Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: JPEGS or RAW  (Read 19269 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5512


WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2007, 12:07:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ideally I think that a Macbeth Color Checker, properly exposed under controlled lighting and correct white balance, should look like a Macbeth Color Checker on a calibrated monitor. Should it not?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

By default? Why would you think that?

How is Camera Raw supposed to magically know how YOUR camera's sensor reacts to light relative to the other many thousands of same make/model cameras out there? Then, how is Camera Raw supposed to know how YOU like your image colors reproduced (unless you tell it by adjusting the "default").

And what about age and variations between CC cards? Do you keep your's in a light tight case? Have you read yours with a spectro to know how it compares to others? Is your card new or been sitting around for 5 years?

Raw is raw, as uninterpreted, as in unrendered, as in what YOU make of it...if Camera Raw can't render the colors in your images correctly (to YOUR tastes), then you ain't doing something right.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2007, 12:08:06 AM by Schewe » Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2007, 02:05:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark, it's a known issue that people who don't have a clue how to use Camera Raw or Lightroom like to blame Camera Raw's and Lightroom's inability to "match' what users think their color should look like based upon a glance at the back of the LCD after shooting...obviously Camera Raw's color is terrible because it don't match the default rendering of the camera jpg...jeeesh, pay attention dooode!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In that case why doesn't Lightroom have the ability to "ajust" the preset auto feature in any way, the "one click" auto is just that, one click and tough luck!.

One would assume some ajustment to the auto feature for quick proofing would be included so pro's can set it up to suit their calibration etc.   Wayne
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3546



WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2007, 05:08:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I 'm flabbergasted. What "known issues"? Can you point to learned discussions conclusively demonstrating these "known issues"? I process over 200 images per month in CR 4.1 (and CR 3.7 before that) and I've yet to come accross colours that CR can't handle perfectly well. Of course ya gotta know how to use the application - should I take that for granted?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17064]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=17064[/url]
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Esxg
came up in the first few Google results

To fix [calibrate] ACR
http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/
http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ColorCalibration/  -  Fors Script Updated

Bruce Fraser outlined the idea that became the scripts above. And as far as I am aware the late Bruce Fraser was very, very learned in this area.



Andrew - BTW to calibrate ACR using the Fors script, buying a colour checker in the UK costs a ridiculous $140!
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3546



WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2007, 05:21:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark, it's a known issue that people who don't have a clue how to use Camera Raw or Lightroom like to blame Camera Raw's and Lightroom's inability to "match' what users think their color should look like based upon a glance at the back of the LCD after shooting...obviously Camera Raw's color is terrible because it don't match the default rendering of the camera jpg...jeeesh, pay attention dooode!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When you have quite finished being so patronising, did it ever occur to you that some people compare the image to the scene being shot.
And like some films render scenes more pleasing to the eye, sometimes the JPEG colour rendering is 'better'. Which is not the same as best quality.


As for the rest of the snobbish remarks regarding JPEGs. If the JPEG is more than good enough for one's needs. Why waste expensive time faffing with the RAW file.
I shoot both and use whichever file is most appropriate at the time. Later on if I add an image to my print portfolio, then I'll go to the RAW file, if say I used the JPEG initially. Best of both worlds.

Quote
I'm more than a bit suprised there are people defending in-camera jpegs here!  The argument only makes sense if you, uh, your camera:

 - Calculates a perfect exposure of an subject, actually impossible unless the resultant image has very limited dynamic range
 - Captures the perfect White balance for that image (whatever *that* might be)
Ever heard of slide film. You had to get it right in camera, no safety net of LR/ACR/PS afterwards? I don't rely on the camera to calculate perfect exposure/WB, I decide exposure. Maybe you'd spend less time in post in you relied less on the camera.  
The argument makes perfect sense if JPEGs are good enough  for the job. And if you shoot both.....what's the problem?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2007, 05:30:39 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2007, 06:41:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As for the rest of the snobbish remarks regarding JPEGs
When it comes to quality, I'm a total snob, which is why I chuckle when I meet a photographer who shoots JPEG. I can't help my reaction and nor can I ever settle for less than RAW. Even my eBay photos are shot in RAW. No wonder eBayers complain that I'm using stock photography when I never do. I love writing back to say my used equipment actually looks that good.

Camera Raw gives me total control and, yes, when it comes to tweaking the best from every image, I'm a control freak. I began my digital experience shooting and printing JPEG. That lasted two years and I will never go back, regardless of the time I spend in CR. Because none of the time I spend in CR can compare to the hours I spent in darkrooms with chemicals that were killing my skin and lungs. I find what little time I do spend in CR to be highly rewarding and exhilarating. Once you learn Camera Raw, I think processing is amazingly fast.

However, if an artist can obtain a reputable gallery show with images captured on a cell phone, I say to each his own.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6983


WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2007, 07:57:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In that case why doesn't Lightroom have the ability to "ajust" the preset auto feature in any way, the "one click" auto is just that, one click and tough luck!.

One would assume some ajustment to the auto feature for quick proofing would be included so pro's can set it up to suit their calibration etc.   Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The degree of convenience built-in to automated features is a completely separate issue from what is being discussed here - whether the application has "known issues" handling certain colours.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9192



WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2007, 08:02:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andrew - BTW to calibrate ACR using the Fors script, buying a colour checker in the UK costs a ridiculous $140!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And your camera cost how much? The script is free. The target, even at that price is an invaluable tool every shooter should have.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6983


WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2007, 08:18:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=17064
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Esxg
came up in the first few Google results

To fix [calibrate] ACR
http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/
http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ColorCalibration/  -  Fors Script Updated

Bruce Fraser outlined the idea that became the scripts above. And as far as I am aware the late Bruce Fraser was very, very learned in this area.
Andrew - BTW to calibrate ACR using the Fors script, buying a colour checker in the UK costs a ridiculous $140!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

These references are not relevant to the question being discussed here. Calibrating ACR to suit the specifics of your camera's sensor is a different matter from whether Camera Raw, in competent hands, has the capability of rendering colours *properly*, or as you want them to be rendered.

And by the way, I have heard very knowledgeable views that the Fors script may not necessarily deliver better results than simply using the canned profile Thomas developed for the camera model and adjusting the images according to how you want them to appear.

With the amount of raw processing I'm doing routinely, I fully support the jist of Jeff's view that there's damn little this application can't handle if you know how to use it. And this comment doesn't only apply to Camera Raw - so it isn't a brand thing - it's a generic technical issue. There are other good raw processors on the market as well - as amply demo'd at Andrew Rodney's "Iron Chef" Panel at Photo Plus Expo in New York City late last month. I had the pleasure of being on that panel (you can download my presentation from [a href=\"http://www.markdsegal.com/PPE%20Presentation_Oct%2019%202007.pdf]PPE Presentation[/url] - best do a "Save Target As..") and witnessing real-time creation of very difficult images in four raw converters handled by representatives of their developers. The photographers (world-class renowned people - Dennis Reggie and Vincent LeForet -  couldn't help remarking over again how impressed they were with the capability of these applications to render their images as they intended them to be rendered. Raw processing has come a very long way in a very short period of time, and there is much, much more to come.

I have nothing against the jpeg format - used as it was meant to be used. It was developed by the Joint Photographic Experts Group to be a standard format for presenting and exchanging images over the internet and other devices where highly condensed data still producing a useable and consistent result is necessary. It was never meant for high quality image processing. It can produce very useable images in a jiffy, which is a godsend to certain classes of photography where very great speed in the obtaining and delivery of results is absolutely essential - for example some news photography, sports photography, etc. This is not a format for fine art photography period. The fact that it can under certain conditions produce acceptable results for this purpose too does not establish a general case for its comparability with raw processing - in competent hands.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3546



WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2007, 09:01:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And your camera cost how much? The script is free. The target, even at that price is an invaluable tool every shooter should have.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's still a stupid price for a piece of card with some ink on it. Even if the ink is accurate. Though apparently it doesn't last that long, apparently you need to replace it every 1-2 years!  Extracting the urine or what!  And it's double the price here that it is in the States. Sadly we don't get paid double what you get in the States.
Even if Adobe seem to think otherwise.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9192



WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2007, 10:01:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's still a stupid price for a piece of card with some ink on it. Even if the ink is accurate. Though apparently it doesn't last that long, apparently you need to replace it every 1-2 years!  Extracting the urine or what!  And it's double the price here that it is in the States. Sadly we don't get paid double what you get in the States.
Even if Adobe seem to think otherwise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Based on a number of inaccuracies above, I think its pointless to discuss or attempt to educate you on these matters (ink?). Point of fact, the targets are all hand made, and they last a very long time assuming you are smart enough to care for them.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6983


WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2007, 10:10:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Added to which, UK pricing is not usually a representative international value of a product, although it may be the most relevant one to jjj in his circumstances. I wonder if he could do much better ordering it from B&H and paying shippng and taxes. It's very light.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3546



WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2007, 10:35:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
These references are not relevant to the question being discussed here. Calibrating ACR to suit the specifics of your camera's sensor is a different matter from whether Camera Raw, in competent hands, has the capability of rendering colours *properly*, or as you want them to be rendered.
But if you have to calibrate ACR before you can get ACR to work, it's not that perfect a tool is it? And the difficulties some people have had with ACR and Oranges/Reds would not have been mentioned if it was not a problem for some. Also if you use Nikon/Canon/Olympus/Leaf..etc, you may have greater or lesser issues with ACR.
BTW I really like ACR and find it faster/better to use than LR when doing batches of images. And even though I regard myself as being fast/competent with ACR, it still takes more a little more time than a nicely exposed JPEG, so if I need an image quickly....and generally if one needs an image quickly, the last few drops one can get from RAW won't be missed.
The first time I ever used digital professionally was for a CD ROM and rather than shoot on film [this was a few years back], scan in and process and downsize, I used a Camcorder with a stills facility. The pitures weren't exactly ideal for A3 mag spreads but absolutely perfect for the job in hand, that allied to being able to use a LCD screen I could use for framing when shooting in awkward spots and auto white balancing, made a less than exciting job a whole lot easier.
I simply use the best tool for the job.  Sometimes ACR is a great power tool and sometimes a JPEG is the perfect hammer, when you want to err, nail something quickly.  



Quote
.....[JPEGs] can produce very useable images in a jiffy, which is a godsend to certain classes of photography where very great speed in the obtaining and delivery of results is absolutely essential - for example some news photography, sports photography, etc. This is not a format for fine art photography period. The fact that it can under certain conditions produce acceptable results for this purpose too does not establish a general case for its comparability with raw processing - in competent hands.
And a competent reader would have noticed I shoot RAW + JPEG and I don't advocate the use of JPEGs for ultimate quality. To repeat myself, I use RAW when time permits and I may on occasion use JPEG when time doesn't or if the JPEG is more than good enough.

As for the 'not suitable for fine art period.' What snobbish + ignorant nonsense. Shows how little you know about art. Art photography can very often be very poor when it comes to technical quality.
Fine art is not exclusively high quality, maximum dynamic range, no grain..etc. It can often be snapshot camera in quality. http://www.thedailynice.com/site.html is the site of a photographer who has been exhibited [ever heard of the Tate?] and lectures in photography. Personally I'm not a fan of his work and he eschews technical matters as he doesn't think they are that important. And still he is seen as a fine art photographer.
Plenty of images/exhibitions at the Photographer's gallery in London are of the quality that would be sneered at here by the pixel peepers.  I'm pretty sure a Jurgen Teller exhibition I saw a while back was snapshot quality images.
http://www.designboom.com/portrait/teller.html

Some of the most popular images in my A3 print portfolio were taken on an ancient Ixus II a 2.1MP compact with no RAW option. And I once used a really rubbish watch camera to document a dance night. I also seem to recall a Paul MacCartney album used the same watch for the album cover and artwork a short while later. If you are creative, you can exploit the 'flaws' to make something interesting/appealing. I used my S60 to do film stills for a shoot once instead of my DSLR, I could shoot during takes [near silent in action] and the poorer quality, which I exaggerated was perfect for the subsequent artwork/stills.
  To quote Anton Corbijn " The idea of perfection is a bit boring and I like the idea of imperfection in a way. And the way I work imperfection is built in"  He certainly never worries about getting the maximum shadow detail. Still uses film too I think.
http://www.corbijn.co.uk/frameset_works.htm

As for this sad comment from mistybreeze "When it comes to quality, I'm a total snob, which is why I chuckle when I meet a photographer who shoots JPEG. I can't help my reaction and nor can I ever settle for less than RAW. " Do you also think wearing certain labels make you a better person too? You sound just like the talentless muppets I've come across who wouldn't use anything less than a Leica, as "nothing else was good enough". Didn't make their pictures any less boring.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3546



WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2007, 11:02:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Based on a number of inaccuracies above, I think its pointless to discuss or attempt to educate you on these matters (ink?). Point of fact, the targets are all hand made, and they last a very long time assuming you are smart enough to care for them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
According to one website selling them, you need to replace them quite often, which I assumed to be bollocks BTW. But it makes it seem even more of a rip off, which is why I mentioned it.  And yes I am well aware they are quite high quality. But the cost of them in relation to other items is still very steep. I think it's a useful product, but rather overpriced. You may think it's a bargain, but you won't make me think otherwise.
BTW, being patronising only makes me think less of you. If you think my flippant description of the chart as a bit of card with ink on was meant to be a literal + detailed analysis of its chemical makeup, you are a little naive.




MarkDS  - Thanks for the suggestion, but the only time I bought stuff from the US [B+H] I had to pay VAT that was not even applicable to the product I bought. So once I pay that and the more expensive fee for paying that charge [not a joke] it can work out quite punitive. Plus companies don't always charge by the weight as they make a lot of money from postage.
Though I do have to say that as I ordered product on the Sunday, to get it by the Wednesday was very good service.
I would shop in the US more if websites allowed it. Usually Brits are barred from buying products at US prices.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #53 on: November 13, 2007, 11:15:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As for this sad comment from mistybreeze "When it comes to quality, I'm a total snob, which is why I chuckle when I meet a photographer who shoots JPEG. I can't help my reaction and nor can I ever settle for less than RAW. " Do you also think wearing certain labels make you a better person too? You sound just like the talentless muppets I've come across who wouldn't use anything less than a Leica, as "nothing else was good enough". Didn't make their pictures any less boring.
My goodness, since when did anyone suggest using Camera Raw improves someone's soul? Furthermore, jjj, what could you possibly know about being a better person?

My dearest jpeg lover, CR won't give you a backbone or buy you manners, no matter how many hours you tinkle on the controls. What is sad are your cheap, stale and obnoxious girlie-rants. Go shoot a jpeg.

For the record (not that you care, of course), I shoot to please myself. If someone wishes to pay me tons of money for my boring but perfect creations then so be it. As for Leica, that's one brand I've never tried. I do have my favorite cameras but they tend to be project specific. My experience suggests that certain cameras out-perform others, depending on the subject. As for designer labels, don't blame me because I leave men drowning in a pool of their own drool whenever I walk by wearing a Versace.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9192



WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 13, 2007, 11:19:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But if you have to calibrate ACR before you can get ACR to work, it's not that perfect a tool is it?

The tool that's imprefect is your camera. IF it responded exactly as Thomas Knoll's unit he used to build the profiles in CR, there would be no need to use the calibrate tab (which IS there to tweak the differences, without the need of a target).

Of you can simply build a user default rendering for your flames, without resorting to a target if you so desire.

There's no universal issue with red's oranges here. YOUR camera or your rendering style may require a different set of rendering settings to produce the color appearance YOU desire. After all, Raw is Grayscale data. Its your job to render the image as you hope it to appear:

http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Di...ment_basics.pdf
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6983


WWW
« Reply #55 on: November 13, 2007, 11:42:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But if you have to calibrate ACR before you can get ACR to work, it's not that perfect a tool is it? And the difficulties some people have had with ACR and Oranges/Reds would not have been mentioned if it was not a problem for some. Also if you use Nikon/Canon/Olympus/Leaf..etc, you may have greater or lesser issues with ACR.
BTW I really like ACR and find it faster/better to use than LR when doing batches of images. And even though I regard myself as being fast/competent with ACR, it still takes more a little more time than a nicely exposed JPEG, so if I need an image quickly....and generally if one needs an image quickly, the last few drops one can get from RAW won't be missed.
The first time I ever used digital professionally was for a CD ROM and rather than shoot on film [this was a few years back], scan in and process and downsize, I used a Camcorder with a stills facility. The pitures weren't exactly ideal for A3 mag spreads but absolutely perfect for the job in hand, that allied to being able to use a LCD screen I could use for framing when shooting in awkward spots and auto white balancing, made a less than exciting job a whole lot easier.
I simply use the best tool for the job.  Sometimes ACR is a great power tool and sometimes a JPEG is the perfect hammer, when you want to err, nail something quickly.  
And a competent reader would have noticed I shoot RAW + JPEG and I don't advocate the use of JPEGs for ultimate quality. To repeat myself, I use RAW when time permits and I may on occasion use JPEG when time doesn't or if the JPEG is more than good enough.

As for the 'not suitable for fine art period.' What snobbish + ignorant nonsense. Shows how little you know about art. Art photography can very often be very poor when it comes to technical quality.
Fine art is not exclusively high quality, maximum dynamic range, no grain..etc. It can often be snapshot camera in quality. http://www.thedailynice.com/site.html is the site of a photographer who has been exhibited [ever heard of the Tate?] and lectures in photography. Personally I'm not a fan of his work and he eschews technical matters as he doesn't think they are that important. And still he is seen as a fine art photographer.
Plenty of images/exhibitions at the Photographer's gallery in London are of the quality that would be sneered at here by the pixel peepers.  I'm pretty sure a Jurgen Teller exhibition I saw a while back was snapshot quality images.
http://www.designboom.com/portrait/teller.html

Some of the most popular images in my A3 print portfolio were taken on an ancient Ixus II a 2.1MP compact with no RAW option. And I once used a really rubbish watch camera to document a dance night. I also seem to recall a Paul MacCartney album used the same watch for the album cover and artwork a short while later. If you are creative, you can exploit the 'flaws' to make something interesting/appealing. I used my S60 to do film stills for a shoot once instead of my DSLR, I could shoot during takes [near silent in action] and the poorer quality, which I exaggerated was perfect for the subsequent artwork/stills.
  To quote Anton Corbijn " The idea of perfection is a bit boring and I like the idea of imperfection in a way. And the way I work imperfection is built in"  He certainly never worries about getting the maximum shadow detail. Still uses film too I think.
http://www.corbijn.co.uk/frameset_works.htm

As for this sad comment from mistybreeze "When it comes to quality, I'm a total snob, which is why I chuckle when I meet a photographer who shoots JPEG. I can't help my reaction and nor can I ever settle for less than RAW. " Do you also think wearing certain labels make you a better person too? You sound just like the talentless muppets I've come across who wouldn't use anything less than a Leica, as "nothing else was good enough". Didn't make their pictures any less boring.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152456\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

JJ - there's something you are missing here: you do NOT NEED to calibrate ACR to use it *properly*. Calibration is a feature provided so that IF YOU MANAGE to produce a better profile for your specific camera than Thomas Knoll produced for your camera model, loading that profile will add convenience to your workflow. But you can still get perfectly satisfactory quality from CR without loading a custom profile - it may just mean an additional tweak or two.

We are agreed to use the best tool for the needs of the job.

When I talk about "fine art photographs", I'm not talking ignorant or snobbish nonsense. I have a very specific genre in mind about what defines a fine-art photograph, which does not exclude other kinds of photographs from being art. However I shouldn't blame you for not understanding that distinction since I didn't detail it.   But I can blame you for using aggressive personalized language to describe a point of view that you may be able to relate to if that distinction were clear enough to you - get it? Well, if you don't, I'll let you ponder it for a while, and if you think you still want a more detailed explanation, it's your for the asking.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #56 on: November 13, 2007, 01:33:57 PM »
ReplyReply

[/quote]

Ever heard of slide film. You had to get it right in camera, no safety net of LR/ACR/PS afterwards? I don't rely on the camera to calculate perfect exposure/WB, I decide exposure. Maybe you'd spend less time in post in you relied less on the camera.  
The argument makes perfect sense if JPEGs are good enough  for the job. And if you shoot both.....what's the problem?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

Referring to the images I attached previously:

If there is a way I could have "properly" captured it as an in-camera jpeg - I'd love to know . . . .
Logged

Scott_Eaton
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #57 on: November 13, 2007, 09:16:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't rely on the camera to calculate perfect exposure/WB, I decide exposure

Give me a break. Most amatuer slide shooters had no clue what they were going to get other than noting that some slide films yield stronger saturation than others. If a green or yellow didn't render correctly, big deal. All that matters is that the saturation and faky micotrast detracted from other image problems. Even professional commercial guys stuck with EPP, EPN and EPD till the end, and those films had a color gamut that makes sRGB look like a lite-brite. Also note that slide films *only* record a semi accurate portrayal of the scene under the color temp they are engineered for. Anything other than high noon or flash with daylight balanced slide films = distortion and random number generators.

Back to Mr. Rockwell for a second, I've noticed that the only work on his site of any note are his older DisneyChrome Velvia shots. He doesn't have anything of note taken with dSLR. Given the garish tonality of most landscape Velvia scans you could fit most of the data into a .GIF and not suffer much.

I'll note the same arguement I've had with my film zealots to this day, and what they don't want to admit is they prefer film because it *thinks* for them, and/or they want a random number generator. dSLR capture by contrast is inherently extremely linear and really does require some degree of PP to make it look aethestically pleasing. Canon/Nikon and Olympus are really good at incorporating these curves into their camera parameters, so I'm wondering if the problem really isn't just the conversion to JPEG that causes all the image problems.

Initially I wasn't too sold on RAW because the tools were clunky, but now that converters and workflows are better implemented I don't bother with JPEG unless I'm positive that RAW won't deliver a quantitative return. As soon as you run into an issue you can't fix with a JPEG your habits quickly turn to sticking with RAW though.

Another thing nobody has mentioned. Contrary to myth, RAW *does not* bypass all in camera processing unless somebody knows a RAW converter that turns off AA and all that other nonsense than Nikon/Canon use too much. With JPEG, it's a lot more limiting to chew through AA softness an other sensor limitations because those sensor aberations get locked into the file format and can't be filtered out. With RAW, you can far better isolate a proper sharpening technique or tonal adjustment that doesn't bang heads with JPEG artifacts or over zealous AA.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2007, 09:23:47 PM by Scott_Eaton » Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #58 on: November 13, 2007, 11:21:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Back to Mr. Rockwell for a second, I've noticed that the only work on his site of any note are his older DisneyChrome Velvia shots. He doesn't have anything of note taken with dSLR. Given the garish tonality of most landscape Velvia scans you could fit most of the data into a .GIF and not suffer much.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152617\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Rockwell recently put up a number of photos taken within the last month from the Eastern Sierra/Yosemite area. Taken with a, I think, 5D. Several of them are, IMO quite nice.

Rockwell takes a lot of crap but the truth is that his site is much more accessable to the everyday hobbist with a camera than many.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2007, 11:22:27 PM by macgyver » Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #59 on: November 14, 2007, 05:09:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The degree of convenience built-in to automated features is a completely separate issue from what is being discussed here - whether the application has "known issues" handling certain colours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


 I'm entitled to my comments as much as you!!!!!!   the post was and still is about calibration as much as it is about slide film, and fine art.  Or was it Jpeg v Raw?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2007, 05:13:50 AM by sniper » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad