Stephen,

I will come back on this later as I have passed by some info on DNG to get to my next post. Don't throw your old Raw files out just yet.

Don

Another really interesting tech talk on RAW and JPEG. http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

Don

Dng
 

Stephen,

I think the clue here is to think of who looses with DNG and that will be those Camera Manufacturers that produce their own software and how they will react to paying royalties to Adobe. For example how much money do Nikon make from NC. What of their new tie up with NK and the impending release of Capture NX. I do not know which other camera makers supply their own software. OK a lot of chat about Leica and Hasselblad signing up to DNG but they have nothing to loose and are the two least affected.

Before you convert and bin your current version I think a little bit of caution is in order. 2 links I passed by earlier.

http://nikondigital.org/articles/library/adobe_dng.htm

http://www.openraw.org/comments/?id=226

Don

Next job is to rain on my own parade.
 

Now I have some understanding of RAW it will be important to balance the argument with a view for the users of JPEG.

I feel it is important that we do not decend into a RAW is better than JPEG without showing at which point that could become a critical issue.

As previously stated the cost of upgrading PC and possibly software can exceed the cost of budget DSLR and lens. I would rather people were out taking pics, than be in the situation of have to buy a PC upgrade first so end up limping along on the camera front. These are the people who will use JPEG and I feel a bit of reasurance that they are OK with that will be a good thing.

As JPEGS are 8 bit, a true reflection in pictorial form can be posted.

Any positive input welcome.

Don

PS Sorry in advance Stephen but this will involve a bit of pixel peeping but then its in a good cause.

Stephen,

Thanks for the link you posted. Will put it here to save people backpaging to search for it. http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_..._workflow.html An excellent read.

Other than prints larger than 10 x 8 which can be overcome and I will have a go later, the biggest issue seems to be shadow and highlight detail. Particularly highlight.

I have not done more than speed read the links I posted yesterday, as I visited a huge number of sites and was trying to get to the easiest to read analysis ones. It is a fairly complex subject and some stuff was really in the realms of computer boffins.

I will go away and digest this lot.

Please post any comments you have on exposing for highlights as this will apply to both RAW and JPEG but with greater implications on JPEG.

Thanks again

Don

Dull, grey, cold day ... some good reading here to keep you in the warm.

I posted the link to the RAW bit yesterday but have just made it to the index page. Lots more good info about the digital image. http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm

Don

This is turning into a crash course in digital. Amazing how little I knew.

Taking a bit of a break in the gallery.:)

Don

Don I have just finished reading the articles on raw on http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm. the articles are very well written and give a better understanding on how it works. Its a good one to fall back on when needed.

I agree Christine, loads of info and easy to understand. I do not have photoshop but it is nice to know what is happening all the same. Interesting articles on composition and light as well.

Don

OK I have read the links information and accept that images in jpeg will suffer some degredation particularly in highlight and shadow areas, 8bit v 16bit.

Management has as signed off a spend on a new PC but not new imaging software.

Done with reading today as there is only so much you can take on board in one session.

Rummaged for a suitable RAW file that I could do a straight conversion on to TIFF 16bit, and JPG 8bit. We have already been down the route with D100 in camera processing of JPG's and have failed to see much missing info. So although not strictly scientific it would do for a first pass. Easy, pixel peep them at 300% and differences will be quite obvious. I was concentrating on the white areas as I was now expecting quite obvious differences in this area.

NOT SO.

It may be my screen as I have not been printing them, I do not know. Adding more than a touch of USM does visibly start to chuck out very fine detail in very light areas. More research needed. I do not have a bird image with fine feather detail that should theoreticaly show the differences easily.

I am attaching the full frame and a crop of the mill top. The crop is 289kb in order not to degrade it with compression.

Don