Re: 2197mm Zoom f/3.5 Hand-Held Photo on a P&S Camera

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:13:24 -0600, walter-j-hansen
<wjhansen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:31:10 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There is your first problems. Although you are going to edit the
photograph, you use JPGs.

Are you even the LEAST bit aware of where the popularity and NEED for RAW came
from? You're not? Then let me clue you in.

The sensor data to JPG conversion was SO GODDAMN AWFULLY horrendous in earlier
DSLR cameras that buyers demanded that they have access to that original sensor
data so that they could undo all the damage that the camera manufacturer
created. The camera makers design cameras, they are not photographers and don't
know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to the proper way to
present an image. Photographers realized how crappy their DSLRs were at
providing JPG files. They NEEDED RAW. It wasn't a matter of if it was better or
not. IT WAS ALWAYS BETTER TO USE RAW from those much crappier early DSLRs.

In today's cameras, those JPG files from the camera, in nearly all cameras,
especially P&S cameras that don't present RAW, have now become so good at the
RAW to JPG conversion that few people see much difference between what they can
do with the RAW data as what the firmware can do with it. Those photographers
that claim they need it for white-balance adjustments or recovering blown darks
and lights are only revealing that they are REALLY crappy photographers that
don't know how to use the camera properly in the first place nor even set
exposures properly. So instead they load the RAW up into an editor to try to
repair what they ruined in the beginning. They can't think fast enough with
camera in hand, they'd rather fix all that later at home, if possible.

In short: If your camera cannot produce a JPG file as nearly good, or just as
good, as you can do with the RAW data yourself then you have bought one helluva
crappy camera. Go buy another. And don't give me that bull*** song and dance
about NEEDING 16-bit. That's only needed in rare occasions when really trying to
repair some badly exposed accident. Your display of that image will never be
greater than the gamut of your print paper or your monitor.

So THERE is your first problem. You don't know how to buy a good camera. Your
second problem is that you have to depend on RAW because you're that piss-poor
at using a camera and can't get the shots right in the first place. Your third
problem is that you incessantly reveal that you don't know ONE DAMN THING about
photography nor cameras.

Everyone else's problem is having to correct your blatant ignorance that you
continually spew out onto the net.

Gavin Westerhoffer was complaining:

"The typical comment from the brain-dead consumer snap-shooter
that only buys cameras based on how the JPGs look right from the
camera."

The implication is that he could deal with any subsequent problems
with the JPG.

Now you are saying:

"If your camera cannot produce a JPG file as nearly good, or just as
good, as you can do with the RAW data yourself then you have bought
one helluva crappy camera. Go buy another."

You two (?) guys seem to be at logger heads. Why don't you go away
into a small room (you will only need a one-holer) and not come back
until you can agree which way you are pushing your arguments.



Eric Stevens
.