BigDaddy wrote:
I already suggested you toss your 16 bit monitor and buy a cheap one, and maybe you'll begin see what most people see.
Ignorance loves company and despises knowledge.
16 bit monitor? (Kinda weak on the hardware end too, huh?)
BigDaddy wrote:
Every one that learns something from the battle wins.
The only losers are those who are not interested, yet keep on reading/participating
The "raging" battle has only reached 6 pages so far, so "raging" battle is way off the mark.
More like a very minor skirmish.
No no this is a continuing battle that has been ongoing for decades now.
Ysarex wrote:
Ignorance loves company and despises knowledge.
16 bit monitor? (Kinda weak on the hardware end too, huh?)
Jeeze, I have no idea what my monitor are in bits.
They display nicely. An HP and an Acer, 23/24 inches wide.
Longshadow wrote:
Jeeze, I have no idea what my monitor are in bits.
They display nicely. An HP and an Acer, 23/24 inches wide.
It was a specification designed solely for photographers.
Thanks, THAT explains it, I'm not a
photographer.
At least not one obsessed with equipment.
Longshadow wrote:
Jeeze, I have no idea what my monitor are in bits.
They display nicely. An HP and an Acer, 23/24 inches wide.
Most LCD displays are 6 to 8 bit and rely on dithering to display a wider color gamut. On the high end we now have 10 bit display$ for the serious image editor.
bonjac
Loc: Santa Ynez, CA 93460
I am afraid I am one of those poor souls shooting raw for the wrong reason. Can you steer me to a source that explains "production or developer format" and the form of those formats.
Thank you, Jack
Ysarex wrote:
Most LCD displays are 6 to 8 bit and rely on dithering to display a wider color gamut. On the high end we now have 10 bit display$ for the serious image editor.
(I'm good then, my images are jovial.
)
Ysarex wrote:
NO! Saving as a TIFF does nothing to prevent image degradation that occurs from editing a JPEG. It prevents image degradation from re-compression when saving the edit which is a different issue.
1. Image degradation results from editing a JPEG.
2. Image degradation results from re-compressing an edited JPEG.
Saving as a TIFF only prevents the #2 damage listed. It does nothing to prevent the #1 damage listed. The #1 damage listed is the more severe of the two.
Never seen the damage could you show a photo of a jpeg with one edit and how bad this damage is. I can’t imagine
davyboy wrote:
Never seen the damage could you show a photo of a jpeg with one edit and how bad this damage is. I can’t imagine
You certainly have seen it. Just look at the photo in this post:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-308167-1.html#5179241So, editing a JPEG and making substantial changes to tone/color degrades the image. It degrades the image because JPEGs are 8 bit and that small amount of information will start banding if you push and pull it around. JPEGs are compressed using a grid. The algorithm overlays an 8x8 pixel grid on the image and then in each grid cell it creates redundancy by taking similar pixels and making them the same. This compression grid will interact with editing changes to tone/color and create artifacts that degrade the image.
Here's an example. First image below is a full-res JPEG from my Fuji X-T2. The camera was set to auto WB (I don't try and make usable JPEGs) and those baptisia flowers are not that color. I've posted the full-res JPEG in the event you or someone else would like to try and edit it.
The second image is my processed raw file in which the flower colors are more accurate. I've reduced the size for the forum because you only need to see what the photo should look like. The JPEG needs to be edited to look like my processed raw file.
I took a stab at editing the JPEG and got reasonably close to the right flower color. That's the third image below which I have also re-sized for the forum. Sizing the image down hides the damage and that's important. Most people who edit JPEGs use the photos on their phones and for web display and the degradation is typically swamped by the high res of our modern cameras.
The fourth image is a PNG file (the JPEG has never been re-compressed) showing a side by side comparison between the processed raw image and the edited JPEG at 100%. The damage done by the editing is visible at full-res. Most people don't see it and don't use their photos in ways in which it will show.
Like I can tell the difference without a big magnifying glass.
There's a question: I wonder how many people take a magnifying glass to a photo exhibit.
Longshadow wrote:
Like I can tell the difference without a big magnifying glass.
There's a question: I wonder how many people take a magnifying glass to a photo exhibit.
I think you make an excellent point here.
Longshadow wrote:
Like I can tell the difference without a big magnifying glass.
There's a question: I wonder how many people take a magnifying glass to a photo exhibit.
But it's so much fun to randomly argue and keep him going, for no other reason then to make him over explain some random point.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.