Re: ScottW's "test' results.
- From: "Scott W" <biphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Mar 2007 15:30:46 -0700
On Mar 27, 12:38 pm, D-Mac <dj4groups-o...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What goes around comes around.What is funny on all of this is that D-Mac has brought up test images
Either Scott deliberately forged the jpeg picture he used in his "tests"
gallery on Pbase or he really needs to take a lesson or two in
photography.
Normally I wouldn't say anything about this sort of thing but this really
is over the top. You only blow the highlights when shooting jpeg if you
don't set your camera up for jpeg capture. To use a camera set up for RAW
data capture in an attempt to demonstrate (degrade) jpeg as a means of
capture is a sure way to show your ignorance of photography and cameras.
As little as 6 years ago it was vital to take a correctly exposed
picture. When there was doubt, bracket your shots. Scott demonstrates in
his "test" gallery that whilst he is one of the first to slam into me, he
really doesn't know what he's doing in the first place. Just another
lightweight looking to get a few cheap shots in on me.
RAW capture allows you to decide many options at development that may not
have been a choice at the shoot time. It also slows down the process of
printing photographs. It does not - in itself produce pictures any better
technically than shooting in jpeg mode.
Get it right in the camera and shooting (uncompressed) jpeg produces
pictures no different from RAW pictures that have undergone manipulation
during development. The camera's computer is programed to develop the
sensor data. Whether it then records that processed data as an image file
or raw file, does not alter the quality of the picture with UNCOMPRESSED
jpegs.
Scott. Either do some reading of the manual or stop posting photos you've
deliberately manipulated to make one form of capture look worse than it
should to prop up your idea of the right form.
Douglas
that I put up May of last year. Just why he wanted to try and make a
stink about this subject now I don't now. And for the record I was a
digital news group that I posted the links to the photos to, not this
one. Here is the original thread were I posted the links.
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital.slr-systems/
browse_frm/thread/de2892904e6aea69>
This was the first trip where my wife and I both shoot all raw, which
is the only mode we shoot in since this trip. We were shooting with a
lot of snow and ice, and often with out much time to get the shots set
up as we were on a moving boat. I for some of the shots I had set the
camera to auto bracket mode but on converting the raw file I found
that this was not really needed.
Since that trip I have come to love raw mode even more and have found
a host of other reasons to use it beyond recovering blow highlights.
Scott
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ScottW's "test' results.
- From: Beach Bum
- Re: ScottW's "test' results.
- References:
- ScottW's "test' results.
- From: D-Mac
- ScottW's "test' results.
- Prev by Date: Re: The Walrus returns....
- Next by Date: Re: Canon 16-35mm F2.8
- Previous by thread: Re: ScottW's "test' results.
- Next by thread: Re: ScottW's "test' results.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
