Jim Bob

I never claimed to be. I simply attempt to answer the inquiry as submitted and refrain from the arrogance and paternalism of those who respond as if the OP is an imbecile. I'm done. Thank you for your kindness.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

An engineer? Well, I guess I've been called worse! Pretty much every working day, before I retired! Anyway, my wife did tell me on one occasion that I would have made a good engineer. That was right after I told her the old joke: You can always tell an engineer. You just can't tell 'em very much!
As far as the when, where, and how of any changes to the RAW files, if there even are any, well, don't know. Don't really even care, to be honest. Just the same, I will probably do some comparison shots to see if there is any difference or if I just thought there was. Curiosity, and all that.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

You are very welcome to the kind things that I said about you! They weren't all kind as you may have noticed. However, just answering a literal question isn't necessarily the only reasonable approach, or even the best approach in all circumstances.

On the other hand you took it upon yourself to criticize or comment on other posters and it is *YOUR* interpretation that some of the responses treated the OP as an imbecile. I certainly didn't interpret them that way. Perhaps you self-identify as an imbecile yourself, or read condescension into replies that isn't actually there. Would that be insecurity or just everyday surliness? Either way you did set yourself up on a pedestal as the judge, and in this situation you are not qualified to do that any more than the rest of us are. Perhaps less so in the case of Canon equipment and software.

There really has been some useful information in some of the contributions, which may be of value to some people that read this thread. I fail to see what is wrong with that, and several of the responses have added information rather than just repeating the same thing. However, I did enjoy looking at some of your bird photographs. Very nicely done, and I wouldn't have looked if you hadn't added your contribution to this thread!

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Yep, I'm interested and curious also. Please let us know what you find out. You do have the mindset for precision, which was my inference.

Lens Cap Loc: The Cold North Coast

Thank you all for your response to my question and the additional information surrounding the question. Since this was posted in the "Main Photography Discussion", I find the discussion of this topic interesting and information has surfaced that I didn't know and wouldn't think to ask. As for the trolls....well I won't waste my time on that, I prefer to ignore. Thanks again all...OP

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I'm agreeing with SS here. This is a FORUM, and others might like to learn something new to them, not just verify what they already (think they) know. Yes, many questions get over answered. But also all too often the responses are off topic or just arguing between respondents. Most of us are guilty of that at times.

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

Couldn't agree more Jim, however...I have answered many OP's as the first re-ponderer so to speak, then I'll get an email that someone else has commented, I'll go back and re-read thinking, maybe I answered incorrectly, Only to find my response (which was first or only) is no longer first or even second. Not saying that's the case here, but it does happen and appears as if there are times nobody reads thought the entire post to see if it was already answered. Anyway I agree with you 100%, it at time gets to be ridiculous and will sprout a tangent at every radial.

anotherview Loc: California

The original RAW file always remains unchanged. Of course, the user can alter the settings and adjustments of a RAW file. But the option exists to return the RAW file to its default settings.

The camera incorporates settings such as from Picture Style into the original RAW file that the camera records. But later, in Adobe Camera Raw, the user can switch to other settings.

In camera, the user will see the results of an effect like Picture Style in the camera monitor, which represents the camera settings as a JPEG file processed from the RAW file capture.

Generally, for these reasons, some experienced photographers will always use the camera set to RAW. In the RAW file setting, the camera system includes virtually all image data in the RAW file. This data allows later maximum elbow room for adjustments in ACR.

That said, I note in contradiction that my Canon G9X captures large JPEG files in the Auto setting which later require only minimal adjustment in Photoshop to bring out the image potential. I am surprised by this result. See here below a couple pictures as examples of JPEG files from photographs shot with G9X in the Baja mountains.

Desert Landscape, Baja Mountains


Desert Landscape, Baja Mountains

leftj Loc: Texas

Because they all had something to add. Why does it matter to you?

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Has Jim Bob been taken hostage and forced to read each and every post on the Hog under some sort of threat? If you don't like the responses simply don't read them. Move on to something else. Go take a nap or go take some photos. Stop acting like a troll trying to derail every thread you don't agree with for your own purposes.

Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

This morning, coffee and camera in hand, I sat down on the porch and took three shots of my yard. First one was in Picture Style "Auto". Second was "Standard", and the third was my own User Defined settings of 5,2,1,1.
In viewing the RAW shots with Elements 13 the first two were virtually identical. The 3rd one showed definite changes. The green of the grass was a bit more saturated, as was the red of my pickup. You can see that the histograms of the first two are nearly identical but the third one is not. The three shots were taken within seconds of each other so any variation in ambient lighting would have been very slight. Here are screenshots showing the histograms. From what I can see, changing the Picture Style does create some change in the RAW shots. Not a very scientific test, but, to me anyway, it does verify my initial impression. For what that's worth!

Auto

(Download)

Standard

(Download)

User Defined 5,2,1,1

(Download)

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

I have learned to ignore ANY subject in which Jim Bob is involved. It's like talking to a lunatic. Don't bother to answer me Jim. I'm out of here.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Elements' version of Camera Raw completely ignores Canon's in-camera Picture Styles. If you see a difference it's due to something else like a subtle change in lighting or a slight difference in the exposure. Of course in DPP the differences in picture style would have been obvious.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

My wise old grandmother taught me to add laughter to each day. I would like to thank certain people who shall remain nameless for adding laughter to my day early today.

Jim Bob

No can do.