| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/26/2007 12:56:28 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by nards656:
That's pretty revealing.
Anybody know of any such comparisons - or can you tell me how to do one - of an image recorded and processed in RAW/TIFF versus one recorded in JPG and processed in JPG??? |
That isn't very surprising, JPEG-2000 is far better than JPEG. Given that MS have had 7 additional years to come up with an algorithm, I'd be happy to believe that their format gives even better compression.
JPEG-2000 failed to get much adoption because JPEG was good enough and all the browsers supported it. Much the same way that PNG never managed to very significantly push out GIF (though it is slowly getting there)
The question really should be, is JPEG bad enough to bother with a new, MS specific format ?
Actually, after some consideration, the real question should be 'which format are the porn industry going to adopt?'
That'll be the real technology driver for any change.
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 13:01:49.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 12:59:18 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Anybody know of any such comparisons - or can you tell me how to do one - of an image recorded and processed in RAW/TIFF versus one recorded in JPG and processed in JPG??? |
It's easy to do...
- Start with your reference image open
- Save a copy to the desired format, using a filename such that the save parameters are identifiable
- Open the saved version
- Copy the saved version to a layer above the original
- Set blend mode to "difference"
It's best to work with a very high quality original file with both lots of fine, high-contrast detail and areas of very smooth color gradation, and preferably a well-defined interface between the two areas.
Look for artifacts along edges, and in the smooth areas immediately adjacent to the detailed areas. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:12:15 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
1/ Use the large electronic flourescent colour cast removal switch on the wall, prior to taking the shot.
2/ use a strobe with a gel to match the remaining ambient light. |
David will be proud to see you're quoting him. ;)
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 03:04:31 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Actually, after some consideration, the real question should be 'which format are the porn industry going to adopt?'
That'll be the real technology driver for any change. |
I believe they will be going to the .sex compression codec soon. Then we will say stuff like just sex the image. That sex sucked and made the image blurry. ect...
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 15:04:56. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 03:14:09 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Gordon:
1/ Use the large electronic flourescent colour cast removal switch on the wall, prior to taking the shot.
2/ use a strobe with a gel to match the remaining ambient light. |
David will be proud to see you're quoting him. ;) |
Yup, I liked his 'colour cast removal' joke. But it really is the only way to fix it, other than what the OP said, of processing the file x times for each different light source. Even then, it is impossible to keep up with sources that cycle their white balance - better just to get rid of them.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2007 11:47:11 AM · #156 |
|
|
|
01/28/2007 12:04:55 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by hankk:
One big reason to shoot RAW is mixed lighting. Say you're taking an environmental portrait in a room lit with cool white fluorescents, and set custom WB for the subject. There is a window in the background, and its a cloudy day. Assuming most of the light you metered for is from the fluorescents, the outside will have a magenta color cast. You can re-process the RAW for "cloudy WB" and then cut and paste the two JPGs to get a good looking picture. |
Talk about doing it the hard way...
|
|
|
|
01/28/2007 01:26:13 PM · #158 |
not really - i just read an article in 'studio photography' about an architecture photographer who recently made the switch from medium format to digital 35mm ( 1ds mII - i think -w 5d backup ). it seems layering multiple images exposed for the different light sources saves him ooodles of time.
depends on the circumstances - there is always more than one way to face a challenge...
//www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=3&id=2227
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by hankk:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One big reason to shoot RAW is mixed lighting. Say you're taking an environmental portrait in a room lit with cool white fluorescents, and set custom WB for the subject. There is a window in the background, and its a cloudy day. Assuming most of the light you metered for is from the fluorescents, the outside will have a magenta color cast. You can re-process the RAW for "cloudy WB" and then cut and paste the two JPGs to get a good looking picture.
Talk about doing it the hard way... |
Message edited by author 2007-01-28 13:27:30.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2007 03:21:10 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by soup:
not really - i just read an article in 'studio photography' about an architecture photographer who recently made the switch from medium format to digital 35mm ( 1ds mII - i think -w 5d backup ). it seems layering multiple images exposed for the different light sources saves him ooodles of time.
depends on the circumstances - there is always more than one way to face a challenge...
//www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=3&id=2227
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by hankk:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One big reason to shoot RAW is mixed lighting. Say you're taking an environmental portrait in a room lit with cool white fluorescents, and set custom WB for the subject. There is a window in the background, and its a cloudy day. Assuming most of the light you metered for is from the fluorescents, the outside will have a magenta color cast. You can re-process the RAW for "cloudy WB" and then cut and paste the two JPGs to get a good looking picture.
Talk about doing it the hard way... |
|
For a building, sure. Because in those shots, you're talking about having to gel every light on and in the building to match color temps and you're going to be doing it on maybe one or two images total.
For a portrait session with a few overhead flourescents, as was suggested, it's stupid. What happens in those areas where the subject isn't illuminated by one source or the other, but a combination of both? You'll never get it to look right, now matter how many RAW conversions you do. Why not spend a few seconds to color balance the lights with a few pennies worth of CC gel or, in the case of the overhead fluorescents, turn them off altogether? If you're doing a wedding, is it really practical to spend all of those hours combining differently processed images on hundreds of exposures? You'd be lucky to get the couple their proofs before their first wedding anniversary.
Message edited by author 2007-01-28 15:24:27.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2007 03:41:59 PM · #160 |
I'm known for being highly indecisive.
If I can find a workflow I really like, I might go back.
Dunno :)
No doubting the advantages of RAW.
Lemme think about it. |
|
|
|
01/29/2007 04:00:39 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by nards656:
I'm known for being highly indecisive.
|
And that is the understatement of the years, folks. After almost ten years of marriage, I finally figured it out.
Keep watching, in a few weeks, there may be a "I believe in RAW" thread.
(To nards -- just playing wit' ya. I love you!) |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 11:20:28 PM · #162 |
He shot his shallow DOF entry in RAW.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 07:43:19 AM · #163 |
And it currently is tanking at 4.4.
That alone is enough to prove my point, considering that I just scored a 6.19 with an entry shot in JPEG. |
|
