Maybe it's about a good image, a well-processed image and not about RAW/JPG (Page 10): The advantages with a TIFF are twofold. First, they are lossless. You can save and edit...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

BigDaddy wrote:

... I personally haven't used TIFF files since PHOTOGRAFX, long, long before raw files were available. ...

The advantages with a TIFF are twofold.

First, they are lossless. You can save and edit repeatedly and nothing is lost due to compression.

Second and more important, a 16-bit TIFF has the potential for 65536 values for each color - 256x as many as for any 8-bit image including an 8-bit TIFF. You can make many subtle changes in tonality, color, vignette and gradient without producing any visible banding. When you are done you can convert it back to 8 bits. An 8-bit TIFF will be half as big but a JPEG can compress it even more. If you don't compress aggressively, you probably won't be able to see the difference.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

jenny wrote:

* * * * *
Maybe you meant the only thing that SHOULD matter is the image? Obviously it doesn't matter how you phrase or define
anything because for some people the process matters MORE !!! Therefore a raw snapshot may be "better" than a JPEG masterpiece,
but only would they believe maybe if we still had Galen Rowell to tell them.

I guess I was referring to the viewer. If that viewer likes the image he doesn'y know the details of how the image was made. Same for a painting, the viewer doesn't know what brushes the painter used. And unless that wiewer is interested in technique (either painting or photography)That viewer doesn't care. So the only thing that matters is the image.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

TheDman wrote:

Here is a side by side comparison, raw and jpg, straight out of the camera, default settings. The difference is so severe I can even see it on my phone. ...

What you are seeing is because your camera is not set up correctly to produce a better JPEG.

The difference is more likely the result of how much sharpening the camera did or did not do when it created the JPEG.

Both images contain the same number of pixels so both have the same potential for sharpness.

TheDman Loc: USA

selmslie wrote:

What you are seeing is because your camera is not set up correctly to produce a better JPEG.

The difference is more likely the result of how much sharpening the camera did or did not do when it created the JPEG.

Both images contain the same number of pixels so both have the same potential for sharpness.

No, it's the result of noise reduction being automatically applied, as the thread detail was
completely destroyed. That doesn't have anything to do with sharpening.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

TheDman wrote:

No, it's the result of noise reduction being automatically applied, as the thread detail was
completely destroyed. That doesn't have anything to do with sharpening.

Noise reduction and sharpening are two sides of the same see-saw.

Your JPEG used too much noise reduction so it destroyed the detail.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

BigDaddy wrote:

I process every single jpg worth keeping. If you don't understand what I'm getting at you're not trying. I don't understand what you are getting at when you say "if shooting JPG, not so much" It's particularly confusing since I do process all my jpgs worth spending time with. You say no one has said you cannot process JPEG, perhaps, but almost everyone wearing the raw t-shirt insinuates/says exactly that. Even you, in this post, insinuated it when you said "if shooting jpeg, not so much" I've seen numerous posts on this subject that make it seem if you take only jpg, you might as well leave your lens cap on.

I agree that all RAW photo's must be post processed, even if just to get them to the quality of the jpg. To go past that, rarely does it make any difference if the original was jpg or raw. With a jpg, I can change the white balance, brightness, add blur, remove haze, change shoe color, fix red eye, remove wrinkles, fix your nose, zits, arm fat, replace sky or your ex's head with that of a goat. Can I win photo contests, don't know, don't care.

To me, the main value of raw is it forces a few SOOC folks to get into editing. Editing is my main photo hobby, not that I mind taking pictures, but I don't spend days designing a photo shoot, and hours getting just the right picture. I actually think I take pictures so I can load them into my editor an spend some quality time with them. Been doing exactly that since long before raw was available. When it became available I naturally fooled with it long enough to discover it had no real benefits to me, and YES I have a good understanding of what raw is, and what jpg is, and yes, I love editng photo's. Jpg and editing are not close to mutually exclusive.

And no, I could not in a million years tell if your snapshot of a flower vs your 2 artistic shots of flowers were shot in RAW or JPG. No idea. I'd say both artistic shots had the background edited out, or, were taken with a black velvet sheet behind the flower. I've a ton of flowers like that taken in jpg that I replaced the background with black, or some other appropriate color. Zero, nada, nothing to do with raw or jpg.

I process every single jpg worth keeping. If you ... (show quote)

Big daddy you got in goin on son!! I agree with you very well stated😁👏👏

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

chasgroh wrote:

...do you mean he's not truth-telling? Because "anecdotal" has that as its base, personal experience included. When I read stuff like this "story," I tend to think that the writer actually read of the account in a bio/history and is simply recalling in his own words.

You are correct. The story came from his from one of his studio assistants that went on to do simular work as Ansel's. If I remember right, the assistant was John Sexton.

blackest Loc: Ireland

selmslie wrote:

What you are seeing is because your camera is not set up correctly to produce a better JPEG.

The difference is more likely the result of how much sharpening the camera did or did not do when it created the JPEG.

Both images contain the same number of pixels so both have the same potential for sharpness.

I would have thought excessive noise reduction. the weave is being confused with high frequency noise.

It's not really what this thread was intended to be about raw and jpeg are diversions that are easy to argue about but have nothing to do with a good image really, only how much you can polish it really. Pretty much post processing as far as tones are concerned is getting them to reveal or hide detail within the range we can reproduce. In normal light looking at a piece of white card isn't going to be too bright for the eye but if we go out and look directly at the sun we might never be able to see anything again. So we really map what we see in the world into a smaller tone space so relatively they can represent what we see in the real world.

Part of seeing is how our brains are wired e.g looking out a window we can see different colors we can also see tones inside the room as well. For a camera either we see the tones outside and inside is in near darkness or we see the tones inside and outside is blown out. If our eyes work similarly to a camera we wouldn't be able to see the range we do. So some of what we are seeing is probably memory as we adjust our focus on the world around us.

What we see is one concentrated range of tones really.

It's easy to argue about raw and jpeg and 14 bit 12 bit 8 bit tones but really that wasn't the intention of this thread but a much harder question what makes a good image? This is a much harder thing to pin down. I'm doubtful it can be expressed in words.

If anybody can quantify what makes a good image then there would be a photographer who can always make a good image.
I'm unaware of any photographer who succeeds every time. So there is no quick and easy rule.

Rule of thirds? No you can apply that and make a bad image same with sharpness or any other single aspect.

It appears to be a combination of things but seems impossible to nail down. Which is why i think this thread has been derailed by the old raw and jpeg argument because thats relatively easy to argue but whats a good image pretty much leaves us stumped. If we really knew the answer we would be out producing excellent photographs and earning from every shot.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

BigDaddy wrote:

I process every single jpg worth keeping. If you don't understand what I'm getting at you're not trying. I don't understand what you are getting at when you say "if shooting JPG, not so much" It's particularly confusing since I do process all my jpgs worth spending time with. You say no one has said you cannot process JPEG, perhaps, but almost everyone wearing the raw t-shirt insinuates/says exactly that. Even you, in this post, insinuated it when you said "if shooting jpeg, not so much" I've seen numerous posts on this subject that make it seem if you take only jpg, you might as well leave your lens cap on.

I agree that all RAW photo's must be post processed, even if just to get them to the quality of the jpg. To go past that, rarely does it make any difference if the original was jpg or raw. With a jpg, I can change the white balance, brightness, add blur, remove haze, change shoe color, fix red eye, remove wrinkles, fix your nose, zits, arm fat, replace sky or your ex's head with that of a goat. Can I win photo contests, don't know, don't care.

To me, the main value of raw is it forces a few SOOC folks to get into editing. Editing is my main photo hobby, not that I mind taking pictures, but I don't spend days designing a photo shoot, and hours getting just the right picture. I actually think I take pictures so I can load them into my editor an spend some quality time with them. Been doing exactly that since long before raw was available. When it became available I naturally fooled with it long enough to discover it had no real benefits to me, and YES I have a good understanding of what raw is, and what jpg is, and yes, I love editng photo's. Jpg and editing are not close to mutually exclusive.

And no, I could not in a million years tell if your snapshot of a flower vs your 2 artistic shots of flowers were shot in RAW or JPG. No idea. I'd say both artistic shots had the background edited out, or, were taken with a black velvet sheet behind the flower. I've a ton of flowers like that taken in jpg that I replaced the background with black, or some other appropriate color. Zero, nada, nothing to do with raw or jpg.

I process every single jpg worth keeping. If you ... (show quote)

Ok. Actually, on the flowers with a black background. I said that one was shot indoors, thus a black cloth. The other one, however, the Dogwood against the Merced River was shot outdoors on-site. Fun to be able to get a black background when shooting on site.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

selmslie wrote:

The advantages with a TIFF are twofold. br br F... (show quote)

OK, I said PDF but meant photoshops PSD file format. Don't know why I said PDF, I never created a pdf file in my life. PSD files are lossless and can be saved over and over without loss due to compression, and preserve all the layers and edits, and can be 16 bit, and raster or vector images. Not saying which to use, but, if editing in Photoshop, there is no reason not to use PSD files that I have experienced. I used TIFF files because they were the lossless format MICROGRAFIX used many, many years ago. (Originally said Photografix)

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

blackest wrote:

I would have thought excessive noise reduction. the weave is being confused with high frequency noise.

It's not really what this thread was intended to be about raw and jpeg are diversions that are easy to argue about but have nothing to do with a good image really, only how much you can polish it really. Pretty much post processing as far as tones are concerned is getting them to reveal or hide detail within the range we can reproduce. In normal light looking at a piece of white card isn't going to be too bright for the eye but if we go out and look directly at the sun we might never be able to see anything again. So we really map what we see in the world into a smaller tone space so relatively they can represent what we see in the real world.

Part of seeing is how our brains are wired e.g looking out a window we can see different colors we can also see tones inside the room as well. For a camera either we see the tones outside and inside is in near darkness or we see the tones inside and outside is blown out. If our eyes work similarly to a camera we wouldn't be able to see the range we do. So some of what we are seeing is probably memory as we adjust our focus on the world around us.

What we see is one concentrated range of tones really.

It's easy to argue about raw and jpeg and 14 bit 12 bit 8 bit tones but really that wasn't the intention of this thread but a much harder question what makes a good image? This is a much harder thing to pin down. I'm doubtful it can be expressed in words.

If anybody can quantify what makes a good image then there would be a photographer who can always make a good image.
I'm unaware of any photographer who succeeds every time. So there is no quick and easy rule.

Rule of thirds? No you can apply that and make a bad image same with sharpness or any other single aspect.

It appears to be a combination of things but seems impossible to nail down. Which is why i think this thread has been derailed by the old raw and jpeg argument because thats relatively easy to argue but whats a good image pretty much leaves us stumped. If we really knew the answer we would be out producing excellent photographs and earning from every shot.

I would have thought excessive noise reduction. th... (show quote)

Thanks so much for the great reply.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

blackest wrote:

I would have thought excessive noise reduction. the weave is being confused with high frequency noise. ...

That's what I said in my next post.

selmslie wrote:

Noise reduction and sharpening are two sides of the same see-saw.

Your JPEG used too much noise reduction so it destroyed the detail.

The problem is that TheDman knows how to edit the raw file but apparently does not know how to set up his camera to create a decent JPEG.

What he has presented as evidence is an image processed well from raw and a poorly processed JPEG. That's not a fair comparison.

But this thread is "not about raw/JPEG." He has his own thread on that topic and he has put people on his 'Ignore' list that could point out his fallacy.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

BigDaddy wrote:

OK, I said PDF but meant photoshops PSD file format. ...

I figured that you know the difference and just miss-typed it.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

via the lens wrote:

Actually, he had an almost photographic memory (no pun intended). He could remember exactly what happened in even his very early years. For him, f/stop and shutter speed did matter and he was most likely being somewhat funny in his response; he also had a tremendous and at times, inappropriate, sense of humor.

Ansel Adams had a good respect for the importance of every individual. One of the other stories he related was that Ansel was talking to the garbage man. His assistant came out and told him that the President of the United States was on the phone wanting him to do a formal photograph. He told the assistant to tell him that he would be there in minute and then continued on to finish his conversation with the garbage man. Talking to the garbage man was no less important that talking to the President.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

davyboy wrote:

Big daddy you got in goin on son!! I agree with you very well statedððð

Thanks davyboy, always good to know at least 2 people agree with me, and don't wear the t-shirt...