|
Post by melhill1659 on Nov 2, 2017 18:42:43 GMT -5
I’m just waiting on the word hon!!!
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Nov 2, 2017 18:45:37 GMT -5
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 19:08:01 GMT -5
"The Rio"
A novel in the making.
|
|
|
Post by melhill1659 on Nov 2, 2017 19:08:48 GMT -5
Feed her to the Sandinista's while we run. Sorry Melissa Why sorry, Melissa... I’m quite quick for my height! Just might surprise y’all 😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2017 19:14:01 GMT -5
Feed her to the Sandinista's while we run. Sorry Melissa Why sorry, Melissa... I’m quite quick for my height! Just might surprise y’all 😂 You dont have to be faster than the bad guys. You only have to be faster than your friends!
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 3, 2017 2:49:57 GMT -5
Why sorry, Melissa... I’m quite quick for my height! Just might surprise y’all 😂 You dont have to be faster than the bad guys. You only have to be faster than your friends! Guessing/hoping they will target Melissa. Upon catching her they may find they bit off more than they can chew.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 3, 2017 3:39:09 GMT -5
Went back and re shot with ISO 200/RAW Here is original at ISO 800/RAW: Two more shots but at ISO 200/RAW Crops magnified to about maximum. Normally would have grain issues ISO 200/RAW Drop size a bit usually best resolution ISO 200/RAW. Substantial improvement when doing large crop RAW verses JPEG for 6M camera.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 3, 2017 4:11:49 GMT -5
On this shoot, I went back and shot ISO 200/JPEG. The files were about 1/4 smaller. The crops were about 200K, certain they will be grainy at full screen. Keep in mind, only a 6M camera. cropped. And this is the maximum crop because of the small file size. Could not get full screen another shot, same settings crop of above and a third shot, same JPEG settings and it's crop
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 3, 2017 4:19:09 GMT -5
Finally, the CONCLUSION. The large crop showed the difference between RAW and JPEG. All conditions darn near equal. RAW was big improvement for this old camera. Why. Why is the math different. RAW is 1060 X 908 but only 492KB. JPEG is 574 X 515 but 807KB ?? Garage Rocker woodman Randy, I know these crops are pushing this 6M camera to it's limits. But it does have limits when cropping. The ISO difference between 200 and 800 made no difference in my eyes just as you said. My best RAW crop: My best JPEG crop:
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 3, 2017 4:48:06 GMT -5
RAW of other rock Raw crop
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 3, 2017 4:54:15 GMT -5
My favorite is Chuck's iPhone photo w/no fancy lighting. Drummond Island RocksDamn the torpedos !! Going to have to get the Mac iPad out. Nice big screen to compose with. That is just a fine photo of a hard to photograph dark moss.
|
|
|
Post by MrP on Nov 3, 2017 5:21:54 GMT -5
RAW of other rock Raw crop Wow that is a nice rock and beautiful picture. I found out about the difference between RAW and JPEG while I was listing to a podcast about astrophotography. When they are photographing space things are far away so a star they are taking a picture of may only take up 6 or 7 pixels. All of the pixels are very close to the same so in a JPEG they will be stored as 1 pixel but in RAW each pixel will be stored with it's own data. There may be very little difference between each pixel but there is some difference so when they crop, with there special software, they have 6 or 7 pixels to work with instead of only 1 if it was JPEG. 6 or 7 pixels isn't much but is many more then 1.
When taking a picture of your rock in JPEG it would group the fuzzy edges of the plume as 1 because there is really very little difference between those pixels and you don't really need each pixel to make a 'nice' picture. If you were taking the picture for a magazine cover you would want as many pixels as you could have to be able to edit the picture to the best quality.
Believe me I am no expert but the way it was explained seems to make sense to me.......................................MrP
PS: You don't see many pictures from me because most of mine suck!
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Nov 3, 2017 6:03:50 GMT -5
Very nice work, James. Liking the detail in your close up shot. Find out the best way to maximize your equipment. I don't have to step into my photos like that, because I'm using a macro lens. Even when I do crop, it's only slightly and my camera has about 4X the pixels you're working with. Still, I'll do my best James impersonation and shoot both RAW and JPEG for comparison, whenever I get the motivation back to shoot rock pics. Thanks for sharing your findings.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 3, 2017 8:50:53 GMT -5
Very nice work, James. Liking the detail in your close up shot. Find out the best way to maximize your equipment. I don't have to step into my photos like that, because I'm using a macro lens. Even when I do crop, it's only slightly and my camera has about 4X the pixels you're working with. Still, I'll do my best James impersonation and shoot both RAW and JPEG for comparison, whenever I get the motivation back to shoot rock pics. Thanks for sharing your findings. Well phoey. Camera had way more capability. Been using that same beast for 6 years here. All it took was a click of a setting. the photo of the whole tumble is barely cropped Randy. The lens has a macro switch however that works and makes about a 2:1 macro. Looks like overall fidelity is sharper. Color and sharpness. I get what you are saying. 6M is simply on the edge in JPEG for these detailed rocks. Telling as to why they went to 12-18-24M cameras.
|
|
Intheswamp
Cave Dweller
Member since September 2015
Posts: 1,910
|
Post by Intheswamp on Nov 3, 2017 9:04:19 GMT -5
James, I'm not sure about your discrepancy between your RAW and jpeg file sizes. I find the opposite to be true....RAW being much larger than the resulting jpeg files.
RAW...data file, needs software to be able to process and display "image". Non-compressed info. Not an image file...a *data* file. Does not lose data when processed. Consider it your digital negative.
Jpeg...image file processed "in camera". Usually highly compressed. Can edit it, but usually is a lossy process.
Jpeg = 8 bit RAW = 12-14 bit
Different cameras perform differently. But, without a doubt, the jpeg that comes out of a digital camera will be inferior to the image processed from the RAW data. The camera is doing fast and dirty processing to present you with instant gratification on a tiny screen. I have several jpeg resolutions I can select with my camera, but the highest resolution (which produces a pretty decent jpeg) still doesn't equal the image created from the RAW file (I shoot RAW+jpeg). When you pull the RAW image into a RAW processor you should be getting an image derived from all the information available from that data file...and that data can be much more easily edited than trying to do lossy editing on a jpeg. Data is lost when jpegs are edited....with RAW no data is lost.
Some people think that post-processing is a cardinal sin, they don't like images that have been "photoshopped"....what they need to realize that as soon as the shutter button is pressed the image is being "post processed" by the camera to convert digital data to the jpeg that we see...the camera processes it to what it "thinks" the photographer wants to see.
I save my RAW files. If a RAW file isn't worth saving then the jpeg probably isn't, either. Naturally, if you're only wish is to post to a forum or Facebook or something then upload the image and delete both jpeg and RAW file, etc.,...but, hard-drive space is cheap.
I wonder...when Ansel Adams shot Jeffrey Pine did he throw away the negative after he printed it? I'm no expert...not even a half-decent amateur...just my take on things.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 3, 2017 9:14:36 GMT -5
RAW of other rock Raw crop Wow that is a nice rock and beautiful picture. I found out about the difference between RAW and JPEG while I was listing to a podcast about astrophotography. When they are photographing space things are far away so a star they are taking a picture of may only take up 6 or 7 pixels. All of the pixels are very close to the same so in a JPEG they will be stored as 1 pixel but in RAW each pixel will be stored with it's own data. There may be very little difference between each pixel but there is some difference so when they crop, with there special software, they have 6 or 7 pixels to work with instead of only 1 if it was JPEG. 6 or 7 pixels isn't much but is many more then 1.
When taking a picture of your rock in JPEG it would group the fuzzy edges of the plume as 1 because there is really very little difference between those pixels and you don't really need each pixel to make a 'nice' picture. If you were taking the picture for a magazine cover you would want as many pixels as you could have to be able to edit the picture to the best quality.
Believe me I am no expert but the way it was explained seems to make sense to me.......................................MrP
PS: You don't see many pictures from me because most of mine suck!
You got it dialed in Michael. More pixels within the pixel and can be manipulated for higher quality images. The moss and plumes in those rocks are fuzzy creatures to begin with. No matter how sharp the focus some still look fuzzy - because they are ! It does open folks up to buying older used cameras with 6M capability cheaply, switch that rascal to RAW and take some kick butt rock photos. This old Nikon D70 takes old 35mm film lenses that can be bought for a song and are very well made and were expensive in their day. Venerable quality old school glass lens as good as any made today. Anyway, it was cool discovering the RAW format and have a situation where it could be compared to JPEG. By the way, the iPhoto photo shop software seemed to act the same in doing JPEG photo manipulation. The main difference was waiting about 5 to 10 seconds for the photo to come into focus when initially bought into the edit mode. As if the fast Mac was getting being challenged to arrange the extra pixels to construct the photo image. It also took about 4 times longer for them to load to flickr than a JPEG.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 3, 2017 9:31:56 GMT -5
James, I'm not sure about your discrepancy between your RAW and jpeg file sizes. I find the opposite to be true....RAW being much larger than the resulting jpeg files. RAW...data file, needs software to be able to process and display "image". Non-compressed info. Not an image file...a *data* file. Does not lose data when processed. Consider it your digital negative. Jpeg...image file processed "in camera". Usually highly compressed. Can edit it, but usually is a lossy process. Jpeg = 8 bit RAW = 12-14 bit Different cameras perform differently. But, without a doubt, the jpeg that comes out of a digital camera will be inferior to the image processed from the RAW data. The camera is doing fast and dirty processing to present you with instant gratification on a tiny screen. I have several jpeg resolutions I can select with my camera, but the highest resolution (which produces a pretty decent jpeg) still doesn't equal the image created from the RAW file (I shoot RAW+jpeg). When you pull the RAW image into a RAW processor you should be getting an image derived from all the information available from that data file...and that data can be much more easily edited than trying to do lossy editing on a jpeg. Data is lost when jpegs are edited....with RAW no data is lost. Some people think that post-processing is a cardinal sin, they don't like images that have been "photoshopped"....what they need to realize that as soon as the shutter button is pressed the image is being "post processed" by the camera to convert digital data to the jpeg that we see...the camera processes it to what it "thinks" the photographer wants to see. I save my RAW files. If a RAW file isn't worth saving then the jpeg probably isn't, either. Naturally, if you're only wish is to post to a forum or Facebook or something then upload the image and delete both jpeg and RAW file, etc.,...but, hard-drive space is cheap. I wonder...when Ansel Adams shot Jeffrey Pine did he throw away the negative after he printed it? I'm no expert...not even a half-decent amateur...just my take on things. Well, in Mac iPhoto Raw was 492KB. BUT, the pixel count was 1060 X 908 = 962,480. The 962,480 makes perfect sense. The smaller 492KB is the enigma. In JPEG, same photo was 807KB, but pixel count was 574 X 515 = 295,610 The smaller 295,610 makes perfect sense for the JPEG. The larger 807KB is the enigma. My question Ed, Why is RAW 962,480 calculated as only 492KB. And JPEG 295,610 calculated as 807KB ?? You answered it here, now I get it: Jpeg = 8 bit RAW = 12-14 bit I suppose the KB count counts the bricks in the wall but the RAW bricks are each made up of several smaller bricks. I get you on the "preprocessing". Digital cameras are man-manipulated and man-programed to reproduce images. CCD's for instance are only as accurate as man makes them reproduce. Digital cameras are in a sort fraudulent, master manipulators of reality. created by mankind !! Perhaps they should be banned and outlawed Maybe I stayed up too late.
|
|
|
Post by woodman on Nov 3, 2017 9:34:45 GMT -5
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 3, 2017 9:59:50 GMT -5
Ha, I read the exact same article months ago woodman. So I researched the sensor in my old D70. And the sensor of my NikonD70 was rated one of the finest sensor plates made yet was only 6M. I did not believe it till yesterday when I put the RAW on it. Now I see why it was so highly rated. "Why More Is Not Necessarily Better In addition to producing more image data than you need for your uses, higher-megapixel sensors are not always of better quality. Typically, within a camera product line, the physical dimensions of the sensor stay the same from model to model. To achieve a higher resolution, more "photosites" must be packed onto the same size sensor. Advances in manufacturing and sensor technology allow this to even be possible. However, when the photosites become more densely packed onto the sensor, they start to affect each other – electrical signals can affect neighboring photosites. Another downside to high-megapixel cameras is simply the file size of each image. While actual storage space is cheap these days, it will take longer to transfer images and it makes it harder to transfer full-size images to friends, family, and photo-sharing sites." As far as backing away from your subject. Optics often have a sweet spot. Like a zoom lens. Digital processors cannot correct for optical distortions. Say it is 28 to 85 mm. Lens designers often try to design for sweet spot at 70%. So 28 to 85 mm, best photos are likely the best(optically) at about 70 mm. A fixed focus 70 mm is going to take better photos than a 28 to 85mm zoom set at 70 mm. Plus there is a lot more glass for the image to pass thru in a zoom than a fixed focus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2017 10:54:23 GMT -5
You dont have to be faster than the bad guys. You only have to be faster than your friends! Guessing/hoping they will target Melissa. Upon catching her they may find they bit off more than they can chew. I'll second that notion. Agreed.
|
|