Prev: New Infrared Gallery
Next: Back-illumination doesn't seem very effective
From: tony cooper on 6 Aug 2010 13:53
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:45:32 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net>
wrote:

>On 06/08/2010 14:27, ransley wrote:
>
>> I use Adobe and just save as it prompts me, is that the proper way? I
>> wonder since Canons jpeg is optimised if I am not going backwards with
>> Raw and missing what they have put major effort into perfecting. How
>> is dynamic range improved? Color balance controls in editing are the
>> same, how is Raw better?
>
>When you open your original JPEG for editing, do at once a Save As and
>pick the Photoshop standard file type (PSD). Thus all mods will apply to
>this PSD and will be lossless. Once you are happy with the changes
>export to JPEG (under a different name)

If I open a jpeg for editing, I automatically create a new duplicate
background layer (Control-J). Any SAVE action saves it as a .psd.
The editing will be done on the dupe layer.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 6 Aug 2010 20:12
Barry <bfeinstein(a)spamblocked.com> wrote:

> With an EVF, the exposure and color-balance
> that you see in the viewfinder is truly what you get.

Especially since EVFs are not calibrated at all.
You probably never calibrated your monitor, nor ever used a
colour target.

-Wolfgang
From: Barry on 6 Aug 2010 23:03
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 02:12:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote:

>Barry <bfeinstein(a)spamblocked.com> wrote:
>
>> With an EVF, the exposure and color-balance
>> that you see in the viewfinder is truly what you get.
>
>Especially since EVFs are not calibrated at all.
>You probably never calibrated your monitor, nor ever used a
>colour target.
>
>-Wolfgang

Especially since you've never held one camera in your whole lifetime,
troll.

From: Chris Malcolm on 7 Aug 2010 04:45
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 13:02, ransley wrote:

>> I use the T1i, dpreview gives a higher rating to Jpeg over Raw. I
>> believe its because Jpegs settings are optimised by Canon very well.
>> For my jpegs they come out very good. Is Raw recomended because jpeg
>> looses quality every time you open and close it? Is the difference
>> noticable by opening and closing it say for example 5 times printed at
>> 5x7 or 8x11? Does the loss on jpeg only occur if you completely close
>> the photo?

> This is a FAQ and dealt with in the JPEG FAQ. See Q10 of

> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/

> Opening and closing a JPEG file doesn't alter it at all unless you Save
> the file again as a JPEG *and* overwrite the original file. If you treat
> your original JPEGs are readonly then there is no problem at all.

> The level of degradation with successive saves is not huge provided that
> you work at a fixed quality level. But it is ever present. This means
> that in a workflow you want to keep work in progress saved in a lossless
> format (typically one native to the application you are using that will
> preserve layers and masks).

>> What are other benefits of Raw to make it worth the extra
>> hassle of complete editing. I am happy shooting jpeg, I am working
>> with 5 shot Photomatrix hdr and have done both Raw and jpeg [I think
>> Photomatrix loaded the jpeg] I am fully happy with the results but
>> jpeg is so much easier. I think for special photos made and composed
>> Raw may be optimal , but its time very consuming.

> Raw gives you more freedom afterwards to rescue dynamic range and adjust
> colour balance. This can be important if you know that the image will
> contain black velvet in shadow and a white bridal dress in sunlight. And
> there is little chance of retaning it if the exposure is even slightly
> off. It is hard for the in camera auto adjust and save as JPEG to get
> both exactly right simultaneously and a risk if you let it.

> Most of the time in camera JPEG encoding is fine - ie good enough.
> (some makers high quality JPEG encoding is better than others)

It's not just some makers, there can be quite a bit of variation in
jpeg quality in different models from the same maker. Often, but not
always, later models are better. In some cases the jpeg conversion
optimisation has been done so well by the maker that if you don't use
the maker's own RAW conversion software you'll have to be very skilful
indeed in your RAW processing to reach that jepg quality where
extensive white balance or exposure shifts are not required.

In other words you have to suck it and see for your own camera, your
own skills and procedures, and your chosen image editing workflow
software.

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Chris Malcolm on 7 Aug 2010 04:52
Barry <bfeinstein(a)spamblocked.com> wrote:

> One other important tip for those using JPG most of the time. Avoid using
> your camera's auto white-balance in most situations.

That depends on how good your specific camera's auto white balance
is. Some are very good, and can hardly be improved on in most
situations. Some are usually good but are poor in certain specific
conditions. Some are only good in certain specific simple
situations. And so on. You can't make general rules which apply to
all makes and models of cameras.

--
Chris Malcolm
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: New Infrared Gallery
Next: Back-illumination doesn't seem very effective