ScottW's "test' results.

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by D-Mac, Mar 27, 2007.

  1. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    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.

    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
     
    D-Mac, Mar 27, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. D-Mac

    Scott W Guest

    Well at least give the people a link to the photos how about.
    I did this test when there was a discussion as to just how much you
    could recover in blow highlights if you were shooting raw.
    http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031

    There are three images on that one, the first is properly exposed, the
    next is the over exposed +2 EV and is the jpeg right out of the camera
    the third image is how much I could recover from the raw image, pretty
    impressive.

    This was a real world case, I was on a cruise ship and we happened to
    go buy this eagle on the ice, no time to really check the exposure and
    if I had been shooting in jpeg mode only the shot would have been
    lost.
    http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980
    Then here are some other sampling, some test cases some from just
    shooting photos.
    http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53549069
    Well we have seen your photos, some of which I could save if you had a
    raw file for them.
    I have no idea what you are talking about here, I get the feeling
    neither do you.
    Hey D-Mac, do you still think I had the lens cap on for this photo?
    http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 28, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. D-Mac

    Colin_D Guest

    D-Mac wrote:
    Douglas, Douglas, there's no such thing as an 'uncompressed jpeg',
    specially right out of the camera.

    A 20D at 8.2 megapixels produces an uncompressed (8-bit)image of 24.6
    Megabytes. How big are the jpeg files from the camera? about 3-odd
    megabytes, that's how big.

    Now, please explain how a 3 MB file can contain an image of 24.6 MB
    without compression?

    Not to mention that jpeg is a lossy format, that is it throws away image
    information that subsequently can never be retrieved.

    Second point: the camera does not 'develop' raw image data as it does
    jpegs. Raw data is just that; unprocessed, and compressed by a lossless
    algorithm (except for Nikon's compressed NEF images, which are lossy.

    You've got a helluva lot to learn, I fear. It's clear your photographic
    knowledge is based on trial and error, guesswork, and empirical results
    rather than understanding theory. This shows itself in such
    proclamations as FZ50's are better than 20D's, your mistakes with DoF
    and hyperfocal distances, and saying that perspective is a lens property.

    And I thought you signed off this group a couple weeks ago? What
    happened, withdrawal symptoms appeared?

    Colin D.
     
    Colin_D, Mar 28, 2007
    #3
  4. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Hey, old Ryadia is back! Spewing his tired old "JPG is equivalent to
    RAW" nonsense.

    Hey, D-Mac, here's a pic I made today just for you.
    It's actually two versions of the same RAW file.
    The pic on the left is a straight JPG extraction from the RAW file.
    The one on the right has undergone some Photoshop processing.
    Both shots were cropped to square and re-sized for the comparison.

    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76285735/original

    I'll let you decide which version you prefer.
    Perhaps this explains why your pics look the way they do.
     
    Annika1980, Mar 28, 2007
    #4
  5. D-Mac

    Mark² Guest

    Weren't you supposed to be leaving this NG???
     
    Mark², Mar 28, 2007
    #5
  6. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    ----------------------------------
    SO Colin.. Retired EX Photographer ... Possessed with wisdom and skill no
    one gets to sample. Show us your pictures mate! Finally you acknowledge
    my existence again. How quaint. How's that poster I sent you doing?
    Figured out why the gulls are so sharp yet?

    Let's look at a a JPEG file - pretty heavily compressed by a Panasonic
    FZ50. Camera file size = 1.4 Megabytes from a 10 Mp camera. Unprocessed
    Photoshop size = 25.3 Megabytes. Ask yourself how, if the format is
    EXACTLY as you say, can a file this size actually have been opened from a
    1.4 megabyte image? Adobe black magic, perhaps?

    Now open a RAW file (they are actually 17.7 TIFF files) from the same
    camera and amazingly Photoshop opens a 25.3 megabyte file too. So Colin,
    is not an editable file from a 10 mega-pixel camera, 25.3 mega-pixels
    uncompressed?

    On your suggestion that Canon RAW files are not compressed... Maybe you
    haven't been paying attention. The only RAW format that doesn't get
    doctored -"data discarded"- is yet to be made.

    Wherever you got the notion that a camera RAW file is raw sensor data is
    wrong too but let's not let your first real attempt at shedding some of
    your Kiwi wisdom around ...be spoiled with published facts you can find
    in a few seconds with ask.com.

    I will concede that many posts I make are bait. Maybe I should call
    myself fly-caster or the like. Come to think of it... I'll admit also
    that when I visited your dark and forbidding area of the world for "A
    holiday of a lifetime" a couple of weeks ago, I said good-bye in this
    group.

    As always, you decided to read whatever you felt like in the post. The
    serious fact is, I'm here to stay. Not you, not some transvestite with a
    crush of the most despicable mongrel God ever forgot to miscarry or the
    slime-bag himself is going to move me out of a public forum which I have
    as much right as the next bloke to be in.

    If you don't like that, use your message rules to filter out my IP
    address. It's constant, regardless of what name I choose to use or when I
    choose to use a different one.

    And for the record... Changing a screen name is not illegal. Not
    providing a valid email address in your posts is against the charter of
    your ISP. Is this why you use teranews?

    In fact... Absolutely nothing I do in these groups is illegal. I don't
    try to impersonate anyone. I don't try to steal their images. I don't try
    to crack their business accounts with Goggle and until right now. I never
    told you to piss off.

    But that just changed. Get your head out of your arse and you'll see all
    those pictures you've been taking (both of them) aren't sepia tined at
    all.

    You try to impose your idea of who can and cannot post to this group just
    because you don't like me. Boo Hoo for you. Use the force Luke. Let
    messages filters be your friend and you won't bust a valve worrying about
    me coming and going as I please.

    But I gotta tell you this Kiwi joke I thought was hilarious.

    Two kiwi's looking at the clouds and one says: "My mom told me God put
    the clouds there to shelter us from the sun".

    The other (street wise - paddock-wise in your case) said: "Nah. He put it
    there so the angels couldn't see what we do to sheep when we wear our
    wellis"!

    Oh man, that just floored me with the irony of it all. Here's me thinking
    all your bleating was just a whining Kiwi when all the time the answer
    was staring me in the face! ROTFL.

    I'm real glad to be home. The bullshit you jokers are polluting our TV
    ads with is something obscene. They must be some of your pictures they
    used in the ads eh? Shot elsewhere and NZ plaster all over them just to
    make it look good.

    Douglas
     
    D-Mac, Mar 28, 2007
    #6
  7. D-Mac

    Colin_D Guest

    No, and I don't have to. I provided you with a positive reply to your
    upsizing at the time. How you did it is your secret. I accept the
    print at face value, I don't have to figure how you did it. BTW, if
    your address on the tube label is still valid I'll sent it back to you.
    I have no use for it. If you don't want it I'll probably send it to
    Mark Thomas, or Bret for their appraisal.
    Because it was *compressed*. You claimed that your jpegs were
    *uncompressed* in your previous post. Can't you keep track of what you
    wrote?
    Of course. I don't know about FZ50 files, but Canon files are *.crw,
    which are most definitely not *.TIF files.
    I did not say that Canon RAW files are not compressed. I said they
    *were* compressed with a lossless algorithm. Perhaps you better cool
    down and reread my post.
    Yes, you did. It sounded final. You didn't say it was for only two
    weeks. Twisting facts again, Doug.
    Your turns of phrase, and the state of mind that expresses them are
    beyond comprehension.
    What??? I have never commented on your chameleon-like changes of
    nom-de-plume. Why attack me for that??

    As for Teranews, I started to use them when my ISP - like a lot of ISPs
    - decided to drop newsgroups, and I had to surf around for a news
    server. Teranews gives me 50 MB per day free, where all other servers I
    found wanted a minimum of $US 7.50 a month. The spoofed address, like
    thousands of other posters do, is for spam protection, nothing else. I
    get from none to maybe five or so spams max per day, which is how I like
    it. And my post name has always been Colin D, which as you well know is
    my real name, and the initial of my surname.
    I haven't told you to 'piss off' either. Nor have I stolen any of your
    images.You're confusing me with Bret there. I did say 'thank christ'
    when you gave the (false) impression you were leaving, and I have
    advised you to get help for your state of mind, but I haven't ever told
    you to piss off.
    God help me, Doug. Where do you get this paranoid nonsense from? I
    have never told you you cannot post to this - or any other - group. Get
    a grip, man.
    Haha. Boy, you really do live in the past over there. That kiwi/sheep
    joke is as old as the hills. Older even than the one about the ANZAC
    forces in Egypt in the war. An Aussie sergeant was doing the rounds,
    and found himself in a Kiwi encampment. He asked what the boys did for
    entertainment this far out in the desert, so they showed him a small
    defile in the desert nearby, where a camel was tethered. The Aussie
    thought a moment, then said "alright, back to camp boys, I'll be along
    in a minute." He duly arrived back at the Kiwi camp, with his trousers
    all wet down the front. The Kiwis stared in amazement, then said "but
    sir, we ride the camel to Cairo on Saturday nights!"
    Do us a favor, Doug. See that shrink.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin_D, Mar 28, 2007
    #7
  8. D-Mac

    michelo Guest

    Bret, I don't know if you have one already done, but could you show us an
    example from a raw and jpg where you show how much more information there is
    in the highlight and shadow. But to be a valid example, they must have the
    same exposure and they should go thru the same Photoshop manipulation to
    emphasize the lost information.

    Thank you,

    Michel
     
    michelo, Mar 28, 2007
    #8
  9. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    WOW! This post deserves a spot in the D-Mac Hall of Fame!
    It has everything, from D-Mac's misunderstanding of file sizes, to the
    obligatory slam at me, to attacking anyone who disagrees with him
    while throwing in his nationalistic prejudices against anyone who
    doesn't live in Australia. Anyone wanting to know why we pick on D-
    Mac need only read this post.

    Let's start the carnage...

    No, D-Mac, it's simple math. Really.
    No, it is not. Let me explain it to ya.
    Each pixel takes up a certain number of bytes in a file.
    In a Grayscale file, each pixel uses 1 byte.
    In an 8-bit RGB file each pixel takes up 3 bytes (4 if it is CYMK).
    In a 16-bit RGB file each bit takes up 6 bytes.

    So using my 20D as an example I open up a 3504x2336 image in Photoshop
    as a 16-Bit RGB file. The little Document Size window on the status
    bar tells me that the document size is now 46.8 MB.
    Did my file magically grow? Is this Adobe Black Magic?
    No.

    Using my handy keyboard calculator I see that the image contains
    8,185,344 pixels (8.2MP). If I convert this image as a 16-Bit RGB
    file as I normally do that would yield a
    file size of 8185344 * 6 = 49,112,064 bytes.
    Divide this number by 1,048,576 (there are 1,048,576 bytes in a
    MegaByte) and you get 46.8 MB, just like it says in Photoshop.

    Note that these are Mega-BYTES not Mega-PIXELS as you claim.
    The pixel count hasn't changed. The file size changes depending on
    what color mode the image is in.

    I hope you got all this, D-Mac, cause there's gonna be a test later.




    Yeah, we know ..... "I meant to do that."
    "I only post my bad pics." Blah-blah-blah....
    "Do you really want to hurt me?
    Do you really want to make me cry?"


    The Goggle? Is that on one of the Internets?
    BWAHAHAHAAAA!!!!

    Welcome Back, D-Mac! How's that FBI case comin along?
     
    Annika1980, Mar 28, 2007
    #9
  10. D-Mac

    Draco Guest

    (snip)
    Douglas, You had said that you were never returning to this NG. Glad
    you changed your mind. If you don't mind to not being a "...fly-caster
    or the like..." so much. It really brings the IQ of the group down
    quite a bit.

    Huh?? For the images he posted showing the differences there wasn't a
    one that was B&W "...sepia t(o)ined..." They all seemed to be in full
    color. If it is a differant image you are refering to please link it
    so we can see what you are talking about.

    You are preset in your believe in the difference in raw and jpg. Only
    thing I can offer in this discussion is this. You order a pizza with
    pepperoni, mushrooms and extra cheese. Good to eat, right? That is
    JPG.
    Now, you have the dough, sauce, pepperoni, sausage, mushrooms,
    spinach, black olives,meatballs, onions, green peppers, ham,
    anchovies, pineapples, Canadian bacon, banana peppers, and feta
    cheese. All this in front of you, This is RAW. You have all the
    choices to make whatever you want and you still have the ingredents to
    make more. You haven't lost anything. I can not say I thought of this
    analagy but it makes sense to me. Hope it helps.

    Keep shooting Douglas. I know (in my mind) that there are quite a lot
    of folks who enjoy your work. I'm one.


    Draco

    Getting even isn't good enough.
    Being better does.
     
    Draco, Mar 28, 2007
    #10
  11. D-Mac

    Draco Guest

    Draco, Mar 28, 2007
    #11
  12. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    ------------------
    I wouldn't expect these zealots to do that Michel... BUT I WILL.
    http://www.ryadia.com/rawjpeg-example.htm
    The picture was constructed from simultaneously shot RAW and JPEG images.
    Sorry it's not from a 20D Canon but these are the breaks when you live on
    an Island and run your business on the mainland. I only have the
    Panasonic with me.

    To expect the three stooges and their Kiwi puppet to acknowledge that
    what they've been force feeding everyone for years might actually be
    wrong, is like expecting them to embrace the idea that photography is
    about making photographs, not computer images.

    Douglas
     
    D-Mac, Mar 28, 2007
    #12
  13. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    When I have to answer to the likes of you scoundrels for what I do and
    where I go, you better get some warm clothes because hell will have
    frozen over.
     
    D-Mac, Mar 28, 2007
    #13
  14. D-Mac

    TheDave© Guest

    I did Teranews for awhile. Whenever they had a problem the free part
    was let to slide while they fixed for paying customers first... which I
    fully understand, of course, but I was impatient. I ended up paying
    another server, but I forget exactly why I didn't stick with Teranews.
     
    TheDave©, Mar 28, 2007
    #14
  15. D-Mac

    michelo Guest

    In theory, if you open both files to darken the white feathers and lighten
    the black one, you should see that only the RAW picture reveal some details
    because in the jpeg file the compression discarded it. That's the kind of
    example I would like to see to give an idea of how much you can really
    recover from a RAW file.

    Michel
     
    michelo, Mar 28, 2007
    #15
  16. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    I believe he requested two pics with the same processing on each side.
    Your comparison is a joke, right? More bait?

    Those are the breaks when you only own a crappy Panasonic and have to
    borrow the 20D or the 5D from relatives.
     
    Annika1980, Mar 28, 2007
    #16
  17. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Expecting a fair comparison from D-Mac is kinda like expecting a cow
    to start squirting champagne.
     
    Annika1980, Mar 28, 2007
    #17
  18. D-Mac

    Scott W Guest

    With the 350D most of the gain in dynamic range is on the high end,
    the highlights, but there is some worthwhile gain in the shadows as
    well. Of course you can balance the gain but shooting a little more
    exposure and loose some of the gains in the highlight and get more in
    the shadows.

    So here is a test I did, I shoot raw+jpeg and then converted the raw
    image to a tiff, bringing in much of the blown highlights that were
    lost in the jpeg.

    This is the jpeg out of the camera.
    http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/jpeg_from_camera.JPG

    This is the raw file for anyone who wants to play with it, size about
    9.4 MB
    http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/IMG_5477.CR2

    This is the tiff that I got from the raw file, warning this is about
    48 MB in size.
    http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/ IMG_5477-1.tif

    This is what the tiff looks like when converted to jpeg, this lets you
    see the recovered highlights.
    http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/Tiff_converted_to_jpeg.jpg

    This is a section of the shadows from the jpeg image where I have
    lightened it so you can see what detail have been captured and what
    noise is in the image.
    http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/jpeg_adjusted.jpg

    This is the same section but this time I adjusted the tiff image,
    saving as jpeg after the adjustments were made. Note this is some odd
    aspects to the shadow area of the jpeg image that look better in the
    tiff image.
    http://www.sewcon.com/drange_jpeg_raw/Tiff_adjusted.jpg

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 28, 2007
    #18
  19. D-Mac

    Draco Guest


    Scoundrel? Hmmmm.

    Sir, I have been nothing if nice to you and your rants. I understand
    that your "buttons" had been pushed. I even defended your choice of
    images and the way you "produced" them. And you call me a scoundrel?
    Shame on you sir, shame.

    If that wasn't you who said they were gone, then all you had to say
    was, not me. I didn't post that thread. That would have been good
    enough for me. Instead you attack and defame my good character with
    your amaterurish attempts of being a boarish, over bearing oaf that
    can not realize when he is being a huge pile of dung. Sir, from this
    time on you are no longer worthy of any help.


    Draco

    Getting even isn't good enough.



    Being better does.
     
    Draco, Mar 28, 2007
    #19
  20. D-Mac

    Walter Banks Guest

    There are two effects of jpg compression that you should be
    able to see. The example that Bret posted sure showed the
    dynamic range differences in brightness. Most of the raw
    images in Canon SLR's (yeah Canon) sample at 12 bits
    adding two stops to the dynamic range of the jpg .

    The second effect is losses due to compression of the image
    in a jpg. Some of the point and shoots 3 or 4 years ago
    offered compression levels vs memory card size requirements.
    Increasing the compression level loses detail in the image.
    For example the tiny pinfeathers on a Downy or Hairy
    Woodpeckers back get expanded as a essentially a
    single color. This high frequency detail can not be restored
    with any amount of sharpening.

    w..
     
    Walter Banks, Mar 28, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.