A Different take on Post Processing

On Jul 16, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In iganews.com,
Savageduck says...
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,

X-T2 RAWs are 50MB is size? It's a 24MP camera, doesn't it compress the
RAWs?

It does have that option, but I haven’t bothered. Memory is affordable, so
I haven’t checked to see what the difference in RAW file size actually is.
Various writers have pegged the 14-bit uncompressed Fujifilm RAW files (RAF)
at approximately 50.6GB, and the 12-bit lossless compressed at approximately
24.9GB.
So lossless compressed RAF + Fine JPEG would still be a total load of ±40GB.

The big benefit would come with importing the compressed RAF files into
Lightroom. That should be considerably faster than it is for me now.

For comparison, E-M1 II RAWs are 17.4MB on average, OOC JPEGs 8.5MB, so
a RAW+JPEG is 26MB and with a 300MB/s card in theory you can write 11
such images/s to the card.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jul 16, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In iganews.com,
Savageduck says...
Then there is the move of news agencies such as Reuters only accepting
unedited JPEGs at the photo editor?s desk.

Some cameras offer in-camera RAW editing ;-)

All of the Fujifilm X series cameras have a pretty good in-camera RAW
processor which writes a fresh JPEG with a new number. That sort of
adjustment to highlights, shadows, noise reduction, saturation, sharpness,
etc. might do for some photo editors, but the EXIF is going to be a little
inconsistant when it come to creation time stamps.

Makes you want to curse those little evidence bombs.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Savageduck:
Then there is the move of news agencies such as Reuters only accepting
unedited JPEGs at the photo editor?s desk.

Makes sense. Image size/transmission time.

Alfred Molon:
Some cameras offer in-camera RAW editing ;-)

No photojournalist would risk being blacklisted for submitting an
edited photograph. Nor would s/he have time to do that.

--
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

In article , Davoud says...
Alfred Molon:
Some cameras offer in-camera RAW editing ;-)

No photojournalist would risk being blacklisted for submitting an
edited photograph. Nor would s/he have time to do that.

I believe the only things you can adjust are white balance, saturation,
brightness, contrast etc. Haven't tried this feature out yet, but if the
timestamp is the same, how would they know that the image was edited?
--
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

In article .com,
Savageduck says...
It does have that option, but I haven?t bothered. Memory is affordable, so
I haven?t checked to see what the difference in RAW file size actually is.
Various writers have pegged the 14-bit uncompressed Fujifilm RAW files (RAF)
at approximately 50.6GB, and the 12-bit lossless compressed at approximately
24.9GB.
So lossless compressed RAF + Fine JPEG would still be a total load of ±40GB.

I guess it's MB and not GB, right?

The benefit is that image files can be written faster to the memory
card, and if you shoot thousands of images your HDD doesn't fill up so
quickly.
--
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

Alfred Molon:
Some cameras offer in-camera RAW editing ;-)

Davoud:
No photojournalist would risk being blacklisted for submitting an
edited photograph. Nor would s/he have time to do that.

Alfred Molon:
I believe the only things you can adjust are white balance, saturation,
brightness, contrast etc. Haven't tried this feature out yet, but if the
timestamp is the same, how would they know that the image was edited?

Editing leaves tracks that can't be removed. An Adobe forensic
specialist explained this to my Mac user group years ago. I don't have
the details, but Adobe and others with appropriate tools can tell.

--
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

On Jul 16, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in om):

In , Davoud says...
Alfred Molon:
Some cameras offer in-camera RAW editing ;-)

No photojournalist would risk being blacklisted for submitting an
edited photograph. Nor would s/he have time to do that.

I believe the only things you can adjust are white balance, saturation,
brightness, contrast etc. Haven't tried this feature out yet, but if the
timestamp is the same, how would they know that the image was edited?

I can’t speak for how your camera might do things, but the Fujifilm
X-Series provides in-camera RAW editing adjustments to the following:
Exposure; Push/Pull
Film Simulation
Grain Effect: Off/Weak/Strong
White Balance
White Balance Shift
Highlight Tone
Shadow Tone
Color/Saturation
Sharpness
Noise Reduction
Color Space: sRGB/Adobe RGB

For demonstration purposes I took a shot captured as RAW+JPEG on June 22,
2017 at 11:05:49 AM, and edited the RAW (RAF)(DSCF5048.RAF) in-camera.

The result is saved back to the original SD card with the RAF file, and is
assigned a new file number DSCF5181.JPG. I then added the original unadjusted
JPG from the RAW+JPEG capture (DSCF5048.JPG) with the new in-camera adjusted
JPG, (DSCF5181.JPG) to Dropbox so the comparison can be made.

I also included screenshots of metadata created in-camera for both files.
Superficially the EXIF for both appears identical, including “Date Time
Digitized� and “Date Time Original�. So far so good.
Then digging a little deeper into the metadata evidence of the tampering
reveals itself, and the actual date/time of DSCF5181.JPG is shown to be July
16, 2017, 03:07:04 PM, not the June 22, 2017 at 11:05:49 AM of the original.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2vnkj464i8snkrj/AABBxFX2zE8XEHy_Az7CMCk8a

So any Reuters photoeditor worth his salt should be able to challenge that
originality issue. The one factor supporting originality is the lack of
cropping, or editing, or replacement of objects.
--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jul 16, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In iganews.com,
Savageduck says...
It does have that option, but I haven?t bothered. Memory is affordable, so
I haven?t checked to see what the difference in RAW file size actually is.
Various writers have pegged the 14-bit uncompressed Fujifilm RAW files (RAF)
at approximately 50.6GB, and the 12-bit lossless compressed at approximately
24.9GB.
So lossless compressed RAF + Fine JPEG would still be a total load of
±40GB.

I guess it's MB and not GB, right?

Correct, MB, not GB. Phingrs phlying phaster than brain.


The benefit is that image files can be written faster to the memory
card, and if you shoot thousands of images your HDD doesn't fill up so
quickly.

That hasn’t been an issue for me.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jul 16, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Jul 16, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in om):

In , Davoud says...
Alfred Molon:
Some cameras offer in-camera RAW editing ;-)

No photojournalist would risk being blacklisted for submitting an
edited photograph. Nor would s/he have time to do that.

I believe the only things you can adjust are white balance, saturation,
brightness, contrast etc. Haven't tried this feature out yet, but if the
timestamp is the same, how would they know that the image was edited?

I can’t speak for how your camera might do things, but the Fujifilm
X-Series provides in-camera RAW editing adjustments to the following:
Exposure; Push/Pull
Film Simulation
Grain Effect: Off/Weak/Strong
White Balance
White Balance Shift
Highlight Tone
Shadow Tone
Color/Saturation
Sharpness
Noise Reduction
Color Space: sRGB/Adobe RGB

For demonstration purposes I took a shot captured as RAW+JPEG on June 22,
2017 at 11:05:49 AM, and edited the RAW (RAF)(DSCF5048.RAF) in-camera.

The result is saved back to the original SD card with the RAF file, and is
assigned a new file number DSCF5181.JPG. I then added the original unadjusted
JPG from the RAW+JPEG capture (DSCF5048.JPG) with the new in-camera adjusted
JPG, (DSCF5181.JPG) to Dropbox so the comparison can be made.

I also included screenshots of metadata created in-camera for both files.
Superficially the EXIF for both appears identical, including “Date Time
Digitized� and “Date Time Original�. So far so good.
Then digging a little deeper into the metadata evidence of the tampering
reveals itself, and the actual date/time of DSCF5181.JPG is shown to be July
16, 2017, 03:07:04 PM, not the June 22, 2017 at 11:05:49 AM of the original.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2vnkj464i8snkrj/AABBxFX2zE8XEHy_Az7CMCk8a

So any Reuters photoeditor worth his salt should be able to challenge that
originality issue. The one factor supporting originality is the lack of
cropping, or editing, or replacement of objects.

I should add, there is a first in-camera RAW processing option for those
folks who shoot RAW only and need a SOOC JPG for that Reuters editor. That
is; “Reflect Shooting Conditions� which will just produce an unadjusted
JPEG copy of the RAW file.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article .com,
Savageduck says...
Superficially the EXIF for both appears identical, including ?Date Time
Digitized? and ?Date Time Original?. So far so good.
Then digging a little deeper into the metadata evidence of the tampering
reveals itself, and the actual date/time of DSCF5181.JPG is shown to be July
16, 2017, 03:07:04 PM, not the June 22, 2017 at 11:05:49 AM of the original.

I'm by no means an expert, but can't you set the metadata and timestamps
of an image to whatever you like them to be?

I'd be very surprised if that wasn't possible. After all, it's just
bytes of data, which in the worst case you could edit with a hex editor.
Or is that data encrypted?
--
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