Thirsty Moth

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


if the sensor is different, the raw file *must* be different.

why ? if all image apps are meant to open it.

raw is basically a sensor dump.

that means that a raw file from a 3 mp sensor is going to be different
than from a 6 mp sensor which is going to be different than from an 8
mp sensor which is going to be different than from a 16 mp sensor.

so all those RAW files need to be converted so any printer can print them
or
any viewer/editor can edit them.

with that definition, *everything* needs to be converted.

why single out raw?

Because at the start of this discussion we were talking about raw?

if you're going to say raw must be converted, then you have to say
*everything* must be converted.

if everything is converted, then you can't single out raw.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

At low ISOs, the color is very accurate, very natural. Read some
reviews. Better yet, use one and judge for yourself. The color from my
SD1 at low ISO is more accurate than the color from my 7D.

Has that been confirmed by test data or is it your subjective
judgement?

clearly the latter.

see my other post for delta-e numbers.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is the small matter of a huge wad of LR in the way.

lightroom is not in the way.

It's in the path which the image has to follow on it's way from the
raw form to the printer's native language.

are you going to start arguing about the path the electrons take in the
wires? or the emf if it's wireless? there's a conversion to tcp/ip
protocols, and 802.11n if it's over wifi. why not argue about *that*
conversion??

the answer is because *none* of it matters.

again, open a raw file, click print and collect the print. trivial.

In the same way that when you order a pizza on line you click
'pepperoni' and it turns up at your door without anyone making the
base, applying the topping, baking it in the oven or carrying it into
a vehicle so that it can be delivered.

You open the menu, click on an order and collect the pizza at the
door.

No doubt you think that none of the intermediate actions matter. In
fact they don't exist.

they don't.

They don't?

no, they don't.

do you think people care about the thermodynamics and mechanical
engineering of an automobile engine when they drive to the grocery
store?

nope. they want to get to the destination, ideally without any traffic
or other issues along the way.

do you think people care about the microprocessor in a microwave oven
and the firmware that's running when they want to defrost or cook some
food? do they think about the physics of microwaves and how it heats
food?

nope. someone is hungry and wants whatever it is they're cooking.

when someone wants to print a photo they open the image file and click
print, optionally making some adjustments such as cropping or colour
balance, etc.

they don't care about file formats, colour profile conversions, data
encoding, error correction, tcp/ip protocols, ink chromaticities, etc.

they just want a print of the photo.

| do you know what an abstract image class means?

Yes. It means that you don't actually know how
MacOS handles images. Possibly Mac programmers
don't even know.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| do you know what an abstract image class means?

Yes. It means that you don't actually know how
MacOS handles images. Possibly Mac programmers
don't even know.

wrong.

On 2015-07-24 04:15:12 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:38:37 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:27:50 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:09:32 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:09:19 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:06:07 -0400, nospam
wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the user has a raw file, they open it in a suitable app and print. done.

But they can't send it the printer (Pictbridge excepted) and have the
printer print it.

sure they can. it's trivial.

It has to be converted somewhere along the line
somewhere.

which is entirely internal to the computer, where all sorts of stuff
goes on, none of which matters to the user.

are you going to argue about conversions to tcp/ip or 802.11n to send
it to the printer?

If I was going to argue (which I really don't want to) I would say
sending a raw file from a camera to be translated by LR/PS/etc before
being sent on to the printer in the printer's native language can't be
considered as a printer printing directly from raw.

If you take that position, then the printer also translates a .jpg
file to it's native language so it isn't printing directly from .jpg.

The printer is treating the RAW and .jpg file the same. You tell it
to print it, and it will.

Yes. I've already acknowledged that I overlooked PICTBridge.
PICTBridge amounts to the incorporation of the necessary computing
power in the camera/printer.

Why append that to my post? I'm not talking about PICTBridge. Don't
have it. Don't use it. Don't have any interest in printing straight
from the camera except for printing images from my iPhone.

What I said has to do with printing from a desktop or laptop to a
standard printer.

But that's not printing directly from a raw file to a printer, which
is what this argument was originally about.


You are still lost in the minutiae of the exercise.
While a lot of computation happens when a RAW file is printed it is
irrelevant that the majority of us have no solid idea of what that
computation actually is. Most importantly it is done without some
phantom JPEG hidden in some corner of our computers.

Effectively a RAW file can be printed directly from a computer, or via
PICTBridge, and leave no evidence of the production of a JPEG or any
other intermediate phase.
It is not necessary for the user of the computer or camera to create a
JPEG to send RAW image data (edited/adjusted, or not), to a printer to
produce a print.
I print from NEF's, RAF's, DNG's, and Layered PSD's & TIFF's regularly.
The only JPEGs I print are the product of my iPhone.

....and there is no trace of just what happened in the dust between the
RAW image file and the print.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:17:06 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

if the sensor is different, the raw file *must* be different.

why ? if all image apps are meant to open it.

raw is basically a sensor dump.

that means that a raw file from a 3 mp sensor is going to be different
than from a 6 mp sensor which is going to be different than from an 8
mp sensor which is going to be different than from a 16 mp sensor.

so all those RAW files need to be converted so any printer can print them or
any viewer/editor can edit them.

with that definition, *everything* needs to be converted.

why single out raw?

Because at the start of this discussion we were talking about raw?

different sensors also have different chromaticities of the bayer
filters, which needs to be part of the data. sometimes it's very
different, such as cmyg in some older cameras rather than rggb.

so one needs a converter then, in the same way that some lenses have
one type of baynet while oithers may have a differnt type..
if you want to but a canon on a nikon you'll need a converter.
I got my EOS M converter .

nope

and then there are the oddball formats, such as foveon, which are
*completely* different (and not really raw either).

Probbab y why it''s called RAW and like meat it needss convering so humans
can eat it, but other animals can.

raw is not an acronym and should not be capitalized.

Hmmm.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:55:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-23 15:42:48 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

Probbab y why it''s called RAW and like meat it needss convering so
humans can eat it, but other animals can.

There is always PICTBridge, with no computer involved, sort of RAW tartar.

There has to be computing involved: probably in both the camera and
the printer.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:32:29 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

At low ISOs, the color is very accurate, very natural. Read some
reviews. Better yet, use one and judge for yourself. The color from my
SD1 at low ISO is more accurate than the color from my 7D.

Has that been confirmed by test data or is it your subjective
judgement?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-07-24 00:55:52 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:15:12 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:38:37 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:27:50 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:09:32 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:09:19 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:06:07 -0400, nospam
wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the user has a raw file, they open it in a suitable app and print. done.

But they can't send it the printer (Pictbridge excepted) and have the
printer print it.

sure they can. it's trivial.

It has to be converted somewhere along the line
somewhere.

which is entirely internal to the computer, where all sorts of stuff
goes on, none of which matters to the user.

are you going to argue about conversions to tcp/ip or 802.11n to send
it to the printer?

If I was going to argue (which I really don't want to) I would say
sending a raw file from a camera to be translated by LR/PS/etc before
being sent on to the printer in the printer's native language can't be
considered as a printer printing directly from raw.

If you take that position, then the printer also translates a .jpg
file to it's native language so it isn't printing directly from .jpg.

The printer is treating the RAW and .jpg file the same. You tell it
to print it, and it will.

Yes. I've already acknowledged that I overlooked PICTBridge.
PICTBridge amounts to the incorporation of the necessary computing
power in the camera/printer.

Why append that to my post? I'm not talking about PICTBridge. Don't
have it. Don't use it. Don't have any interest in printing straight
from the camera except for printing images from my iPhone.

What I said has to do with printing from a desktop or laptop to a
standard printer.

But that's not printing directly from a raw file to a printer, which
is what this argument was originally about.

Eric, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If a RAW
file is on your desktop or laptop, and you want to print it, any
modern printer will print the RAW file just the same as it would print
your .jpg.

That's been the discussion all along until it was de-railed into a
discussion about PICTBridge. PICTBridge is just a utility that prints
the image from a camera.

I brought PICTBridge into the discussion when Eric insisted that we had
inserted PS, LR, and other software along with a computer into the
exercise.
I was just trying to demonstrate that a conventional computer and
software was not required, and that it was possible for some to print
directly from camera or memory card.

As I have said all along, a JPEG is not required to produce a print,
whether from a computer, or camera.

--
Regards,

Savageduck