Maybe it's about a good image, a well-processed image and not about RAW/JPG
May 20, 2017 13:56:57 #
selmslie wrote:
I figured that you know the difference and just miss-typed it.
Thanks for the confidence, but, I also said Photografix, but spent half hour looking for its birth date on the web, no such program. I then looked through some old CD's and found MicroGrafix, and Photo Delux, and... lots of really old stuff.
Nothing was really miss-typed, just old brain syndrome. Micrografix was bought out by Coral. I used it before that happened, before I owned a digital camera, which I got my first digital in 1999, but was editing jpgs a good while before that.
May 20, 2017 15:17:48 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
selmslie wrote:
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.
"Setting it up" would involve turning off all the in-camera processing, and if you're going to do that then what is the advantage to shooting jpg again?
Ignore allows me to keep people away who would ruin threads, as you've done before and are doing again.
May 20, 2017 15:19:56 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
selmslie wrote:
Noise reduction and sharpening are two sides of the same see-saw.
They are complete opposites. Photos don't lose detail because they weren't sharpened enough. They lose detail because they were blurred.
May 20, 2017 15:51:15 #
TheDman wrote:
"Setting it up" would involve turning off all the in-camera processing, and if you're going to do that then what is the advantage to shooting jpg again? ...
If you don't understand the trade-off between noise reduction and sharpening that's your problem.
If you don't know how to change the level of noise reduction/sharpening that your camera applies to a JPEG then you don't know how to set up your camera. You don't need to turn off all in-camera processing unless you don't remember how how many things you screwed up in the first place. Those settings (white balance, noise/sharpening, contrast, saturation, vivid, monochrome, etc.) do not affect the raw file.
On your own thread and this one you presented a comparison between a raw file properly converted on your computer and a JPEG that your camera created with the wrong settings. I'm not the only one who has pointed this out. It's simply not an honest comparison.
But above all of that, this thread is not about RAW/JPG and you are trying to hijack it. Please don't.
May 20, 2017 15:55:18 #
TheDman wrote:
They are complete opposites. Photos don't lose detail because they weren't sharpened enough. They lose detail because they were blurred.
A blurred JPEG comes from a blurred raw file. A noisy JPEG comes from one with too much sharpening. A JPEG with less detail than the raw file has received too much noise reduction.
Now get back to the subject of this thread and talk about something that is not about RAW/JPG.
May 20, 2017 16:36:34 #
wdross wrote:
Ansel Adams had a good respect for the importance ... (show quote)
Thanks for the story, I'm an avid reader regarding Ansel.
May 20, 2017 16:50:12 #
So, someone brought up sharpening and noise, which fits in with a book I am reading, written by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe, (an older book -2010). These two people were involved with Lightroom and Photoshop in regards to sharpening: Bruce Fraser (deceased now) developed a sharpening tool, PhotoKit Sharpener, and consulted on the development of the advanced capture sharpening that went into Camera Raw 4.1 and Lightroom 1.1 so they are experts on the topic of sharpening and how both PS and LR are affected. They say that "most sharpening routines emphasize the noise as well as the edges" in digital capture. The tool has trouble determining what is happening with the edges (real information or noise?), since sharpening only works on edges. Yes, sharpening takes place on pixels, but it is pixel edges that are actually sharpened. They emphasis that all sharpening, output sharpening or capture, must be done at the end of the process. They give lots of information for both LR and PS. What do you think?
May 20, 2017 17:02:10 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
selmslie wrote:
If you don't understand the trade-off between noise reduction and sharpening that's your problem.
The person with the problem is the one who thinks not sharpening an image makes it more blurry. Others have corrected you as well, and you've already agreed with them and me. You just want to keep arguing with me because you're a troll with some weird obsession with me that's getting creepy.
selmslie wrote:
On your own thread and this one you presented a comparison between a raw file properly converted
On your own thread and this one you presented a comparison between a raw file properly converted
Properly converted? That was a screenshot of it sitting in ACR without having touched a slider.
selmslie wrote:
]
But above all of that, this thread is not about RAW/JPG and you are trying to hijack it. Please don't.
But above all of that, this thread is not about RAW/JPG and you are trying to hijack it. Please don't.
The one hijacking threads is the guy who keeps jumping in to argue with me when I wasn't even talking to them. And you wonder why you're banned.
May 20, 2017 17:02:33 #
via the lens wrote:
Thanks for the story, I'm an avid reader regarding Ansel.
you might enjoy this page it was an interview given not long before he died.
http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/art%20news/905N-000-001.html
May 20, 2017 17:04:17 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
selmslie wrote:
A blurred JPEG comes from a blurred raw file.
Wrong. A blurred jpg in this case came from a sharp raw file that has too much noise reduction applied to it. You're clearly not qualified to be discussing this.
May 20, 2017 17:08:10 #
blackest wrote:
you might enjoy this page it was an interview given not long before he died.
http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/art%20news/905N-000-001.html
http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/art%20news/905N-000-001.html
Thanks, I've printed it. I recently saw and held in my own hands photos from a portfolio he put out in the early 60s. Portfolio IV. My friends own this and keep it in a plastic box under their bed, it's worth around $50,000!! What a treat it was, to see his original photos. No noise at all in those photos! I have many of his books.
May 20, 2017 17:57:01 #
TheDman wrote:
Wrong. A blurred jpg in this case came from a sharp raw file that has too much noise reduction applied to it. You're clearly not qualified to be discussing this.
That's exactly what we have been telling you! Your camera settings applied too much noise reduction. You need to adjust your camera's JPEG settings. Duh!
Apparently you are not qualified to capture a JPEG image.
May 20, 2017 18:14:15 #
JimBob, did anyone hold a gun to your head and make you wade through the hundreds of boring pages relating to RAW vs. JPEG?
May 20, 2017 18:27:22 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
selmslie wrote:
That's exactly what we have been telling you!
Really? Let's review what you've been telling me:
selmslie wrote:
The difference is more likely the result of how much sharpening the camera did or did not do when it created the JPEG.
This is wrong. Sharpening is not noise reduction. The two are completely different functions.
selmslie wrote:
A blurred JPEG comes from a blurred raw file.
Wrong again in the instance being discussed, as sharp detail can clearly be seen in the raw.
So you were wrong twice already in this most recent thread you've attacked me in, and as usual are too much of a troll to admit it.
May 20, 2017 19:08:06 #
TheDman wrote:
... So you were wrong twice already in this most recent thread you've attacked me in, and as usual are too much of a troll to admit it.
I also said:
1. No, it's the result of noise reduction being automatically applied, as the ... detail was completely destroyed.
2. Noise reduction and sharpening are two sides of the same see-saw.
3. If you don't understand the trade-off between noise reduction and sharpening that's your problem.
And blackest said: I would have thought excessive noise reduction.
So you clearly don't have a clue to the relationship between noise reduction and sharpening. Too much noise reduction can kill detail and sharpness. Too much sharpening can make noise worse (more visible).
Maybe you also don't understand the relationship between noise and ISO. If you are close to base ISO you probably don't need any noise reduction at all. So why would you apply a lot of noise reduction when you don't even need it? Are you just pretending to be ignorant or ...
Now let's get back to the topic ... a well-processed image and not about RAW/JPG.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.