A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A Different take on Post Processing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 15th 17, 02:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital, alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default A Different take on Post Processing

On Jul 14, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:36:38 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/2017/7/13/all-the-green-we-wanted-a-technical-follow-up


....er OK.
--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #22  
Old July 15th 17, 02:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default A Different take on Post Processing

On 7/14/2017 8:46 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 14, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/14/2017 6:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 14, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:36:38 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/201...n-we-wanted-a-
technical-follow-up

I just don't understand why *anyone* would limit his options by
shooting jpeg only. If one wants to work with jpeg, that's fine, but
why not shoot jpeg + raw, leaving all options open? Is he trying to
save electrons? Or is this just something certain people do to
position themselves as elite photographers? And I really don't think
burst speeds come into play with landscape photography...

Of course he does say this:
"Would raw files have allowed for more extensive manipulations? Of course. A
JPEG is a limited object. But it also contains an initial personality we can
quickly build on if we’ve exposed correctly (read: correct for a
particular
image*). And let me say this again in case someone is visiting for the first
time: yes, I do shoot raw as well. But personal work is probably close to
98%
JPEG with all Fuji cameras...processed similarly."


You do remember that RAW images from Nikon cameras will be pretty much
the same as in your viewfinder, if you use Capture for RAW processing.


To start with I don’t use Capture for RAW processing, and I still have and
use my D300S.

Then with all the Nikon DSLRs I am familiar with none of the RAW (NEF) files
will ever be “pretty much the same as in your viewfinder”. The only way
to get a WYSIWYG RAW is if you are shooting with the LCD in Live View mode.
The OVF in Nikon and other DSLRs is just that, optical. It does not reflect
the RAW sensor image in real time in the way the EVF in mirrorless cameras
does.

With a RAW file from a DSLR you are not getting WYSIWYG, regardless of the
software used for PP.

You still have to rely on your memory of the scene you saw through that OVF
to get close to what you believe you saw. It will never be exactly that
captured moment. Images are subject to the vagaries of memory, and perception
warped by emotional recall of any particular scene. You might think that
colors were that saturated, or not. That the sky was that tone, or not, That
a shadow was that deep, or not. Ultimately your final product is going to be
your interpretation of the captured scene regardless of software used.

Even if you use the LCD to check your image captures in-camera, all you are
viewing is the JPEG thumbnail not the actual RAW capture.

...or did you mean something else altogether?


Yes, I should have made it clear that i was talking about the image you
see on the EVF in live view, or the image you see if you chimp. That you
don't use Capture in your workflow, doesn't mean that Capture will not
reproduce, in RAW, the image that you see on your EVF,


Thus you can have the best of both worlds.


Which two worlds might those be?

Less processing in JPEG, and the flexibility of RAW.


--
PeterN
  #23  
Old July 15th 17, 02:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default A Different take on Post Processing

Bill W:
Well, I'm not criticizing *him*, just the choice of shooting jpeg
only, even if it's not all the time. I'm saying this from personal
(bad) experience. When I started out with digital, I didn't even know
what RAW was, or care. So as I took an interest in learning
photography, I went back over some of those old jpegs, photos I really
liked, and quickly found that I couldn't do much of anything to fix
the photos with problems. I learned my lesson quickly.


It seems to me that if I were to shoot jpegs I would be throwing away a
sizable chunk of my cameras' capabilities, particularly in the area of
dynamic range; my ability to bring out a wide range of lights and
shadows without over saturating the extremes is greatly enhanced when I
pre-process raw images in Lightroom.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #24  
Old July 15th 17, 02:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital, alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default A Different take on Post Processing

On Jul 14, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/14/2017 8:46 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 14, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/14/2017 6:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 14, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:36:38 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/201...n-we-wanted-a-
technical-follow-up

I just don't understand why *anyone* would limit his options by
shooting jpeg only. If one wants to work with jpeg, that's fine, but
why not shoot jpeg + raw, leaving all options open? Is he trying to
save electrons? Or is this just something certain people do to
position themselves as elite photographers? And I really don't think
burst speeds come into play with landscape photography...

Of course he does say this:
"Would raw files have allowed for more extensive manipulations? Of
course. A
JPEG is a limited object. But it also contains an initial personality we
can
quickly build on if we’ve exposed correctly (read: correct for a
particular
image*). And let me say this again in case someone is visiting for the
first
time: yes, I do shoot raw as well. But personal work is probably close to
98%
JPEG with all Fuji cameras...processed similarly."

You do remember that RAW images from Nikon cameras will be pretty much
the same as in your viewfinder, if you use Capture for RAW processing.


To start with I don’t use Capture for RAW processing, and I still have and
use my D300S.

Then with all the Nikon DSLRs I am familiar with none of the RAW (NEF) files
will ever be “pretty much the same as in your viewfinder”. The only way
to get a WYSIWYG RAW is if you are shooting with the LCD in Live View mode.
The OVF in Nikon and other DSLRs is just that, optical. It does not reflect
the RAW sensor image in real time in the way the EVF in mirrorless cameras
does.

With a RAW file from a DSLR you are not getting WYSIWYG, regardless of the
software used for PP.

You still have to rely on your memory of the scene you saw through that OVF
to get close to what you believe you saw. It will never be exactly that
captured moment. Images are subject to the vagaries of memory, and
perception
warped by emotional recall of any particular scene. You might think that
colors were that saturated, or not. That the sky was that tone, or not, That
a shadow was that deep, or not. Ultimately your final product is going to be
your interpretation of the captured scene regardless of software used.

Even if you use the LCD to check your image captures in-camera, all you are
viewing is the JPEG thumbnail not the actual RAW capture.

...or did you mean something else altogether?


Yes, I should have made it clear that i was talking about the image you
see on the EVF in live view, or the image you see if you chimp. That you
don't use Capture in your workflow, doesn't mean that Capture will not
reproduce, in RAW, the image that you see on your EVF,


....and therein lies one of the great benefits of mirrorless cameras. With a
mirrorless camera, the EVF provides a true representation of the image
captured including the full effect of exposure settings as they are made. As
I view a scene through my X-T2 EVF, I can see how every change of aperture,
shutter speed, ISO, or EV effects the image. It actually makes shooting full
manual an interesting and individual experience.



Thus you can have the best of both worlds.


Which two worlds might those be?

Less processing in JPEG, and the flexibility of RAW.


I have that handled with pretty good, in some cases great Fuji SOOC JPEGs,
and solid RAW files to tinker with.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #25  
Old July 15th 17, 03:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default A Different take on Post Processing

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:12:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 14, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:36:38 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/2017/7/13/all-the-green-we-wanted-a-technical-follow-up


...er OK.


I didn't mean to post it but the URL was broken when I received it and
it is easiest to splice it in Reply mode. And then automatic button
pushing took over.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #26  
Old July 15th 17, 09:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default A Different take on Post Processing

In article .com,
Savageduck says...
Also, doing things that
way speeds up the write time, and clears the buffer faster.


Is it really so that the camera clears the buffer faster when writing to
two memory cards?

I'm using a 300MB/s UHS II card and with that the camera is very fast
and responsive.
But if I were two write the JPEGs and RAWs to different memory cards, it
would be more complicated to transfer the pics to the computer (am using
an USB3 card reader).
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #27  
Old July 15th 17, 01:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital, alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default A Different take on Post Processing

On Jul 15, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In iganews.com,
Savageduck says...
Also, doing things that
way speeds up the write time, and clears the buffer faster.


Is it really so that the camera clears the buffer faster when writing to
two memory cards?


Apparantly so, or so I have read. I will have to dig up that reference. Not
that I would have noticed, because I don’t shoot long bursts anyway.

I'm using a 300MB/s UHS II card and with that the camera is very fast
and responsive.


Agreed. I also use 300MB/s UHS II cards, and the difference between my X-T2
and my D300S, using 1 CF and 1 SD slot is very obvious. However, with the
D300S I used the second slot (SD) for overflow as I shot mostly RAW only with
that.
Occasionally I will shoot brackets of 3-5 exposures with the X-T2, and the
frame rate and write speed is so much faster that the D300S that there is
very little perceptible lag. Probably if I did a lot of machine gunning,
burst shooting I would choke the buffer, but I don’t do that. The D300S
will very noticably slow down.

But if I were two write the JPEGs and RAWs to different memory cards, it
would be more complicated to transfer the pics to the computer (am using
an USB3 card reader).


Personally, I would have to agree. Logic dictates that if you are going to
write data with an additional operation, splitting RAW and JPEG the CPU load
alone should slow things down.

What I have read with regard to the X-T2 is, with two UHS II slots the CPU
can handle simutaneous write processes, writing 50+MB RAW files to one card,
and 11-16MB JPEGs to the other, rather than queuing both types to a single
card. So a 5 shot bracket could add up to 250MB of RAW and 70MB of JPEG
files. The write/buffer clearing time for that total load to a single 300MB/s
UHS II card should be just over 1 second. Splitting the load, and writing
simultaneously (With a CPU that can handle that task) to both cards would
supposedly drop the write/buffer clearing time to 0.7-0.8 sec.

How true that might be, I have yet to experience, as I have yet to put that
proposal to a full massive burst vs stopwatch test.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #28  
Old July 15th 17, 04:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default A Different take on Post Processing

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

My normal shooting workflow is to shoot RAW+JPEG, and having a camera with
dual SD slots I write RAW to slot #1 and JPEG to slot#2.


My camera can do that as well, but what is the point of having the JPEGs
and RAWs on different memory cards?


redundancy, or the ability to pop the jpeg card into a printer or share
it with others.
  #29  
Old July 15th 17, 06:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default A Different take on Post Processing

On 7/14/2017 9:55 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 14, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/14/2017 8:46 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 14, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/14/2017 6:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 14, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:36:38 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/201...n-we-wanted-a-
technical-follow-up

I just don't understand why *anyone* would limit his options by
shooting jpeg only. If one wants to work with jpeg, that's fine, but
why not shoot jpeg + raw, leaving all options open? Is he trying to
save electrons? Or is this just something certain people do to
position themselves as elite photographers? And I really don't think
burst speeds come into play with landscape photography...

Of course he does say this:
"Would raw files have allowed for more extensive manipulations? Of
course. A
JPEG is a limited object. But it also contains an initial personality we
can
quickly build on if we’ve exposed correctly (read: correct for a
particular
image*). And let me say this again in case someone is visiting for the
first
time: yes, I do shoot raw as well. But personal work is probably close to
98%
JPEG with all Fuji cameras...processed similarly."

You do remember that RAW images from Nikon cameras will be pretty much
the same as in your viewfinder, if you use Capture for RAW processing.

To start with I don’t use Capture for RAW processing, and I still have and
use my D300S.

Then with all the Nikon DSLRs I am familiar with none of the RAW (NEF) files
will ever be “pretty much the same as in your viewfinder”. The only way
to get a WYSIWYG RAW is if you are shooting with the LCD in Live View mode.
The OVF in Nikon and other DSLRs is just that, optical. It does not reflect
the RAW sensor image in real time in the way the EVF in mirrorless cameras
does.

With a RAW file from a DSLR you are not getting WYSIWYG, regardless of the
software used for PP.

You still have to rely on your memory of the scene you saw through that OVF
to get close to what you believe you saw. It will never be exactly that
captured moment. Images are subject to the vagaries of memory, and
perception
warped by emotional recall of any particular scene. You might think that
colors were that saturated, or not. That the sky was that tone, or not, That
a shadow was that deep, or not. Ultimately your final product is going to be
your interpretation of the captured scene regardless of software used.

Even if you use the LCD to check your image captures in-camera, all you are
viewing is the JPEG thumbnail not the actual RAW capture.

...or did you mean something else altogether?


Yes, I should have made it clear that i was talking about the image you
see on the EVF in live view, or the image you see if you chimp. That you
don't use Capture in your workflow, doesn't mean that Capture will not
reproduce, in RAW, the image that you see on your EVF,


...and therein lies one of the great benefits of mirrorless cameras. With a
mirrorless camera, the EVF provides a true representation of the image
captured including the full effect of exposure settings as they are made. As
I view a scene through my X-T2 EVF, I can see how every change of aperture,
shutter speed, ISO, or EV effects the image. It actually makes shooting full
manual an interesting and individual experience.


I understand.

I was not discussing mirrorless v DSLR, I was talking about how you use DSLR





Thus you can have the best of both worlds.

Which two worlds might those be?

Less processing in JPEG, and the flexibility of RAW.


I have that handled with pretty good, in some cases great Fuji SOOC JPEGs,
and solid RAW files to tinker with.


Good.


--
PeterN
  #30  
Old July 15th 17, 06:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default A Different take on Post Processing

Alfred Molon:
Is it really so that the camera clears the buffer faster when writing to
two memory cards?


I'm using a 300MB/s UHS II card and with that the camera is very fast
and responsive.
But if I were two write the JPEGs and RAWs to different memory cards, it
would be more complicated to transfer the pics to the computer (am using
an USB3 card reader).


I don't know anything about clearing buffers faster.

I use a CF card for raw and an SD card for jpeg. As soon as the raw
files are in Lightroom and backed up to my external drives I erase the
jpegs. They're only there in case of a failure of the CF card. Hasn't
happened yet.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
post processing Nige Danton[_2_] Digital Photography 170 March 19th 14 10:00 PM
Does anyone know how much post processing goes on at DPreview? Alien Jones Digital SLR Cameras 59 October 7th 08 01:18 PM
Filters vs Post processing M[_2_] Digital SLR Cameras 7 January 3rd 08 05:57 AM
Post-Processing RAW vs Post-Processing TIFF Mike Henley Digital Photography 54 January 30th 05 09:26 AM
Post Processing & Printing [email protected] Digital Photography 0 December 23rd 04 03:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.