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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
post processing | Nige Danton[_2_] | Digital Photography | 170 | March 19th 14 09:00 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 04:57 AM |
Post-Processing RAW vs Post-Processing TIFF | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 54 | January 30th 05 08:26 AM |
Post Processing & Printing | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | December 23rd 04 02:12 PM |