rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
dwermske wrote:
Look up JPEG any you will see that the file type is a compressed version the original RAW image that was created in the camera. Some of the original data has been removed due to the compression algorithm and can never be recovered. A RAW file has all the image data which can be manipulated or not depending on how any individual photographer wishes to display image. In most cases, the original image data will present an extremely accurate rendering of what the photographer actually saw without any further modifications. This idea that every RAW image has to go through extensive post processing is just BS. If you, the photographer, have done your job correctly in capturing the image it will not need any further post processing. However, with RAW files you have the opportunity to make further changes with ALL the data present rather some version of the image that has had data removed through a baked in process. A RAW file can always be used to create a JPEG file the the reverse is never true. By the way, all camera manufacturers provide software to be able to view and modify their propritary RAW file formatted images.
Look up JPEG any you will see that the file type i... (
show quote)
Blah, blah, blah.
I know the standard complaints against JPEG - it works for me.
What do you create at the end of your processing?
rehess wrote:
Blah, blah, blah.
I know the standard complaints against JPEG - it works for me.
What do you create at the end of your processing?
Then you should continue to use JPEG. I'm NOT trying to convince you to use RAW. My point was that RAW files ARE image files. Thats all.
To answer your question, in most cases I print directly from the RAW file. If I want the image printed professionally, I convert it to TIFF. If I want it displayed on-line I convert it to JPEG. The point is that I still have ALL the data to work with. If you're happy with JPEG then by all means you should do what ever pleases you. Have a good day.
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
Blenheim Orange wrote:
If you are happy, I am happy.
I enjoyed your Cass railroad series, by the way, which I just looked at and hadn't seen before.
In the Age of Film, I shot Kodachrome almost exclusively, and I learned to plan my use of the camera so that their automatic processing of the slide film would produce what I want; when I switched to digital, I transitioned my activities to having the JPEG developer in my camera as the 'target'.
The Cass series started off as out-of-camera JPEGs that received very slight "tweaking" before being "published" here.
This shows an example of what a raw file would look like as an 'image.' It is green because the pixel array is in a repeated red green, green blue mosaic square, so twice as many green pixels. The software has to 'demosaic' by looking at the surrounding pixels to construct a pixel to display. So for a red pixel it looks at the green and blue neighbors to interpret what other colors besides red might have fallen on that red pixel. Same with the other color pixels. Different demosaicing algorithms interpret the color of each pixel a little differently in an active process, where the jpeg, tiff, and png images are fixed and not open to interpretation as to what color it might be.
http://adamhooper.com/blog/posts/186-how-cameras-work-interpolation
rehess wrote:
In the Age of Film, I shot Kodachrome almost exclusively, and I learned to plan my use of the camera so that their automatic processing of the slide film would produce what I want; when I switched to digital, I transitioned my activities to having the JPEG developer in my camera as the 'target'.
The Cass series started off as out-of-camera JPEGs that received very slight "tweaking" before being "published" here.
img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (
show quote)
Very good.
The cameras make pretty good JPEGs, I just don't have any use for them. Plus I want more control and the subtle shading and color gradients that are important for what I am after are just not obtainable starting with JPEG files.
Mike
dwermske wrote:
Then you should continue to use JPEG. I'm NOT trying to convince you to use RAW. My point was that RAW files ARE image files. Thats all.
To answer your question, in most cases I print directly from the RAW file. If I want the image printed professionally, I convert it to TIFF. If I want it displayed on-line I convert it to JPEG. The point is that I still have ALL the data to work with. If you're happy with JPEG then by all means you should do what ever pleases you. Have a good day.
How do you "print directly from the RAW file"?
srt101fan wrote:
How do you "print directly from the RAW file"?
I just opened a Canon raw file with Canon's DPP program, selected "print" from the "file" drop down menu, and away we went.
Mike
Simple, I open Canon's Digital Photo Professional 4, select a specific .CR2 file and select print. Very simple process really. I could have opened a .CR2 file with a number of other programs and done the same thing.
If you're going to explain that the program goes through a conversion process before sending the data to the printer, you would be correct. However, every file does through some conversion before it goes to the printer even TIFF, JPEG and other image files. Even document files are converted to a specific printers language. Most of this is done by the printer driver provided by the manufacture. But I suppose you already knew that.
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
dwermske wrote:
Simple, I open Canon's Digital Photo Professional 4, select a specific .CR2 file and select print. Very simple process really. I could have opened a .CR2 file with a number of other programs and done the same thing.
If you're going to explain that the program goes through a conversion process before sending the data to the printer, you would be correct. However, every file does through some conversion before it goes to the printer even TIFF, JPEG and other image files. Even document files are converted to a specific printers language. Most of this is done by the printer driver provided by the manufacture. But I suppose you already knew that.
Simple, I open Canon's Digital Photo Professional ... (
show quote)
My question is what special printer do you have that produces more than 255 shades of each color?
rehess wrote:
My question is what special printer do you have that produces more than 255 shades of each color?
Most printers can do that since you can print from a 16-bit TIFF as well as an 8-bit JPEG. You just aren't likely to distinguish all of the shades with normal eyesight, even at 600 dpi and a loupe.
dwermske wrote:
Simple, I open Canon's Digital Photo Professional 4, select a specific .CR2 file and select print. Very simple process really. I could have opened a .CR2 file with a number of other programs and done the same thing.
If you're going to explain that the program goes through a conversion process before sending the data to the printer, you would be correct. However, every file does through some conversion before it goes to the printer even TIFF, JPEG and other image files. Even document files are converted to a specific printers language. Most of this is done by the printer driver provided by the manufacture. But I suppose you already knew that.
Simple, I open Canon's Digital Photo Professional ... (
show quote)
No, I didn't know that (I don't print too many photos). Thanks to you and Mike for response.
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
selmslie wrote:
Most printers can do that since you can print from a 16-bit TIFF as well as an 8-bit JPEG. You just aren't likely to distinguish all of the shades with normal eyesight, even at 600 dpi and a loupe.
I've spent the last hour researching human vision. I can't find one answer, but most seem to agree that the average person can see 7 - 10 million colors. JPEG can represent 256 x 256 x 256 = 16 million colors, so I guess I'm not missing much.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.