Exposing to the right

[runnah]

I will have you all refer to this chart please.



I rest my case.

 

[sk66]

I prefer this one:

 

[TWright33]

 

[runnah]

I prefer this one:

That is good. This is my all time favorite.

 

[apaflo]

That is true for a "linear" encoding scheme, which the RAW file is but the JPEG is not.

linear original.

Nothing is "linear" here... that's the whole point. Everything is exponential. Or in some cases some other things, but never linear.

My appologies if I used common technical terminology that you are not familiar with. In fact my statement was precisely correct.

Linear encoding refers of course to a linear gamma curve. Virtually all RAW data files use linear encoding. And virtually everyone who is familar with digital data encoding is aware of that meaning and uses it consistently and commonly.

Various digital encodings have different advantages. Gamma compression of digitally encoded analog data is commonly used (meaning photography is hardly unique) to preserve a higher SNR at the expense of dynamic range while using fewer bits. The most common example (but perhaps not typically realized by users) is the use Mu-Law gamma encoding of voice traffic in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).

Some good sources of information, for photographers:

Understanding Gamma Correction
Learn about RAW, JPEG, and TIFF with the digital photography experts at Photo.net.

A more technical article:

Linear Encoding

 

[Gavjenks]

I think it's abundantly clear by now what everybody meant, apaflo. You're talking in a digital data encoding language, where apparently linear refers to actual luminance.
I'm talking in photography language, where exponential increases in actual physical light are usually referred to using linear language (+/- EVs / stops).

The miscommunication was cleared up a page ago, and no matter which community's language you use, the answer to the OP's question is the same, so who cares?

 

[TWright33]

That is true for a "linear" encoding scheme, which the RAW file is but the JPEG is not.

linear original.

Nothing is "linear" here... that's the whole point. Everything is exponential. Or in some cases some other things, but never linear.

My appologies if I used common technical terminology that you are not familiar with. In fact my statement was precisely correct.

Linear encoding refers of course to a linear gamma curve. Virtually all RAW data files use linear encoding. And virtually everyone who is familar with digital data encoding is aware of that meaning and uses it consistently and commonly.

Various digital encodings have different advantages. Gamma compression of digitally encoded analog data is commonly used (meaning photography is hardly unique) to preserve a higher SNR at the expense of dynamic range while using fewer bits. The most common example (but perhaps not typically realized by users) is the use Mu-Law gamma encoding of voice traffic in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).

Some good sources of information, for photographers:

Understanding Gamma Correction
Learn about RAW, JPEG, and TIFF with the digital photography experts at Photo.net.

A more technical article:

Linear Encoding

I think it's abundantly clear by now what everybody meant, apaflo. You're talking in a digital data encoding language, where apparently linear refers to actual luminance.
I'm talking in photography language, where exponential increases in actual physical light are usually referred to using linear language (+/- EVs / stops).

The miscommunication was cleared up a page ago, and no matter which community's language you use, the answer to the OP's question is the same, so who cares?

View attachment 66423

 

[apaflo]

I think it's abundantly clear by now what everybody meant, apaflo. You're talking in a digital data encoding language, where apparently linear refers to actual luminance.
I'm talking in photography language, where exponential increases in actual physical light are usually referred to using linear language (+/- EVs / stops).

The miscommunication was cleared up a page ago, and no matter which community's language you use, the answer to the OP's question is the same, so who cares?

What is clear is that you didn't understand what gamma compression, as used in a JPEG format, is or how it compares to the linear encoded format used by RAW files.

I have seen no indication yet that you've learned a thing either. None of this is "in photography language" or "linear language" or some mysterious "digital data encoding language". Nothing appears to have "cleared up" at all!

If you will slow down and not make such an effort at obstinance, and try to learn something about how all of these things interrelate to each other, it actually does become easier to comprehend once it is properly organized. I actualy think that trying to understand the value of gamma compression is more difficult for people who are photographers and have little other exposure to digital data. It's an abstraction that makes sense otherwise, but that abstraction is hard to work with when the data is literally displayed visually.

 

[pixmedic]

I think this discussion has gone way off track from the OP's original question.
I believe gavjenks has answered that question as much as it needs to be in the context of the original question.

 

[pixmedic]

In case anyone was wondering...
I locked the thread because a lot of posts were getting reported. A LOT. Plus, things had started to get personal which never ends well. The OP has been gone for a bit and had long since had their question answered.

If anyone wants to rehash the "discussion" that encompassed the thread, they are more than welcome to start a new thread on it.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk