File :-(, x, )
Complaining about Tardwell Tails
For all your constant bitching about Ken Rockwell, his material and tips sure come up a lot in /p/.
Rockwell jealosy? Rockwellosy?

pic always related
>> Anonymous
we've had this discussion a million times before.

sage
>> Anonymous
>>162256

why are all those faggots using macs?
>> Anonymous
i'm having flashbacks of last year's conversations!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Most people on /p/ just sort of follow the herd on that sort of thing rather than actually thinking critically about it and deciding for themselves. So someone tells them that Ken Rockwell is fail or they'll see threads making fun of Ken Rockwell and they'll just decide to make fun of him every time it comes up so they don't get flamed for defending him.

Personally, having read pretty much everything on Rockwell's site, there's a lot of truth there. Just about the only thing I've *really* disagreed with him is the whole JPEG vs. RAW issue.

(No matter how good the JPEG processing hardware/software is in a digital camera, it won't be able to replace manually tweaking the RAW until they can come up with full-on hard artificial intelligence with good artistic sensibilities that can fit on a chip in a camera. And won't rebel. So if you're shooting JPEG on a DSLR, you're probably doing it wrong)

Even things like supporting the D40 and the 18-200 make sense when you take it in context. He's not saying the D40 is the best camera for all situations, he's just saying that it's a perfectly good camera for 90% of the people out there who won't ever want to buy a second lens much less a fast prime. And that, in situations where he's going to be shooting with AF-motor-equipped zooms, there's a lot to be said for having a light camera even if it doesn't have all the features of its bigger brethren.

I assume one of these days he'll try shooting RAW for real and he'll change his mind, just like he changed his mind on the APS-C vs. Full Frame issue after he got a 5D.
>> Anonymous
Ken Rockwell is the king of flip-floping and contradiction.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>162269
I'll agree that he does have plenty of good tips.

My problem with him is that he's so goddamn pretentious.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162272
>Ken Rockwell is willing to admit when he's wrong
Fix'd.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162273
>My problem with him is that he's so goddamn pretentious.
Just in case anyone didn't notice, this is coming from a guy calling himself Jesus.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>162275
Jesus is humble. I am perfectly ok with admitting that my work sucks.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>162275

I lol'd. Well done.

Also: Ken Rockwell killed my brother. One day I will have my revenge.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162277
That's not funny. My brother died that way.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162276
>Jesus is humble. I am perfectly ok with admitting that my work sucks.
But you have to be a *bit* egotistical about your photographic ability if you're going to run a site like that. Want to know the sort of person who goes around giving photographic advice when they think they suck at photography? Fucking Butterfly, that's who.

I don't think he's really that pretentious. He does point out in several places that you should always take his advice in the context of the photos he produces. I.e., if you think his photos look good, you might want to give his advice some credence; if you think they suck, you should ignore him.
>> Anonymous
>>162278
From vengeance?
>> Anonymous
>>162269So if you're shooting JPEG on a DSLR, you're probably doing it wrong

>> RAW is for people who can't take a picture right the first time

http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12992748#post12992748
>> EvenSteven !!RBDL+S5h60X
And, yeah, I can't contribute much. Generally his advice is sound, and he does have a lot of experience.

The problem is he has quite the ego, and gets ridiculously excited over every new piece of gear he gets - sometimes glossing over the problems.

I NO LONGER USE CAMERA X SINCE THIS CAME OUT!!!11!!1! THIS LENS HAS REPLACED X Y AND Z LENS AMAZING!!! THIS IS THE ONLY CAMERA ILL EVER USE AGAIN LOLOLOLOL
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162283
It's really not, though. RAW lets you get a better shot than would be possible with JPEG. It's also more convenient, since you don't have to be constantly worrying about your white balance before you take the picture.

>The problem is he has quite the ego, and gets ridiculously excited over every new piece of gear he gets
I get ridiculously excited over every new piece of gear I get, too. Anyone pay attention to how many threads I've gushed over the 18-55 IS in? ;)

Not to mention Heavyweather's orgasmic delight in his new Ricoh GR-D, which nobody but Weatherreport seems to have a problem with.

I'm sure you're deliriously happy when you get new toys and want to tell everyone about 'em, too. Rockwell just has a bigger soapbox.
>> Anonymous
>>162283
My god, that dude is a complete moron.
>> Anonymous
>>162287It's really not, though. RAW lets you get a better shot than would be possible with JPEG. It's also more convenient, since you don't have to be constantly worrying about your white balance before you take the picture.

No, there is zero advantage. See, I, unlike you, actually take pictures so people can print them out and hang them on their wall or give them to people or whatever. i.e., for others. I don't do it for technical masturbation.

And its obvious you have never even touched or considered a professional workflow, which deals with thousands of images. I shot for example over 400 just a couple hours ago and if I was shooting RAW - god help me.

You still haven't even considered the workflow. Aperture and Lightroom do a fine job of integrating raw, but JPEG is the only real archive format available. That, and you still have to fucking export it to do anything useful! Who wants to sit around meddeling with sliders for 5 minutes a photo?

RAW is great and all but above all else an enormous time waster.

You take an identical photo with a RAW+JPEG setting, process them as you would a RAW or a JPEG, print them both onto premium matte, and I dare you to tell me you see a difference.

RAW is for people who can't expose properly in the first place.

The reason people shoot RAW is for better highlight/shadow detail. You have for example thousands of ranges of black instead of hundreds.

Problem is, these are all invisible to the naked eye. You're talking about huge ranges of color, but you're talking about "black" and "jet black" and "really pitch black". The only way you'll be able to tell that they are there is if you actually go into photoshop and try to lighten the shadows or recover highlights.

If you expose properly in the first place there is zero reason to do this and a jpeg looks identical for all practical purposes (e.g. not zooming into the image at 600%.)
>> Anonymous
>>162290CONTINUED

So - if I for instance shoot 400 pictures like I did today, and they all came out well exposed, which they did, RAW would only function to lengthen my workflow from 2 seconds per pic to about 2 minutes per pic, a factor of 60.

For a professional example - say a huge portrait studio. Thousands of dollars of lighting equipment alone, makeup artists, sets, couple assistants, tethered cameras, the whole deal. They've gotta be shooting RAW right? Hell no.

Why should they? They've got controlled lighting and they will nail the exposure EVERY SINGLE TIME. There is no reason to dick around in photoshop when your picture comes perfect straight out of the camera.

ps: you can change a jpeg's white balance. I can actually do it in camera, after the shot. Download picasa, they even have a wb slider. Saturation and overall color has nothing to do with raw. It's all shadow/highlight recovery. That's it.
>> Anonymous
>>162291ps: you can change a jpeg's white balance. I can actually do it in camera, after the shot. Download picasa, they even have a wb slider. Saturation and overall color has nothing to do with raw. It's all shadow/highlight recovery. That's it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>162287
I've personally been going "OH SKEET SKEET SKEET" over my new Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

>>162290
>>162291
http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=533715&page=5

Mmmmm copypasta.

In related news, I need a faster damn CF card. I've got a generic 4gb card, definitely not the quickest thing for storing RAW images. I took about 500 shots today and I've been uploading them for the past 30 minutes. :-P
>> Anonymous
it's good info for starting people.

Didn't like how he forgot to mention lack of focus motor in D40 or 18-200 VR lens creep.

Sticking with Canon/the digital picture for now.
>> Anonymous
>>162293
What kind are you using now? A few weeks ago I picked up a SanDisk Extreme III 4gb for 60 bucks from Best Buy.
>> Anonymous
I.....hate.....Ken....Rockwell
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162290
>>162291
Okay, I'm like 80% certain you're trolling, but you actually make some good points.

The point I was making (or, rather, should have been making) is that RAW is the way to go for most of the sort of photography that happens on /p/. I.e., noncommercial stuff where you have the time and inclination to dick around with it in post. There are certainly situations where you *do* want to shoot JPEG, one of them being extremely high volume work.

I actually generally shoot RAW+JPEG. I mostly use the JPEGs for quick previews, with the RAWs for when I see potential in a shot and want to eke every possible pixel worth of awesome out of it.

>If you expose properly in the first place there is zero reason to do this
If you're not shooting in a controlled-lighting situation and you want to give the picture a film-like curve by pulling down the highlights and bringing up the shadows so as to give you a bit more apparent dynamic range, you need to have that extra shadow and highlight detail. It's something that could theoretically be done in camera if someone came out with a camera supporting it as an option (but that option would be another thing you'd have to deal with before taking the picture), but as far as I know, nobody has. Closest is Nikon's Active D-Lighting or whatever it's called.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162300
Yeah, as Jeremo said, copypasta. Ohwell.

Still, a couple valid points in the copypasta.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>162297
Well once these shots finish uploading I'll tell you. It's just some generic 4gb CF card. I picked it up at my local camera shop for $40. I'll more than likely just run by Best Buy sometime soon and pick up a nicer one, then use the generic one after filling up the nice one (which also is a bit of a problem lol, went out shooting for about 2 hours today and filled up a 4gb card)
>> Anonymous
>>162301Yeah, as Jeremo said, copypasta. Ohwell.

jeremo dide
>> Anonymous
>>162301Yeah, as Jeremo said, copypasta. Ohwell.

reading, motherfucker, do you speak it
>> Anonymous
>>162300If you're not shooting in a controlled-lighting situation and you want to give the picture a film-like curve by pulling down the highlights and bringing up the shadows so as to give you a bit more apparent dynamic range, you need to have that extra shadow and highlight detail.

That's what everyone and their mother say, RAW has more details in shadows and highlight. After some point, people just blindly believe it.

Feel free to Google all you want, a truckload of people have made comparisons and the detail you can "pull" from a RAW is not different from the ones done on a JPG.
>> Anonymous
>>162302

Pro tip: Use a card reader.

If your CF card is still slow with one, then stop being a fucking cheap bastard.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162319
>Feel free to Google all you want, a truckload of people have made comparisons and the detail you can "pull" from a RAW is not different from the ones done on a JPG.

I googled all I wanted to. Turns out, all I needed was the first page of results...
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/rawvsjpg/
http://epaperpress.com/cam/index.html (click "Dynamic Range" in the contents)

Those are the only two that gave actual examples. There were a bunch more that supported my point but didn't do it rigorously, and a few that disagreed with me but also didn't give example shots (i.e., they were just things like forum posts saying "Pshaw. You don't need RAW. JPEG's good enough", not actual arguments)

Search terms were '"raw vs jpeg" shadow detail'
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>162319
>That's what everyone and their mother say, RAW has more details in shadows and highlight. After some point, people just blindly believe it.

Try it yourself, take a raw and a jpeg of the same photo, and the push the exposure 1 or 2 stops. Huge difference in what you can do. Space is not an issue anymore, and neither is the time it takes to process. Exporting a raw takes the same amout of time as resizing a jpeg.

>Feel free to Google all you want, a truckload of people have made comparisons and the detail you can "pull" from a RAW is not different from the ones done on a JPG.

I just did one now. There is quite a big difference.
>> Anonymous
>>162344

Seconding this. Huge difference when pushing RAW and JPG.
>> Anonymous
All I can say is: inconclusive.

First link: I don't want to be LOL D60 LOL but that is from 2002. Sensors got better, A/D conversion got better, JPG engine got better.

And it boils down to: RAW gives you a little more detail, at 100% crop. I don't think you can see anything once it's resized. Unless you really like looking at images at 1:1.

Second link: The tests were with a G9 and the main points from the site author are:

>> Highlight retrieval with Raw is miniscule.
>> Shadow detail improves with Raw. This translates to improved image quality when push-processing.
>> Reducing in-camera contrast and saturation for JPEG images does not retrieve additional highlights.
>> Avoiding in-camera noise reduction with Raw results in better high-ISO images.
>>Big wins for Raw: White balance and high ISO.

Big wins part. The amount of detail you recover from RAW is negligible.
>> Anonymous
>>162344Try it yourself, take a raw and a jpeg of the same photo, and the push the exposure 1 or 2 stops.

One of the main point was:

>> RAW is for people who can't expose properly in the first place.

If you do need to fix the exposure by fucking 2 stops, then you didn't do it right.
>> Anonymous
>>162350
Well, the information is there if you need it. How about you go develop some film, throw away the negatives and if you want to make copies, just scan the prints. It's like shooting jpg.
>> Anonymous
I have to assume you would be storing your orignal JPGs or the Photoshop edits as PSD or TIFF, both lossless.
>> Anonymous
>>162350

What if the scene you have has a wide range?

Are you saying you could capture a scene the same way as even an HDR image could with your one magic JPG?
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>162350
I'm just saying that the pros outweigh the cons. The only real pro from shooting jpg is that they're 1/4th the size, but hard drives are cheap. We're not living in the mid 90s anymore.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162347
Well, provide some links of your own. You said there were truckloads. Burden of proof is on you, I'd say.

>>162350
>If you do need to fix the exposure by fucking 2 stops, then you didn't do it right.
Not necessarily. Perhaps you deliberately overexposed so you could keep more shadow detail. Perhaps you deliberately underexposed because you were shooting in a dark bar and realize that noisy > blurry.

There are a lot of reasons to want to adjust your exposure by two stops later that aren't simply photographer failure.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>162280
yeah that ma-HAY FUCK YOU!

but srsly, i can critique much better than i shoot and whilst i dont exactly present nice, i tend not to be wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>162357Are you saying you could capture a scene the same way as even an HDR image could with your one magic JPG?

Hmm, no. You would be taking 3 or more different exposures. That's not quite the same as pushing -2 and +2 from the same file.

>>162358I'm just saying that the pros outweigh the cons. The only real pro from shooting jpg is that they're 1/4th the size, but hard drives are cheap. We're not living in the mid 90s anymore.

I don't think I said anything about file size. Please do not put words in my mouth.

>>162359Well, provide some links of your own. You said there were truckloads. Burden of proof is on you, I'd say.

I don't really have to. All the tests will be: yes there is more detail but only at 100%. The only time you can prove there is more "detail" is at 100%. I don't look at my pictures at 100%.

>> The detail you can "pull" from a RAW is not different from the ones done on a JPG.

>> Not necessarily. Perhaps you deliberately overexposed so you could keep more shadow detail. Perhaps you deliberately underexposed because you were shooting in a dark bar and realize that noisy > blurry.

In the end, you are still correcting your exposure.

You could do the same with a JPG but noise reduction will be there to ruin your day. But +2 stops will give you noise in any situation.
>> Anonymous
>>162290
>And its obvious you have never even touched or considered a professional workflow, which deals with thousands of images. I shot for example over 400 just a couple hours ago and if I was shooting RAW - god help me.

L2/batch process. Every professional I know does it with their large volume stuff.

Also, you don't need all 400 images. You'll be delivering, what, twenty to the client? Those other 380 never need to see any program except Breeze Browser/Lightroom/your raw file manager of choice to pick out the 20 to use.

>JPEG is the only real archive format available.

The hell? How is something that loses data every time it's resaved archival?
OTOH, how is raw not archival? All the original information is saved. For processed files, use PSD. For viewable processed files, TIFF or PNG.

>Who wants to sit around meddeling with sliders for 5 minutes a photo?

Someone who wants creative control?

Why sit around agitating your film in the darkroom? Just drop it by Wal-Mart!
>> Anonymous
>For a professional example - say a huge portrait studio. Thousands of dollars of lighting equipment alone, makeup artists, sets, couple assistants, tethered cameras, the whole deal. They've gotta be shooting RAW right? Hell no.

I know people who own portrait studios like this. They shoot raw, even though everything's perfectly set, except one of them on one job where little throwaway wallet prints were getting made of over a thousand different dogs.

They both batch processes for contact sheets and having the clients pick out the shots they want. Then, one of them goes back and processes those particular raw files himself to get them just right. The other one has a hired staff to do it for him.

Why not shoot raw? The extra creative control is always available if you want it, more quality never hurts, and if you want just a stock, normal, un-futzed-with standard image, it takes just a few clicks to batch process thousands of images. Leave the computer running overnight.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162373
>I don't really have to. All the tests will be: yes there is more detail but only at 100%
Your original assertion was that there are boatloads of sites that show that there *isn't* any more detail, even at 100%. So I guess you've conceded that battle.

The next point you get to concede: Since there is more detail in the shadow to get, if you shoot RAW, you can pull that shadow detail up so that it *is* visible at normal sizes. This follows from two simple facts:
1. RAW has more shadow detail than JPEG
2. It's possible to make dark pixels brighter using a computer

With a JPEG that has that region flat, featureless mostly-black noise, you're screwed. With a RAW, you can bring it up to visible.

>In the end, you are still correcting your exposure.
No, there's a difference. The assertion made previously is that the only people who would need to do that are morons who can't expose properly. Those are two examples of where your optimal image quality comes from deliberately choosing a "wrong" exposure based on what the in-camera JPEG processor puts out and editing it in post.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162450
>The hell? How is something that loses data every time it's resaved archival?
The argument is that JPEG is an open standard documented all over the place whereas Nikon, Canon, and others all have their own proprietary RAW formats. Nikon's the worst in this regard, since their RAWs use some special processing nobody's been able to 100% reverse engineer, from what I understand (I might be completely misrepresenting that. I don't shoot Nikon digitals, so I haven't paid that close attention).

Of course, with things like the open-source dcraw program out there, this argument is a little specious as well. As long as someone somewhere has a copy of the dcraw source code, the files will be decodable.

>>162451
I didn't bother responding to that point since it's copypasta anyway... but I'm guessing most high-end studios DO shoot raw most of the time, since most high-end studios will be using medium-format backs which don't produce JPEGs.
>> Anonymous
>>162453Your original assertion was that there are boatloads of sites that show that there *isn't* any more detail, even at 100%. So I guess you've conceded that battle.

Wow. I fail to see how you can say something like that.

>> Feel free to Google all you want, a truckload of people have made comparisons and the detail you can "pull" from a RAW is not different from the ones done on a JPG.

Pat yourself on the back much?

>> The next point (...)

I will just paraphrase because I can't put it any better.

"changing the brightness of pixels in a RAW image isn’t going to magic additional detail from nothing. A properly exposed image will always look better than one that was improperly exposed and adjusted later."
>> Anonymous
>The argument is that JPEG is an open standard documented all over the place

So are TIFF and PNG. And BMP, if someone's interested in using up huge amounts of hard drive space.

And it's a cinch to convert to DNG, if someone's really worried about archaeologists five thousand years from now being able to see their exact original file, before any processing.

>>162460
For whatever it's worth, they both use full frame Canon digital equipment. They're both more than just studio portrait outfits, and they're businesses, so they're not going to drop $30,000 on something they don't really need that would only be used for 25% of their revenue.
>> Anonymous
But yeah, dedicated high-end studios probably all have H3Ds or something.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162464
>Wow. I fail to see how you can say something like that.
Easy. Your first statement was:
>>Feel free to Google all you want, a truckload of people have made comparisons and the detail you can "pull" from a RAW is not different from the ones done on a JPG.
and your second was
>>All the tests will be: yes there is more detail but only at 100%.

See how that works? Basically what I did was this
1. I read your first argument
2. I read your second argument and noted how it stated the opposite of your first argument

It's not that hard if you practice at it.
>> Anonymous
>>162373

So you admit there are some scenes that have ranges to capture that are lesser or greater and yet you are still maintaining that the limitation of jpgs is okay and RAW isn't needed? You are full of shit.

RAW and jpgs are both useful just as the range of film media was useful before it. If you disagree you are a clown or a troll.
>> Anonymous
>>162492So you admit there are some scenes that have ranges to capture that are lesser or greater and yet you are still maintaining that the limitation of jpgs is okay and RAW isn't needed? You are full of shit.

Uh, taking the scene at -x and +x is way different than doing that from one single file.

If you can't see there is a difference, please do not post.
>> Anonymous
>>162491

Wow, what kind of logic is that? You really just want to cover your ears, tell yourself you are right and dust your hands off?

There is more detail, such as a shade of color along with noise of whatever was in the shadows. Unless your whole damn frame is a shadow, that shade of color is not going to be visible when resized. It is not going to be any different than on a JPG.

>> It's not that hard if you practice at it.

Stop being a pretentious faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>162494

No. You are full of shit and have contradicted yourself many times. Go die in a fire, idiot.
>> Anonymous
Where exactly did I do that?
>> Anonymous
Please respond to

>>162450
>>162451.
>> Anonymous
>>162500

You are a know-it-all cunt unwilling to listen. You are a failure as an artist and a human being.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162498
>There is more detail, such as a shade of color along with noise of whatever was in the shadows. Unless your whole damn frame is a shadow, that shade of color is not going to be visible when resized. It is not going to be any different than on a JPG.
High-contrast image. You have bright highlights and you have dim shadows. The only way to catch it all is to shoot raw in the middle, then bring the shadows up and pull the highlights down so it'll fit in a JPEG's dynamic range.

If you shot it in JPEG, you'd have clipped highlights and no shadow detail. If you shoot in RAW, you have enough shadow detail and highlight detail that you can compress the histogram and get a good overall image.

>Wow, what kind of logic is that? You really just want to cover your ears, tell yourself you are right and dust your hands off?
No, I want to argue with someone who actually knows how to do it so I can learn something new. I.e., not someone who can't seem to grasp the simple fact that asserting A and then asserting Not A is a contradiction.

I'm always up for being proven wrong. That's how I grow as a person. That's why I googled for tests on dynamic range of RAWs versus JPEGs even though my own personal experience seemed to suggest that RAW gave me more dynamic range to use.

>Stop being a pretentious faggot.
Stop making arguments so stupid that the only appropriate response is sarcastic mocking.
>> Anonymous
>>162502

Learn to read? That's a copypasta.

I only came in at>>162319
>> Anonymous
>>162510

Uh, if you've clipped highlights, nothing can bring it back..

That's why it's called clipping a highlight. If it's gone, it's gone. Nothing can bring it back, not your precious RAW file.

>> the simple fact that asserting A and then asserting Not A is a contradiction.

Wow, are you so fucking thick?

>> There is more detail, such as a shade of color along with noise of whatever was in the shadows. Unless your whole damn frame is a shadow, that shade of color is not going to be visible when resized. It is not going to be any different than on a JPG.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>162523
O hai, I'm refuting your point.

I took a picture of my LCD on your post, deliberately overexposed, in RAW+JPEG mode. Here's the (resized) JPEG straight out of the camera. Crops from the RAW and a 100% crop from the JPEG follow.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:16 19:58:56Exposure Time1/6 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeManualFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance0.330 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-236715952Color Matrix34
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
Here's the version from the JPEG, 100% crop.

Note the clipped highlights, obviously. Ain't no way you're getting the healthy 4chan selected-post pink back from those. Most of the pixels are pegged at #FFFFFF or damn near (lots of #FEFFFF and such, too)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:16 20:07:57Exposure Time1/6 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2592Image Height1480RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeManualFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance0.330 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-236715952Color Matrix34
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
And now, here's the version I got out of the RAW. Lots more detail salvageable there.

See how that works? The RAW has greater dynamic range, so there are more bits beyond the point where the JPEG clips.

Now, as for your next point:
>Wow, are you so fucking thick?
Do you not grant that "A AND NOT(A)" is a contradiction, or do you not grant that your propositions were equivalent to "A AND NOT(A)"?

Or were you just calling me thick for not realizing you're a troll? If that's the case... guilty, I suppose, but I'd say it was still worth it to preach the gospel of RAW to someone who might legitimately be on the fence.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Lens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:04:16 20:06:46Exposure Time1/6 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2565Image Height1551RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardCamera Actuations-236715952Color Matrix34Color Temperature5200 KExposure ModeManualFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance0.330 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224
>> Anonymous
>>162541
>>162538
>>162536

MMMMMONSTER KILLLL
>> Anonymous
Valiant effort.

>>162498Unless your whole damn frame is a shadow, that shade of color is not going to be visible when resized. It is not going to be any different than on a JPG.

Same goes for highlights.
>> Anonymous
>>162541
>>162538
>>162536
I cheered silently. That was a well executed shut-down.
>> Anonymous
>>162555

Yeah, that's a great exemple of real life.

Let's fucking blow out the entire frame.

EXCELLENT PROOF OF CONCEPT.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>162557
As luck would have it, I shot a frame on the way to work this morning with some extremely wide dynamic range.

EXAMPLE TIME #2!

First off, we have the resized straight-out-of-the-camera JPEG. Note that the car is very bright and the front of the cop is very not. I.e., very wide dynamic range. Kinda too wide for the JPEG.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size80.00 - 200.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:16 09:20:42Exposure Time1/2000 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-236781456Color Matrix34
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>162561
Now, here's the best rescue job I could do on the JPEG. Cop's very noisy, and you still can't really make out that much detail on his shirt and pants.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size80.00 - 200.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:16 20:34:04Exposure Time1/2000 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height683RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-236781456Color Matrix34
>> Anonymous
>>162557

Your bitter tear of defeat that run down your cheek taste so sweet to me. The butthurt from your rape must be very painful for you to produce them in such quality and quantity.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>162563
And, finally, the RAW. Resized.

Note that the difference is very noticeable even at 1024x684 resized-for-web versions.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Lens Size80.00 - 200.00 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:04:16 20:33:44Exposure Time1/2000 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height682RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardCamera Actuations-236781456Color Matrix34Color Temperature5200 KExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224
>> Ken Rockaholics Anonymous Anonymous
in during shitstorm

I'll admit that occasionally I'm one of several anons use the name Ken Rockwell and troll with his opinions. I think some of his ideas are good, and its certainly advice geared towards beginners who just want to get out there and take a ton of half-decent photos.

I imagine him as the duff man of photography - a deep voice, fun loving, and surrounded by beautiful women. Ken Rockwell - OH YEAH!

tl dr - i think Ken Rockwell is a pretty cool guy. eh takes photos and doesn't afraid of anything.
>> Anonymous
>>162557
Please. Please. It's over, the point has been made, everyone can see for themselves. No-one's trying to tell you what to believe, if it makes you happy continue to think the way you do: no-one has to know, nobody will care, but stop trying to convince us.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>162565
I like the Jpeg version more lol, Just saying!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162574
I didn't actually put any work into the RAW other than adjusting exposure. So it's still using the white balance from whatever it was I fixed the WB on last and I didn't play with the saturation or anything. This was just an example of recovering detail from a wide-dynamic-range shot.
>> Anonymous
>>162573
>>162564

Please stop posting.

You are either ac posting anon just because you need that kind of help to prove your point or you're a fucking idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>162574
I'd agree, the original or the jpeg. It looks to me like you put a bit of a red cast into the raw when editing.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162570
>surrounded by beautiful women.
He's got pictures of his wife up on his site.

Those who have lurked enough to be aware of my tastes will realize the full import of what I'm about to say: I don't want to have sex with her.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>162565Note that the difference is very noticeable

I am someone who is incredibly anal.

Where exactly is the very noticeable difference?

You lose some of the creases on his left leg. That sure ruined the picture.

If anything this proves my point.
>> Anonymous
Oh, I see what you are saying.

Fix your gamma.

My uncalibrated LCD shows the leg on the JPG as almost pitch black.

My calibrated CRT is fine and dandy.

Fix your gamma before you make these.
>> Anonymous
>>162578

You are a blind moron who refuses to concede any point in an argument.

You are a worthless idiot. Kill yourself and end your shame. Your own mother would have had an abortion while she still could if she knew what you would become.
>> Anonymous
>>162588BAWWWWWWWWW
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>162579
>>162574
Here, I put some actual effort into postprocessing it this time rather than just bumping up the shadows.

>>162582
And you too. Flip back and forth between this and the version from the JPEG. Cop in the JPEG is covered in noise from the brightness increase. New RAW-conversion version is much cleaner without losing detail. Also look at the bricks behind him and the shadow under the car.

And remember, these are massively resized JPEGs here. This'd be even more noticeable in, say, a medium to large print.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Lens Size80.00 - 200.00 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:04:16 21:00:03Exposure Time1/2000 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height682RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardCamera Actuations-236781456Color Matrix34Color Temperature5200 KExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>162597
now it wins!
>> Anonymous
Saging so it's not needlessly bumped.

>>162597

That is the new RAW, yes?

Again, if you could point where the difference is "very noticeable" unless your whole argument is the amount of noise. To which I have never said anything about other than that shit sucks when it's in JPG because of noise reduction.

>> You could do the same with a JPG but noise reduction will be there to ruin your day.

>> This'd be even more noticeable in, say, a medium to large print.

Unless it's AMAZINGLY bad, it will never show up in print. Specially in shadows where ink blots so easily. Noise always magically disappears in prints.
>> EvenSteven !!RBDL+S5h60X
     File :-(, x)
>>162580

FUCK YEAH MRS ROCKWELL
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
HEY, FUCK YOU GUIZ. KEN ROCKWELL TAUGHT ME EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHING REST STOP BATHROOMS.
>> Anonymous
>>162656Unless it's AMAZINGLY bad, it will never show up in print. Specially in shadows where ink blots so easily. Noise always magically disappears in prints.

You could say the same for most cameras and lenses and yet people will pay an awful lot for a little more. Diminishing returns.
>> Anonymous
>>162666
I lol'ed so hard.
>> Anonymous
>>162670You could say the same for most cameras and lenses and yet people will pay an awful lot for a little more.

All said and done, if you don't look at 100%, you'll be golden.
>> Anonymous
>>162666

Ken Rockwell needs to adjust the white balance of his teeth. He looks British there.
>> Anonymous
>>162679

Same for 110, APS, compacts and so on compared to 35mm, MF or LF.

Don't look at it too much and it will be fine...
>> Anonymous
>>162686

You're generalizing too much now.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162656
>Again, if you could point where the difference is "very noticeable"
Well, it's extremely noticeable to me. The other comments in the thread (assuming you don't just think that they've all been me astroturfing to back up my own argument) seem to agree.

>unless your whole argument is the amount of noise.
Well, it pretty much is. The noise destroys the shadow detail. If you didn't care about noise, you could just pull up shadows in the JPEG that are like #000100 vs #000200 and give them lots of contrast. With the RAW, you have more bits of data between those two colors, so you're not stretching them nearly as much.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162680
>Ken Rockwell needs to adjust the white balance of his teeth. He looks British there.
He can't.

He doesn't shoot RAW. ;)
>> Anonymous
>>162704Well, it's extremely noticeable to me.

Should I read this as: Yes, it's extremely noticeable because it has more noise.

Is that it?
>> Anonymous
Raw looks sharper to me: http://photodoto.com/raw-vs-jpg-print-shootout/
>> Anonymous
>>162710

Again, how are they proving this? They show you 100% crops.

We don't look at pictures at 100%. Maybe you do. But then you're doing it wrong.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162709
Yes?

I believe I covered that in the second half of my response.
>> Anonymous
So pretty much, RAW has less noise and it makes your pictures better viewed at 100%.

Gotcha.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162723
The cop pictures I posted were resized to 1024x682. Those aren't crops. The higher level of not-obscured-by-noise detail in them is quite evident to... well, everyone but you, apparently.
>> Anonymous
>>162730
The raw was slightly better, and I'm someone who shoots jpeg.

>>162710
Raw is better here too, although I thought only about 1/2 of them were noticeably better, and I looked closely.

I think his conclusion is telling:
When viewing these at a distance of about 5 feet they are completely identical. I think that’s important because it applies to how most people will view prints like this [11x14"] in real life...

At closer than five feet, I can spot the RAW print ...

I asked a few non-photographers to look at all three prints as well. The first impression from everyone was that I was trying to trick them. They thought they were identical. I had to tell people exactly what to look for and let them examine all three prints side by side before they could find any noticeable difference.

It’s clear to me from this test that RAW does provide better sharpness and detail than an in-camera JPG. If you absolutely must have the best possible print then you must shoot in RAW. Most people, however, can happily shoot in JPG mode without worrying about any noticeable difference in print quality.
>> Anonymous
>>162730The higher level of not-obscured-by-noise detail in them is quite evident to... well, everyone but you, apparently.

There's only you and me here, bud.

What monitor are you using and what kind of calibration did you use?

I've looked again, cropped the sections side by side and toggled between the pictures. There is no difference but some lost creases in his pants. Oh, and noise in the shadows.

If that kind of detail is going to make or break a picture for you, then that's a shame.
>> Anonymous
>>162730

If those prints were in something like a photobook then it would be a real-life situation where it could be spotted.
>> Anonymous
>>162747
Question: Why not shoot raw?
>> Anonymous
>>162753Question: Why not shoot raw?

I have never said: Do not shoot RAW, JPG is better.
>> Anonymous
>>162758

Then you are a huge nigger crying about nothing. Congrats.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162753
1. Larger file size
2. Longer processing time in camera (e.g., EOS 400D can shoot 27 JPEGs without pausing for breath, but only about 10 RAWs, depending on speed of your CF card)
3. Longer processing time once you've offloaded your files.
4. Potentially, the worry that your camera maker will drop support for your particular RAW format version in the future leaving you without a way to open your old files (though see other discussion about that in the thread)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>162765

ONE HUNDRED AND TEN JPGS OR THIRY RAWS AT 10 MOTHERFUCKING FRAMES PER SECOND
>> Anonymous
>>162765
Which are all negligible in practice for anyone except:

1. People too broke to buy a new hard drive a little bit more often.
2. Sports shooters who can't catch a shot in *ten frames.*
3. Just a few clicks to batch process.
4. Converting to DNGs is simple, and there's no reason why old software will suddenly become unable to run. (Granted, you might have to buy a $100 used machine from 2008 running Windows XP.)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162747
>There's only you and me here, bud.
There's at least one other person. That one guy you accused of being me trolling as an anon isn't me.

Granted, I have no way to prove to you that that's not me, but I feel personally confident of that fact.

I get the feeling that it's not just that one person, though, given that "RAW is better than JPEG" is far from an uncommon sentiment on /p/.

>What monitor are you using and what kind of calibration did you use?
Shitty cheap LCD with very ad-hoc calibration.

Point is, this example proves a few things:
1. You *can* see a difference, even when the file is reduced in size by more than an order of magnitude, from 10 megapixels to less than 1. "There is no difference but some lost creases in his pants" is not the same as "There is no difference"
3. There's not really that much detail in his pants to be lost, but what detail there was, it got lost in the JPEG. If the pants had had more details to begin with, it would be more obvious. But keep in mind that...
3. ...this was just a picture I happened to take today in the course of my normal photographic activities. I.e., not one I went out specifically looking for to make my point. So it is not a rare occurrence to come across a scene that has too much dynamic range for a JPEG but not too much for a RAW.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>162769
Eh, sometimes continuous shooting is nice.

And with some cameras (I'm looking at you, under-buffered [128MB, dammit] 450d) the difference is insane.

50+ Jpegs. 6 RAWs. 4 RAW+Jpeg. If you're doing any kind of continuous shooting Jpeg is the only real option.
>> Anonymous
>>162788
Are you telling me you suck so bad that six shots in a couple seconds isn't enough for you to pull out the frame you want?

Seriously, continuous shooting is very overrated, to the point of being counterproductive for most photography.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>162783
I agree with ac. That makes at least 3-4 people here.
>> Anonymous
>>162791
Me too, make that 4-5
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>162790
I actually like continuous shooting. Certainly not for general shooting, but on occasion, yeah.

Hm...I wonder if the 450d can shoot continuously indefinitely at lower resolution? I've done that with P&S Canons, but I never thought of it with a DSLR...
>> Anonymous
>>162783There's at least one other person. That one guy you accused of being me trolling as an anon isn't me.

Those are anons going bawww so they don't count. It's like that video of the 2 hot chicks fighting and a fat chick comes in and throws a few punches and runs away.

>> I get the feeling that it's not just that one person, though, given that "RAW is better than JPEG" is far from an uncommon sentiment on /p/.

Has it ever occured to you a large number of /p/ are just picking up their very first camera and are using RAW because they are thinking it's supremely superior just because.

>> Shitty cheap LCD with very ad-hoc calibration.

Well, okay. The guy with the $2,000 LaCie monitor tells you there's little difference.

>> "There is no difference but some lost creases in his pants" is not the same as "There is no difference"

Oh now you're just going to bite me on that?

Does it make you feel better if I had typed this instead in the first place:

The detail you can "pull" from a RAW is not significantly different from the ones done on a JPG.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162795
>Has it ever occured to you a large number of /p/ are just picking up their very first camera and are using RAW because they are thinking it's supremely superior just because.
It has. Which is why I've done research on this and actually performed these comparison experiments to back up my assertions. And anyway, my "there are other people who agree with me" argument there was that there are other people who see a significant difference in the JPEG and RAW pictures I've posted in this thread, not just that there are other people here who are pro-RAW.

The fact that Vincent and a random anon replied that the RAW I posted was worse before I'd done proper PP on it attests to the fact that they're not just saying the RAW's better because they prefer RAW, too.

>Does it make you feel better if I had typed this instead in the first place:
>The detail you can "pull" from a RAW is not significantly different from the ones done on a JPG.
No, see, you've missed the point.

This particular scene had very little detail in the cop's outfit--even if I had exposed perfectly for the cop and blown the car to hell, there wouldn't be much detail there because it was just a neatly pressed black uniform.

So, the fact that you could see *any* detail difference between the brightened JPEG and the brightened RAW is significant.
>> Anonymous
>>162805

I am trying to understand the last sentence. Did you word it correctly?
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>162807
It makes perfect sense to me.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162795
Oh, and also, the fact that your monitor *doesn't* show a difference between the shots while people with cheaper monitors can clearly see one isn't actually a point in favor of your expensive and expensively-calibrated monitor.

Also: The price of monitors has dropped a lot. Especially CRTs, which you mentioned is the one you're talking about. If you paid $2000 for your CRT, that suggests that it's probably several years old. Monitors don't get better with age. Phosphors wear out.
>> Anonymous
>>162811Oh, and also, the fact that your monitor *doesn't* show a difference between the shots while people with cheaper monitors can clearly see one isn't actually a point in favor of your expensive and expensively-calibrated monitor.

Uh, could it be you're all wrong and I'm right? *GASP*
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>162829
Possible. But it seems pretty unlikely. I mean, if it were just 4chan people telling you you were wrong, that wouldn't mean much, but pretty much every photographic professional out there with the exception of Ken Rockwell swears by RAW.
>> Anonymous
i like his advice
>> Anonymous
>>162811Oh, and also, the fact that your monitor *doesn't* show a difference between the shots while people with cheaper monitors can clearly see one isn't actually a point in favor of your expensive and expensively-calibrated monitor.

Oops forgot about that part.

You pretty much just said all RAW had was less noise.in shadows.

I don't know what you are seeing but there is no clear difference here. You simply do not gain that much more info just by pushing a RAW file.

Even if you do think you are getting more detail, it happens in the shadows and highlights. And again, unless your whole damn frame is shadow or highlight, there is little gained when you look at the whole picture.
>> Anonymous
>>162830pretty much every photographic professional out there (...) swears by RAW.

See? This is why. We'll do it because the pros do it.

RAW gives you flexibility, they say. How? When you mess up something you could've done right.

When you miss your exposure. And now we're back to square one.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>162845
Do you do ANY post-processing of your images at all? If so, you shouldn't since you should've gotten your image perfect straight from your camera.

In b4 anon lying about pp.
>> Anonymous
>>162846Do you do ANY post-processing of your images at all? If so, you shouldn't since you should've gotten your image perfect straight from your camera.

Again, please do not put words in my mouth.

I have never given any details about how I take shots and how I process them, if at all.

There is one and only one argument being discussed here.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>162849
I'm not putting words in your mouth. You made an idiotic statement about how you shouldn't have to make corrections to photos you take, and then using that to say there's no reason to use RAW. I'm simply applying your "should've gotten it right in the first place" argument to an entirely related topic.

Yes, there is only one argument going on here. One that you have already lost. Ac already showed you that you were wrong about RAW not being any different than JPEG. You've outright lied when saying that there was no difference between the sample images that were posted comparing the two even though the JPEG was obviously of much poorer image quality. Now that you've run out of things to say you're circling back to your original arguments that have already been replied to.

You, sir, are a troll.
>> Anonymous
CSI use RAW to arbitrarily sharpen and focus 600% zooms of security camera shots to identify the killer.
>> Anonymous
>>162855You made an idiotic statement about how you shouldn't have to make corrections to photos you take, and then using that to say there's no reason to use RAW.

You ARE putting words in my mouth.

Show me where I have said to not use RAW.

>>162758I have never said: Do not shoot RAW, JPG is better.

Before we even start this whole thing, I would like to state for the record you do not have the most exemplary track record for intelligent posts.

>> One that you have already lost. Ac already showed you that you were wrong about RAW not being any different than JPEG.

Please do not jump in a middle of a conversation without reading the entire thread.

There is a difference for people who look at pictures at 100% and who would pixel peep for noise in shadows.

If you look at the whole picture or actually made prints, there would simply be no quantifiable or significant difference.

>> You've outright lied when saying that there was no difference between the sample images that were posted comparing the two even though the JPEG was obviously of much poorer image quality.

Please define "obviously of much poorer image quality" Go back and forth both images cropped with just the man. Unless you want to go anal and be dismissing the noise, the JPG is not "obviously of much poorer quality".

You're that fat chick right now. Run away.
>> Anonymous
>>162861
I'm not getting involved again here, because I'm convinced you're either a troll or something worse, since you're arguing against visual evidence, despite agreeing that people should shoot raw.

But it's unreasonable to ask someone to read through a 125 post shitstorm.
>> Anonymous
>>162863

You can choose to ignore this.

Or if you do feel like joining in, have the decency to read the posts instead of assuming.
>> Anonymous
>>162863since you're arguing against visual evidence

I have taken his "evidence" in good faith. I trust him to not tamper with it. And any idiot can show "visual evidence" proving just about anything.

The fact is the only thing the RAW has going for it is less noise. That is not difference enough.

But obviously everyone is simply convinced RAW is superior in every single way and only amateurs use JPG.
>> Anonymous
>>162863since you're arguing against visual evidence

I have taken his "evidence" in good faith. I trust him to not tamper with it. And any idiot can show "visual evidence" proving just about anything.

The fact is the only thing the RAW has going for it is less noise, according to ac in this example anyway. That is not difference enough.

But obviously everyone is simply convinced RAW is superior in every single way and only amateurs use JPG.
>> Anonymous
>>162865
1. I was involved, almost twelve fucking hours ago. I left when things went stupider than they already were.
2. It's indecent to play gotcha on specific phrases, and its indecent to expect people to read a clusterfuck of a thread like this all the way through.
>> Anonymous
Oh well, if you're not hardcore enough for it you can move along, eh.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>162861
And now YOU'RE putting words in my mouth. I didn't say you said "don't shoot raw". Stop making arguments based on things I didn't say. But since you asked:

"No, there is zero advantage [to using RAW]"
"RAW is for people who can't expose properly in the first place."

You have implied that there are no advantages to RAW and that those who use it are inferior artists.

You've run out of arguments and are now using Ad Hominem? Congratulations, you fail.

I've read this thread in it's entirety. And don't accuse me of not reading when you yourself have ignored information given by others. For example, the picture of the police officer is not a crop, as you say, but is resized (weren't you the one saying that when resized there is no difference?). Why is it that you are saying that the significant amount of noise in the resized JPEG version is the only difference and that it's no big deal? You're full of shit. A noisy image (unless it's one of those "poor image quality on purpose" pictures) is a bad image. It takes away from the picture, and it's distracting. If you were to print two images, one of the JPEG version and one of the RAW, the RAW will look better. Period. Denying this fact is either ignorance or a flat-out lie.

Ac has already taken the burden of proof and shown that JPEG images are of lower quality than RAW images. Now, if you would like to prove him (and the rest of us) that there is no difference between the two you are free to do so. Until then, good day sir.
>> Anonymous
>>162904And now YOU'RE putting words in my mouth. I didn't say you said "don't shoot raw". Stop making arguments based on things I didn't say

Umm:

>> and then using that to say there's no reason to use RAW.

This invalidates your post entirely but I will still review the rest of it but make a separate message. Since this needs to stand out because you know, you made a big doody.
>> Anonymous
Holy shit, you guys are still going at it? Please just leave this troll to frolick in his JPG inferiority. Big waste of time.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>162910
Quote (from you) from earlier in the thread:
"No, there is zero advantage [to using RAW]"

I JUST SAID "you said 'there's no reason to use raw'"

Last I checked, "no reason" and "zero advantage" are synonymous.

You know what? I'm going to take the advice of
>>162913
And just let you continue to fail. Have a nice day.
>> Anonymous
>>162904"No, there is zero advantage [to using RAW]"

Hahah, so you didn't read it after all.

>>162520Learn to read? That's a copypasta.

>> 162520 I only came in at>>162319

>> For example, the picture of the police officer is not a crop, as you say, but is resized (weren't you the one saying that when resized there is no difference?).

Read:

>> There is a difference for people who look at pictures at 100% and who would pixel peep for noise in shadows.

>> Why is it that you are saying that the significant amount of noise in the resized JPEG version is the only difference and that it's no big deal?

Because any way you look at it, it's completely insignificant. And if you DO think it is, then you're one of those pixel peeper guys.

>> If you were to print two images, one of the JPEG version and one of the RAW, the RAW will look better. Period. Denying this fact is either ignorance or a flat-out lie.

Have you ever printed a picture? Again, unless it's horrendously bad, most noise will just disappear away when the ink blots.

Noise is only ever an issue for pixel peepers.

>> Denying this fact is either ignorance or a flat-out lie.

I think this is just plain ignorance on your part. Print both images out, and unless you have access to extremely high resolution printers, there will be no difference. Also see that link about RAW vs. JPG in print.
>> Anonymous
>>162917

Well, make like that fat chick and run away.
>> Anonymous
>>162913Please just leave this troll to frolick in his JPG inferiority.

So you're one of those guys who uses RAW because the pros use it?

Okay, that was of poor taste.

Show me where I have said JPG is better. Please.
>> Anonymous
>>162917

Oops, that didn't post so well.

So I will clarify.

>>162290No, there is zero advantage.

That is not me.^

>>162319

This is me.^
>> Anonymous
>>162923

You didn't, you said they were the same. They aren't.
>> Anonymous
>>162925you said they were the same.

I did not say RAW and JPG were the same. I'm sorry.

>> The detail you can "pull" from a RAW is not significantly different from the ones done on a JPG.

"Significantly" being added after revision.

The one and only argument is about shadow detail.

Please look at the posts before you make assumptions.
>> Anonymous
>>162928

Shadow and highlight, oops.
>> Anonymous
biggest troll feeding on /p/... no, on 4chan
12 hours. jesus christ.
>> Anonymous
This should make it on 4chanarchive, yes?

Because someone had mentioned /p/ had 0 threads on there.
>> Anonymous
>>162913
Hey Jesus, I posted that message. I'm not the OP. I'm a .raw-user, not a jpgfag like OP. :P

Just suggesting you let the thread die, cause he doesnt seem to want to stop.
>>162917
>> Anonymous
>>162928

wrong, wrong, wrong. you are squirming and lying. i can see clearly that you are running out of excuses and know you cannot win with these lies and twisting.
>> Anonymous
>>162947

Holy fuck. I just realized it was Jesus who posted the copypasta link.

But you're just another fat chick throwing a punch and running away.
>> Anonymous
>>162951

thank you for contributing to society.