOL Backpedal much?

Rotanimod: "I just got made a fool of by my own words, so I'm going to slam on the brakes and say a bunch of crap about a different subject to save face."

 

[HughGuessWho]

I suggest you read the entire thread before you start yapping your mouth, smart one. I learned at a very young age to only pick fights I know I can win...

You seem to have never received that memo...

I didn't receive memos as a child.

Your aggressive and stubborn conduct in this thread has been entertaining to watch.

My favorite part is where you say a bunch of stuff that contradicts the stuff you say later!

You can never win an argument with a "Computer Wiz". Even when you're right.

 

[weepete]

A lot of Raw files are indeed compressed. There are over 100 Raw file types. Tons of data is lost between the image sensor and the Raw data file that gets recorded on the memory card, mostly in the pixel voltage analog-to-digital conversion.

Nikon entry-level, compact DSLR Raw files are 12-bit, lossless compressed files. (D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100, D5200)

The D7000/D7100/D600 offers:
• lossless compressed
• lossy compressed
• 12-bit depth
• 14-bit depth (Page 87 - D7000 user's manual - NEF (Raw) Recording > Type. D7100 - page 67. D600 - page 94)
But, the D7000, D7100, D600 has no uncompressed option, which is just 1 part of what makes them entry-level grade DSLRs.

Prosumer and pro grade Nikon DSLR's add the option of uncompressed Raw files.

A Raw file after conversion isn't anything like what the image sensor saw. That's why the files have to be processed in a Raw converter before they can be seen as a photograph.
Different Raw converters render Raw files with a slightly different look because they all use slightly different algorithms to process the Raw image data files.
That's why all Adobe software that can edit Raw files (Elements, Lightroom, Photoshop) uses the same Raw converter - ACR - so they are all consistent with each other.

Image sensors are linear devices and have a gamma of 1.0. The analog image sensors in digital cameras also cannot record color.

The gamma of the Raw file image data has to be changed to a non-linear gamma of between 1.8 and 2.2 or so, which is what human eyes see.
Color is interpolated (demosaicing) in most DSLR's from the layout of a Bayer Array that is in front on the image sensor. Demosaicing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tone mapping is done. Some Raw converters also do some sharpening and noise reduction.

This isn't dated so....Understanding RAW Files Explained.

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.

You shouldn't be so dismissive mate, some of us like to know about the tech stuff. Just because you've heard it before or know about it doesn't mean we all have.

I do think a lot of the time too much is made of raw and sure jpegs have their advantages, but with modern pp programs especially making it really easy to pp with raw combined with pretty quick computers raw has the edge for most of us on here. Of course if you don't like or don't want to edit much then yeah shoot in jpeg. Ultimatley you have to decide what is best for you though, and the more inforrmation new guys like me can get the better.

Ultimatley though I allways try and get things right in camera, I don't allways suceed but I'll try.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

I suggest you read the entire thread before you start yapping your mouth, smart one. I learned at a very young age to only pick fights I know I can win...

You seem to have never received that memo...

I didn't receive memos as a child.

Your aggressive and stubborn conduct in this thread has been entertaining to watch.

My favorite part is where you say a bunch of stuff that contradicts the stuff you say later!

You can never win an argument with a "Computer Wiz". Even when you're right.

Says the undereducated IT pro that seriously thinks that file size has no relation to Hardware stress and specs

 

[Josh66]

(raw, not RAW, it's not an acronym)

Tell that to the camera manufacturers. The manuals to my cameras call it "RAW".

 

[AaronLLockhart]

(raw, not RAW, it's not an acronym)

Tell that to the camera manufacturers. The manuals to my cameras call it "RAW".

Be prepared to be told you're wrong by six people that pretend to be smart.

 

[HughGuessWho]

I didn't receive memos as a child.

Your aggressive and stubborn conduct in this thread has been entertaining to watch.

My favorite part is where you say a bunch of stuff that contradicts the stuff you say later!

You can never win an argument with a "Computer Wiz". Even when you're right.

Says the undereducated IT pro that seriously thinks that file size has no relation to Hardware stress and specs

Yeah, you're right. What a fool I am. I work for a major worldwide corporation as an IT Manager responsible for a team of well qualified people who provide support for everything from desktop support to network infrastructure, yet I am being schooled by a self-proclaimed computer wiz. Thanks for the education.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

You can never win an argument with a "Computer Wiz". Even when you're right.

Says the undereducated IT pro that seriously thinks that file size has no relation to Hardware stress and specs

Yeah, you're right. What a fool I am. I work for a major worldwide corporation as an IT Manager responsible for a team of well qualified people who provide support for everything from desktop support to network infrastructure, yet I am being schooled by a self-proclaimed computer wiz. Thanks for the education.

You're welcome. If you need anything else, send me a PM. You seriously make me laugh. Why the hell do you think that we need quad core CPU's, more RAM, and more GPU memory?!?! Hmmm, because file sizes are larger and there is more data to process... you are the smartest dumb person I've ever met.

 

[480sparky]

(raw, not RAW, it's not an acronym)

Tell that to the camera manufacturers. The manuals to my cameras call it "RAW".

What do they know? They're just interpreting Japanese.