Re: ScottW's "test' results.

D-Mac wrote:
What goes around comes around.

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.


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.


This is likely to be fun.

I am Douglas McDonald.

Dear Douglas (the other one, with the extra a):

You are full of it.

I assure you that raw, for cameras with more than 8 bits of ADC,
can be very superior. This is simply because it allows far more
dynamic range with close-together intensity levels. Consider
the picture I posted a pointer to recently: it was of
a mountain scene with very dark trees in places and glaciers
with the sun on them in other places. They were arranged so that
a gradient filter on the lens would not be a panacea. In order
to make a good image, it was necessary to select out the glacier
areas using Photoshop and reduce their brightness relative to
the rest of the image, **without reducing the contrast of either part**.
Using raw and 16 bit images in Photoshop I was able to keep all the
levels of gradation in both parts. Using a JPEG original I could
not do that. There would be banding in both the very dark
parts and very light parts.

Doug McDonald (without the extra a)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ScottWs "test results.
    ... have the choice, not just the camera. ... when shooting RAW and doing the setting in software after the shoot. ... All 5 of them now only ever capture in JPEG although I ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: ScottWs "test results.
    ... have the choice, not just the camera. ... when shooting RAW and doing the setting in software after the shoot. ... All 5 of them now only ever capture in JPEG although I ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Narrowing It Down
    ... Sony and Pentax are both capable of producing images that are just as ... and processed in camera. ... RAW may be handy but a bit overblown. ... Most cameras that support RAW have the option to embed a JPEG file inside the RAW file as well, which means you can crank out the pre-processed JPEGs all day long and still have the option to go to the RAW for further tweaking if necessary. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Two weeks!
    ... features of the camera to turn things off. ... burst using RAW: ... Pentax was able to get to the "infinite" holy grail was by making their ... JPEG's smaller - - in other words, ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: ScottWs "test results.
    ... Get it right in the camera and shooting jpeg produces ... pictures no different from RAW pictures that have undergone ... an image file or raw file, does not alter the quality of the picture ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)