uuu...ala su se ovi rasprasili oko raw vs jpeg.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthre...&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who have expended considerable effort exposing the supposed flaws in the Outdoor Photographer article by Rob Sheppard might want to pop by the magazine stand and read the article. I think you'll find there is more than one way to interpret both the main thrust of the article as well as some of the specific points.
His main point, as I read it, is that a JPEG right out of the camera can be of excellent quality, and that it's key to pick JPEG or RAW depending on your needs. He seems to lament a push to shoot raw for everyone and everything, in that it makes photo enthusiasts (it seems like that's the target audience for this article) feel guilty if they choose to not shoot RAW, even if JPEG would be the sensible choice for several perfectly valid reasons he puts forward. So, his main point doesn't seem too wacky to me.
On the point that in-camera JPEGs are superior to "unprocessed" RAW files from the unspecified Canon camera he has used, especially in the area of highlight detail and noise levels, I think he means a conversion from a RAW file in which none of the adjustment settings have been altered, in as much as the words "unadjusted RAW" are used 2 or more times earlier in the article, leading into this point. He says that as good or better results could be obtained from a converted RAW file, only adjusting the conversion settings would be required to achieve as good or better results.
In the specific JPEG/RAW example used to illustrate the article - an ocean sunset - the JPEG version is slightly denser overall than the RAW version, at least as the two are printed in the magazine. So if this is what he's comparing, and it does read like pics from this sunset shoot are the basis for the piece, then one would have to agree: the JPEG version, being denser, probably does have better highlight detail (well, slightly denser orange in the sky around the blank area where the sun is, if that can be described as better detail) and probably lower perceived noise (since the noise would be darker and slightly more lost in the darker tones in the JPEG version shown).
So, if one subs in the word unadjusted for unprocessed, which seems reasonable to do based on the rest of the article, then his point that Canon's DIGIC processor is designed to handle highlights well and minimize noise, is also not too wacky, especially since he makes the point more than once that a RAW conversion could match it, with extra work in the adjustment software. So, despite some possible questionable wording or misguided editing, I think it's clear that he isn't saying that a JPEG file is capable of greater highlight detail or lower noise than RAW, only that in his example the RAW file would take more adjustment effort to get it to the same place as the JPEG.
Ultimately, his main point - that a JPEG can look pretty darn good - is fine with me. As is the notion that some folks shoot RAW because they feel they won't be a studly photographer unless they do, despite the fact their workflow and needs would be better-suited to JPEG. I can accept all of that.
As to WHY the JPEG shows better highlight detail and lower noise than the conveted RAW pic of the same scene, it's hard to fathom that the density difference isn't because of some bug in the raw conversion software, an error in settings or something else. But there's no way to determine whether there is a problem and what it might be, because the camera, software and adjustment settings aren't described. And at this point in this post I'm already bored with what I'm writing, since ultimately the article won't have any impact on my workflow, so I'm not even sure I care to try and figure it out.
I'll close with two points:
(1) I think Rob Sheppard, whom I know and is a good guy, has weakened his "JPEGs are a-ok" argument with a comparison scene that isn't particularly compelling, and hasn't backed it up with any supporting technical detail, not enough even for an advanced hobbyist I think to properly assess what they're seeing. And I think the article plays up how much work it would be to make a converted-from-RAW version of the sunset match the JPEG, when what I see, based on the printing in the magazine, is maybe a minor tweak of the exposure compensation slider would take care of most of the difference, if not all of it.
(2) It's always good to read an article before lambasting its contents, since your interpretation of it might be different than the poster who kicked off this thread. Which doesn't make me right, incidentally: no offence is intended here, Paul.
-Rob Galbraith
------------------------------
nisam citao sve (nisam lud), ali vidim da su po kafani pocele da lete stolice...
.
