[swanlefitte]

Thanks again.

[stevebrot]

Now given that using RAW+ to get the identical image, the taking the picture is all done at the same time.

There is the disconnect. With RAW+ one gets the data used to create the JPEG in one file and the JPEG itself in another. The JPEG will always render according to how it is made. The DNG/PEF, by way of contrast may be used to make any number of different images in different formats and intents with its only constraints being that they were all derived from the same set of data. The appearance of the JPEG image reflects the in-camera JPEG settings along with the characteristics of the camera's RAW processing engine. The RAW may only be used to create an equivalent image if the same settings were available to a fully equivalent processing engine.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Wow so even 256, 256, 256 = white has a difference? I suppose it's kinda like fonts.

255,255,255 (FFFFFF), the scale is zero-based.


Steve

[PDL]

My point is that JPEG needs no "interpretation" - it is what it is.

JPEG is interpreted, just look a the same image on a Mac, PC, color calibrated PC, Linux PC, iPhone, Samsung etc. You will see differences because each one of those devices "interprets" the image with different color casts and "interprets" the overall pixel count to fit your screen. Looking at a image that fills my PC screen is not the same as looking at it on my phone.

JPEG is what it is, well that is true. But if you want to go back and experiment with cross processing, converting to black and white then good luck with that. If JPEG OOC is good enough for you fine, just remember that digital photography is all about data and by design JPEG discards data that you can not get back no matter what software you throw at it.

---------- Post added 11-21-18 at 05:20 PM ----------

There is the disconnect. With RAW+ one gets the data used to create the JPEG in one file and the JPEG itself in another. The JPEG will always render according to how it is made. The DNG/PEF, by way of contrast may be used to make any number of different images in different formats and intents with its only constraints being that they were all derived from the same set of data. The appearance of the JPEG image reflects the in-camera JPEG settings along with the characteristics of the camera's RAW processing engine. The RAW may only be used to create an equivalent image if the same settings were available to a fully equivalent processing engine.


Steve

Exactly, and this is why the poll is moot. The factors taken into account for the RAW derived JPEG are that the OP used Aperture, an old out of date non-supported (to a certain degree - sort of like my Windows Phone I had to give up last week because the two Apps I use most of the time stopped working) processing software. I guess I could load up a copy of Capture One v9 or something and do the same thing, but the JPEG from Capture One would look different because Phase One handles PEF/DNG processing -> JPEG different than my K-3II's Prime engine.

---

Last edited by PDL; 11-21-2018 at 06:27 PM.

[reh321]

If JPEG OOC is good enough for you fine, just remember that digital photography is all about data and by design JPEG discards data that you can not get back no matter what software you throw at it.

Once we start using "good enough for you" language, we are descending into the type of discussion I was afraid Norm was starting, because it is a statement of values. I will not descend into that pit with you.

This is not a matter of good or evil. As I already indicated, I am a 'documentarian' not an artist. My goal is to record and preserve 'truth' I see as best I can, which does require "baking" things in as soon as I can, by keeping that data which most closely represents that truth and making any change as difficult as possible.

Just like the days when I used slide film, the "JPEG engine" is adjusted so I know what it will do before I press the button, and the decisions I make before pressing the button determine what the final image will look like. Like those who cover the Olympics, that means only minor 'tweaks' will happen afterwards, and that is precisely what I want.

[PDL]

Once we start using "good enough for you" language, we are descending into the type of discussion I was afraid Norm was starting, because it is a statement of values. I will not descend into that pit with you.

This is not a matter of good or evil. As I already indicated, I am a 'documentarian' not an artist. My goal is to record and preserve 'truth' I see as best I can, which does require "baking" things in as soon as I can, by keeping that data which most closely represents that truth and making any change as difficult as possible.

Just like the days when I used slide film, the "JPEG engine" is adjusted so I know what it will do before I press the button, and the decisions I make before pressing the button determine what the final image will look like. Like those who cover the Olympics, that means only minor 'tweaks' will happen afterwards, and that is precisely what I want.

Back in the film days I too was a "documentarian" and I really disliked "artsy crafty" types. I taught a course in "Scientific Photography" at the college level. I did shoot various emulsions from fine grain B&W films from low ASA stuff to infrared along with nearly every color emulsion out there (including infrared). I adapted the emulsion to fit he need.

The greatest strength of digital photography is that you can change the basic characteristics of what is analogous to the latent image during post processing. The critical difference is that with the Chromes, there was/is no latent image where with digital the RAW data provides what can be thought of as a latent image for a Chrome. Yes you can set your camera up to get what you think is optimal, but by shooting RAW you have ability to make corrections to situations that do not fit your preset assumptions in real life. By using RAW you have all the data your sensor can get, limiting yourself to OOC JPEG's you are baking the image, but you limiting the "baking" to the limitations of what the course controls built into the camera provide to you and what assumptions the JPEG engine designers give you. I shot JPEG at first with my first DSLR (see above) and after a while I shot exclusively RAW and I regretted not having RAW data for most of those images. (NG workshop where I shot both Chromes and digital)

[MetteHHH]

Isn't it interesting how the works. You try and figure something out, you get more questions than answers. The big one for me here is why are willow leaves are so much clearer on the jpeg?

We often assume that something is just better. Finding out that better for one thing doesn't mean better for everything is probably not what I was going for. You always hope for a knock out punch where you say "i'm never doing that one thing again.? I've left thinking, well if there's tree like that in the image, maybe I better switch to jpeg. IN this one, I liked everything about the raw, except the trees. The jpeg tress were more realistic, as was that dock, bottom left.

(I still feel really stupid about my first post in this thread, so please just pretend this is my first one, thanks... )

I THINK (and I may be completely wrong again), but anyway I think the problems with the trees is that when you increased the slope of the luminance curve to get the more interesting sky, you got a flatter curve for the bit of the graph that covers the light/shadow part of the trees. So they lost a lot of contrast.

I like to lift the shadows and enhance colours as well and I am with you on the "what would I like on my wall" aim, rather than strict realism. I use Lightroom, but I added Topaz adjust and clarity as plugins, and I find they help me a lot with pictures like this where I want a bit more kapow to the colours. Clarity is really good at tweaking the micro contrast in a way that maybe gave you the sky you wanted, but without losing the micro contrast in the twigs and leaves, and adjust is good at lifting the shadows without "flattening" the picture. I use both plugins without a lot of technical insight into how they work, but I get a lot out of it just playing around with the sliders and saving presets that happen to work for me.

[normhead]

Look at the OOC JPEG. It is identical to the OOC RAW when processed in PDCU. I will post images later today (new thread) also provide a conversion using dcraw with demosaic, but no curves applied.


Steve

The same where, the two files looked identical... ti ws what you could do with it after that was different. This was very small sunset but the articulating on the jpeg would have been enough to toss a real sunset.

---------- Post added 11-22-18 at 08:44 AM ----------

I THINK (and I may be completely wrong again), but anyway I think the problems with the trees is that when you increased the slope of the luminance curve to get the more interesting sky, you got a flatter curve for the bit of the graph that covers the light/shadow part of the trees. So they lost a lot of contrast.

I've ben thinking along the same lines. I may go back in and start with the trees right from the beginning, again, (already done that once.)

---------- Post added 11-22-18 at 08:55 AM ----------

My point is that JPEG needs no "interpretation" - it is what it is.

The jpeg is an interpretation, you tell the camera how you want the contrast, saturation, etc. before you take the image. The jpeg engine reads that data, tosses what it deems to be non-essential and compresses the rest. But it's still an interpretation. One that is changed by camera settings. The idea that jpeg is some kind of uninterpreted truth just isn't the case. It's a specific interpretation designed to be the best compromise for whatever image you shoot, but, it's not appropriate for every image, and probably wouldn't be even if you went into the menus before every image and adjusted the jpeg settings individually for each shot.

I understand the desire to "snap it and forget it" and there are many applications for that. The case has been made (and dismissed) that there is some kind of "purity" to jpeg images and that is lacking on more processed images. That's simply not the case. Sometimes you have to work hard to get a more realistic impression of what you saw. The jpeg thing is easy, but not necessarily the most accurate.

It is however always more convenient, and that's what jpeg shooters are going for. You can't convince me that given a choice between a dark undercarriage of a steam engine that is all back shadow as opposed to one with the undercarriage rescued from the shadows in raw, the unprocessed jpeg is the better documentary image, nor can you tell me that achieving the closest you can to the real life experience of being beside the actual train isn't the best documentary experience. "I just want an image, any image no matter how bad it is." is not an attitude most of us interested in photography encourage.

[reh321]

The jpeg is an interpretation, you tell the camera how you want the contrast, saturation, etc. before you take the image. The jpeg engine reads that data, tosses what it deems to be non-essential and compresses the rest. But it's still an interpretation. One that is changed by camera settings. The idea that jpeg is some kind of uninterpreted truth just isn't the case. It's a specific interpretation designed to be the best compromise for whatever image you shoot, but, it's not appropriate for every image, and probably wouldn't be even if you went into the menus before every image and adjusted the jpeg settings individually for each shot.

I understand the desire to "snap it and forget it" and there are many applications for that. The case has been made (and dismissed) that there is some kind of "purity" to jpeg images and that is lacking on more processed images. That's simply not the case. Sometimes you have to work hard to get a more realistic impression of what you saw. The jpeg thing is easy, but not necessarily the most accurate.

It is however always more convenient, and that's what jpeg shooters are going for. You can't convince me that given a choice between a dark undercarriage of a steam engine that is all back shadow as opposed to one with the undercarriage rescued from the shadows in raw, the unprocessed jpeg is the better documentary image, nor can you tell me that achieving the closest you can to the real life experience of being beside the actual train isn't the best documentary experience. "I just want an image, any image no matter how bad it is." is not an attitude most of us interested in photography encourage.

I would never claim that JPEG is pure, but it is a consistent interpretation, which is what I want.

In the days of film, a professional photographer would show his railroad photos via a slide show, not prints hung on a wall; the organizers of the show would ask for assurance that he would use original slides only (*), so they could assure attendees that nothing had been modified .... in other words, they essentially followed the same standards followed by news and sports photographers. Today, for the Olympics at least {I've lost track of the article} they shoot JPEG and then potentially make certain limited edits, such as making photo plumb, cropping, and adjusting global levels. I choose to follow the same standards.

In the days of film, I would take several different shots of a steam loco, seeing which exposure gave me the best overall view. With slides, I might be "stuck" with a shot in which the boiler is too light; today, I read that best shot into gimp and use the "Curves" tool to darken the boiler some. You are welcome to use your artist's approach.


(*) Here is a longer version of my interest in photography:
In December 1966, I and a fellow member of the Purdue University RR Club were in downtown Lafayette IN when we noticed a really snazzy model locomotive "for the Burlington RR" in the hobby store window. I had been raised along the CB&Q {actual name of the RR}, and had never seen a locomotive like that; he was quite sure "Tyco wouldn't make it up". A few months later we had a slide show by professional Jim Boyd, and he showed several things we would have never believed if he hadn't shown us the photos; putting the two events together, I decided to start taking my own photos to record the things I saw, because they are much better evidence than memory is. Over the years I have majored on recording reality as it is - I would defeat my whole purpose if I removed a telephone pole regardless of how much it would "improve" the scene. Incidentally, I later understood the Tyco model: they had combined the silver color from the CB&Q's passenger units {which went with understated markings} with the bright markings from the CB&Q's freight units {which went with dull gray color}.

[normhead]

You are welcome to use your artist's approach.

And you are welcome to process as if there is a "one standard fits all" approach. Just don't be claiming yours is more accurate or better in some way. It just conforms to a standard acceptable to journalism. But it's not necessarily a more accurate version of reality. part of the standards you quote are standards necessary because of time constraints and in the case of the Olympics, often in such venues images are transferred wirelessly and anything they can do to limit band width will speed up the process.. Olympic photos for news organizations have a short shelf life. A shooter may shoot thousands at a single event. I understand the media standards. Most of their output will be unsellable if it's a day late. It has nothing to do with technical image quality. If you as a personal photographer choose to adhere to standard adopted by those who are often seriously pressed for time, then that is certainly your perogotaive. But then you don't actually shoot to look at your images except for reference (even though you've posted a few on line) so I'm sure that works for you. The best image that conforms to a certain standard is not the same as "the best portrayal of a subject". And standards set by new agencies are almost anti-art.

And that's a constant theme here, shooters who aspire to be technical and reference shooters, and their disdain fo shooters who try to capture the spirit of the subject, not just the nuts and bolts.

-------------------------------------

Previously, I claimed I could pretty much match the jpeg. Not exactly, but I've completely reworked the image with emphasis on the now famous tree, as opposed to the sunset and left off those adjustments that emphasized the blue spectrum. Maybe more to the liking of the 90%



And in my opinion, still much better than the jpeg, even the tree, which was the strongest point in the jpeg is now on par.. The gradations in the sunset are very realistic in the raw. In the jpeg the the gradations in the sunset have been reduced to comic book quality.

[stevebrot]

The jpeg is an interpretation, you tell the camera how you want the contrast, saturation, etc. before you take the image. The jpeg engine reads that data, tosses what it deems to be non-essential and compresses the rest. But it's still an interpretation. One that is changed by camera settings. The idea that jpeg is some kind of uninterpreted truth just isn't the case. It's a specific interpretation designed to be the best compromise for whatever image you shoot, but, it's not appropriate for every image, and probably wouldn't be even if you went into the menus before every image and adjusted the jpeg settings individually for each shot.

Dang! This paragraph should be framed as a sticky.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Previously, I claimed I could pretty much match the jpeg. Not exactly, but I've completely reworked the image with emphasis on the now famous tree, as opposed to the sunset and left off those adjustments that emphasized the blue spectrum. Maybe more to the liking of the 90%

Yay! Well done!


Steve

[reh321]

Dang! This paragraph should be framed as a sticky.

Only if it is labeled as "artists pov".
Those of you who would have worked in darkroom in age of film work in lightroom today
Those of us who would have depended on Kodachrome automation in age of film depend on JPEG in-machine-automation today.
People who don't understand that will drive post count up here.
I will not.

[stevebrot]

Only if it is labeled as "artists pov".

My comment was from a technical POV, but what the hey.


Steve

[swanlefitte]

Cool I can see the trees through the forest.

Now that the tree is famous the Instagram zombies will come destroy it so we need some documentary photos for historical accuracy and we can use this one at the memorial.