How Perceptive Are You? Lossy vs. Non-Lossy
Jan 31, 2012 09:47:09 #
mdorn wrote:
Here's an interesting test... If you take the test, please read the instructions and the wrap-up.
This will likely not change the way you feel about RAW vs. JPG, but it's a fun test. Let me know how you do. I got 7 out of 10 correct. Not bad for an old man with glasses, huh?
http://www.ranum.com/fun/lens_work/papers/jpegquality/index.html
This will likely not change the way you feel about RAW vs. JPG, but it's a fun test. Let me know how you do. I got 7 out of 10 correct. Not bad for an old man with glasses, huh?
http://www.ranum.com/fun/lens_work/papers/jpegquality/index.html
I tried but it won't run on an iPad and that's what I use 99% of the time now, as far as I'm concerned, PC's are "old" technology now and are headed for the graveyard, my opinion on this is reinforced by recent sales figures on people buying tablet devices versus PC's, laptops, note/net books, etc. As for the debate between RAW vs JPEG, I think that if you are a person that very seldom does any editing of their photos (I'm one of those people) there is really no reason to shoot RAW at all and you therefore end up saving both storage space on your card, and the time you would have to invest in post processing the files. The JPEG format suits my needs just fine but of course I understand those who enjoy processing the RAW files as well, so for me it's not really a debate or argument but a case of "to each his or her own!"
Jan 31, 2012 09:54:32 #
5 out of 10 by an older man with bifocals. Maybe I paid too much attention to the subjects? Seriously, you made a good point, I am not sure the general public would not be able to see the difference. Perhaps only if the image were enlarged significantly.
Jan 31, 2012 10:00:27 #
Good rant actually Festina. I agree. I to have thousands of old jpg's I wish I could do more with now.
Jan 31, 2012 10:15:23 #
Jan 31, 2012 10:20:56 #
5 out of 10. But I know that I don't see as well as I did when I was younger, especially in fine details.
Still would shoot in the RAW + Jpg to make sure I had an image that I could adjust as needed and enlarge if wanted.
Great test though, but I haven't taken it but once - not multiple times.
Still would shoot in the RAW + Jpg to make sure I had an image that I could adjust as needed and enlarge if wanted.
Great test though, but I haven't taken it but once - not multiple times.
Jan 31, 2012 10:36:37 #
Jan 31, 2012 10:45:40 #
Jan 31, 2012 10:46:57 #
Jan 31, 2012 10:58:38 #
mdorn wrote:
Here's an interesting test... If you take the test, please read the instructions and the wrap-up.
This will likely not change the way you feel about RAW vs. JPG, but it's a fun test. Let me know how you do. I got 7 out of 10 correct. Not bad for an old man with glasses, huh?
http://www.ranum.com/fun/lens_work/papers/jpegquality/index.html
This will likely not change the way you feel about RAW vs. JPG, but it's a fun test. Let me know how you do. I got 7 out of 10 correct. Not bad for an old man with glasses, huh?
http://www.ranum.com/fun/lens_work/papers/jpegquality/index.html
6 of 10 correct, studied each image pair hard as presented but did NOT magnify images in any way.
Jan 31, 2012 11:20:02 #
Interesting test, but it's not about RAW vs. jpeg. It's about file storage and transmission. RAW files are not usually exchanged or transmitted. So the question is how do you want to store the file once it is converted from RAW. Most microstock agencies want a high-quality jpeg, not a png. But this does not necessarily mean jpeg is the way to go for your own storage purposes. Here's my routine: After processing the RAW file, I save it first as an unflattened PSD, then as a quality-12 jpeg. If I'm going to email it to a friend, I'll downsize it, rename it and save it as a mid-quality jpeg. If I have to rework the image, say to remove an unnoticed sensor spot, I can go back to the lossless PSD. If a TIFF file is desired, it can be easily produced from the PSD.
Jan 31, 2012 11:20:21 #
Jan 31, 2012 11:23:03 #
Jan 31, 2012 11:36:26 #
As someone who wears progressive lenses it's irrelevant. Although I did get 7
Jan 31, 2012 11:37:37 #
8 of 10. I did the test very quickly, which is usually the best way to work an option test. My new monitor was a big help, Asus 23" Pro Art.
I have real bad eyes, extremely near-sighted, -8 diopter, with many floaters and scars.
This test gives me confidence in my sight, realizing I see pretty darn good for an old man!
I have real bad eyes, extremely near-sighted, -8 diopter, with many floaters and scars.
This test gives me confidence in my sight, realizing I see pretty darn good for an old man!
Jan 31, 2012 11:51:43 #
Test is meaningless ! Every camera takes a RAW image ( the negative, so to speak ) then converts it to JPEG.
The fact that you can't see the difference in the final product means NOTHING at all.
The important difference is not what you can see between the two but what you CAN DO with a RAW versus a JPEG.
The fact that you can't see the difference in the final product means NOTHING at all.
The important difference is not what you can see between the two but what you CAN DO with a RAW versus a JPEG.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.